COVID-19 Rant

[ER]

One thing I would like to say about this. We're all stewards of our own health, and if we have children, to an extent theirs as well. I would think part of that stewardship involves research, and I would hope everyone researches to his or her own satisfaction before accepting this vaccine or any vaccine. Whether you conclude the covid vaccine is beneficial or detrimental, whether your approach comes from a position of skepticism or otherwise, I would hope that conclusion results from you taking time to investigate on your own to the extent you feel is necessary. Blind faith and automatic rejection both seem illogical to me, and to believe that someone disagreeing with your personal stance has no reasons for his own point of view is usually closed-minded and leads to unproductive bad feelings instead of a useful exchange of outlooks. (It's wisely said that everyone we meet in life knows something we don't.) All that said, whatever your position on this vaccine, good luck to you and your loved ones during this difficult time.

[Zapranoth]

One thing I would like to say about this. We're all stewards of our own health, and if we have children, to an extent theirs as well. I would think part of that stewardship involves research, and I would hope everyone researches to his or her own satisfaction before accepting this vaccine or any vaccine. Whether you conclude the covid vaccine is beneficial or detrimental, whether your approach comes from a position of skepticism or otherwise, I would hope that conclusion results from you taking time to investigate on your own to the extent you feel is necessary. Blind faith and automatic rejection both seem illogical to me, and to believe that someone disagreeing with your personal stance has no reasons for his own point of view is usually closed-minded and leads to unproductive bad feelings instead of a useful exchange of outlooks. (It's wisely said that everyone we meet in life knows something we don't.) All that said, whatever your position on this vaccine, good luck to you and your loved ones during this difficult time.

I agree with the generalities of what you say, ER.

But, the playing field is not level.

I, for example, am no good at fixing much of anything in my home.  Or building anything, for that matter.   So when I hire an expert to fix or build something for me, I do my best to pick someone with integrity and skill, and then I do critically examine what is recommended -- but with a healthy dose of "this is the expert, I am not."

So to paint, for example, me as closed-minded when debating a public health issue is not something I'm going to agree with on principle, even if the personal part is taken aside.   Would I argue with my mechanic that my car's brakes are *fine* for another 150 thousand miles, thank you very much, when he says that the risk/benefit of replacing the brakes is *clearly* in favor of replacing them now?

I oversimplify but you get it.

I am tired of people trying to pretend this discussion is a level playing field.   That is why I wrote that long personal rant about my own fatigue in this.   If it were just the work itself, and not the varied personal attacks on my professionalism and integrity, I'd just be at the grindstone working along and not too annoyed.   :)  I have a lot of experience at that.     But when people are willfully ignorant and they spread that... that knee-jerk, privileged so-called "skepticism" (which is not exactly all that it is), I do take offense.  It's my job to take offense!  (and, it suits my personality to do so, I will admit.)

In no way is blind obedience to medicine a good idea.  I know much about the history of medical atrocity (and medical history in general).   But it is not a huge leap across the Grand Canyon of belief in medical research to look at the vaccines (plural) that have been researched and to say, "I'd be a complete and total dumbass to dismiss this, and I could kill myself and possibly other people around me by doing so."

So, I reject the smooth-it-all-over, everyone-is-a-little-wrong-here post.   That is not how I see it.

[ER]

So, I reject the smooth-it-all-over, everyone-is-a-little-wrong-here post.   That is not how I see it.


Me either. That's why I did not say that. What I said in essence was: "inform yourself."  Then once you are informed, allow that not everyone will agree with you, and may have reasons not to.

It's entirely possible for one side to be completely wrong and another completely right, and misinformation can be damaging, so take responsibility for yourself and be educated.

[Trevor]

Zap, the guys ape s**t .
Nobody really knows WTF he is babbling about.

 

[zelmo73]

I don't blame you. You should not feel shamed or pressured by anyone for not taking the rushed vaccine

Hmm, well I don't seem to be the only one mentioning just one vaccine, so if I am being pretty then I guess I am just doing the same as you. You have repeatedly referred to "the vaccine" in the singular, not multiple. Of course, I am quite happy to not give trump credit for any of the other vaccines which he generally had no hand in developing, just like he had nothing to do with the Pfizer one, but it is the one he and his vice president tried to take credit for, only to get slapped down by the people who actually had done the work for it.

Its not putting words in someone's mouth when you use exactly what they've said.

As for the questions regarding long term safety – in 10 years will there be major health complications due to the vaccine alone? This will remain an open question until we actually get there,

in its rushed vaccine for a disease with a 94-99% survivability rate. You don't need a college degree to spot b.s.; just a little street smarts and common sense, is all.

