RealGM

shefcurry wrote:2. A *lot* of money and time was spent on making sure we had the best possible safety data we could get before going to market. The researchers did the best they could to prove the safety with the significant resources they had. And in many cases, the sheer number of volunteers provided more data than they get from some other trials. BUT... the reality is that the phases are meant to occur sequentially and were done in parallel, and much of Phase 3 was skipped. So it is absolultely fair to say it was rushed. It was.

What part of phase 3 was skipped? This is not true.

Was it rushed, yes because it was urgent. Were any safety steps skipped? Absolutely not.

Haven't you ever had to rush a project to meet a deadline? Does that always mean the job was shoddy?

Running the phases in parrallel does not at all compromise the safety of the vaccine. It does compromise the safety of the study participants. The phases being run serially is meant to keep the phase 3 study participants from being exposed to unnecessary risk. If they were informed and consented to those risks, there is no compromise of the safety data at all.

Does our real world data show that anything was missed that was meant to be caught by phase 3 trials? Absolutely not.

It seems to me a lot of trust is being placed in the pharmaceutical industry. Trust I am not sure is warranted. I've seen the vaccines being called a gift from the Almighty. Which may be true. But lets keep in mind we are talking about humans. Beings who are highly susceptible to greed, pride, fear, and many other imperfect ways of being. It seems children under 12 are up next. I sure hope all you proponents are correct. Especially the so called experts.

And the vaccine passport? Seems like a slippery slope to an Orwellian surveillance state. I don't like the idea of a cashless society based on a Digital ID leading to a social credit score. A so called "new normal". IMHO, we are unlikely to "build back better".

bballsparkin wrote:It seems to me a lot of trust is being placed in the pharmaceutical industry. Trust I am not sure is warranted. I've seen the vaccines being called a gift from the Almighty. Which may be true. But lets keep in mind we are talking about humans. Beings who are highly susceptible to greed, pride, fear, and many other imperfect ways of being. It seems children under 12 are up next. I sure hope all you proponents are correct. Especially the so called experts.

The reason we have the trial and approval process is because we don't trust the pharmaceutical industry. The current system was a direct consequence of the thalidomide scandal to prevent something like that from ever happening again. We still have drugs approved that later get withdrawn but that is rare now because of the checks on pharma that we have in place.

What is actually happening is a lot of trust being placed on strangers online who have no one they are accountable to, making claims that are easily falsifiable but playing on emotions to manipulate many unsuspecting folks to profit through clicks, online engagement/ads, supplement/book sales.

refshateRaps wrote:

Read on Twitter

One interesting pandemic were in where you can fire 84000 healthcare workers. Nother one of those 'trust the science' decisions I'm sure

I have a question, do you and I both believe covid is real and that it can kill people? I do. If you don't then the following question is pointless.

If you do as well, then let me ask you something.

If you were a patient in a hospital who is immunocompromised and could not be vaccinated even if you wanted to, would you feel comfortable being treated by a nurse (who's job it is to care for people) who isn't vaccinated and may potentially be carrying a virus that may be a death sentence for you?

Yes, the nurse may contract covid and not even be bothered by it, but you, a sick patient who cannot take the vaccine even if you wanted to, don't have the same chance of survival.

Do you as the patient in this hypothetical not have the right to feel safe in a hospital?

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

refshateRaps wrote:And another one

Amazing the number of vile attempts to shame people of counter views with generalized labels & bully tactics?

OMG?

Seriously odd how aggressive some are

Look..you're on the wrong side of a issue. People who are choosing not to be vaccinated, who choose not to comply with public heath recommendations are harming others. It's not a personal choice that simply impacts yourself.



Simple as that... So..cry more?

If what she said is right then the argument for vaccine passports and mandates is minimal. The argument for passports/mandates is 95% transmission based. The only thing you could claim is "unvaccinated would fill more hospital beds" - not enough to justify so much trampling on civil liberties, and makes no sense at all in places where they're firing nurses.

