(06-08-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... when you say Thalidomide the obvious association is with birth defects. Not simply "the vaccine failed".

Not obvious to me, sorry. My intent was more to mean, "failed vaccine with harmful side effects," not specifically birth defects.

Got it. To me, thalidomide elicits a stronger response. If it had caused nonfatal blood clots and was taken off the market back in the 50's the general public would not remember its name today. We remember the name because the side effect was so extreme. That's what I thought you were referring to... a spectacularly horrific problem with the treatment.

I still doubt that many bureaucrats cheer for its failure - spectacular or unspectacular.

Quote:Incidentally, once on the mid-1980s, I flew back from Boston to Houston. It was a remarkable flight in many respects, but one of them was that my flight was a continuation of a flight from Montreal (and keep in mind that Thalidomide was in wide use in Canada). There was a family in the continuing group across the aisle (wide-body) with two teen-aged sons, one of whom had hands with 6 fingers, basically like a raptor's claws, three fingers on each side. It was remarkable to watch how he ate.

I guess that could be related to thalidomide or perhaps had nothing to do with it (just a "random" birth defect)?

Quote:

Quote:You wrote, "And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide."
This tells me that you are opining that bureaucrats in general are hoping the vaccine fails (not that there is a small percentage of bureaucrats that might feel that way).
I can get behind your idea that there might be some bureaucrats that wouldn't be sad to see the vaccine fail. My guess is that it's a small subset of them. I doubt there are ANY who would like to see this turn into a thalidomide situation.

I would say that you are very naive when it comes to bureaucrat-think. Maybe not the horrors at the level of Thalidomide, sorry you misinterpreted my comment that way, but there are a goodly number who would be very happy to see it have lasting problems.

Maybe I'm overly naive and/or perhaps you are overly cynical?

How many times have you had to square off over bureaucrats at that level? The more interaction one has with that level of the bureaucracy I would surmise the more one is inclined to look at #s comments with a level 'yep, I can see that.'

I honestly can't say that I know of a single person that would choose his/her own job security over the success of the COVID vaccine. I mean... literally millions of lives are likely saved with a successful vaccine.

If you notice, one can apply that exact same logic to just about any industry that the left targets as needing to be done away with, like..... the energy industry for a stark example.

And also, quite honestly, having dealt with many people in various bureaucracies at middle to somewhat high levels, and having dealt on the occasional time at rahter high levels, I am very comfortable saying just the opposite.

I would lay dollars to donuts there are people at those levels within the FDA and CDC that would have rather seen Warp Speed be a big nothingburger at best, to a failure at worst, in light of the way in which it performed and the implications to those agencies.

(06-09-2021 06:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not obvious to me, sorry. My intent was more to mean, "failed vaccine with harmful side effects," not specifically birth defects.

Got it. To me, thalidomide elicits a stronger response. If it had caused nonfatal blood clots and was taken off the market back in the 50's the general public would not remember its name today. We remember the name because the side effect was so extreme. That's what I thought you were referring to... a spectacularly horrific problem with the treatment.

I still doubt that many bureaucrats cheer for its failure - spectacular or unspectacular.

Quote:Incidentally, once on the mid-1980s, I flew back from Boston to Houston. It was a remarkable flight in many respects, but one of them was that my flight was a continuation of a flight from Montreal (and keep in mind that Thalidomide was in wide use in Canada). There was a family in the continuing group across the aisle (wide-body) with two teen-aged sons, one of whom had hands with 6 fingers, basically like a raptor's claws, three fingers on each side. It was remarkable to watch how he ate.

I guess that could be related to thalidomide or perhaps had nothing to do with it (just a "random" birth defect)?

Quote:I would say that you are very naive when it comes to bureaucrat-think. Maybe not the horrors at the level of Thalidomide, sorry you misinterpreted my comment that way, but there are a goodly number who would be very happy to see it have lasting problems.

Maybe I'm overly naive and/or perhaps you are overly cynical?

