(06-09-2021 10:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: (06-09-2021 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I've took it to mean that people who are currently praising the government for speeding up the vaccine production, would be cursing a company for speeding up vaccine production (due to their biases for gov't and against private companies).
If so, I could see that being true. But it's not like the current batches of vaccines are known by anything else besides the companies that developed them...
Sort of.
My point is that you can look at 100,000 people 'negatively impacted by a treatment' (which would perhaps have been a more clear way to have said it to 93) and praise it relative to 10mm deaths, OR curse it relative to zero... the number of people who wouldn't have been 'negatively impacted by the treatment' had the treatment never been developed, ignoring the impact of the disease itself.
It seems that people have a tendency to do either of the above, based on other factors, including 'whom' the object of their complaint would be (greedy corp vs intrusive govt) or personal impact.... and not on the statistics.... which are the same either way.
Maybe the best way to say it is that it would be exceptionally easy for a reasonably intelligent person to argue either side of this issue.... and they wouldn't be diametrically opposed. You could also very easily praise the (likely but not demonstrable) millions globally 'saved', while still cursing 'thousands' of people victims of the 'rushed' vaccine.
My real point is that I don't think the difference between these vaccines and those we might have developed with a longer process is meaningful... as a result of the process for developing vaccines. This isn't the same as creating a cocktail of chemicals that are intended to kill 'something'... and you just hope it doesn't kill something critical.
The VACCINE isn't effective against COVID. The vaccine makes the HUMAN BODY (which is already pretty effective) more effective against COVID. That's different than ingesting a chemical that kills the virus. I hope that's clear because it is key in a good conversation about vaccines.
If you answered or addressed this already, I apologise....
It's fairly save to say that most people (50.0001% to 99.9999%) have two questions:
1. Is the vaccine safe?; and
2. Is the vaccine effective?
Before anyone can answer either question, one must define "safe" and "effective".
I am not aware of any vaccine that is 100% safe and 100% effective.
When any one says that a vaccine (or anything) is safe or effective, they are speaking in relative, not absolute, terms. Most of the time they don't bother to explain this (probably imho) as they believe the general public is too stupid to understand or to make the 'right' decision.
In the instant case, COVID-19, has a mortality rate of less than 1% (something like 0.3%?) for the general public (?). The rate is higher if you have underlying health conditions and lower (--> 0%) if you are healthy. What is the rate of side effects and how significant are these? Shouldn't that information enter into the discussion?
We keep hearing about infection rates. Any focus on infection rates is only significant if you are trying to map the spread of the virus. Right now in the UK the public is being terrified by government and the press by the high infection rates in certain parts of the country. Literally thousands upon thousands have been recently infected. But the consequent number of individuals hospitalised was under 100. No mention was even made if any of these required placement in ICUs. No mention was made if they had underlying health conditions. What was reported that a significant number were relatively young (under 25?).
Deaths 'due to Covid' nationwide are now under ten per day in the UK. Yes, every life is precious, but I'd like to understand the health profile of those who have died.
So where am I going with this?
The information provided to the public is limited and highly filtered in order to elicit the 'right response'.
There is push back from individuals that understand that even if the vaccine is effective, it is not 100% safe. If I am healthy and get infected I am most likely to experience only mild symptoms that are not life threatening. If I have access to healthcare I will likely recover even if I require hospitalisation. Here in the UK, we were initially told it was essential to 'protect the NHS (National Health Service)' from being overwhelmed. In other words, to ensure those requiring hospitalisation could be treated. That doesn't appear to be the goal anymore. The goal is simply to vaccinate everyone.
No one understands the long term effects of the vaccine as it's only been used for about six months and there was no long term testing. But there may be sufficient information, or at least data, that can be analysed to identify those susceptible to the virus and those especially adversely affected. Let's identify those individuals and protect them and ensure they have access to the vaccine. If someone doesn't want the vaccine it should be their individual decision. Instead they can be periodically tested if necessary. My son has to self test every week before he attends college even though he has already received his first jab. And he has been told he will continue to self test after the second jab.
Finally, I'm not as comfortable as some on this board with mRNA technology. One biologist said the advantage of its application is that it is known what was altered to develop the vaccine. Paraphrasing their comments , "If any significant issues arise we can make the necessary adjustments." I doubt it's as easy as adjusting your carburetor back in the 70s. And the adverse effects are likely worse than poor engine performance or increased fuel consumption at 60 cents a gallon.