COVID Developments and News

[Lantanafrs2]

Originally Posted by Atropine

/shrug

Oh man...I am struggling to care what people think of me, who personally attack me?

Personal attacks are common here.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by TommyW

And I remember that people had a lot more faith in the government and their agendas not to say that the gov was any less corrupt. ...

Ugm, yea...about that. Government was no less corrupt, it was more they were better at covering it thanks to no 24 hour news cycle, and lack of lightspeed media.....

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Time is in specific regards to long term testing.

The Salk Polio vaccine, as an example, was tested for around 12 months, and had over 600,000 parents in the US volunteer their children to test it. So, at this point, the Covid vaccines have far exceeded that amount of testing.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The Salk Polio vaccine, as an example, was tested for around 12 months, and had over 600,000 parents in the US volunteer their children to test it. So, at this point, the Covid vaccines have far exceeded that amount of testing.

The salk Polio vaccine was invented in 1952, it had multiple test trials before the larger scale testing of 650,000 children in April 23, 1954 the test results where published April 12, 1955 and shortly after received FDA approval.

It doesn't appear to have had any mandates until at least the late 1950s, (years later), some states didn't mandate until late 60s "The Arkansas state legislature passed a law mandating vaccinations for polio, diphtheria, tetanus and measles in 1967 for all public and private students"

Polio was identified in 1908 so took 50+ years for any mandate and vaccine testing and trials began in 1935 20+ years before any mandate, I am sure this testing data helped contribute to the development of the salk vaccine as well.

Considering covid cases were identified about 2 years ago and mandates started rolling out pre FDA approval I don't think they are very comparable time tables.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

The salk Polio vaccine was invented in 1952, it had multiple test trials before the larger scale testing of 650,000 children in April 23, 1954 the test results where published April 12, 1955 and shortly after received FDA approval.

It doesn't appear to have had any mandates until at least the late 1950s, (years later), some states didn't mandate until late 60s "The Arkansas state legislature passed a law mandating vaccinations for polio, diphtheria, tetanus and measles in 1967 for all public and private students"

Polio was identified in 1908 so took 50+ years for any mandate and vaccine testing and trials began in 1935 20+ years before any mandate, I am sure this testing data helped contribute to the development of the salk vaccine as well.

Considering covid cases were identified about 2 years ago and mandates started rolling out pre FDA approval I don't think they are very comparable time tables.

So why are you asking to compare the time tables when you have already said that technology speeds up r&d and testing considerably?

Here is a reminder:

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

What was the timeline on these "historical mandates" from the virus discovery, vaccine testing/trials starting, full vaccine approval, and then vaccine mandate?

I realize technologies have improved, and we allocated a lot of resources to this. So the timeline could be sped up drastically, which was an amazing feat that was accomplished. but one thing money/technology cant substitute for is time.

So I am curious how the timelines of those mandates vs this compare.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Atropine

The reality...we aren't going to come to an agreement because we are arguing different points.

The vaccines aren't perfect. They are leaky, which very well can lead to worse problems.

The vaccines do not prevent transmission as much as orginally claimed. That goal post keeps moving.

Vaccinated individuals are more likely to be asymptomatic (yay...they prevent hospitalization). We agree with that? That also means asymptomatic carriers are MORE LIKELY to spread it because they are unaware they are contagious.

I am pro-vaccine if you have underlying health issues. I am anti-mandate for just about anything.

The big thing is this:

Spike, Ultramaroon etc...shouldn't GAF what I have to say, because I certainly DGAF what they have to say.

We aren't gonna change anyone's minds.

I disagree with your first statement. I think we disagree over one very basic question - Vaccine Mandates. I favor them strongly - you oppose them equally vigorously. And that question is ultimately decided by personal and social responsibility - or the lack of it.

Vaccines indeed are leaky and that can lead to problems down the road. This is not really news and applies to ALL vaccines. We still use them and they have saved countless lives, both literally and figuratively.

The efficacy of vaccines is variable depending on the extent to which the virus mutates. I think this is the point you made just above. But, you seem to be arguing that the scientists or policy makers are deliberately doing this. Given your training and experience I would have thought that would make perfect sense. Science is an iterative process and public health emergencies are evolving problems.

Vaccinated individuals are over 90% less likely to become infected than non vaccinated. In order to spread virus you must HAVE the virus. So if everyone were vaccinated we'd have 90% fewer spreaders to worry about. As to the number of asymptomatic cases - I haven't seen that.

Your stance on the proper use of vaccines inherently contradicts the idea of PUBLIC HEALTH. This is a\the point that lies at the very heart of this debate. This is NOT about individuals it is about society. Social responsibility. If everyone were socially responsible, vaccine mandates would be unnecessary. But not everyone is socially responsible. Many of them are personally AND socially irresponsible. You, it seems, advise them to be so. Therefore, mandates are needed.

You see, if everyone eligible for vaccination was vaccinated, your state's hospitals would not be choked with covid patients. As a result, people needing other, potentially, life saving or live affirming procedures would not be being sent away.