How many times have you had to square off over bureaucrats at that level? The more interaction one has with that level of the bureaucracy I would surmise the more one is inclined to look at #s comments with a level 'yep, I can see that.'

I honestly can't say that I know of a single person that would choose his/her own job security over the success of the COVID vaccine. I mean... literally millions of lives are likely saved with a successful vaccine.

If you notice, one can apply that exact same logic to just about any industry that the left targets as needing to be done away with, like..... the energy industry for a stark example.

And also, quite honestly, having dealt with many people in various bureaucracies at middle to somewhat high levels, and having dealt on the occasional time at rahter high levels, I am very comfortable saying just the opposite.

I would lay dollars to donuts there are people at those levels within the FDA and CDC that would have rather seen Warp Speed be a big nothingburger at best, to a failure at worst, in light of the way in which it performed and the implications to those agencies.

Not sure why how what “the left” does in similar instances matters.

But what is an example with respect to the energy industry?

I could see, at worst, some federal employees wanting to say “I told you so,” when it comes to Warp Speed should it have failed due to cutting the red tape - less out of job security and more out of moral superiority.

I’d view this akin to suggesting OSHA employees actively hoping for people to get hurt so they can keep their job - I don’t think that happens at all. But I definitely can see them wanting to waggle their finger at all those people who complain about the red tape being unnecessary, despite their rules/regs often being written in blood.

(06-09-2021 06:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’d view this akin to suggesting OSHA employees actively hoping for people to get hurt so they can keep their job - I don’t think that happens at all. But I definitely can see them wanting to waggle their finger at all those people who complain about the red tape being unnecessary, despite their rules/regs often being written in blood.

Not close at all. Warp Speed was a direct rewrite of the regulatory scheme of the agencies in question.

Warp Speed was also 'the boss' (in this case OMB) directly canceling and diluting the mechanisms in place to, well, 'warp speed' a solution.

This is/was a direct anathema to power bases the agencies have acquired, and a direct attack on the regulatory myth that pervades these places.

If the FDA and CDC operate in any fashion like the places I have dealt with, their middle to upper 'management' (if you can call it that) is permeated and infused with the ideal that *only* the layered system that has evolved is the one capable of directing and getting to the end point such a project. That is, with the concomitant 'zero harm' ethos that pervades the typical bureaucratic system.

A project like warp speed that they were literally circumvented in the beginning stages, and their 'involvement' were severely attenuated in the later stages is a direct attack on their individual raison d'etre, and a direct attack/attenuation of their acquired power base.

Case in point: look at the savagery that the CDC responded to the Seattle(?) coroner in the testing issue? look at the single mindedness of the CDC and the FDA in the testing kits to market malarkey that they promulgated, even when their boss (OMB again) told them to sod off.

(06-08-2021 03:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't understand why the left finds it so easy to attribute the worst intentions imaginable to private sector executives, but cannot imagine government bureaucrats with similar intentions.

Said much more succinctly than I

Someone from the left (in a position of some note) comments every single day it seems about evil corporations out to exploit the environment, workers, engage in racism etc etc etc all in the pursuit of a dollar... but the moment that same 'selfishness' is applied to someone who works in government, the human characteristics all disappear... UNLESS they favor 'the other side' in which case they are simply enablers of those exploiters.

The entire idea that 'you ain't black' follows this precisely. It implies that black people who vote for or support Trump are essentially race traitors.

'C'mon, man... you know... the THING'!

Believe me... I can ascribe very poor intentions to people in AND out of government.

I stand by the position that #'s was being hyerbolic, though, when it comes to the celebration of the COVID vaccine causing devastating congenital defects.

Does Operation Warp Speed really threaten the jobs of those at the FDA? Like they they will be no longer necessary because a never-seen-before pandemic caused an acceleration of the regulatory process for the COVID vaccine? Do we really think that this is going to have any material effect on how the next cholesterol drug gets approved? Do we think that FDA employees will be losing their jobs if the vaccine is a rousing success? How about all the friends and family of the FDA employees that have received the vaccine? Their horrific outcomes are worth it as long as job security is maintained? Come on...

