Coronavirus

[ghostrunner]

I mean the issue is that the POTUS at the time said we were going to do it very quickly, and that particular POTUS routinely promises that things will happen very quickly even though we all know he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Like saying it would be gone in a couple days, which is exactly what he said at first. So it was pretty reasonable to laugh at it coming from him. If Fauci or anyone with any kind of qualifications said that I’d have taken it seriously.

[cardinalkarp]

I know this is a GIANT document from BioNTech, but start reading some of the finding/concerns they’ve advised their stockholders of the mRNA vaccines.

For anyone to say this vaccine is 100% safe (or poses minimal risk w/ any kind of certainty) is more confident in the technology than BioNTech themselves.

https://investors.biontech.de/node/8746/html

And this was from November 10, 2020.....right as vaccine dispersement was beginning.

[Arthur Dent]

Which risks listed in that concern you?

[cardinalkarp]

Which risks listed in that concern you?

Sorry, I meant to put in the page number in my original post on where things are concerning to me.

Beginning on page # 67, where it basically is stating they are unsure what this vaccine could do long term, and because of that lack of knowledge they’re completely unaware if any of this technology will ever be approved for anything other than emergency use.

[Arthur Dent]

It seems like it says they think the primary risk is that they won’t make money, and then list every reason they can think of as to why, which is what official investor communication documents always do about everything.

Anyway, more important arguments:

[AdmiralKird]

I've seen the "safe 100%" phrase I said earlier brought up numerous times in this thread since by multiple people. Before this becomes some sort of strawman, please let me clarify so it stops being taken out of context.

To reiterate, what I said was that all information gathered on the vaccine that you could draw meaningful conclusions from "currently concluded" the vaccine was and is "100% safe." That does not mean it is guaranteed to remain forever known as 100% safe as more information is gathered and fully examined, it just means all 'knowns' from data gathered and fully analyzed say it is. The larger point of it is this:

You can't equate unknown hypotheticals and data under study as having identical or even similar veracity as conclusions drawn from completed studies.

I still have yet to see any studies indicating there are any abnormalities that differentiate from control populations. The worst known things are sudden onset anaphylactic reactions of which 50-100 out of every 1,000,000 people vaccinated or so would require an epipen/monitoring (this is why everyone must wait fifteen minutes at the clinic after being vaccinated) and ~10 out of 1,000,000 people need to be monitored at a hospital due to said allergic reactions. And even if you were in these tiny, tiny groups, some can even avoid this due to being aware they might be allergic. That's why they ask you these questions before they administer the shots. Recently there have been concerns over myocarditis associated with activated immune systems in response to the vaccine, but when compared with control data groups myocarditis doesn't appear to be any more prevalent in the vaccinated versus the vaccinated. (And when you consider everyone in one group of people (the vaccinated) have had their immune systems activated against a pseudo viral infection and most people in the other group (the unvaccinated) have not, it means if they have similar numbers for each population the vaccine doesn't even cause myocarditis comparable to what might be expected from just the immune system being brought online. You would expect the vaccinated group having myocarditis to proportionally increased in the population divided by the number infected in the control group if the vaccine caused myocarditis).

If anyone wants to further grumble over "100% safe" you could say "well, 100% is impossible as you never know everything," or you can say "what does 'safe' really mean anyway?" Its all just splitting hairs. The point is everything we know from a year of studying this particular vaccine and the others before it of its ilk says its "safe." That doesn't mean you should ignore uncompleted studies entirely, but in a case where all the other data says fine... why... what basis does anyone, especially people not involved in medical research, have to expect new conclusions to be adverse or worse than a disease that without any treatment would kill, as an entire population, somewhere between 1-7% of people it infects? Like, really. The case fatality rate last April was 6.6% (Reuters - Why the coronavirus death rate still eludes scientists). Sure we have far, far, far better treatments now, and testing, and depending on age and treatment a person under 50 is highly likely to fight it off, but Covid-19 is a horrific virus.

You really want to risk the unknown long-term effects of having had THAT inside of your body instead of unknown long-term effects of vaccines that the entire medical community has had all-eyes-on-board for the past year? Really?

This is the equivalent of Harry Caray asking "if you had to choose between being the top scientist in your field or gettin' mad cow disease, what would it be?" and choosing mad cow.

[Jocephus]

Dr. Francis Collins (director of the National Institutes of Health) was on colbert last night, 2 segments, fwiw

[SHOW]

[cardsfantx]

I've seen the "safe 100%" phrase I said earlier brought up numerous times in this thread since by multiple people. Before this becomes some sort of strawman, please let me clarify so it stops being taken out of context.

To reiterate, what I said was that all information gathered on the vaccine that you could draw meaningful conclusions from "currently concluded" the vaccine was and is "100% safe." That does not mean it is guaranteed to remain forever known as 100% safe as more information is gathered and fully examined, it just means all 'knowns' from data gathered and fully analyzed say it is. The larger point of it is this:

You can't equate unknown hypotheticals and data under study as having identical or even similar veracity as conclusions drawn from completed studies.

