Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[DiamondGooner]

And one last thing. Fence sitting and saying "everyone should decide for themselves" is an opinion. And a horrible one at that.

Wait, you're saying people shouldn't decide what they're going to do as individuals?

So you're straight up promoting authoritarianism?

favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Got it...

Wow lmao

That is what I'm talking about.

He doesn't even get what I'm saying when I tell him this, my only explanation has been it must be a political or cultural difference from where he's from.

Because he seems to think in an extremist way from a Western European / North Atlantic mind set of actual freedom.

[Jedi]

If you have someone who's sick you don't tell them to decide what they think is best for them, you tell them to go to an expert that will tell them what treatment they need aka a doctor. That's not authoritarianism.

Obviously, but we aren't talking about sick people so what bearing does that have on anything?

It's an analogy. Me saying you should do something doesn't mean I think you should be forced by the government to do something.

I don't understand why you people get so hung up on this.

I don't think you should smear shit all over the walls of your house. I think It's bad. I would very much prefer if nobody did that. But that doesn't mean I want there to be a law that says you can't do that.

Where is the authoritarianism?

That is what I'm talking about.

He doesn't even get what I'm saying when I tell him this, my only explanation has been it must be a political or cultural difference from where he's from.

Because he seems to think in an extremist way from a Western European / North Atlantic mind set of actual freedom.

Here we go again. Read what I said to Vava above and on the previous page. I am going to have a brain aneurysm If I have to have this discussion again.

Do I need to add a signature saying "My opinions are my own, I don't want them to be state enforced" or something like that?

[theHotHead]

No, with regard to covid I am an anti "don't take some bullshit drug rushed through to market with very little data or analysis made". Hardly the same thing. IF the vaccine had been around for 10 years I would take it, proof I am not anti covid vaccine.

I'm sorry, but this is such a cop out.

Why 10 years? Is that when some magic switch gets flipped? What if the long-term side effects you're worried about don't show up until year 15 or 20?

Don't take my word for it:

https://www.drugs.com/fda-approval-process.html#

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/find-a-clinical-trial/how-clinical-trials-are-planned-and-organised/how-long-it-takes-for-a-new-drug-to-go-through-clinical-trials

https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/feature/drug-development-the-journey-of-a-medicine-from-lab-to-shelf

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9877

So like I said, "typically" thats how long it takes to bring a new drug to market. A vaccine that has taken less than 2 years cannot possibly have followed the same level of rigour.

[theHotHead]

And one last thing. Fence sitting and saying "everyone should decide for themselves" is an opinion. And a horrible one at that.

Wait, you're saying people shouldn't decide what they're going to do as individuals?

So you're straight up promoting authoritarianism?

favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Got it...

Wow lmao

I normally don't put you in that bracket but this is a HotHead/Jayram/DG level post.

shouldn't =/= shouldn't have the right to

If you have someone who's sick you don't tell them to decide what they think is best for them, you tell them to go to an expert that will tell them what treatment they need aka a doctor. That's not authoritarianism.

Jedi if we are all saying the same thing about you, its probably true!

[theHotHead]

As far as the braindead posts by HotHead and DG go, they would make sense if I was appealing to one central authority. I am not.

I am appealing to different drug agencies from different countries with competing interests and competing ideologies all agreeing on the science as well as the vast majority of independent scientists who all agree vaccination is safe and effective for COVID.

If you disagree, I challenge you to find me one body/organization that has any genuine authority on vaccinations and virology that agrees with you. I don't care if they're Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Western or from North Korea. It can even be a group of university researchers. Just show me something other than Facebook memes.

Omg Jedi, ffs man get a grip and think about what you are saying. The organisations regulate the biggest pharma companies in the world all of which are global. So when you say competing interests, what competing interests? Regulating the manufacture and performance of drugs consumed by the people they they serve.

The FDA receives almost half of its budget from ............ the very same companies they are supposed to be regulating, talk about conflict of interests! And lets not forget Trump suspending payments to the WHO because he claimed they were too influenced by China, at the start of the pandemic.