Thinking about why it's easier for me to think maleficence in the pursuit of profit and power/influence is more common than the maleficence in pursuit of power/influence...

First, it could start at what the primary mission of any business is versus what the primary mission of government is (and how that motivates people to enter the private or public sector). Second, if I want to be cynical and assume the worst of everyone, it could start with whether or not I have the ability to vote out the evil doer who is in power or not.

But going to the human characteristics argument, as Gordon Gekko said - greed is good. There is only so much greed to be had in the public sector, so you're really just dealing with people with Napoleon complexes who went into a field with ****** pay.

Various levels of government aren't full of do-gooders across the board to be clear. I wonder if a lot of this has to do with a generational divide when it comes to bad actors in the various sectors - I find my cynicism of government comes through in a lack of competency of those working in it.

In any organisation, private or public, the levels of competency can vary widely. I have found a great number of capable individuals doing the best they possibly can in the public sector. I have also found a number of individuals that were employed for 'unknown' reasons in the private one.

It might be easier to hide incompetency in the public sector, but I've seen this in the private sector as well. Personnel were often 'protected' for any of a number of reasons. One B$U law degreed accountant was never challenged on his lack of chargeable or billable hours. I guess someone figured he might eventually transfer to a major/minor law firm and then become a source of clients. Another B$U accountant couldn't complete an asset / depreciation schedule I assigned. Within three years they had been promoted to an Audit Manager position.

Generally I believe what you'll find is organisational inertia: "We've always done things this way so there's no need, no motivation, to change." Small to medium enterprises will more often than not eventually fail (completely). Larger organisations can last much longer. If there's no profit incentive (including the private sector) they can remain indefinitely. (You might want to look up the urban dictionary definition for 'lifer'.) The situation can easily perpetuate itself as management seek only to promote those individual with a 'safe pair of hands'. The denotation of this is that they will secure the future of the organisation. The connotation is that they won't challenge the status quo and more importantly, won't challenge management.

Another thing you'll find is what we call in England, "not invented here." If a product, process, skill, or idea wasn't developed internally then it simply isn't worth considering.

(06-09-2021 06:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not obvious to me, sorry. My intent was more to mean, "failed vaccine with harmful side effects," not specifically birth defects.

Got it. To me, thalidomide elicits a stronger response. If it had caused nonfatal blood clots and was taken off the market back in the 50's the general public would not remember its name today. We remember the name because the side effect was so extreme. That's what I thought you were referring to... a spectacularly horrific problem with the treatment.

I still doubt that many bureaucrats cheer for its failure - spectacular or unspectacular.

Quote:Incidentally, once on the mid-1980s, I flew back from Boston to Houston. It was a remarkable flight in many respects, but one of them was that my flight was a continuation of a flight from Montreal (and keep in mind that Thalidomide was in wide use in Canada). There was a family in the continuing group across the aisle (wide-body) with two teen-aged sons, one of whom had hands with 6 fingers, basically like a raptor's claws, three fingers on each side. It was remarkable to watch how he ate.

I guess that could be related to thalidomide or perhaps had nothing to do with it (just a "random" birth defect)?

Quote:I would say that you are very naive when it comes to bureaucrat-think. Maybe not the horrors at the level of Thalidomide, sorry you misinterpreted my comment that way, but there are a goodly number who would be very happy to see it have lasting problems.

Maybe I'm overly naive and/or perhaps you are overly cynical?

How many times have you had to square off over bureaucrats at that level? The more interaction one has with that level of the bureaucracy I would surmise the more one is inclined to look at #s comments with a level 'yep, I can see that.'

I honestly can't say that I know of a single person that would choose his/her own job security over the success of the COVID vaccine. I mean... literally millions of lives are likely saved with a successful vaccine.