No need to take the vaccine then, since cases are trending downward now. I'll just wait for herd immunity like we did with the flu.  

Or when you refer to the rushed "vaccine" do you mean only one of the vaccines that has been released in this time frame is rushed and all the others are safe, so you'll be getting one of them?

Thanks for starting my morning off with a good laugh at you though. In these times people need all the good cheer they can get, and you've certainly been a good source of humour thus far.

Then again, since you are giving me all these laughs on Biden's watch I should give him the credit for it by your logic.

I am referring to any one of the vaccines that has been rushed to production without the normal steps in the process. Since the vaccine or vaccines are an experimental study until 2023, then I am curious why it offends you so much that I and others aren't chomping at the bit to inject that substance into our bodies. Since it is apparent that all versions of the COVID vaccine appear to have been rushed, then there is your answer. Even then, I highly doubt that any of the unsuspecting public are offered a choice between which versions of the vaccines are available to them. Perhaps our resident pusher can enlighten us on that fact?

But of course, that's not what we are really arguing about here, is it Alex? 

[Zapranoth]

I am referring to any one of the vaccines that has been rushed to production without the normal steps in the process. Since the vaccine or vaccines are an experimental study until 2023, then I am curious why it offends you so much that I and others aren't chomping at the bit to inject that substance into our bodies. Since it is apparent that all versions of the COVID vaccine appear to have been rushed, then there is your answer. Even then, I highly doubt that any of the unsuspecting public are offered a choice between which versions of the vaccines are available to them. Perhaps our resident pusher can enlighten us on that fact?

"Resident pusher"?

[Zapranoth]

I will say it again (as others have said):  The Pfizer and Moderna covid vaccines *did* go through the usual FDA phases of evaluation.  The pre-clinical studies were done with primates; then phase 1 trials were done (small number of healthy human subjects), and then phase II, testing safety and efficacy in hundreds of humans.   Then phase III, which involves randomizing humans to either vaccine or placebo (or sometimes comparable vaccine).

All of these steps occurred with the new covid vaccines, but they were indeed "rushed" in that usually those steps are done in years, and these were done in months.  They were done nonetheless, and the safety data from each step were used to lead to the next step, under the same safety steps in the US (under the FDA) that are normally employed.  It was done at an unprecedented fast pace because that was what was required to prevent even wider loss of life than already is going to happen.   

So in case anyone else reading this thread gets too concerned about the vaccines being "rushed" -- well, don't believe it.   Not in the sense of "rushed" implying that the vaccines were tested in a slipshod fashion and safety and efficacy not established -- they *were* so established.

As for which vaccine?  They are similar in safety and efficacy, close enough as to make no difference.  If you decide to take one of them, take the one you can get soonest, is what I have been saying when asked.

[Rev. Powell]

Perhaps our resident pusher can enlighten us on that fact?

But of course, that's not what we are really arguing about here, is it Alex? 

Since you're choosing to use insulting language: do you think Zapranoth is benefiting improperly from promoting vaccines?

Also I have no idea what you think you and Alex are really arguing about, but let's save that discussion for later.

[zelmo73]

Perhaps our resident pusher can enlighten us on that fact?

But of course, that's not what we are really arguing about here, is it Alex? 

Since you're choosing to use insulting language: do you think Zapranoth is benefiting improperly from promoting vaccines?

Are you talking about "hazard pay"? They've been doing that for a while now: https://www.unionleader.com/news/health/coronavirus/first-responder-bonus-checks-spark-controversy/article_cc1598af-663a-5592-8bc3-7996e1aa5189.html

[Rev. Powell]

Perhaps our resident pusher can enlighten us on that fact?

But of course, that's not what we are really arguing about here, is it Alex? 

Since you're choosing to use insulting language: do you think Zapranoth is benefiting improperly from promoting vaccines?

Are you talking about "hazard pay"? They've been doing that for a while now: https://www.unionleader.com/news/health/coronavirus/first-responder-bonus-checks-spark-controversy/article_cc1598af-663a-5592-8bc3-7996e1aa5189.html

Please don't respond to a direct question with a rhetorical question. It looks evasive. Your link is about hazard pay for New Hampshire first responders in May of 2020 and totally irrelevant. Are you accusing Zap of improperly personally benefiting from promoting vaccines?

[zelmo73]

Perhaps our resident pusher can enlighten us on that fact?

But of course, that's not what we are really arguing about here, is it Alex? 