Abandon the mandates/passports and choose between lockdowns vs no lockdowns. Whether to do a normal lockdown is the decision Alberta/Sask is making right now despite 80% vax.

Dr Positivity wrote:

Read on Twitter

If what she said is right then the argument for vaccine passports and mandates is minimal. The argument for passports/mandates is 95% transmission based. The only thing you could claim is "unvaccinated would fill more hospital beds" - not enough to justify so much trampling on civil liberties, and makes no sense at all in places where they're firing nurses.

Abandon the mandates/passports and choose between lockdowns vs no lockdowns. Whether to do a normal lockdown is the decision Alberta/Sask is making right now despite 80% vax.

And if one person had a 5% chance of catching COVID because they were vaccinated and their spouse had a 5% chance of getting covid from the spouse, what is the second spouses chance of catching covid? Now do the math with the first person unvaccinated. This isn't hard to figure out that vaccination lowers the risk of transmission but cannot stop it 100%. You seem to be stuck on her saying it can't stop transmission thinking its the same, and doesn't help at all.

If you can't do this simple math or understand the r0 value, then maybe stop posting stupid tweets.

After all the complaining from the same people about masks and being locked down, now you want lock downs when you have been given a perfectly reasonable way out of this. I mean... if any of you ever have a good argument, I will be shocked.

80% vaxxed isn't enough. That's why everyone is pissed at the remaining 10-15%. You're **** us all up.

Portugal is going to be the example everyone will use soon enough as a comparison in herd immunity.

Dr Positivity wrote:

Read on Twitter

If what she said is right then the argument for vaccine passports and mandates is minimal. The argument for passports/mandates is 95% transmission based. The only thing you could claim is "unvaccinated would fill more hospital beds" - not enough to justify so much trampling on civil liberties, and makes no sense at all in places where they're firing nurses.

Abandon the mandates/passports and choose between lockdowns vs no lockdowns. Whether to do a normal lockdown is the decision Alberta/Sask is making right now despite 80% vax.

This is so ridiculous, absolutely zero common sense being used in arguments like this one.

So if a medicine, a procedure or an operation doesn’t work 100% of the time, it’s automatically useless and works no better than doing nothing at all? The data doesn’t support this severely flawed logic in regards to Covid either.

It’s like getting dealt pocket AA at the poker table, getting cracked by 2-7 off suit and deciding that AA is a bad play so you’re going to start folding them every time. Nothing is 100% but improving your odds, and in this case significantly improving your odds, is still what smart people will decide to do. Unfortunately I’ve found out in the last 10-18 months that everyone out there isn’t very smart. I just wish I knew which poker rooms they are hanging out in.

It’s one terrible argument after another that the AV’s throw at he majority. I’ve lost all patience for you people.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRTquwwm/

To all you wishing death on me, pathetic humans

Sent from my SM-N986W using RealGM mobile app

Brettfinch wrote:https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRTquwwm/

To all you wishing death on me, pathetic humans

Sent from my SM-N986W using RealGM mobile app

Forget doctors, forget scientists and medical researchers. I think everyone going forward should be taking their medical advance from wild eyed former SNL comedians. That makes way more sense.

Sincerely,

Pathetic Human

The_Hater wrote:

Brettfinch wrote:https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRTquwwm/

To all you wishing death on me, pathetic humans

Sent from my SM-N986W using RealGM mobile app

Forget doctors, forget scientists and medical researchers. I think everyone going forward should be taking their medical advance from wild eyed former SNL comedians. That makes way more sense.

Sincerely,

Pathetic Human

I bet you wish all non vaccinated people should died too. You ideals align with the people I'm supposed to listen too.

Death of other people because they don't agree. That's tyranny and Hitler-esque. I'm not killing anyone. You people are below dirt to me and still would never wish death on anyone.