If you notice, one can apply that exact same logic to just about any industry that the left targets as needing to be done away with, like..... the energy industry for a stark example.

I don't follow.

(06-09-2021 07:02 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Personnel were often 'protected' for any of a number of reasons.

union membership.

Early on in my career in Mexico, I asked a plant manager what he would do if he caught an employee rifling his safe.

"I would have him arrested".

Would you fire him?

"First I would have to get permission from the union. If granted, they would send over his replacement. I would have no say, so maybe the one I have in jail is better."

And if the union did not give permission?

"I would have to keep him on the payroll."

For some mysterious reason, two plants I know of had mysterious fires that meant they had to move operations to new locations (new union bosses).

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'd note that Thalidomide killed about 10,000 babies world-wide.... and about 100,000 were infected. Compare that to COVID.

I'm not following. 100,000 were infected WITH WHAT? I don't understand this point nor how to compare it to COVID. Compare it to the COVID vaccine? Has the COVID vaccine been associated with a significant mortality rate?

Covid has killed millions worldwide.... tens of millions severely impacted. Are you suggesting that there aren't people who would GLADLY trade 10,000 deaths and 100,000 severely impacted persons for that??

The bar for 'good' on something like the COVID vaccine is 'meaningfully less than' the disease it is treating. If 100,000 people die from the vaccine but millions are saved, that would be a 'win' from a clinical perspective.

The bar for 'good' on a vaccine is close to zero. If that same 100,000 people die from a 'rushed vaccine', that is 100,000 people who 'wouldn't have died with proper oversight' to a bureaucrat.

If you don't believe me, all you have to do is look at the tens of billions spent per year arguing about 'assault rifles' that kill fewer than 300 people per year. Bath tubs kill more people than assault rifles. The difference isn't the number of people killed. The difference is that its hard to make people be 'scared' of a bath tub, especially relative to the number of people who are 'cleaned' by them. The biggest argument against assault rifles is that they don't serve a different purpose (in the eyes of those who don't own them).

(06-08-2021 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Are you suggesting that there aren't people who would accept that trade off?? Especially if it meant they continued to make money??

If this were an industry and not the government, I think many of the same people supporting the government now would be cursing the company.

Cursing a private company over the development of the COVID vaccine? Why?

SIgh...

Look around, 93. There are already 'anti-vaxxers' out there suggesting that the COVID vaccine is some sort of a plot between the government and 'big pharma' to bilk the public out of billions/trillions of dollars. See the way the left speaks about 'the gun lobby' when it comes to 'assault rifles' who kill almost nobody statistically. If Operation Warp Speed threatened the bureaucracy of the FDA, I am 100% confident that they would respond similarly...

If you want to make something sound small... you talk about percentages. 300 people die each year out of 350mm people from rifles. 1:1,000,000. If you want to make something sound important... you talk about the people. The 300 spouses who won't be coming home. the 500 kids who lost their parents.... the 'honor student' who is beloved in their community, whose life was unnecessarily cut short. The same would, will and already is being done with the COVID vaccine.

I'm sorry, but it feels like you're being somewhat intentionally obtuse... focusing on things I didn't say that sound unreasonable like 'cursing a company for developing a life-saving vaccine' as opposed to what I really said which is much more reasonable like 'cursing them because someone suffered a severe side effect from a vaccine that was rushed through the process'.

I get that I may not have been perfectly or overtly clear about what I meant, but I think you have somewhat assumed that we would disagree, so you're assuming I mean something ridiculous or unreasonable.

Some may see Numbers' comment as hyperbolic, some may see it as being succinct. The difference isn't what he said, but whether we are expecting to agree or disagree with him. As bad as Thalidomide was, it also saved some lives. Even the 'worst' drugs have been 'a gift from God' for SOMEBODY.

(06-09-2021 09:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'd note that Thalidomide killed about 10,000 babies world-wide.... and about 100,000 were infected. Compare that to COVID.

