Are Covid-19 vaccines safe? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15144426
ingliz wrote:@Atlantis

Why can't you accept there is a utilitarian argument to be made?

For argument's sake, you are a politician who knows a vaccine is 100 times less safe than the MMR jab but very effective.

That would give you 70 dead per year from the vaccine compared to 3,000 a day from the virus.

Is that a price worth paying?

Worst case. You'd be murdering 70 to save a million or more if you factor in the knock-on economic woes and collapsing health services.


murder 70 children and young people to save a million coffin dodgers? That's not very utilitarian.
#15144436
@Sivad
murder 70 children and young people to save a million coffin dodgers? That's not very utilitarian.


What a scumbag thing to say. Fortunately people here are smart enough to know how full of shit that comment is.
#15144456
Drlee wrote:
scumbag


I didn't crash the world economy and destroy hundreds of millions of lives just to save my old ass. I'm not trying to force hundreds of millions of people to be guinea pigs in a big pharma experiment just to save my old ass. I'm not the fucking scumbag here, Drlee.
#15144464
Yes, @Sivad, you are the "fucking scumbag", here. You're the onecallously calling anyone who might be elderly a "Coffin Dodger". You're nothing but a teenaged punk who thinks money is more important than human life.

I am sure your parents and grandparents would love to be referred to as "coffin dodgers". Try it on them and see.

I suppose you're just a kid who sees no value in life if it isn't theirs. Grow up, boy.
#15144465
Perhaps you might find this outrageous and racist: Every single US state is being advised to consider ethnic minorities as critical groups for vaccination with HALF prioritizing black and Hispanic residents over white

It makes me think that people like Biden are just getting placebo, and they are going to experiment on poor people to see how it goes. It could be another Tuskegee experiment.
#15144469
@blackjack21 Typical. You went for the Clickbait title but never read the article. This has to do with CDC recommendations.

From the article wrote:Every US state has been advised to consider ethnic minorities as a critical and vulnerable group in their vaccine distribution plans, according to Centers for Disease Control guidance.


You put the pseudo, into pseudo-intellectual.
#15144470
Godstud wrote:@blackjack21 Typical. You went for the Clickbait title but never read the article. This has to do with CDC recommendations.

Also, maybe you're not smart enough to know this, but USA is only half white and the other half consists of Hispanics and Blacks.

You put the pseudo, into pseudo-intellectual.

Paragraph 2 wrote:As a result, half of the nation's states have outlined plans that now prioritize black, Hispanic and indigenous residents over white people in some way, as the vaccine rollout begins.

The US is about 70% white, but that's not what I was pointing out. I was pointing out that a new vaccine rushed to market is being targeted to minorities.
#15144471
RTA, brainiac. Read it, not just make more of your stupid assumptions.
#15144472
Godstud wrote:RTA, brainiac. Read it, not just make more of your stupid assumptions.

Ha. It's only a few paragraphs. The point is that they aren't prioritizing the elderly--the most vulnerable population. They are prioritizing blacks and Hispanics.

Leftists Hijacking Vaccination Rollout
On Sunday, the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that seniors ages 65 to 74 be moved toward the back of the line for the COVID-19 vaccine.

The reason, says ACIP, is that "racial and ethnic minority groups [are] under-represented" in this age group. Put another way: Seniors are too white.

Interesting. Maybe that's not the reason. Maybe they are trying it out on blacks and Hispanics as guinea pigs. It wouldn't be the first time people obsessed with race would do something like this.
#15144473
:lol: It's great to quote opinion pieces. You're not as smart as you think.
#15144474
From the article wrote:ethnic minorities... a critical and vulnerable group

Current evidence shows that those from a Black, Asian, or minority ethnic background have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19.


:)
#15144475
blackjack21 wrote:
Ha. It's only a few paragraphs. The point is that they aren't prioritizing the elderly--the most vulnerable population. They are prioritizing blacks and Hispanics.

Leftists Hijacking Vaccination Rollout

Interesting. Maybe that's not the reason. Maybe they are trying it out on blacks and Hispanics as guinea pigs. It wouldn't be the first time people obsessed with race would do something like this.



"While older adults are more likely to die of Covid, they can also more easily isolate and protect themselves from being infected than frontline essential workers can, some committee members noted. Dr. Peter Szilagyi of the University of California, Los Angeles said one reason to prioritize essential workers is that minority communities are disproportionately represented among essential workers. Communities of color in the U.S. have been hit disproportionately hard by Covid, dying at much higher rates than white Americans.

