The vaccine is here. Now what?

295 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

Let's look at some of the history of the vaccine manufacturers

The first hit when searching "Pheizer fines:"

Quote:
In the largest health care fraud settlement in history, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer must pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

Besides Bextra, the drugs were Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug. Once the Food and Drug Administration approves drugs, doctors can prescribe them off-label for any use, but makers can't market them for anything other than approved uses.

Pfizer subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn pleaded guilty to a felony violation for promoting off-label uses of Bextra, such as for pain relief after knee replacement surgery. At the FDA's request, Pfizer pulled Bextra off the market in April 2005 because its risks, including a rare, sometimes fatal, skin reaction, outweighed its benefits. It had been approved only for treating rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and menstrual pain.

As part of the settlement, Pfizer PFE will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the USA for any matter, according to the Justice Department. Pharmacia & Upjohn must pay a $105 million criminal fine.

Johnson & Johnson fine:

Quote:
An Arkansas judge has fined Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and a subsidiary more than $1.1 billion after a jury found the companies downplayed and hid risks associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Judge Tim Fox found nearly 240,000 violations under Arkansas' Medicaid-fraud law over Risperdal. Each violation came with a $5,000 fine, setting the total penalty at more than $1.1 billion.

Arkansas sued Johnson & Johnson and subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. in 2007 over the drug.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Look into the history of these 2 companies and you will see more such stories. Why should we trust their coronavirus vaccines now?

JKR

Hallelujah!

Fully vaccinated Americans can drop the masks, skip social distancing

------------

WASHINGTON -- In a major step toward returning to pre-pandemic life, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has eased mask-wearing guidance for fully vaccinated Americans, allowing them to stop wearing masks outdoors in crowds and in most indoor settings.

"Today is a great day for America," U.S. President Joe Biden said Thursday during a Rose Garden address heralding the new guidance, an event where he and his staff went without masks. Hours earlier in the Oval Office, where Biden was meeting with vaccinated Republican lawmakers, he led the group in removing their masks when the guidance was announced.

"If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask," he said, summarizing the new guidance and encouraging more Americans to roll up their sleeves. "Get vaccinated -- or wear a mask until you do."

----------------

voice of the damned

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Let's look at some of the history of the vaccine manufacturers

The first hit when searching "Pheizer fines:"

Quote:
In the largest health care fraud settlement in history, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer must pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

Besides Bextra, the drugs were Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug. Once the Food and Drug Administration approves drugs, doctors can prescribe them off-label for any use, but makers can't market them for anything other than approved uses.

Pfizer subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn pleaded guilty to a felony violation for promoting off-label uses of Bextra, such as for pain relief after knee replacement surgery. At the FDA's request, Pfizer pulled Bextra off the market in April 2005 because its risks, including a rare, sometimes fatal, skin reaction, outweighed its benefits. It had been approved only for treating rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and menstrual pain.

As part of the settlement, Pfizer PFE will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the USA for any matter, according to the Justice Department. Pharmacia & Upjohn must pay a $105 million criminal fine.

Johnson & Johnson fine:

Quote:
An Arkansas judge has fined Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and a subsidiary more than $1.1 billion after a jury found the companies downplayed and hid risks associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Judge Tim Fox found nearly 240,000 violations under Arkansas' Medicaid-fraud law over Risperdal. Each violation came with a $5,000 fine, setting the total penalty at more than $1.1 billion.

Arkansas sued Johnson & Johnson and subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. in 2007 over the drug.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Look into the history of these 2 companies and you will see more such stories. Why should we trust their coronavirus vaccines now?

So do you apply this argument to every single product made by Pfizer and JNJ? No one should ever trust any of it because of these criminal cases?

I mean, Volkswagen got zinged a few years back for rigging their emission counts. Does this mean we can assume that their seat-belts are faulty?

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Hallelujah!

Fully vaccinated Americans can drop the masks, skip social distancing

------------

WASHINGTON -- In a major step toward returning to pre-pandemic life, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has eased mask-wearing guidance for fully vaccinated Americans, allowing them to stop wearing masks outdoors in crowds and in most indoor settings.

"Today is a great day for America," U.S. President Joe Biden said Thursday during a Rose Garden address heralding the new guidance, an event where he and his staff went without masks. Hours earlier in the Oval Office, where Biden was meeting with vaccinated Republican lawmakers, he led the group in removing their masks when the guidance was announced.

"If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask," he said, summarizing the new guidance and encouraging more Americans to roll up their sleeves. "Get vaccinated -- or wear a mask until you do."

----------------

Thankfully Americans are turning into mature adults and are, in larger numbers, ignoring this advice and returning to normal activities regardless of whether or not they have been vaccinated.