Since you're choosing to use insulting language: do you think Zapranoth is benefiting improperly from promoting vaccines?

Are you talking about "hazard pay"? They've been doing that for a while now: https://www.unionleader.com/news/health/coronavirus/first-responder-bonus-checks-spark-controversy/article_cc1598af-663a-5592-8bc3-7996e1aa5189.html

Please don't respond to a direct question with a rhetorical question. It looks evasive. Your link is about hazard pay for New Hampshire first responders in May of 2020 and totally irrelevant. Are you accusing Zap of improperly personally benefiting from promoting vaccines?

I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but it is happening: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/hospitals-businesses-offering-incentives-hesitant-covid-19-vaccines/story%3fid=75209689

[Rev. Powell]

Perhaps our resident pusher can enlighten us on that fact?

But of course, that's not what we are really arguing about here, is it Alex? 

Since you're choosing to use insulting language: do you think Zapranoth is benefiting improperly from promoting vaccines?

Are you talking about "hazard pay"? They've been doing that for a while now: https://www.unionleader.com/news/health/coronavirus/first-responder-bonus-checks-spark-controversy/article_cc1598af-663a-5592-8bc3-7996e1aa5189.html

Please don't respond to a direct question with a rhetorical question. It looks evasive. Your link is about hazard pay for New Hampshire first responders in May of 2020 and totally irrelevant. Are you accusing Zap of improperly personally benefiting from promoting vaccines?

I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but it is happening: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/hospitals-businesses-offering-incentives-hesitant-covid-19-vaccines/story%3fid=75209689

The government and private businesses are offering people money to take the vaccine in the interest of public health and so we can reopen the economy. Doctors aren't being paid to "push" the vaccine. Pushers don't pay you to take drugs, they make money by selling you drugs. Don't call Zap a "pusher" anymore. It's insulting.

The end of that article (quoted below) contains some salient points about why paying people to take the vaccine could be a bad idea. They say it's a bad idea because it may encourage the exact (misguided---their word) thinking you're engaged in now.

"We need to get people vaccinated, for their own safety and that of the people around them," Dr. Nir Eyal, a professor of bioethics, told ABC News. "Giving a gift is not in itself a very problematic act. So it may seem like a no-brainer that these hospitals are doing the right thing.

"For me, however, whether it is the right thing to do depends -- it depends on whether the gift would raise questions like, 'If this vaccine is supposed to be so great for me and my family, why are they giving me a gift to accept it?' Gifts can sometimes backfire in that way. Behavioral economists have shown that so-called conditional cash transfers and other conditional benefits can make people apprehensive about doing things that they would happily -- and wisely -- do otherwise."

Clearly presenting the gift as a "thank you" or as a "reward," rather than as part of a "quid pro quo," is less likely to backfire, Eyal added.

Dr. Jennifer Miller, an assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine, told ABC News that although it's not unethical from a medical standpoint, paying people to receive vaccines may not be necessary or wise.

"Ideally," she said, "people should get vaccinated to help themselves and others -- not for money."

Money and resources used for such rewards could be better spent getting more people vaccinated, said Miller, who shared concerns similar to Eyal's about whether paying people may arouse suspicions.

"Payment may lead people to question why they are being paid -- asking misguidedly, for example, if there are higher risks than there really are," Miller said. "I think the question could be more salient if we decide to mandate vaccines -- then we could ask whether it is better to pay people or mandate vaccinations with corresponding penalties for failures."

[zelmo73]

Perhaps our resident pusher can enlighten us on that fact?

But of course, that's not what we are really arguing about here, is it Alex? 

Since you're choosing to use insulting language: do you think Zapranoth is benefiting improperly from promoting vaccines?

Are you talking about "hazard pay"? They've been doing that for a while now: https://www.unionleader.com/news/health/coronavirus/first-responder-bonus-checks-spark-controversy/article_cc1598af-663a-5592-8bc3-7996e1aa5189.html

Please don't respond to a direct question with a rhetorical question. It looks evasive. Your link is about hazard pay for New Hampshire first responders in May of 2020 and totally irrelevant. Are you accusing Zap of improperly personally benefiting from promoting vaccines?

I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but it is happening: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/hospitals-businesses-offering-incentives-hesitant-covid-19-vaccines/story%3fid=75209689

The government and private businesses are offering people money to take the vaccine in the interest of public health and so we can reopen the economy. Doctors aren't being paid to "push" the vaccine. Pushers don't pay you to take drugs, they make money by selling you drugs. Don't call Zap a "pusher" anymore. It's insulting.