Several committee members said they don’t expect all states to absolutely adhere to the federal guidance and that, in fact, they should be adjusted to the state of the local outbreak"
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/20/cdc-pan ... -next.html

Unbunch thy panties.
#15144479
This mirrors my view of how the limited number of vaccinations should be used.
Don't vaccinate the elderly who may die any day anyway, vaccinate those who they come into contact with and those who are vulnerable and cannot be isolated. Also dont vaccinate those who have previously had the virus.

Maybe a bit harsh but I think there is a need to make every vaccination count to maximum effect. On an earlier point f you are vaccinating down through adults, elderly and vulnerable then you are likely to reach the 70% herd immunity before you get to vaccinating kids and so I don't see it as necessary, in which case this vaccine posses zero threat to children.
#15144481
BeesKnee5 wrote:This mirrors my view of how the limited number of vaccinations should be used.
Don't vaccinate the elderly who may die any day anyway, vaccinate those who they come into contact with and those who are vulnerable and cannot be isolated. Also dont vaccinate those who have previously had the virus.


What is everyones objective? The problem is it changes. Is it to relieve the NHS and save the most lives as it was back in March or is it to contain the virus? Because if it is to save the most lives and protect the NHS then you should vaccinate the the vulnerable and health workers first which is what is happening. The problem with your point of view is you have been conditioned into thinking case rate is the bigger picture because how else can you explain what is happening given that deaths are not near the figure they were during the first wave but cases are. It isn't, or I should say it shouldn't be case rates given last March everyone was talking about saving lives. I like to call the government line of thinking positive doublethink in the sense they have to maintain their BS masterplan by whatever means than just admit their stategy has been wrong for the past nine months.
#15144482
My point of view is that trying to maintain a level of infection is madness and allows a higher rate of mutation.

Other countries have shown how you can shut this down with short-sharp measures and then strong controls afterwards.

I do not see that as being conditioned to focus on case rate, I see it as learning from those who do not need a vaccine to bring life close to normality. However the vaccine offers a tool that can help in reaching the same point as these places that have been successful.
#15144484
BeesKnee5 wrote:My point of view is that trying to maintain a level of infection is madness and allows a higher rate of mutation.


Mutations will occur anyway. Besides, the new strain isn't more deadly. And infection rates will come down with either natural or synthetic immunity after the equilibrium. That is to say sooner or later even if you don't immune the young first and they naturally spread the virus amongst themselves, you will perhaps reach your goal quicker that way rather than vaccinate part of your populous who are asymptomatic spreaders first regardless. so whatever way you spin it, to vaccinate the young first only makes sense of you want to reduce the case rate and not the death rate and perhaps even then it still doesn't make sense.
#15144492
B0ycey wrote:
Mutations will occur anyway. Besides, the new strain isn't more deadly. And infection rates will come down with either natural or synthetic immunity after the equilibrium. That is to say sooner or later even if you don't immune the young first and they naturally spread the virus amongst themselves, you will perhaps reach your goal quicker that way rather than vaccinate part of your populous who are asymptomatic spreaders first regardless. so whatever way you spin it, to vaccinate the young first only makes sense of you want to reduce the case rate and not the death rate and perhaps even then it still doesn't make sense.


Mutations are dependant on the amount of replication. The more virus circulating, the greater the chance of mutation occurring and therefore the greater the risk you take that a mutation will be more transmissive, deadly or resistant.

It's playing with fire.

If 70+% of the population is immune then the R rate cannot rise above one so the outbreak dies out, especially if the outbreak is contained by other measures. No point vaccinating kids if the virus cannot spread.

I suspect we are actually saying the same thing, just in not so many words.
#15144494
BeesKnee5 wrote:Mutations are dependant on the amount of replication. The more virus circulating, the greater the chance of mutation occurring and therefore the greater the risk you take that a mutation will be more transmissive, deadly or resistant.

It's playing with fire.

If 70+% of the population is immune then the R rate cannot rise above one so the outbreak dies out, especially if the outbreak is contained by other measures. No point vaccinating kids if the virus cannot spread.

I suspect we are actually saying the same thing, just in not so many words.


Mutations are a natural process in evolution. I will accept that more will come by within a higher infection rate (so I am not suggesting halting preventive measures), but the mutations that will survive and become more successful will depend on the conditions it finds itself within in general. For all the known mutations that have been found, the basic behaviour remains the same. So what you will find is over time with a vaccination program is that the variant of virus that can survive the vaccine will become prevalent and a race of new vaccines will take place every single year. The idea this virus is going away next year (or ever) is the biggest hoax out there. However what I will say is like all viruses that have come before it, new mutations and variants should become less deadly over time. Given this, if the objective is to save the most lives now, to vaccinate those most at risk is the only objective. Vaccinating an entire part of society first that are statistically have a less risk factor makes no sense at all unless you want to stem the case rate.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]