Your naivety knows no bounds.

[theHotHead]

The fact you call it ‘fence sitting’ like it’s a Messi v Ronaldo debate says it all.

You’re just trying to hide behind this mask of ‘well uh all muh scientists say it’s good so imma tell u to take the vaccine, otherwise ur an idiot or a caveman’.

I don’t understand why you think you are god because you got a vaccine that’s practically still in trials lol

Practically still in trials? Weird way to say no longer in trials and fully approved as completely safe to take.

As for the rest of your post, it sounds like hardcore projecting. I'm not the one with the hurt ego. You said it yourself you don't care what other people do and you only care about your personal choice so I really don't know why you're still in this thread.

Mate you and all the other sheep running to take the vaccine ARE the human trials. Carry on, in a few years when you and yours prove it is safe, if I still need to take it, I will, thanks to your good work.

[Jedi]

No, with regard to covid I am an anti "don't take some bullshit drug rushed through to market with very little data or analysis made". Hardly the same thing. IF the vaccine had been around for 10 years I would take it, proof I am not anti covid vaccine.

I'm sorry, but this is such a cop out.

Why 10 years? Is that when some magic switch gets flipped? What if the long-term side effects you're worried about don't show up until year 15 or 20?

Don't take my word for it:

https://www.drugs.com/fda-approval-process.html#

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/find-a-clinical-trial/how-clinical-trials-are-planned-and-organised/how-long-it-takes-for-a-new-drug-to-go-through-clinical-trials

https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/feature/drug-development-the-journey-of-a-medicine-from-lab-to-shelf

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9877

So like I said, "typically" thats how long it takes to bring a new drug to market. A vaccine that has taken less than 2 years cannot possibly have followed the same level of rigour.

Trials for COVID are easy because there's plenty of cases to go around and there was unlimited money dumped into the research. Random drugs for rare diseases are much harder to approve because Its harder to form groups for largescale testing.

Also drugs get approved quickly all the time:


Googling a bit more and it seems the mean time approval for drugs in 2019 was 11.2 months and 12.3 months the previous year. 10 to 15 years is the worst case scenario.

As far as vaccines go specifically it usually takes longer but not because we need more time for side effects:

The clinical trials did go quickly but that was because there was so much COVID around. There were so many people in the world exposed to coronavirus that the vaccine developers were able to recruit large numbers of people in an unprecedented short space of time. And because participants were exposed to the virus in such large numbers within a very short time, they knew whether the vaccines worked. That’s why they were able to do it so quickly. It’s a process that normally takes years, because it’s very slow to recruit people. In addition, there’s normally not much virus around. So, it takes a while to find out whether or not the vaccine works. In the case of COVID that happened in a very short space of time because unfortunately we’re in the middle of this vast pandemic.

So, in fact, these vaccines have been approved with roughly the same amount of data that a vaccine is normally approved of. And these rare side effects that you see now, would have normally taken two or three years to appear and may not have been noticed at all.

Last but not the least, Pfizer has been fully approved by the FDA about a month ago so there's no room left for talk of benefits outweighing the risks with emergency approval. It's a fully approved product that has gone through all the highest safety standards.

[LMAO]

No, with regard to covid I am an anti "don't take some bullshit drug rushed through to market with very little data or analysis made". Hardly the same thing. IF the vaccine had been around for 10 years I would take it, proof I am not anti covid vaccine.

I'm sorry, but this is such a cop out.

Why 10 years? Is that when some magic switch gets flipped? What if the long-term side effects you're worried about don't show up until year 15 or 20?

Don't take my word for it:

https://www.drugs.com/fda-approval-process.html#

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/find-a-clinical-trial/how-clinical-trials-are-planned-and-organised/how-long-it-takes-for-a-new-drug-to-go-through-clinical-trials

https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/feature/drug-development-the-journey-of-a-medicine-from-lab-to-shelf

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9877

So like I said, "typically" thats how long it takes to bring a new drug to market. A vaccine that has taken less than 2 years cannot possibly have followed the same level of rigour.

