The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[commando]

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." --George Orwell, "1984"

 

 

 

[commando]

Just now, teachercd said:

I guess maybe if you are in your mid 50's??  But most of us were kids at that time and new coverage was nothing like it is today.  My guess is they lied about it like crazy, especially to the people that lived in the area.

i am 58 and remember this well.   the soviets denied anything happened at all at first...but western intelligence agencies were reporting on it.  slowly the soviets started to admit some of it but most of it was hidden until after the collapse of the soviet union.

[teachercd]

5 minutes ago, commando said:

i am 58 and remember this well.   the soviets denied anything happened at all at first...but western intelligence agencies were reporting on it.  slowly the soviets started to admit some of it but most of it was hidden until after the collapse of the soviet union.

Yeah, mid 50's seems like it would fit for remembering that.  I sort of remember one news story about it, like I remember seeing the name up on the TV screen, that is it.  I remember my Dad saying those Commies blah blah blah.  

 

I love your profile picture!  That gag cracks me up!  "Dad, the toilet is smoking, come here, quick"

 

 

[Undone]

Hopefully a non-controversial comment here: I think what we're seeing in this situation is that these pharma companies aren't used to this kind of international scrutiny. They're used to doing their internal confirmation studies generally with very little interest from the public.

 

But this time it's different, and reports of side effects from the trials (which is in reality very common during trials - unfortunately) is getting a lot of press.

 

I hope that this serves as a thought-provoking exercise for some who might be tempted to sometimes say "you just have to trust science." When you insert these large companies into the mix, the question of what the science actually is can be harder to flesh out than most believe, in my opinion.

 

This is the first time in the social media era where I've seen certain demographics of people actually say "I'm not so sure I want to get this vaccine."

[commando]

31 minutes ago, Undone said:

Hopefully a non-controversial comment here: I think what we're seeing in this situation is that these pharma companies aren't used to this kind of international scrutiny. They're used to doing their internal confirmation studies generally with very little interest from the public.

 

But this time it's different, and reports of side effects from the trials (which is in reality very common during trials - unfortunately) is getting a lot of press.

 

I hope that this serves as a thought-provoking exercise for some who might be tempted to sometimes say "you just have to trust science." When you insert these large companies into the mix, the question of what the science actually is can be harder to flesh out than most believe, in my opinion.

 

This is the first time in the social media era where I've seen certain demographics of people actually say "I'm not so sure I want to get this vaccine."

the issue is the political pressure for this vaccine.   trump wants it to come out right before the election...ready or not...for his political gain.   if it was ready now it should be released now and not held until just before the election.  if it is not ready before the election he shouldn't have it released.....but he WANTS this released when it can have the highest leverage for him.  the timing of it's release can be seriously questioned with this guy in office and everything he has lied about before.

[Undone]

6 minutes ago, commando said:

the timing of it's release can be seriously questioned

 

I couldn't agree with you more. I would just say that this would be my stance pretty much no matter who was in office, given the articles about illness caused for people in the vaccine trials.

 

I think the added scrutiny and demand for vaccine safety in general is a really, really good thing. When a double-blind study that has been third-party peer reviewed says its safe, release it. Until then, don't. And in either case, let people decide whether they want to put it into their bodies or not.  

[BigRedBuster]

Wow....that's powerful.

 

 

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Wow....that's powerful.

 

 

Yeah, I was looking for this.  I heard it this morning and he is right and OPS is pathetic. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 9/10/2020 at 8:37 AM, Undone said:

Hopefully a non-controversial comment here: I think what we're seeing in this situation is that these pharma companies aren't used to this kind of international scrutiny. They're used to doing their internal confirmation studies generally with very little interest from the public.

 

But this time it's different, and reports of side effects from the trials (which is in reality very common during trials - unfortunately) is getting a lot of press.

 

I hope that this serves as a thought-provoking exercise for some who might be tempted to sometimes say "you just have to trust science." When you insert these large companies into the mix, the question of what the science actually is can be harder to flesh out than most believe, in my opinion.

 

This is the first time in the social media era where I've seen certain demographics of people actually say "I'm not so sure I want to get this vaccine."

 

It's part of the curious evolution of Anti-Vaxxers from liberal suburban moms and new-agers who mistrust western medicine, to conservatives who've equated vaccinations with sinister motives of The State.