Sent from my SM-N986W using RealGM mobile app

The_Hater wrote:

Brettfinch wrote:https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRTquwwm/

To all you wishing death on me, pathetic humans

Sent from my SM-N986W using RealGM mobile app

Forget doctors, forget scientists and medical researchers. I think everyone going forward should be taking their medical advance from wild eyed former SNL comedians. That makes way more sense.

Sincerely,

Pathetic Human

You’re debating a mechanic. When my car needs fixing, that’s who I’d rely on.

But with a global pandemic, it’s doctors, medical researchers and scientists whose advice I’m following.

C Court wrote:

The_Hater wrote:

Brettfinch wrote:https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRTquwwm/

To all you wishing death on me, pathetic humans

Sent from my SM-N986W using RealGM mobile app

Forget doctors, forget scientists and medical researchers. I think everyone going forward should be taking their medical advance from wild eyed former SNL comedians. That makes way more sense.

Sincerely,

Pathetic Human

You’re debating a mechanic. When my car needs fixing, that’s who I’d rely on.

But with a global pandemic, it’s doctors, medical researchers and scientists whose advice I’m following.

Stop it. There’s not enough space in this thread for smart, reasonable, level headed discussion. We need more conspiracy theorists, random bloggers, comedians and mechanics giving us direction during a health crisis.

The_Hater wrote:

C Court wrote:

The_Hater wrote:
Forget doctors, forget scientists and medical researchers. I think everyone going forward should be taking their medical advance from wild eyed former SNL comedians. That makes way more sense.

Sincerely,

Pathetic Human

You’re debating a mechanic. When my car needs fixing, that’s who I’d rely on.

But with a global pandemic, it’s doctors, medical researchers and scientists whose advice I’m following.

Stop it. There’s not enough space in this thread for smart, reasonable, level headed discussion. We need more conspiracy theorists, random bloggers, comedians and mechanics giving us direction during a health crisis.

Oh...don't forget Nikki Minaj and Kyrie Irving. If Kyrie believes it...it must be true? He's just so woke. Woke people are better than so-called smart people.

Gold Dragon wrote:

shefcurry wrote:2. A *lot* of money and time was spent on making sure we had the best possible safety data we could get before going to market. The researchers did the best they could to prove the safety with the significant resources they had. And in many cases, the sheer number of volunteers provided more data than they get from some other trials. BUT... the reality is that the phases are meant to occur sequentially and were done in parallel, and much of Phase 3 was skipped. So it is absolultely fair to say it was rushed. It was.

What part of phase 3 was skipped? This is not true.

Was it rushed, yes because it was urgent. Were any safety steps skipped? Absolutely not.

Haven't you ever had to rush a project to meet a deadline? Does that always mean the job was shoddy?

Running the phases in parrallel does not at all compromise the safety of the vaccine. It does compromise the safety of the study participants. The phases being run serially is meant to keep the phase 3 study participants from being exposed to unnecessary risk. If they were informed and consented to those risks, there is no compromise of the safety data at all.

Does our real world data show that anything was missed that was meant to be caught by phase 3 trials? Absolutely not.

Sorry, I should have been more precise. I’m not speaking about the safety trials. I’m speaking about the normal procedures including follow up monitoring which is scheduled to conclude in Oct 2022 for Pfizer and Jan 2023 for Moderna. Usually unless we’re on the bleeding edge of medicine this usually happens before mass-population widespread adoption.

Also, there is a two-tier system between developed and less developed nations. In less developed nations with less stringent requirements steps do get skipped:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-13/australian-experts-react-to-sputnik-vaccine-news-reckless/12552028

Regardless, we do agree that whatever steps were taken were clearly sufficient to prove short term safety as we have had billions of doses administered and everything seems to be fine. There isn’t sufficient evidence for long term effects but it’s very, very improbable that there would be any negative long term effects given the nature of mRNA and its rapid breakdown.

The vaccine is safe.

mtcan wrote:

The_Hater wrote:

C Court wrote:
You’re debating a mechanic. When my car needs fixing, that’s who I’d rely on.