I'm not following. 100,000 were infected WITH WHAT? I don't understand this point nor how to compare it to COVID. Compare it to the COVID vaccine? Has the COVID vaccine been associated with a significant mortality rate?

Covid has killed millions worldwide.... tens of millions severely impacted. Are you suggesting that there aren't people who would GLADLY trade 10,000 deaths and 100,000 severely impacted persons for that??

The bar for 'good' on something like the COVID vaccine is 'meaningfully less than' the disease it is treating. If 100,000 people die from the vaccine but millions are saved, that would be a 'win' from a clinical perspective.

The bar for 'good' on a vaccine is close to zero. If that same 100,000 people die from a 'rushed vaccine', that is 100,000 people who 'wouldn't have died with proper oversight' to a bureaucrat.

If you don't believe me, all you have to do is look at the tens of billions spent per year arguing about 'assault rifles' that kill fewer than 300 people per year. Bath tubs kill more people than assault rifles. The difference isn't the number of people killed. The difference is that its hard to make people be 'scared' of a bath tub, especially relative to the number of people who are 'cleaned' by them. The biggest argument against assault rifles is that they don't serve a different purpose (in the eyes of those who don't own them).

Sorry... I just didn't understand what you wrote. "100,000 were infected" when it comes to Thalidomide didn't make sense to me. What do infections have to do with Thalidomide?

I didn't understand what two group you were comparing. [Thalidomide] to [COVID]? [Thalidomide] to [COVID vaccine]?

Quote:

(06-08-2021 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Are you suggesting that there aren't people who would accept that trade off?? Especially if it meant they continued to make money??

If this were an industry and not the government, I think many of the same people supporting the government now would be cursing the company.

Cursing a private company over the development of the COVID vaccine? Why?

SIgh...

Look around, 93. There are already 'anti-vaxxers' out there suggesting that the COVID vaccine is some sort of a plot between the government and 'big pharma' to bilk the public out of billions/trillions of dollars. See the way the left speaks about 'the gun lobby' when it comes to 'assault rifles' who kill almost nobody statistically. If Operation Warp Speed threatened the bureaucracy of the FDA, I am 100% confident that they would respond similarly...

If you want to make something sound small... you talk about percentages. 300 people die each year out of 350mm people from rifles. 1:1,000,000. If you want to make something sound important... you talk about the people. The 300 spouses who won't be coming home. the 500 kids who lost their parents.... the 'honor student' who is beloved in their community, whose life was unnecessarily cut short. The same would, will and already is being done with the COVID vaccine.

I'm sorry, but it feels like you're being somewhat intentionally obtuse... focusing on things I didn't say that sound unreasonable like 'cursing a company for developing a life-saving vaccine' as opposed to what I really said which is much more reasonable like 'cursing them because someone suffered a severe side effect from a vaccine that was rushed through the process'.

I get that I may not have been perfectly or overtly clear about what I meant, but I think you have somewhat assumed that we would disagree, so you're assuming I mean something ridiculous or unreasonable.

Some may see Numbers' comment as hyperbolic, some may see it as being succinct. The difference isn't what he said, but whether we are expecting to agree or disagree with him. As bad as Thalidomide was, it also saved some lives. Even the 'worst' drugs have been 'a gift from God' for SOMEBODY.

I see now that you meant they would be cursing a private company if there had been a significant vaccine side effect. I thought you meant that they would be cursing a private company right now (which didn't make sense because, crossing fingers, the vaccine seems to be very successful).

(06-09-2021 09:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'd note that Thalidomide killed about 10,000 babies world-wide.... and about 100,000 were infected. Compare that to COVID.

I'm not following. 100,000 were infected WITH WHAT? I don't understand this point nor how to compare it to COVID. Compare it to the COVID vaccine? Has the COVID vaccine been associated with a significant mortality rate?

Covid has killed millions worldwide.... tens of millions severely impacted. Are you suggesting that there aren't people who would GLADLY trade 10,000 deaths and 100,000 severely impacted persons for that??

