5 ms·

There's a difference between people who don't think vaccines are good as a whole...and people who question a rushed vaccine developed with no FDA oversight or t

There's a difference between people who don't think vaccines are good as a whole...and people who question a rushed vaccine developed with no FDA oversight or testing by companies who have absolutely no liability if things go wrong for a disease that has 99.99% survival rate for most people. And then there are questions about it even WORKING fully and one still has to wear a mask and you can still be contagious and it may not protect against other strains! If that doesn't ring critical thinking bells in your brain then you're operating based on unquestioning BELIEF in the GOOD of the experts, gov't, and people in general which doesn't seem to always have worked out the best throughout history.

cbsmith 5y ago
> There's a difference between people who don't think vaccines are good as a whole...and people who question a rushed vaccine developed with no FDA oversight or testing by companies who have absolutely no liability if things go wrong for a disease that has 99.99% survival rate for most people. > > And then there are questions about it even WORKING fully and one still has to wear a mask and you can still be contagious and it may not protect against other strains! Yes, there's a difference between people who question vaccines as a whole and... a fabricated reality/false narrative. The survival rate is not 99.99%, and the outcomes for "survivors" are all too often debilitating. The demand on our healthcare infrastructure is potentially crippling, as we've seen. There has been FDA oversight... indeed the vast majority of the time from development to release of the vaccines in the US has been getting clearance from the FDA (you may recall the J&J vaccine was even paused by the FDA). ...and the liability shield is due to the never-ending unjustified legal claims that companies are invariably subjected to when they operate in this space. There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  > Covid chance of death in general population (Deaths / US population): 100 - (600000/350 million) = 99.9982857143% survival rate > "Currently, no coronavirus vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, but three were given emergency use authorization by the agency" https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/are-covid-vaccines-fda-approved-heres-how-the-process-works-2/2524845/ https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/are-covid-vaccin... > The demand on our healthcare infrastructure is potentially crippling, as we've seen Completely false. Not a single hospital was crippled. Most of what you said is false information and the idea of a 'having my bell rung' appears to be a subtle violent threat! Such a rational critical thinking person you seem to be and the others like you! Best wishes sweetie!
  - cbsmith 5y ago
    > 100 - (600000/350 million) = 99.9982857143% survival rate Right... so that's how many people are still alive right now with most people never getting infected, many still hospitalized, vaccinations, mitigation measures, etc., etc. Disease survival rates are computed based on how many people survive long term as a percentage of people who develop the disease. But you knew that. What's amazing though is your case for NOT doing a thing is based on stats that are optimistic even if one DOES do the thing. Go ahead and compute the mortality numbers if everyone in the country gets infected. Then compute the rates of people who need long term medical care. Take a look at those numbers and then figure out how you make a society function under those circumstances. > Most of what you said is false information and the idea of a 'having my bell rung' appears to be a subtle violent threat! It was not a threat. It was a reference to pre-existing "critical thinking bells" in your brain. It was a subtle implication that perhaps you weren't thinking straight because you'd been hit in the head, and that was the bells ringing in your head. Clearly I didn't phrase it well. I'm sure you feel that I'm wrong about everything. It's even possible I am wrong. Consider the possibility that you might be wrong; I mean, you were wrong about the "having your bell rung", so anything is possible right?
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      You're telling me that I'm wrong for believing the collectively agreed up English language definition of the term 'ring your bell' that has been around for hundreds of years... in favor of your brand new definition? "To strike someone with a violent blow to the head, especially as might stun or concuss." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell I find your argument un-appealing, bordering on orwellian newspeak, and disengenous.
      - cbsmith 5y ago
        No. I'm agreeing with you about the "ring your bell" definition. What you clearly misunderstood (and I'll take the blame for not wording it well if that helps you) was the time of the "ringing of the bell". I was suggesting that your bell had already been rung, and it was impacting your thinking. I also didn't say I'd "ring your bell", I referred to having had "your bell rung" (which would mean to have had your head struck, not necessarily by any person). There was no implication of any action on my or anyone else's part at all. To me you were talking about critical thinking you'd already done in the past, and that others should have done in the past, not the future. Consequently, saying that what had happened in the past wasn't critical thinking but rather impaired thinking. Obviously, I really failed to convey the message well and I'll totally take the blame for that, but I really was not making a threat. I'm very sorry that you felt threatened. That was not at all what I was trying to convey.