Yes, all the links say "average" not "minimum required" or even "median". But, it still doesn't answer my question. What does it matter if drugs get approved after 10 years if long-term side effects don't show up until 15 or 20 years down the road? How are we supposed to know 10 or 15 years aren't rushed and something like 50 years is better? If you're worried about a specified length of time beyond when the drug materials leave your body, then time is never going to catch the side effects because an argument can be made that the window can always be pushed to a later date.

[DiamondGooner]

Here we go again. Read what I said to Vava above and on the previous page. I am going to have a brain aneurysm If I have to have this discussion again.

Do I need to add a signature saying "My opinions are my own, I don't want them to be state enforced" or something like that?

Two things then.

One just respect other peoples wishes, I respect yours for having it and you should respect other people for not, its not harming you either way.

In fact I've been giving some thought to maybe having it, although I'm still undecided.

Second your mentioning FDA and all approving vaccines, so what about the one I mentioned to you, the first one the American medical board approved of from that company in California.

The one that got rushed through because Trump leaned on them as he didn't want to lose out to China, Russia or Europe?

Covid vaccine was a trillion dollar discovery, if not a trillion then def high billions........ and you don't think corruption was happening?

Did you not see America, Europe, China, Russia etc all approving and condemning early vaccines?
Europe wouldn't sign off on America's front runner or Russias and vice versa.

[Jedi]

For the first thing, I don't know what respecting everyone's wishes means, I think It's dumb if people don't want to get the vaccine and I will continue saying that because It's my opinion to which I am entitled to. You are of course entitled to disagree. But none of it means anyone has to be forced to succumb to my will. As far as harm goes, no it doesn't harm me directly but low vaccination rates do harm society as a whole.

Secondly, the only thing I remember reading about was Trump applying pressure for vaccines to be rushed out before the election was held, because he believed it would give him a bump in the polls, but that obviously never happened.. First time I hear about that. Do you have a link or something so I can read up on whatever it is you're referencing?

Now there's always special interests and politics in everything, nobody questions that. But bottom line, even if you don't believe in countries researching their own vaccines, if any vaccine was bad or wasn't effective, it would get shut down by research from the other side. The CCP would love nothing more than to prove Western vaccines are bad and Western governments would love to shit on the Chinese ones. But all these vaccines have passed every safety test with flying colors. And the data is widely available, for everyone who wants to look at it.

[VCC]

There are of course many drugs that have passed trials only to be later removed, pesticides, chemicals all kinds of things used for years to later be found to cause some death sentence.
The pespective for many and it can not be ignored is many of the drugs trialed as said in earlier posts have taken years to pass and some later get re-called.
Corona 19 has been here for not even two years.
Lets call it for what it is and thats the largest trial ever taken

[LMAO]

The CCP would love nothing more than to prove Western vaccines are bad and Western governments would love to shit on the Chinese ones.

Just gonna chime in to say hell yeah. Spikevax master race

Best vaccine available tbh

[theHotHead]

No, with regard to covid I am an anti "don't take some bullshit drug rushed through to market with very little data or analysis made". Hardly the same thing. IF the vaccine had been around for 10 years I would take it, proof I am not anti covid vaccine.

I'm sorry, but this is such a cop out.

Why 10 years? Is that when some magic switch gets flipped? What if the long-term side effects you're worried about don't show up until year 15 or 20?

Don't take my word for it:

https://www.drugs.com/fda-approval-process.html#

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/find-a-clinical-trial/how-clinical-trials-are-planned-and-organised/how-long-it-takes-for-a-new-drug-to-go-through-clinical-trials

https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/feature/drug-development-the-journey-of-a-medicine-from-lab-to-shelf

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9877

So like I said, "typically" thats how long it takes to bring a new drug to market. A vaccine that has taken less than 2 years cannot possibly have followed the same level of rigour.

Trials for COVID are easy because there's plenty of cases to go around and there was unlimited money dumped into the research. Random drugs for rare diseases are much harder to approve because Its harder to form groups for largescale testing.

