6 ms·

> You wouldn't want strangers mandating injections into your body that you don't want. I mean, compulsory vaccination is a thing in many countries, and I think

by q3k 5y ago

> You wouldn't want strangers mandating injections into your body that you don't want. I mean, compulsory vaccination is a thing in many countries, and I think it's a net good for the world?

zepto 5y ago
Compulsory injection with compounds that are not medically approved because they haven’t been tested to accepted standards is a good thing? For what it’s worth, I’m vaccinated and wear a mask in every public encounter until I’ve discussed the risks with whoever I am dealing with whether required to or not. However I strongly disagree with mandatory medical treatment of any kind. I could imagine a law for emergency vaccinations that I would find acceptable, but it would need to have a lot of safeguards.
- q3k 5y ago
  > Compulsory injection with compounds that are not medically approved because they haven’t been tested to accepted standards is a good thing? First, that's not what the GP said. It's also not what I'm saying. Second, where I live the vaccine I got [1] went through a well-defined process designed explicitly to safely but swiftly approve medicine for emergency use, eg. during pandemics [2]. [1] - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/comirnaty https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/comirnaty [2] - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/conditional-marketing-authorisation https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-auth...
  - zepto 5y ago
    > compulsory vaccination is a thing You said this, and we are referring to a vaccine that is not FDA approved. ‘Well defined’ doesn’t mean anything. The vaccines have not been approved according to normal medical standards.
    - q3k 5y ago
      > ‘Well defined’ doesn’t mean anything. The vaccines have not been approved according to normal medical standards. Except they have. They've literally been approved using medical standards developed to handle time-critical medicine approval, which is as much of an approval process as the standard non-fast-tracked system. The studies are there, they're just taken from much earlier in the development process of the medicine than usually, and the approval is granted for a shorter period with continuous close monitoring and repeated follow up reviews. The reason this accelerated approval isn't used for all medicine is not because it's less safe, but because it's more expensive and more effort consuming for all parties involved. Things are less sequential and more parallel, but all the important steps are still there. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-development-evaluation-approval-monitoring https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/publi... Compare: Fast-tracked: https://www.ema.europa.eu/sites/default/files/timeline_-_fast_track_development.png https://www.ema.europa.eu/sites/default/files/timeline_-_fas... Standard: https://www.ema.europa.eu/sites/default/files/timeline_-_standard_vaccine_development_-_update_05-20212x.png https://www.ema.europa.eu/sites/default/files/timeline_-_sta...
      - zepto 5y ago
        If that were true then the FDA would have actually approved them rather than issuing an emergency use authorization. They haven’t. > The reason this accelerated approval isn't used for all medicine is not because it's less safe How do you known it isn’t less safe? There are no studies comparing the safety of the methods. Only arguments to that effect.
        q3k 5y ago
        > If that were true then the FDA would have actually approved them rather than issuing an emergency use authorization. No? Like, no, this is not a sound argument, and is fallacious to the point where I'm not even going to attempt to argument against it. > How do you known it isn’t less safe? There are no studies comparing the safety of the methods. Only arguments to that effect. How do you know the non-fast track process is safer? There are no studies comparing the safety of the methods. Only arguments to that effect. Considering both processes are established by the same public health organization, and that I'm not a health specialist myself to be able to prove otherwise, I see no reason to trust one but not the other.
- asdff 5y ago
  If it wasn't tested to accepted standards, it wouldn't have been delivered into my arm months ago.
  - zepto 5y ago
    You’re just wrong. It’s only approved for emergency use - by waiving the accepted standards.
- oezi 5y ago
  Hundreds of million of people is pretty good testing by now. Consider that they caught the blood clots with AstraZeneka which is less than 1 in 100,000. The vigilance systems works very well.
  - zepto 5y ago
    The ‘vigilance system’ has nothing to say about long term complications yet, hasn’t led to FDA approval, and is neither an accepted nor approved way to test vaccine safety.
    - oezi 5y ago
      Counterpoint: given that millions of people have died the amount of testing the vaccines received was disproportionate. Looking at the immense effect the vaccine had on reducing mortality and the miniscule side effects (including the brain hemmorage deaths from AstraZeneka), I really wished in retrospect we would have accelerated approval so that the vaccine could have been available in the fall/winter 2021. Production capacities not withstanding this could have saved a lot of lives (for instance more than 50.000 in Getmany) and potentially prevented/lessened some of the waves that caused Delta and other variants. We were overcautious with the vaccines, it has cost us hundreds of billions in economic damages.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > and the miniscule side effects. We don’t know the side effects.
        oezi 5y ago
        I wish I could offer you some more confidence in particular for the mRNA vaccines. I almost consider your talk about side effects fear mongering when the overwhelming evidence is pointing to a safe and effective vaccine. The mRNA vaccines by now have more evidence on their record than most vaccines when the become available. That should count for something. Vaccine hesitancy will cost us dearly. Like, after the million of administered doses I would offer you a bet that the side effects are less than 1,000th of the effects a corona infection.