This is the part that makes me angry. If the only result of someone going unvaccinated is that they would get sick, and perhaps die that is of little concern. From a social justice perspective, however, that's not how it works. The unvaccinated do get sick, often quite seriously so. They end up in the hospital and clog the ICU. The vaccinated person who needs surgery for their cancer is told they have to delay the surgery because of the bottleneck.

To me it is inherently, egregiously unfair that someone who has fulfilled their responsibility to the rest of us, should be put in MORE danger because some pigheaded fukwit is uneccessrily occupying a bed in a hospital. I'd be less annoyed if the unvaxed covid patients were put in a fenced field hospital on the county fairgrounds, but they're not. No, they are accorded far more respect than they deserve. They made their bed, but they are NOT lying in it. They are lying in someone else's bed - preventing THAT person from getting the care they desperately need.

So yes, we should require vaccination. Or, at a minimum, ration care so that the vaccinated are not put at risk by the irresponsibility of those who choose to flout their social obligations.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by Spuds

So why are you asking to compare the time tables when you have already said that technology speeds up r&d and testing considerably?

Here is a reminder:

because what cant be sped up is time itself. you can solve the equation faster, but testing still takes time.

when was a vaccine approved vs mandated?

Do you think technology will ever advance so much to the point where a medical trial testing could take only 1 day and if it passed that one day it would be FDA approved?

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

I disagree with your first statement. I think we disagree over one very basic question - Vaccine Mandates. I favor them strongly - you oppose them equally vigorously. And that question is ultimately decided by personal and social responsibility - or the lack of it.

Vaccines indeed are leaky and that can lead to problems down the road. This is not really news and applies to ALL vaccines. We still use them and they have saved countless lives, both literally and figuratively.

The efficacy of vaccines is variable depending on the extent to which the virus mutates. I think this is the point you made just above. But, you seem to be arguing that the scientists or policy makers are deliberately doing this. Given your training and experience I would have thought that would make perfect sense. Science is an iterative process and public health emergencies are evolving problems.

Vaccinated individuals are over 90% less likely to become infected than non vaccinated. In order to spread virus you must HAVE the virus. So if everyone were vaccinated we'd have 90% fewer spreaders to worry about. As to the number of asymptomatic cases - I haven't seen that.

Your stance on the proper use of vaccines inherently contradicts the idea of PUBLIC HEALTH. This is a\the point that lies at the very heart of this debate. This is NOT about individuals it is about society. Social responsibility. If everyone were socially responsible, vaccine mandates would be unnecessary. But not everyone is socially responsible. Many of them are personally AND socially irresponsible. You, it seems, advise them to be so. Therefore, mandates are needed.

You see, if everyone eligible for vaccination was vaccinated, your state's hospitals would not be choked with covid patients. As a result, people needing other, potentially, life saving or live affirming procedures would not be being sent away.

This is the part that makes me angry. If the only result of someone going unvaccinated is that they would get sick, and perhaps die that is of little concern. From a social justice perspective, however, that's not how it works. The unvaccinated do get sick, often quite seriously so. They end up in the hospital and clog the ICU. The vaccinated person who needs surgery for their cancer is told they have to delay the surgery because of the bottleneck.

To me it is inherently, egregiously unfair that someone who has fulfilled their responsibility to the rest of us, should be put in MORE danger because some pigheaded fukwit is uneccessrily occupying a bed in a hospital. I'd be less annoyed if the unvaxed covid patients were put in a fenced field hospital on the county fairgrounds, but they're not. No, they are accorded far more respect than they deserve. They made their bed, but they are NOT lying in it. They are lying in someone else's bed - preventing THAT person from getting the care they desperately need.

So yes, we should require vaccination. Or, at a minimum, ration care so that the vaccinated are not put at risk by the irresponsibility of those who choose to flout their social obligations.

https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...and-protection

Vaccine protection and transmission
COVID-19 vaccines are crucial tools in the pandemic response and protect against severe disease and death. Vaccines provide at least some protection from infection and transmission, but not as much as the protection they provide against serious illness and death. More evidence is needed to determine exactly how well they stop infection and transmission.

After being vaccinated, individuals should continue taking simple precautions, such as physical distancing, wearing a mask, keeping rooms well ventilated, avoiding crowds, cleaning hands, and coughing into a bent elbow or tissue. Get tested if you are sick, even if you’ve been vaccinated. Check local advice where you live and work. Do it all!

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronav...effectiveness/

found that current vaccines were highly effective (>90%) against hospitalization associated with COVID-19 and almost 80% effective against new infection, even when Delta variant was the prevalent circulating strain. In another study of U.S. nursing home residents, data showed that the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against new infection declined from >70% to just over 50% once the Delta variant became the predominant circulating strain.