Also drugs get approved quickly all the time:


Googling a bit more and it seems the mean time approval for drugs in 2019 was 11.2 months and 12.3 months the previous year. 10 to 15 years is the worst case scenario.

As far as vaccines go specifically it usually takes longer but not because we need more time for side effects:

The clinical trials did go quickly but that was because there was so much COVID around. There were so many people in the world exposed to coronavirus that the vaccine developers were able to recruit large numbers of people in an unprecedented short space of time. And because participants were exposed to the virus in such large numbers within a very short time, they knew whether the vaccines worked. That’s why they were able to do it so quickly. It’s a process that normally takes years, because it’s very slow to recruit people. In addition, there’s normally not much virus around. So, it takes a while to find out whether or not the vaccine works. In the case of COVID that happened in a very short space of time because unfortunately we’re in the middle of this vast pandemic.

So, in fact, these vaccines have been approved with roughly the same amount of data that a vaccine is normally approved of. And these rare side effects that you see now, would have normally taken two or three years to appear and may not have been noticed at all.

Last but not the least, Pfizer has been fully approved by the FDA about a month ago so there's no room left for talk of benefits outweighing the risks with emergency approval. It's a fully approved product that has gone through all the highest safety standards.

Still no mid to long term data, so thats a risk, thats an unknown and when you consider the number if yellow cards, its a worry.

If the development of the vaccines was as thorough as it should have been the blood clot issue with the Astra Zeneca vaccine would've been seen during those trials, governments around the world would not have had to halt their vaccination programme to look into it. It would',ve been a known entity.

Killed your argument dead pal.

[theHotHead]

No, with regard to covid I am an anti "don't take some bullshit drug rushed through to market with very little data or analysis made". Hardly the same thing. IF the vaccine had been around for 10 years I would take it, proof I am not anti covid vaccine.

I'm sorry, but this is such a cop out.

Why 10 years? Is that when some magic switch gets flipped? What if the long-term side effects you're worried about don't show up until year 15 or 20?

Don't take my word for it:

https://www.drugs.com/fda-approval-process.html#

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/find-a-clinical-trial/how-clinical-trials-are-planned-and-organised/how-long-it-takes-for-a-new-drug-to-go-through-clinical-trials

https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/feature/drug-development-the-journey-of-a-medicine-from-lab-to-shelf

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9877

So like I said, "typically" thats how long it takes to bring a new drug to market. A vaccine that has taken less than 2 years cannot possibly have followed the same level of rigour.

Yes, all the links say "average" not "minimum required" or even "median". But, it still doesn't answer my question. What does it matter if drugs get approved after 10 years if long-term side effects don't show up until 15 or 20 years down the road? How are we supposed to know 10 or 15 years aren't rushed and something like 50 years is better? If you're worried about a specified length of time beyond when the drug materials leave your body, then time is never going to catch the side effects because an argument can be made that the window can always be pushed to a later date.

Ok let's flip this question back to you, what would you prefer, to take a new significantly powerful drug (that could hospitalise or kill you in certain scenarios) that has had 10 years of data during its development, or to take another significantly powerful drug (that could hospitalise or kill you in certain scenarios) that has less than 2 years of data during its development?

There is a reason clinical trials take as long as they do. There is a reason approvals take as long as they do. You must look at mid to long term effects of powerful drugs, you cannot ignore them, every week a report comes out that shows the mid to long term effects of things, there is a reason why these reports are run.

[theHotHead]

And another thing Jedi, you posted a false narrative. You have tried to make out that the number of test subjects is the reason the covid vaccine was developed so quickly, thats false. You have ignored a key factor that plays a huge part and CANNOT be bypassed ....... "time".

You can throw bodies at a task and speed up the grunt work, thats project management 101, but you cannot speed up certain things. Concrete takes a certain amount of time to set, yes you can use fast drying cement, but it too has a specific time it will take to set. Throwing more bodies at laying the cement will not make the cement dry quicker.

When you run a clinical test certain tests rely on time to see a result, some times that time is weeks and months, it cannot be sped up just because you have lots of volunteers.

So, that piece of false narrative I am calling out!