The bar for 'good' on something like the COVID vaccine is 'meaningfully less than' the disease it is treating. If 100,000 people die from the vaccine but millions are saved, that would be a 'win' from a clinical perspective.

The bar for 'good' on a vaccine is close to zero. If that same 100,000 people die from a 'rushed vaccine', that is 100,000 people who 'wouldn't have died with proper oversight' to a bureaucrat.

If you don't believe me, all you have to do is look at the tens of billions spent per year arguing about 'assault rifles' that kill fewer than 300 people per year. Bath tubs kill more people than assault rifles. The difference isn't the number of people killed. The difference is that its hard to make people be 'scared' of a bath tub, especially relative to the number of people who are 'cleaned' by them. The biggest argument against assault rifles is that they don't serve a different purpose (in the eyes of those who don't own them).

Sorry... I just didn't understand what you wrote. "100,000 were infected" when it comes to Thalidomide didn't make sense to me. What do infections have to do with Thalidomide?

I didn't understand what two group you were comparing. [Thalidomide] to [COVID]? [Thalidomide] to [COVID vaccine]?

Quote:

(06-08-2021 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Are you suggesting that there aren't people who would accept that trade off?? Especially if it meant they continued to make money??

If this were an industry and not the government, I think many of the same people supporting the government now would be cursing the company.

Cursing a private company over the development of the COVID vaccine? Why?

SIgh...

Look around, 93. There are already 'anti-vaxxers' out there suggesting that the COVID vaccine is some sort of a plot between the government and 'big pharma' to bilk the public out of billions/trillions of dollars. See the way the left speaks about 'the gun lobby' when it comes to 'assault rifles' who kill almost nobody statistically. If Operation Warp Speed threatened the bureaucracy of the FDA, I am 100% confident that they would respond similarly...

If you want to make something sound small... you talk about percentages. 300 people die each year out of 350mm people from rifles. 1:1,000,000. If you want to make something sound important... you talk about the people. The 300 spouses who won't be coming home. the 500 kids who lost their parents.... the 'honor student' who is beloved in their community, whose life was unnecessarily cut short. The same would, will and already is being done with the COVID vaccine.

I'm sorry, but it feels like you're being somewhat intentionally obtuse... focusing on things I didn't say that sound unreasonable like 'cursing a company for developing a life-saving vaccine' as opposed to what I really said which is much more reasonable like 'cursing them because someone suffered a severe side effect from a vaccine that was rushed through the process'.

I get that I may not have been perfectly or overtly clear about what I meant, but I think you have somewhat assumed that we would disagree, so you're assuming I mean something ridiculous or unreasonable.

Some may see Numbers' comment as hyperbolic, some may see it as being succinct. The difference isn't what he said, but whether we are expecting to agree or disagree with him. As bad as Thalidomide was, it also saved some lives. Even the 'worst' drugs have been 'a gift from God' for SOMEBODY.

I see now that you meant they would be cursing a private company if there had been a significant vaccine side effect. I thought you meant that they would be cursing a private company right now (which didn't make sense because, crossing fingers, the vaccine seems to be very successful).

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...

(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.

Houston hospital suspends >170 workers who refuse to get vaccinations

And the beat goes on....

(06-10-2021 08:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Houston hospital suspends >170 workers who refuse to get vaccinations

And the beat goes on....

Yeah, but 170 out of 52,000 at one hospital system.

ALL in healthcare are used to being told to get a flu shot or get an exception which can be cumbersome, so this is not surprising. Again, vaccines aren't the same as medications.

It was an FYI. I don’t have a dog in this fight.

(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.

great summary Mersey

Thanks


For me, the point about mRNA is that it is a means of creating the tool and has no impact on the human body. The TOOL can have an impact, but the means we used to create it makes no difference. What the biologist is saying is that because we 'manually' altered the tool on a genetic basis as opposed to situations where perhaps we did something and the 'tool' reacted (which we can't control)... so they can quickly create thousands of variants of the 'tool'.