These data, as well as data from studies conducted in other countries, indicate that currently available COVID-19 vaccines in the United States remain highly protective against severe illness, hospitalization, and death due to COVID-19, but that protection against COVID-19 infection may be waning.


https://apnews.com/article/science-h...5ca012b5ef84d1

scientists who studied a big COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts concluded that vaccinated people who got so-called breakthrough infections carried about the same amount of the coronavirus as those who did not get the shots.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Do you think technology will ever advance so much to the point where a medical trial testing could take only 1 day and if it passed that one day it would be FDA approved?

another tedious, boring, bullshit theoretical argument

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

another tedious, boring, bullshit theoretical argument

you clearly haven't been following along and keeping up with the conversation.
because its directly related to and relevant to the discussion.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

because what cant be sped up is time itself. you can solve the equation faster, but testing still takes time.

when was a vaccine approved vs mandated.

Do you think technology will ever advance so much to the point where a medical trial testing could take only 1 day and if it passed that one day it would be FDA approved?

Actually, in theory, if you were to achieve near light speed time would move slower for you so that you could theoretically spend 1 day traversing months or years. But that's just as irrelevant as the connection you are trying to make.

I already pointed out that the vaccine trials (the testing) has been completed. The certification is complete. It has been deemed safe and effective by boards of people who spend their entire lives working on this stuff. As such, who cares how much more time has passed? Do you think you know better than the experts what appropriate medical trials look like? If so, why?

[wbradley]

"...I wouldn't jump off a cliff in my particular situation. And I'd advise others not to jump off a cliff either if they were vulnerable or if they were seniors. But I think we should leave the guard rail off the cliff edge and allow everyone who is inclined to take the dive to do as they please. We can make extra effort to try and catch people at the bottom of the cliff. Some will land on others and crush them as well. Some that wouldn't ever step over the cliff will die from breakthrough crushings. But we have remained steadfast in our resolve not to restrict people from jumping as it is their God given right to do so..."

Lemmings are free to behave that way in nature and it is part of the natural balance of their species. Humans living in a time when death and injury is preventable and still neglecting to protect themselves and others is the reason we impose mandates. After all fair is fair, why make others suffer.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Actually, in theory, if you were to achieve near light speed time would move slower for you so that you could theoretically spend 1 day traversing months or years. But that's just as irrelevant as the connection you are trying to make.

I already pointed out that the vaccine trials (the testing) has been completed. The certification is complete. It has been deemed safe and effective by boards of people who spend their entire lives working on this stuff. As such, who cares how much more time has passed? Do you think you know better than the experts what appropriate medical trials look like? If so, why?

The comparison that was drawn from reni was justifying current vaccine mandates based on past vaccine mandates.

The main question that I posed and stated numerous times was the timeline from FDA approval to mandate. I also was curious the overall timeline of everything just for big picture but stated advancements etc… implying the later was more personal curiosity but the former was the primary relevant comparison that should be made. At least if you are claiming that is the justification for current mandates is that it was mandated in the past.

Covid vaccine had mandates pre fda approval
Polio vaccine looks like it was several years after fda approval.

What about others in the timeline he specified?
Doesn’t seem like an honest justifiable comparison if there isn’t historical matching or at least similar timelines from approval to mandate.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

The comparison that was drawn from reni was justifying current vaccine mandates based on past vaccine mandates.

The main question that I posed and stated numerous times was the timeline from FDA approval to mandate. I also was curious the overall timeline of everything just for big picture but stated advancements etc… implying the later was more personal curiosity but the former was the primary relevant comparison that should be made. At least if you are claiming that is the justification for current mandates is that it was mandated in the past.

Covid vaccine had mandates pre fda approval
Polio vaccine looks like it was several years after fda approval.

What about others in the timeline he specified?
Doesn’t seem like an honest justifiable comparison if there isn’t historical matching or at least similar timelines from approval to mandate.

I don't believe any COVID-19 mandates took effect before the first FDA approval.

Frankly, I don't care how long after approval a vaccine was mandated which is why I haven't bothered to look it up beyond pointing out that they were historically mandated well before there was anyone competent enough to approve it. You seem to be taking the concept of precedence a bit too literally here.

I believe the precedence argument is intended as a historical lesson. There was a terrible disease causing significant problems, an inoculation method was discovered to prevent/slow/reduce risk of the disease, and the leadership mandated that a group of people must be inoculated. It is told as a success story because the mandate worked, and we can see the data showing that.

Your argument is confusing success of the method with some arbitrary temporal information. Let's use your example, Polio. The vaccine was made, tested, and approved. How many more children died in the next two years because people did not voluntarily get them vaccinated? The vaccine didn't change in those two years, or even between trials and approval. It was just as safe and effective the day the final round of trials started as when it was mandated years later. The trials of that vaccine, not the years following, proved that the vaccine was safe and effective, and the approval verified that the appropriate trials were performed.

Reading between the lines of your argument (or at least attempting to), it sounds to me like you are suggesting we should wait two more years because we made that same mistake before. If that is not the case, why is this important to you?