 

The science has always been really clear on this: vaccinations save millions of lives.  Not vaccinating yourself or your child puts others at risk. 

 

So when the vaccination that ends the dreaded coronavirus becomes available, does your conservative desire to get the economy on track supersede your mistrust of the government? What if people are giving Donald Trump credit for the vaccine, does that mean The State is no longer the enemy? And if it works, can we go back to respecting science? 

[Undone]

35 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

It's part of the curious evolution of Anti-Vaxxers from liberal suburban moms and new-agers who mistrust western medicine, to conservatives who've equated vaccinations with sinister motives of The State.

 

The science has always been really clear on this: vaccinations save millions of lives.  Not vaccinating yourself or your child puts others at risk. 

 

So when the vaccination that ends the dreaded coronavirus becomes available, does your conservative desire to get the economy on track supersede your mistrust of the government? What if people are giving Donald Trump credit for the vaccine, does that mean The State is no longer the enemy? And if it works, can we go back to respecting science? 

 

I personally have basically no interest in what Donald Trump says about anything. I can't prove that to you; you'll just have to take my word for it. I'm big on the concept that people have the right to put or not put something into their bodies - even if it puts somebody else at risk. It's not an incredibly popular opinion, but I'm logically consistent about it.

 

The irony is the false dichotomy that got created around vaccines. It's the classic "there are only two camps" paradigm. That's really frustrating. So I go back to my original statement, and I think it's a really solid assertion: The pharma companies are not used to this kind of international scrutiny around safety. They just aren't.

 

Nobody typically thinks about what's going on in some trial for some medicine/vaccine. But it's in the spotlight right now.

 

The question isn't whether "science is being respected;" the question is whether the pharma companies that produce the COVID vaccine will be completely transparent about the science being performed and the potential side effects and the results of their trials in their med inserts.

 

 

[Moiraine]

45 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

I personally have basically no interest in what Donald Trump says about anything. I can't prove that to you; you'll just have to take my word for it. I'm big on the concept that people have the right to put or not put something into their bodies - even if it puts somebody else at risk. It's not an incredibly popular opinion, but I'm logically consistent about it.

 

The irony is the false dichotomy that got created around vaccines. It's the classic "there are only two camps" paradigm. That's really frustrating. So I go back to my original statement, and I think it's a really solid assertion: The pharma companies are not used to this kind of international scrutiny around safety. They just aren't.

 

Nobody typically thinks about what's going on in some trial for some medicine/vaccine. But it's in the spotlight right now.

 

The question isn't whether "science is being respected;" the question is whether the pharma companies that produce the COVID vaccine will be completely transparent about the science being performed and the potential side effects and the results of their trials in their med inserts.

 

 

 

 

I hope you're pro choice.

[Undone]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I hope you're pro choice.

 

I've been using the same line back to pro choice people - "My body, my choice."

 

Among Libertarians, we're split pretty equally 50/50 on abortion. Roughly 50% believe that the child is the property of the mother, and the other half believe that the child has property rights unto its own life and are pro life. I'm in the latter camp and am pro life.

 

So that's where I'm coming from on that topic - but hopefully we don't debate abortion in this thread.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Undone said:

 

I've been using the same line back to pro choice people - "My body, my choice."

 

Among Libertarians, we're split pretty equally 50/50 on abortion. Roughly 50% believe that the child is the property of the mother, and the other half believe that the child has property rights unto its own life and are pro life. I'm in the latter camp and am pro life.

 

So that's where I'm coming from on that topic - but hopefully we don't debate abortion in this thread.

 

 

You just said “I’m big on the concept that people have the right to put or not put something into their bodies - even if it puts somebody else at risk.”
 

It seems to me you should be pro choice if this is the case. 

[Undone]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You just said “I’m big on the concept that people have the right to put or not put something into their bodies - even if it puts somebody else at risk.”
 

It seems to me you should be pro choice if this is the case. 

 

Ok.

 

When the coronavirus vaccine comes out, do you want it to be mandated that everybody has to get it?

 

 

[Moiraine]

11 minutes ago, Undone said:

Ok.

 

When the coronavirus vaccine comes out, do you want it to be mandated that everybody has to get it?

 

 

I think proven vaccines (ones that work without hurting people) should be mandated for anyone who wants to be a part of society, e.g. go to school, work.

I think the coronavirus vaccine should be mandated once it's proven to work without side effects.