COVID Developments and News

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Except you are the one saying we should use practices from 500 years ago. My point was that we now have a scientific, multi-phase testing approach using modern medical technology and examination practices. It is quite effective at determining how effective something is and what safety concerns there are. 500 years ago, you picked some pus off a cow and wiped it on a cut you made with a rusty knife and determined whether someone lived or died in the next week or so.

The modern methods render references to past timelines irrelevant.

Here's the mandated inoculation from 1776...
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/a...noculates-army


Which would you prefer, "variolation" above which had been done for about a hundred years prior, or something engineered for purpose with a certified testing regimen?

(Variolation apparently still killed 5%+ of the people who received it.)

Still lost how any of your posts pertains to the post I quoted and commented on.

Also,
I never said anything about 500yrs ago you did in your last post.

All i did was pose a question.

Here I’ll give you a refresher to make it real simple and clear for you.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Thought it was pretty clear and self explanatory especially given the context and the specific reference and acknowledgement of technological advancements and resources… but guess not…

Time is in specific regards to long term testing.

And the question was when in the timeline a mandate has taken place.
If a vaccine had full approval for 10years and took 20years of testing to achieve approval and then was mandated vs being mandated before even achieving approval and not even being released for a year. I wouldn’t use the first example to then justify the 2nd example.

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Still lost how any of your posts pertains to the post I quoted and commented on.

Also,
I never said anything about 500yrs ago you did in your last post.

All i did was pose a question.

Which question, the bolded one?

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Which question, the bolded one?

Edited above for you

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Edited above for you

Thanks for the clarification. I do not know which specific vaccine mandates you are referring to, but if you were to find the answer and post it I would be interested to learn that information.

As I pointed out, it seems to have been on the order of at least decades if not centuries between variolation of smallpox as a concept and when Washington mandated it (started in Asia, spread to Europe over time iirc). So in that sense, I did answer your question, while also pointing out how archaic the practice seems to modern people, considering it wasn't necessarily approved in the same way modern vaccines are. I would take a modern certification method over any amount of time without actual scientific study.

[Capt Spaulding]

Several things.

First, I gave 86Toyo the benefit of the doubt - won't make that mistake again.

Second, Atropine is a master of the specious argument. His creations sound reasonable until you delve into them. Then you realize the articles he links to contradict the claims he's trying to make.

Third. It's not about you. It's not about me. It's about US - all of US. Get with the program. (see Point 4)

Fourth - The short Phase III trial whine is a canard. The length of those trials varies substantially and can be as short as under a year. We are beyond the one year anniversary of the beginning of the Phase III trials of the major vaccines. As my favorite Texas Governor used to say "That dog just don't hunt!" And it don't. Not no more it don't. It's just whinin.

And fifth, the FDA review panel approved the Moderna booster for a wider (but still, I think, older) population. It'll take a few days to jump the rest of the hurdles, but I'm ready. If the timing works out, my US-GP tickets might not go to waste.

Anybody else up for a good shot of booster?

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Thanks for the clarification. I do not know which specific vaccine mandates you are referring to, but if you were to find the answer and post it I would be interested to learn that information.

As I pointed out, it seems to have been on the order of at least decades if not centuries between variolation of smallpox as a concept and when Washington mandated it (started in Asia, spread to Europe over time iirc). So in that sense, I did answer your question, while also pointing out how archaic the practice seems to modern people, considering it wasn't necessarily approved in the same way modern vaccines are. I would take a modern certification method over any amount of time without actual scientific study.

My question in and of itself has no implication, even if the answer possibly might.
But again even posing a question immediately gets people triggered.

You would need to ask @reni in which mandates he was referencing specifically, but he stated in the last 200years (not 500) and posted a link to 1 article. Although i did find “ 1905, ruling 7-2 in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that they were constitutional.” so I limited my initial search to 1900s-present.

I guess the people that liked his post could answer which mandates unless they just blindly liked something they have no idea what the poster was even referencing because they blindly believe and follow anything they think is in support of there side/opinions.

But I digress.

Based on some research the few I had time to dive deeper into weren’t mandated before or even immediately after they had been FDA approved. Maybe some where? Hence the question.

