In a nutshell, FDA approval... And there is a lot of mistrust in the Feds...

 

In a nutshell, FDA approval... And there is a lot of mistrust in the Feds...

I was gonna say... isn't that the very purpose of the FDA? To make sure that the public does not receive "experimental" shots, and that all experimenting previous to release is done in a transparent, documented, verifiable and peer reviewed way?

 

Agreed... but also, should one be held responsible for the social consequences of refusing to get vaccinated?

Should one be held responsible for the social consequences of if/how they vote?

 

I was gonna say... isn't that the very purpose of the FDA? To make sure that the public does not receive "experimental" shots, and that all experimenting previous to release is done in a transparent, documented, verifiable and peer reviewed way?

Normally, yes.

Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions

 

Should one be held responsible for the social consequences of if/how they vote?

I would say yes... But I don't believe that analogy is accurate. A pandemic, by definition, is neither a private nor an individual event. When a person gets infected, there's a huge risk of the infection being propagated simply because said person needs to be tended by a third party so that he/she can survive. Whereas the social consequences of voting are the result of a majority's (and not the propagation of an individual's) choice.

 

Normally, yes.

Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions

Which leads to the (for me) one key question: Did the Pfiser and Moderna vaccines, for instance, go through the rigorous testing standards required for them to be publicly deployed in a safe manner? ... that is, according to the FDA itself, of course.

 

Which leads to the (for me) one key question: Did the Pfiser and Moderna vaccines, for instance, go through the rigorous testing standards required for them to be publicly deployed in a safe manner? ... that is, according to the FDA itself, of course.

FDA will say yes. But please remember the full trial is ongoing right now to be completed for Pfeizer in 2023 and Moderna in 2022. The actual trials have not been completed. The full effects of vaccines are not known to anyone.

It has been proven that autoimmune diseases are on the rise because of vaccination schedules. Questions do need to be asked.

Slightly different example - what are you gaining by smothering yourself in hand sanitizer? Washing hands with soap is the best way to kill germs. Hand sanitizers are causing skin issues in many hospital workers leading to eczema and psoriasis, these are impossible to get under control once they start. Allergies as well.

But, COVID is real. I strongly believe we would have been better off if a year ago there were no closures and by now most would have been immune. Obviously vulnerable needed protection. Like it or not virus mutations will win out. I will not be taking this vaccine yearly, I am too young to do that to myself. The way I see it we are taking further steps to weaken our ability to survive.

Humanity in the future - artificial reproduction, hooked up to computer living in a sterile environment. That is what it is looking right now. So basically "the matrix"...

p.s. i did take the first shot of pfeizer despite all of this because i have aging grandmothers that I have not seen in a long time and am hoping to try and see them. My province extended time between the shots to 4 months

 

Humanity in the future - artificial reproduction, hooked up to computer living in a sterile environment. That is what it is looking right now. So basically "the matrix"...

A bleak future indeed... and we're doing that to ourselves out of sheer selfishness...

 

Agreed... but also, should one be held responsible for the social consequences of refusing to get vaccinated?

Yes. Before you can claim constitutional rights, you have to be a member in good standing of the society that agrees to be bound by the Constitution.

That’s why there is no Constitutional right for murder. Nor is there a prohibition to murder in the Constitution. There is an assumption of social responsibility.

 

A pandemic, by definition, is neither a private nor an individual event. When a person gets infected, there's a huge risk of the infection being propagated simply because said person needs to be tended by a third party so that he/she can survive. Whereas the social consequences of voting are the result of a majority's (and not the propagation of an individual's) choice.

An election, by definition, is neither a private nor an individual event. When a person gets infected [by a toxic ideology], there's a huge risk of the infection being propagated simply because said person needs to be tended by a third party [big government] so that he/she can survive.

I'm a lot more afraid of toxic ideologies than this particular virus. What killed more people in the last century, viruses or government? It's not even close.

 

Which leads to the (for me) one key question: Did the Pfiser and Moderna vaccines, for instance, go through the rigorous testing standards required for them to be publicly deployed in a safe manner? ... that is, according to the FDA itself, of course.

Yes. If you research your question, the vaccine manufactures had to test the vaccine to a reasonable degree to prove a) its effectiveness and b) it’s safety.

 

What killed more people in the last century, viruses or government?

Good point... but I'd choose option #3 as the main killer: ideologies...

 

Agreed... but also, should one be held responsible for the social consequences of refusing to get vaccinated?

Only if we all agree that they are indeed 100% effective! And yet much of the science indicates otherwise. Heck, even anecdotally. How many people have YOU heard of being vaccinated against something and then just weeks or months later catching that very same virus (or perhaps a variant of it)?!

Our bodies only seem to be able to "remember" viral markers for a fixed period of time. Couple that with the fact that viruses mutate very quickly, and the end result is that vaccines are unfortunately quite limited in their effectiveness. THAT is why so many object to them.

 

vaccines are unfortunately quite limited in their effectiveness

Their effectiveness is about to be tested in the real world, and with real consequences... but wouldn't you agree that even flawed vaccines are better than nothing?

 

Only if we all agree that they are indeed 100% effective! And yet much of the science indicates otherwise. Heck, even anecdotally. How many people have YOU heard of being vaccinated against something and then just weeks or months later catching that very same virus (or perhaps a variant of it)?!

Our bodies only seem to be able to "remember" viral markers for a fixed period of time. Couple that with the fact that viruses mutate very quickly, and the end result is that vaccines are unfortunately quite limited in their effectiveness. THAT is why so many object to them.

Indeed. At my site there was an outbreak at long term care facility back in January. This spiraled out if control and resulted in a targeted vaccination campaign for the whole town (about 12k people, out of which they said 9k got the vaccine). As of last week we are in second outbreak in the same facility and an outbreak in the hospital.

More questions:

- no definition of "case" has ever been given
- public health officer decides what is an "outbreak".
- contact tracing is virtually non existant, they contact people 10 days after they were told by their friends about exposure.

So when we have a gigantic failure of public system that is supposed to be responsible for public health. At which point each indiviual has complete right to take over their own decision making.

 

Indeed. At my site there was an outbreak at long term care facility back in January. This spiraled out if control and resulted in a targeted vaccination campaign for the whole town (about 12k people, out of which they said 9k got the vaccine). As of last week we are in second outbreak in the same facility and an outbreak in the hospital.

More questions:

- no definition of "case" has ever been given
- public health officer decides what is an "outbreak".
- contact tracing is virtually non existant, they contact people 10 days after they were told by their friends about exposure.

So when we have a gigantic failure of public system that is supposed to be responsible for public health. At which point each indiviual has complete right to take over their own decision making.

What a horrible mess you've just described... I hope things don't reach the point of being a public disaster.

 

Good point... but I'd choose option #3 as the main killer: ideologies...

Certainly, but ideologies can't be mass murderers without the guns of government.

 

Certainly, but ideologies can't be mass murderers without the guns of government.

Ideologies can be adjusted and changed, and even disposed of... but can society make do without government of any sort? ... Personally, I see blaming "government" in general as being way too broad.

 

... can society make do without government of any sort?

An interesting discussion, but I'm afraid it would be a hijack of this thread to reply.

 

Their effectiveness is about to be tested in the real world, and with real consequences... but wouldn't you agree that even flawed vaccines are better than nothing?

More importantly, why should anyone be required to take part in some experimental therapy? Anyone can simply wear a mask, practice social distancing, or take whatever other precautions they choose to protect themselves. We are ALL responsible for our OWN health. Taking away the freedoms of others is not the answer here.