by q3k 5y ago

> You wouldn't want strangers mandating injections into your body that you don't want. I mean, compulsory vaccination is a thing in many countries, and I think it's a net good for the world?

zepto 5y ago

Compulsory injection with compounds that are not medically approved because they haven’t been tested to accepted standards is a good thing? For what it’s worth, I’m vaccinated and wear a mask in every public encounter until I’ve discussed the risks with whoever I am dealing with whether required to or not. However I strongly disagree with mandatory medical treatment of any kind. I could imagine a law for emergency vaccinations that I would find acceptable, but it would need to have a lot of safeguards.

q3k 5y ago
> Compulsory injection with compounds that are not medically approved because they haven’t been tested to accepted standards is a good thing? First, that's not what the GP said. It's also not what I'm saying. Second, where I live the vaccine I got [1] went through a well-defined process designed explicitly to safely but swiftly approve medicine for emergency use, eg. during pandemics [2]. [1] - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/comirnaty https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/comirnaty [2] - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/conditional-marketing-authorisation https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-auth...
- zepto 5y ago
  > compulsory vaccination is a thing You said this, and we are referring to a vaccine that is not FDA approved. ‘Well defined’ doesn’t mean anything. The vaccines have not been approved according to normal medical standards.
  - q3k 5y ago
    > ‘Well defined’ doesn’t mean anything. The vaccines have not been approved according to normal medical standards. Except they have. They've literally been approved using medical standards developed to handle time-critical medicine approval, which is as much of an approval process as the standard non-fast-tracked system. The studies are there, they're just taken from much earlier in the development process of the medicine than usually, and the approval is granted for a shorter period with continuous close monitoring and repeated follow up reviews. The reason this accelerated approval isn't used for all medicine is not because it's less safe, but because it's more expensive and more effort consuming for all parties involved. Things are less sequential and more parallel, but all the important steps are still there. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-development-evaluation-approval-monitoring https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/publi... Compare: Fast-tracked: https://www.ema.europa.eu/sites/default/files/timeline_-_fast_track_development.png https://www.ema.europa.eu/sites/default/files/timeline_-_fas... Standard: https://www.ema.europa.eu/sites/default/files/timeline_-_standard_vaccine_development_-_update_05-20212x.png https://www.ema.europa.eu/sites/default/files/timeline_-_sta...
    - zepto 5y ago
      If that were true then the FDA would have actually approved them rather than issuing an emergency use authorization. They haven’t. > The reason this accelerated approval isn't used for all medicine is not because it's less safe How do you known it isn’t less safe? There are no studies comparing the safety of the methods. Only arguments to that effect.
      - q3k 5y ago
        > If that were true then the FDA would have actually approved them rather than issuing an emergency use authorization. No? Like, no, this is not a sound argument, and is fallacious to the point where I'm not even going to attempt to argument against it. > How do you known it isn’t less safe? There are no studies comparing the safety of the methods. Only arguments to that effect. How do you know the non-fast track process is safer? There are no studies comparing the safety of the methods. Only arguments to that effect. Considering both processes are established by the same public health organization, and that I'm not a health specialist myself to be able to prove otherwise, I see no reason to trust one but not the other.
asdff 5y ago
If it wasn't tested to accepted standards, it wouldn't have been delivered into my arm months ago.
- zepto 5y ago
  You’re just wrong. It’s only approved for emergency use - by waiving the accepted standards.
oezi 5y ago
Hundreds of million of people is pretty good testing by now. Consider that they caught the blood clots with AstraZeneka which is less than 1 in 100,000. The vigilance systems works very well.
- zepto 5y ago
  The ‘vigilance system’ has nothing to say about long term complications yet, hasn’t led to FDA approval, and is neither an accepted nor approved way to test vaccine safety.
  - oezi 5y ago
    Counterpoint: given that millions of people have died the amount of testing the vaccines received was disproportionate. Looking at the immense effect the vaccine had on reducing mortality and the miniscule side effects (including the brain hemmorage deaths from AstraZeneka), I really wished in retrospect we would have accelerated approval so that the vaccine could have been available in the fall/winter 2021. Production capacities not withstanding this could have saved a lot of lives (for instance more than 50.000 in Getmany) and potentially prevented/lessened some of the waves that caused Delta and other variants. We were overcautious with the vaccines, it has cost us hundreds of billions in economic damages.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > and the miniscule side effects. We don’t know the side effects.
      - oezi 5y ago
        I wish I could offer you some more confidence in particular for the mRNA vaccines. I almost consider your talk about side effects fear mongering when the overwhelming evidence is pointing to a safe and effective vaccine. The mRNA vaccines by now have more evidence on their record than most vaccines when the become available. That should count for something. Vaccine hesitancy will cost us dearly. Like, after the million of administered doses I would offer you a bet that the side effects are less than 1,000th of the effects a corona infection.