But with a global pandemic, it’s doctors, medical researchers and scientists whose advice I’m following.

Stop it. There’s not enough space in this thread for smart, reasonable, level headed discussion. We need more conspiracy theorists, random bloggers, comedians and mechanics giving us direction during a health crisis.

Oh...don't forget Nikki Minaj and Kyrie Irving. If Kyrie believes it...it must be true? He's just so woke. Woke people are better than so-called smart people.

I'd like to weigh in on this too, but first I need to do some independent research. I'll be back after checking out the latest Ja Rule Drink Champs interview.

Johnny Bball wrote:And if one person had a 5% chance of catching COVID because they were vaccinated and their spouse had a 5% chance of getting covid from the spouse, what is the second spouses chance of catching covid? Now do the math with the first person unvaccinated. This isn't hard to figure out that vaccination lowers the risk of transmission but cannot stop it 100%.

She said they can't prevent transmission. Not that they're 95% effective preventing transmission.

shefcurry wrote:Sorry, I should have been more precise. I’m not speaking about the safety trials. I’m speaking about the normal procedures including follow up monitoring which is scheduled to conclude in Oct 2022 for Pfizer and Jan 2023 for Moderna. Usually unless we’re on the bleeding edge of medicine this usually happens before mass-population widespread adoption.

That is not correct. If you are talking about phase 4 trials, they occur after approval and during widespread adoption for all drugs. There is nothing unusual about widespread adoption of a medication before phase 4 trials are completed. That is the norm.

shefcurry wrote:Also, there is a two-tier system between developed and less developed nations. In less developed nations with less stringent requirements steps do get skipped:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-13/australian-experts-react-to-sputnik-vaccine-news-reckless/12552028

Yes. Russia was reckless for approving Sputnik V before phase 3 trials were complete. Granted they have since completed the phase 3 trials and it looks like they will eventually get WHO approval as the safety and efficacy of their phase 3 data appear fine.

shefcurry wrote:Regardless, we do agree that whatever steps were taken were clearly sufficient to prove short term safety as we have had billions of doses administered and everything seems to be fine. There isn’t sufficient evidence for long term effects but it’s very, very improbable that there would be any negative long term effects given the nature of mRNA and its rapid breakdown.

The vaccine is safe.

Agreed. Except I would say there is plenty of data supporting the long term safety of mRNA vaccines.
1) We are more than 18 months from the first trial recipients of the Moderna vaccine.
2) There is no scientific reason based on knowing the ingredients, historical use of those ingredients, mechanism of action of those ingredients and our current understanding of human immunology and physiology to expect any effects occurring later. But sure, pigs could fly tomorrow. Either way we will always keep monitoring and collecting/analyzing the data.

Gold Dragon wrote:

shefcurry wrote:Sorry, I should have been more precise. I’m not speaking about the safety trials. I’m speaking about the normal procedures including follow up monitoring which is scheduled to conclude in Oct 2022 for Pfizer and Jan 2023 for Moderna. Usually unless we’re on the bleeding edge of medicine this usually happens before mass-population widespread adoption.

That is not correct. If you are talking about phase 4 trials, they occur after approval and during widespread adoption for all drugs. There is nothing unusual about widespread adoption of a medication before phase 4 trials are completed. That is the norm.

You're right. I went back and checked and I was conflating a Phase IIIB with Phase 4. My bad.

Dr Positivity wrote:

Johnny Bball wrote:And if one person had a 5% chance of catching COVID because they were vaccinated and their spouse had a 5% chance of getting covid from the spouse, what is the second spouses chance of catching covid? Now do the math with the first person unvaccinated. This isn't hard to figure out that vaccination lowers the risk of transmission but cannot stop it 100%.

She said they can't prevent transmission. Not that they're 95% effective preventing transmission.

If you don't catch it, you can't transmit it. The entire concept of herd immunity seems to be going by you all. And no vaccine has ever done what you are suggesting it should.