The end of that article (quoted below) contains some salient points about why paying people to take the vaccine could be a bad idea. They say it's a bad idea because it may encourage the exact (misguided---their word) thinking you're engaged in now.

"We need to get people vaccinated, for their own safety and that of the people around them," Dr. Nir Eyal, a professor of bioethics, told ABC News. "Giving a gift is not in itself a very problematic act. So it may seem like a no-brainer that these hospitals are doing the right thing.

"For me, however, whether it is the right thing to do depends -- it depends on whether the gift would raise questions like, 'If this vaccine is supposed to be so great for me and my family, why are they giving me a gift to accept it?' Gifts can sometimes backfire in that way. Behavioral economists have shown that so-called conditional cash transfers and other conditional benefits can make people apprehensive about doing things that they would happily -- and wisely -- do otherwise."

Clearly presenting the gift as a "thank you" or as a "reward," rather than as part of a "quid pro quo," is less likely to backfire, Eyal added.

Dr. Jennifer Miller, an assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine, told ABC News that although it's not unethical from a medical standpoint, paying people to receive vaccines may not be necessary or wise.

"Ideally," she said, "people should get vaccinated to help themselves and others -- not for money."

Money and resources used for such rewards could be better spent getting more people vaccinated, said Miller, who shared concerns similar to Eyal's about whether paying people may arouse suspicions.

"Payment may lead people to question why they are being paid -- asking misguidedly, for example, if there are higher risks than there really are," Miller said. "I think the question could be more salient if we decide to mandate vaccines -- then we could ask whether it is better to pay people or mandate vaccinations with corresponding penalties for failures."

I read these articles before I post them here. I don't need a history lesson of something that I already read. The government and these institutions are paying their employees to "lead by example." When I have someone getting up in my face urging me to take a product that is still early in its experimental phase simply because it is working for them and we *have* to take the product because it is good for everybody, just because some anonymous members of the government and medical establishment says so...sounds like pushing to me. Why so pushy about it?

It looks eerily similar to my time spent in sales years ago when I was often pressured to push a company credit card on customers and offered incentives if I sold enough of them (and threatened with termination if I didn't sell any.)  Now again, I'm not accusing anybody of anything here, I'm just saying that's what it looks like; I recognize the behavior.

[Alex]

I don't blame you. You should not feel shamed or pressured by anyone for not taking the rushed vaccine

Hmm, well I don't seem to be the only one mentioning just one vaccine, so if I am being pretty then I guess I am just doing the same as you. You have repeatedly referred to "the vaccine" in the singular, not multiple. Of course, I am quite happy to not give trump credit for any of the other vaccines which he generally had no hand in developing, just like he had nothing to do with the Pfizer one, but it is the one he and his vice president tried to take credit for, only to get slapped down by the people who actually had done the work for it.

Its not putting words in someone's mouth when you use exactly what they've said.

As for the questions regarding long term safety – in 10 years will there be major health complications due to the vaccine alone? This will remain an open question until we actually get there,

in its rushed vaccine for a disease with a 94-99% survivability rate. You don't need a college degree to spot b.s.; just a little street smarts and common sense, is all.

No need to take the vaccine then, since cases are trending downward now. I'll just wait for herd immunity like we did with the flu.  

Or when you refer to the rushed "vaccine" do you mean only one of the vaccines that has been released in this time frame is rushed and all the others are safe, so you'll be getting one of them?

Thanks for starting my morning off with a good laugh at you though. In these times people need all the good cheer they can get, and you've certainly been a good source of humour thus far.

Then again, since you are giving me all these laughs on Biden's watch I should give him the credit for it by your logic.

I am referring to any one of the vaccines that has been rushed to production without the normal steps in the process. Since the vaccine or vaccines are an experimental study until 2023, then I am curious why it offends you so much that I and others aren't chomping at the bit to inject that substance into our bodies. Since it is apparent that all versions of the COVID vaccine appear to have been rushed, then there is your answer. Even then, I highly doubt that any of the unsuspecting public are offered a choice between which versions of the vaccines are available to them. Perhaps our resident pusher can enlighten us on that fact?

But of course, that's not what we are really arguing about here, is it Alex? 

You think we are arguing? You give yourself too much credit. You are being mocked. That is it. I love how you can read so much more into something than is really there though.

[Allhallowsday]

...Don't attempt to hide your bias, Mr. Medical Professional. I have a particular skepticism toward any "experts" that urge me to inject a foreign substance into my body using such desperate measures. You would fail as a used car salesman, Zapranoth. ...

WHEW!!!  I am enormously relieved.