4 ms·

If by hand waved you mean gone through the same clinical trials and rigor as any approved approach.

monero-xmr 1y ago
Except for years of follow-up studies to determine longer term effects, which certainly would have been applied for a novel vaccine, before forcing all of society to use it. Of course you could be fired from your job and be banned from public spaces (except in Florida) instead of taking it, but essentially you had to if you wanted to function in society. I will keep my laminated "Proof of Vaccination" card for life so we don't forget, wasn't allowed anywhere without it (except Black Lives Matter riots)
- soco 1y ago
  Oh well, in the meantime a few years have gone by and the studies are here. Do we really need to repeat the same arguments of 5 years ago?
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    It was a major reason for the collapse in trust of institutions, and then the election of Trump 2.0. But why rehash the past emirite?
    - silverquiet 1y ago
      Given that the plan to accelerate covid vaccine development, "Operation Warp Speed", was a Trump administration program, this seems quite ironic.
    - teamonkey 1y ago
      So you’re saying that something done on Trump’s watch led to such distrust that people elected Trump again?
      - kcplate 1y ago
        I’d suggest that because the implementation didn't happen on Trump’s watch and the vaccine hard sell, mandates, “stretching” of the truth of efficacy during that period was the primary contributors to much of the distrust, it’s definitely helped contribute to his reelection. There is certainly no way to know how Trump would have handled that implementation, but we do know how the Biden administration handled it.
        teamonkey 1y ago
        It’s true that Trump may well have rolled back the legislation he put in place, who knows? Efficacy figures are bound to change once you go from a ‘small’ study (in this case hundreds of thousands) to a wider population. The original efficacy claims would have been truly astounding, and they ended up being only very good. 80% efficacy (which it ended up as) should be seen as a medical triumph, and certainly worthwhile in the context of a global pandemic.
        kcplate 1y ago
        > original efficacy claims would have been truly astounding That’s the problem, the bar was set too high. Things were said like “get the vaccine and you won’t get Covid”, “you won’t be able to spread it if you do get it”, and “you will have a milder case if you do get it”. In short order people realized all of those things were exaggerated and not true. Erodes trust. It was a huge miscalculation and damage was done.
        teamonkey 1y ago
        > Things were said like “get the vaccine and you won’t get Covid” Was this actually said, or did they say something like “much less likely to get Covid symptoms”? Because the science never claimed 100% efficacy, at best they said 94%, which is quite a clear indication that some people would still get symptoms. The efficacy rates and R rates were all over the news at the time. > “you won’t be able to spread it if you do get it” Again an absolute that was never claimed by science. If you have milder symptoms it reduces the chance of spreading and reduces the viral load when it does. Even a small reduction in symptoms in the population will greatly help reduce the rate of the virus spreading. > “you will have a milder case if you do get it”. This part at least is correct. There was a lot of confusion and bad science communication at the time, but the vaccines worked the same as vaccines always have. R rates and efficacy rates were talked about at length on mainstream and social media (what else did they have to talk about). The problem is that people heard only what they wanted to hear.

Except for years of follow-up studies to determine longer term effects, which certainly would have been applied for a novel vaccine, before forcing all of society to use it. Of course you could be fired from your job and be banned from public spaces (except in Florida) instead of taking it, but essentially you had to if you wanted to function in society. I will keep my laminated "Proof of Vaccination" card for life so we don't forget, wasn't allowed anywhere without it (except Black Lives Matter riots)

soco 1y ago
Oh well, in the meantime a few years have gone by and the studies are here. Do we really need to repeat the same arguments of 5 years ago?
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  It was a major reason for the collapse in trust of institutions, and then the election of Trump 2.0. But why rehash the past emirite?
  - silverquiet 1y ago
    Given that the plan to accelerate covid vaccine development, "Operation Warp Speed", was a Trump administration program, this seems quite ironic.
  - teamonkey 1y ago
    So you’re saying that something done on Trump’s watch led to such distrust that people elected Trump again?
    - kcplate 1y ago
      I’d suggest that because the implementation didn't happen on Trump’s watch and the vaccine hard sell, mandates, “stretching” of the truth of efficacy during that period was the primary contributors to much of the distrust, it’s definitely helped contribute to his reelection. There is certainly no way to know how Trump would have handled that implementation, but we do know how the Biden administration handled it.
      - teamonkey 1y ago
        It’s true that Trump may well have rolled back the legislation he put in place, who knows? Efficacy figures are bound to change once you go from a ‘small’ study (in this case hundreds of thousands) to a wider population. The original efficacy claims would have been truly astounding, and they ended up being only very good. 80% efficacy (which it ended up as) should be seen as a medical triumph, and certainly worthwhile in the context of a global pandemic.
        kcplate 1y ago
        > original efficacy claims would have been truly astounding That’s the problem, the bar was set too high. Things were said like “get the vaccine and you won’t get Covid”, “you won’t be able to spread it if you do get it”, and “you will have a milder case if you do get it”. In short order people realized all of those things were exaggerated and not true. Erodes trust. It was a huge miscalculation and damage was done.
        teamonkey 1y ago
        > Things were said like “get the vaccine and you won’t get Covid” Was this actually said, or did they say something like “much less likely to get Covid symptoms”? Because the science never claimed 100% efficacy, at best they said 94%, which is quite a clear indication that some people would still get symptoms. The efficacy rates and R rates were all over the news at the time. > “you won’t be able to spread it if you do get it” Again an absolute that was never claimed by science. If you have milder symptoms it reduces the chance of spreading and reduces the viral load when it does. Even a small reduction in symptoms in the population will greatly help reduce the rate of the virus spreading. > “you will have a milder case if you do get it”. This part at least is correct. There was a lot of confusion and bad science communication at the time, but the vaccines worked the same as vaccines always have. R rates and efficacy rates were talked about at length on mainstream and social media (what else did they have to talk about). The problem is that people heard only what they wanted to hear.