The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[Undone]

10 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

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.

 

And who will you trust to tell you that it "works" and also works without side effects? This is a genuine question.

 

I trust science - I just don't know what I can actually trust anymore to give me accurate information on the scientific data, if that makes sense.

[BigRedBuster]

On 9/10/2020 at 10:37 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."

You will have to explain to me how big pharma companies doing testing per FDA guidelines for their approval so they can put out as safe of a vaccine as possible, but outside of public scrutiny....some how proves we shouldn’t trust science.  
 

Sounds like a bunch of anti-Vaxer conspiracy crap that isn’t based on anything. 

[BigRedBuster]

16 hours 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.

 

 

So, because we now see the process that these companies go through...that typically takes years to get through testing....some how it’s proof it’s some corrupt system by these big mean companies.  
 

Sorry.....that’s BS.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

17 hours ago, Undone said:

 

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.

 

 

 

The pharma companies are used to tons of scrutiny around safety, but you're right that it isn't typically public or international. 

 

The issue for Big Pharma is always overzealous scrutiny and caution. Not only does the FDA make them jump through hoops, repeatedly, for years, they are under constant peer review by fellow scientists who are often competitors. Public transparency only matters when it gets to the public, and that's why every prescription medication advertised on TV is a 2:00 commercial listing side effects, including depression, diarrhea, and death. 

 

The legal and R&D costs are tremendous, but they don't get much pity because there are massive profits waiting on the other side. 

 

There was a pretty remarkable public statement made last week,  with full page ads taken out by the dozen or so global pharmaceutical companies that are fiercely competing with each other for the COVID vaccine. They all agree to abide by the existing FDA protocols for testing and safety. But that's not the transparency you're probably talking about. It is clearly a response to a behind the scenes push for Trump to announce and dispense a vaccine before the election, a fast-track that would bypass traditional trials, make Trump a hero, and any willfully reckless drug company ton of money. If the recklessness blew up on them a few months later --- well it would be too late. Hence the alliance of competitors.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/science/covid-vaccine-pharma-pledge.html

[Undone]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, because we now see the process that these companies go through...that typically takes years to get through testing....some how it’s proof it’s some corrupt system by these big mean companies.  
 

Sorry.....that’s BS.  

 

That's not my argument at all. I've noticed that you do this with my posts pretty consistently, and it's really obnoxious.

 

I already knew the process that a vaccine manufacturer goes through to get a safe & effective vaccine. And when we factor in hard, historic data from the CDC on flu vaccine efficacy, I'm skeptical that an effective & safe vaccine could be produced by end of year.

 

See how different that is from what you assumed I meant?

 

 

[Undone]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

You will have to explain to me how big pharma companies doing testing per FDA guidelines for their approval so they can put out as safe of a vaccine as possible, but outside of public scrutiny....some how proves we shouldn’t trust science.  
 

Sounds like a bunch of anti-Vaxer conspiracy crap that isn’t based on anything. 

 

Buster...holy crap.

 

There are some big differences in how the U.S. government gets lobbied by big pharma companies to squeeze by with some pretty lax standards. Europe, in general, has much stricter guidelines.

 

One example is that in many European countries, it's illegal to show pharma commercials on TV. That's just one example.

 

There's a massive, gaping difference between being a person who says "vAcCin3s ArE daNGeRouS" and someone just examining this situation factually. I am the latter and not the former.

[Undone]

9 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

But that's not the transparency you're probably talking about. It is clearly a response to a behind the scenes push for Trump to announce and dispense a vaccine before the election, a fast-track that would bypass traditional trials, make Trump a hero, and any willfully reckless drug company ton of money. If the recklessness blew up on them a few months later --- well it would be too late. Hence the alliance of competitors.

 

Bingo.

 

And thank you as always for a thoughtful response (that doesn't assume the worst in the person you're quoting).

[Undone]

I also find some irony in the way that Bernie Sanders doesn't get blasted for questioning how crony capitalism plays into the relationship between pharma companies & the U.S. government but just asking legitimate questions about the odds of a very safe & effective COVID vaccine being produced much quicker than the average curve is trounced as "conspiracy crap."

 

I agree with Bernie 100% there, by the way.

 

[BigRedBuster]

46 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Buster...holy crap.

 

There are some big differences in how the U.S. government gets lobbied by big pharma companies to squeeze by with some pretty lax standards. Europe, in general, has much stricter guidelines.

 

One example is that in many European countries, it's illegal to show pharma commercials on TV. That's just one example.

 

There's a massive, gaping difference between being a person who says "vAcCin3s ArE daNGeRouS" and someone just examining this situation factually. I am the latter and not the former.

I still don’t see how I misunderstood your post.  
 

You’re claiming big pharma is cutting corners and lobbying to be able to put out unsafe vaccines.  
 

where is the proof of that?

[Moiraine]

3 hours ago, Undone said:

 

And who will you trust to tell you that it "works" and also works without side effects? This is a genuine question.

 

I trust science - I just don't know what I can actually trust anymore to give me accurate information on the scientific data, if that makes sense.

 

 

Not sure and it’s a good question. With the FDA being politicized right now it’s a concern. 

[Undone]

56 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I still don’t see how I misunderstood your post.  
 

You’re claiming big pharma is cutting corners and lobbying to be able to put out unsafe vaccines.  
 

where is the proof of that?

 

I'd recommend a book called Bad Pharma for your answer. You can probably check it out at your local public library. And I'm referring to the "lobbying" part there.

*Edit: I'm not saying and absolutely did not say at any point that vaccines are generally unsafe. They are generally safe. Have to make that really, really clear so that you don't misrepresent what I'm saying (which is a theme here).

[BigRedBuster]

On 9/10/2020 at 10:37 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."

Ok....going back to this post. You are saying that big pharma usually does their trials Without public scrutiny. 
 

You then say that this should show we shouldn’t trust science with these companies. Bolded. 
 

Why?

 

They were trialing a vaccine.  Found out it had side affects and stopped the study. This is exactly what would have happened if it wasn’t in the public eye. It’s also why it takes years to develop these things. 
 

You also admit they don’t put out unsafe vaccines when it’s done normally.  
 

So, please explain why This is proof we shouldn’t trust science as you say in the bolder part.  
 

 

[Undone]

11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, please explain why This is proof we shouldn’t trust science as you say in the bolder part.  

 

If Trump pushes for this thing to be done by end of year - and promises it'll happen - do you think there's a chance that corners will be cut?

Or, do you believe that such a thing just isn't capable of happening?

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

If Trump pushes for this thing to be done by end of year - and promises it'll happen - do you think there's a chance that corners will be cut?

Or, do you believe that such a thing just isn't capable of happening?

almost every expert I’ve seen says it’s almost impossible to have one by the end of the year.  That’s industry people and infectious disease people. 
 

The industry is trying, but as we’ve seen, if a trial fails, it’s stopped as it should. 
 

How is this evidence that we shouldn’t trust science?

 

Trump is an idiot trying to look good for the election.  It sure seems to me that the industry is trying to get a vaccine as quick as possible, but haven’t stopped doing what’s necessary to be safe. 

[Undone]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

almost every expert I’ve seen says it’s almost impossible to have one by the end of the year.  That’s industry people and infectious disease people. 
 

The industry is trying, but as we’ve seen, if a trial fails, it’s stopped as it should. 
 

How is this evidence that we shouldn’t trust science?

 

Trump is an idiot trying to look good for the election.  It sure seems to me that the industry is trying to get a vaccine as quick as possible, but haven’t stopped doing what’s necessary to be safe. 

 

Yep. There's nothing here that I disagree with at all.