My example I had stated was if something had 20years of testing before approval and then at least 10years of full release after approval before being mandated (polio vaccine seemed to be along those lines?) then. one: people would be less apposed and two: that it is not a good comparison to try to argue the justification for mandating a covid vaccine, when covid vaccine had maybe 1 year of testing and wasn’t even FDA approved when some mandates started rolling out. If in 5-10yrs it was mandated it would be a more comparable comparison/argument. But again I don’t know the full timeline history breakdown of all mandated vaccines since 1905 let alone 200yrs (his claim) so there very well could have been mandates pre vaccine approval. In which case his argument could have some validity. But again I’d still want to know as much context to see if it’s an equal comparison.

I had stated obvious advancements in tech/resources could speed up timetables a lot for certain aspects, but they where not a replacement for time, meaning 5-10 yr long term side effect and effectivity testing.

This isn’t/wasn’t even an argument for or against the vaccine. It was merely to see if @reni was doing the very same thing he shamed others for doing in the very same post. My hunch and initial research points to yes, but I don’t have all the information to say for certain and my hunch could be wrong. Hence the initial question.

Originally Posted by reni

it's willfully ignorant at best, intentionally dishonest at worst.

Maybe this clarifies some of the confusion?

[Lantanafrs2]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...h-58905945.amp

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

My example I had stated was if something had 20years of testing before approval and then at least 10years of full release after approval before being mandated (polio vaccine seemed to be along those lines?) then. one: people would be less apposed and two: that it is not a good comparison to try to argue the justification for mandating a covid vaccine, when covid vaccine had maybe 1 year of testing and wasn’t even FDA approved when some mandates started rolling out. If in 5-10yrs it was mandated it would be a more comparable comparison/argument. But again I don’t know the full timeline history breakdown of all mandated vaccines since 1905 let alone 200yrs (his claim) so there very well could have been mandates pre vaccine approval. In which case his argument could have some validity. But again I’d still want to know as much context to see if it’s an equal comparison.

I had stated obvious advancements in tech/resources could speed up timetables a lot for certain aspects, but they where not a replacement for time, meaning 5-10 yr long term side effect and effectivity testing.

The problem I have with this argument is that vaccine mandates aren't triggered by time. They are triggered by assessment of risk, benefit, and societal need. The "time" problem is only in the heads of people who do not want to be vaccinated for one reason or another.

[Atropine]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

Several things.

First, I gave 86Toyo the benefit of the doubt - won't make that mistake again.

Second, Atropine is a master of the specious argument. His creations sound reasonable until you delve into them. Then you realize the articles he links to contradict the claims he's trying to make.

Third. It's not about you. It's not about me. It's about US - all of US. Get with the program. (see Point 4)

Fourth - The short Phase III trial whine is a canard. The length of those trials varies substantially and can be as short as under a year. We are beyond the one year anniversary of the beginning of the Phase III trials of the major vaccines. As my favorite Texas Governor used to say "That dog just don't hunt!" And it don't. Not no more it don't. It's just whinin.

And fifth, the FDA review panel approved the Moderna booster for a wider (but still, I think, older) population. It'll take a few days to jump the rest of the hurdles, but I'm ready. If the timing works out, my US-GP tickets might not go to waste.

Anybody else up for a good shot of booster?

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.

[weederr33]

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.

And that bolded part is why you're a problem.

[Atropine]

Originally Posted by weederr33

And that bolded part is why you're a problem.

/shrug

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

[dpfarr]

Originally Posted by Atropine

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.

Either; you intend to imply that vaccinated are more likely to transmit or you have written it so to be read two ways.

Let’s start with the first scenario. You meant to say that vaccinated individuals do not have any significant immunity and as such are capable of acquisition rates nearly equivalent as unvaccinated but through ______ have increased transmission rates.

The other scenario, you know that writing asymptomatic is applicable to both un and vaccinated but still wrote it in such a way to convey the idea that vaccinated are responsible for some significant rates of transmission.

Having some antibody immunity through recovery from infection or vaccination reduces rates of acquisition. If you do happen to contact a variant, a person’s viral load is less (‘ (yay...they prevent hospitalization) ’) and because of that are less likely to transmit this virus both broadly and in comparison to an unvaccinated populous. Does this make sense?

[Atropine]

Asymptomatic carriers are the most likely to spread.

The vaccines do create more Asymptomatic carriers.

Not sure if you are into sports,but there is literally an example of this everyday.

I don't think people shouldn't get the vaccine or anything.
Edit: I still think people should get it. I am just against a mandate.

But when someone close to them gets COVID and they have only interacted with vaccinated people...I am shocked how they somehow blame "the dirty unvaxxed"

[spike021]

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.

lmao I think that was evident from the first post you added to this thread.