cbsmith 5y ago

> There's a difference between people who don't think vaccines are good as a whole...and people who question a rushed vaccine developed with no FDA oversight or testing by companies who have absolutely no liability if things go wrong for a disease that has 99.99% survival rate for most people. > > And then there are questions about it even WORKING fully and one still has to wear a mask and you can still be contagious and it may not protect against other strains! Yes, there's a difference between people who question vaccines as a whole and... a fabricated reality/false narrative. The survival rate is not 99.99%, and the outcomes for "survivors" are all too often debilitating. The demand on our healthcare infrastructure is potentially crippling, as we've seen. There has been FDA oversight... indeed the vast majority of the time from development to release of the vaccines in the US has been getting clearance from the FDA (you may recall the J&J vaccine was even paused by the FDA). ...and the liability shield is due to the never-ending unjustified legal claims that companies are invariably subjected to when they operate in this space. There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)

nickthemagicman 5y ago
> Covid chance of death in general population (Deaths / US population): 100 - (600000/350 million) = 99.9982857143% survival rate > "Currently, no coronavirus vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, but three were given emergency use authorization by the agency" https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/are-covid-vaccines-fda-approved-heres-how-the-process-works-2/2524845/ https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/are-covid-vaccin... > The demand on our healthcare infrastructure is potentially crippling, as we've seen Completely false. Not a single hospital was crippled. Most of what you said is false information and the idea of a 'having my bell rung' appears to be a subtle violent threat! Such a rational critical thinking person you seem to be and the others like you! Best wishes sweetie!
- cbsmith 5y ago
  > 100 - (600000/350 million) = 99.9982857143% survival rate Right... so that's how many people are still alive right now with most people never getting infected, many still hospitalized, vaccinations, mitigation measures, etc., etc. Disease survival rates are computed based on how many people survive long term as a percentage of people who develop the disease. But you knew that. What's amazing though is your case for NOT doing a thing is based on stats that are optimistic even if one DOES do the thing. Go ahead and compute the mortality numbers if everyone in the country gets infected. Then compute the rates of people who need long term medical care. Take a look at those numbers and then figure out how you make a society function under those circumstances. > Most of what you said is false information and the idea of a 'having my bell rung' appears to be a subtle violent threat! It was not a threat. It was a reference to pre-existing "critical thinking bells" in your brain. It was a subtle implication that perhaps you weren't thinking straight because you'd been hit in the head, and that was the bells ringing in your head. Clearly I didn't phrase it well. I'm sure you feel that I'm wrong about everything. It's even possible I am wrong. Consider the possibility that you might be wrong; I mean, you were wrong about the "having your bell rung", so anything is possible right?
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    You're telling me that I'm wrong for believing the collectively agreed up English language definition of the term 'ring your bell' that has been around for hundreds of years... in favor of your brand new definition? "To strike someone with a violent blow to the head, especially as might stun or concuss." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell I find your argument un-appealing, bordering on orwellian newspeak, and disengenous.
    - cbsmith 5y ago
      No. I'm agreeing with you about the "ring your bell" definition. What you clearly misunderstood (and I'll take the blame for not wording it well if that helps you) was the time of the "ringing of the bell". I was suggesting that your bell had already been rung, and it was impacting your thinking. I also didn't say I'd "ring your bell", I referred to having had "your bell rung" (which would mean to have had your head struck, not necessarily by any person). There was no implication of any action on my or anyone else's part at all. To me you were talking about critical thinking you'd already done in the past, and that others should have done in the past, not the future. Consequently, saying that what had happened in the past wasn't critical thinking but rather impaired thinking. Obviously, I really failed to convey the message well and I'll totally take the blame for that, but I really was not making a threat. I'm very sorry that you felt threatened. That was not at all what I was trying to convey.