I still have yet to see any studies indicating there are any abnormalities that differentiate from control populations. The worst known things are sudden onset anaphylactic reactions of which 50-100 out of every 1,000,000 people vaccinated or so would require an epipen/monitoring (this is why everyone must wait fifteen minutes at the clinic after being vaccinated) and ~10 out of 1,000,000 people need to be monitored at a hospital due to said allergic reactions. And even if you were in these tiny, tiny groups, some can even avoid this due to being aware they might be allergic. That's why they ask you these questions before they administer the shots. Recently there have been concerns over myocarditis associated with activated immune systems in response to the vaccine, but when compared with control data groups myocarditis doesn't appear to be any more prevalent in the vaccinated versus the vaccinated. (And when you consider everyone in one group of people (the vaccinated) have had their immune systems activated against a pseudo viral infection and most people in the other group (the unvaccinated) have not, it means if they have similar numbers for each population the vaccine doesn't even cause myocarditis comparable to what might be expected from just the immune system being brought online. You would expect the vaccinated group having myocarditis to proportionally increased in the population divided by the number infected in the control group if the vaccine caused myocarditis).

If anyone wants to further grumble over "100% safe" you could say "well, 100% is impossible as you never know everything," or you can say "what does 'safe' really mean anyway?" Its all just splitting hairs. The point is everything we know from a year of studying this particular vaccine and the others before it of its ilk says its "safe." That doesn't mean you should ignore uncompleted studies entirely, but in a case where all the other data says fine... why... what basis does anyone, especially people not involved in medical research, have to expect new conclusions to be adverse or worse than a disease that without any treatment would kill, as an entire population, somewhere between 1-7% of people it infects? Like, really. The case fatality rate last April was 6.6% (Reuters - Why the coronavirus death rate still eludes scientists). Sure we have far, far, far better treatments now, and testing, and depending on age and treatment a person under 50 is highly likely to fight it off, but Covid-19 is a horrific virus.

You really want to risk the unknown long-term effects of having had THAT inside of your body instead of unknown long-term effects of vaccines that the entire medical community has had all-eyes-on-board for the past year? Really?

This is the equivalent of Harry Caray asking "if you had to choose between being the top scientist in your field or gettin' mad cow disease, what would it be?" and choosing mad cow.

Did you even read the article you’d listed? That’s from last year, and is speaking of April 2020 before widespread testing was done. So of course the death number skewed high to 6%, because the only testing that was being done last April was those who were very ill.

There has been an apparent decline in death rates when measured against the number of new infections confirmed by coronavirus testing. In places like the United States, that “case fatality rate” has fallen dramatically from 6.6% in April to just over 2% in August, according to Reuters statistics.

But experts said that the decline has largely been driven by more widespread testing compared with the early days of the pandemic, detecting more people who have mild illness or no symptoms. Improvements in treating the severely ill and protecting some of the highest-risk groups, are also credited with improving survival.

Many experts believe the coronavirus likely kills 0.5% to 1% of people infected, making it a very dangerous virus globally until a vaccine is identified.

That’s from your article from last year you posted.

The death rate is under 1%, and has been for awhile since everyone is pretty easily tested now.

[AdmiralKird]

Did you even read the article you’d listed? That’s from last year, and is speaking of April 2020 before widespread testing was done. So of course the death number skewed high to 6%, because the only testing that was being done last April was those who were very ill.

That’s from your article from last year you posted.

The death rate is under 1%, and has been for awhile since everyone is pretty easily tested now.

To requote myself, again, "a disease that without any treatment would kill, as an entire population, somewhere between 1-7%". As to the timeliness of the article, it is irrelevant. The death rate without treatment has remained unchanged except from mutations from which we have really no new data because none of the variants have made prior treatment options completely void, and we're not going to suddenly not treat people in order to find out what covid-19's true mortality is, which was the whole point of that article: "Why the coronavirus death rate still eludes scientists"

The whole reason to look at it "without treatment" is to spitball about the long-term unknown effects of Covid-19 (as a comparison to getting the vaccine). It's better to compare it from its base form without any treatment because that will tell you more about what it's long-term effects are likely to be because even if its immediate mortality rate decreases with treatment it still ravages your body to which there are likely to be more long-term effects versus a disease that has the equivalent treatable covid-19 mortality rate to which there is no treatment. And to anyone concerned about the vaccines' safety, the treatment options that bring covid-19's mortality rate down have far less known about them. And if one or two of them doesn't seem to be working to help you, and the disease progresses, you'll be given more and more, stacking them on top of each other. A lot of the current deaths from covid-19 you read about have had "the book" of treatment options thrown at them. And then even if you get through that that's gotta be more of a concern than having the vaccine.

[cardsfantx]

To requote myself, again, "a disease that without any treatment would kill, as an entire population, somewhere between 1-7%". As to the timeliness of the article, it irrelevant. The death rate without treatment has remained unchanged except from mutations from which we have really no new data because none of the variants have made prior treatment options completely void, and we're not going to suddenly not treat people in order to find out what covid-19's true mortality is, which was the whole point of that article: "Why the coronavirus death rate still eludes scientists"

this is factually incorrect...the death rate without treatment is not between 1-7% for COVID19

if you want to just make up things/statistics to help your argument, then there's really no point in my responding