Aristotleded24

More issues with mRNA vaccines:

Quote:

Severe allergy-like reactions in at least eight people who received the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech over the past 2 weeks may be due to a compound in the packaging of the messenger RNA (mRNA) that forms the vaccine’s main ingredient, scientists say. A similar mRNA vaccine developed by Moderna, which was authorized for emergency use in the United States on Friday, also contains the compound, polyethylene glycol (PEG).

PEG has never been used before in an approved vaccine, but it is found in many drugs that have occasionally triggered anaphylaxis—a potentially life-threatening reaction that can cause rashes, a plummeting blood pressure, shortness of breath, and a fast heartbeat. Some allergists and immunologists believe a small number of people previously exposed to PEG may have high levels of antibodies against PEG, putting them at risk of an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine. 

Others are skeptical of the link. Still, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) was concerned enough to convene several meetings last week to discuss the allergic reactions with representatives of Pfizer and Moderna, independent scientists and physicians, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

NIAID is also setting up a study in collaboration with FDA to analyze the response to the vaccine in people who have high levels of anti-PEG antibodies or have experienced severe allergic responses to drugs or vaccines before. “Until we know there is truly a PEG story, we need to be very careful in talking about that as a done deal,” says Alkis Togias, branch chief of allergy, asthma, and airway biology at NIAID.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Hallelujah!

Fully vaccinated Americans can drop the masks, skip social distancing

------------

WASHINGTON -- In a major step toward returning to pre-pandemic life, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has eased mask-wearing guidance for fully vaccinated Americans, allowing them to stop wearing masks outdoors in crowds and in most indoor settings.

"Today is a great day for America," U.S. President Joe Biden said Thursday during a Rose Garden address heralding the new guidance, an event where he and his staff went without masks. Hours earlier in the Oval Office, where Biden was meeting with vaccinated Republican lawmakers, he led the group in removing their masks when the guidance was announced.

"If you are fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask," he said, summarizing the new guidance and encouraging more Americans to roll up their sleeves. "Get vaccinated -- or wear a mask until you do."

----------------

Thankfully Americans are turning into mature adults and are, in larger numbers, ignoring this advice and returning to normal activities regardless of whether or not they have been vaccinated.

Thankfully Americans are getting vaccinated so they can return to their normal activities.

kropotkin1951

voice of the damned wrote:
So do you apply this argument to every single product made by Pfizer and JNJ? No one should ever trust any of it because of these criminal cases? I mean, Volkswagen got zinged a few years back for rigging their emission counts. Does this mean we can assume that their seat-belts are faulty?

I trust that big pharma will try to gouge as much as they can and don't give a fuck about people's lives, only their bottom line. I also trust that all the vaccines including the Russian and Chinese will help bring this pandemic under control. I didn't have a choice or I would have chosen a Chinese vaccine since I am more afraid of 5Eyes bots than Chinese ones.

 

Aristotleded24

Do you trust this man to be in charge of your medical records?

Quote:

Digital health passports will become “inevitable” in the UK and around the world as the public demand reassurance about coronavirus safety, Tony Blair has said.

Speaking to Radio 4’s Week in Westminster, the former Labour prime minister said that a document that combined vaccination and testing status would allow nations to defend themselves better against the virus.

Blair warned that the poorest at home and abroad were suffering most from continued lockdowns and urged Boris Johnson to use the UK’s hosting of the G7 summit to speed up the process of global cooperation on a standardised Covid-status “passport”.

...

In his interview, Blair said that as vaccines rolled out across the world and countries moved to reopen their borders, digital health passports would be seen as an invaluable weapon in containing the spread of the virus.

“When you start to reopen your borders again, you’ll want to know the disease status of people coming into your country,” he said.

“Once vaccination really starts to be widespread, of course you’re going to ask for proof of what the vaccination status is and the reason for that is that the early evidence seems to be that if you’re vaccinated, you’re less likely to transmit the disease.

“And because of these new variants and because of the mutations that can occur, I think it’s just inevitable and therefore it’s best to start now on trying to devise common standards. If you start to do this on a vast scale, you’re going to need the technology that allows you to do it digitally.”

Blair, whose push for ID cards met with fierce civil liberties opposition when he was in office, suggested that a combined vaccine and test status document would have popular backing.

...

Silkie Carlo, director of UK Big Brother Watch, said: “I think he has very little moral authority to talk on these issues and of course he was a champion of ID cards which the British public completely rejected and that’s really what a vaccine passport scheme could easily become.

“Let’s be very cautious of language like inevitability, which is often used by people with power to tell people without power, what they’re going to have.

“Vaccine passports would be discriminatory, they would be coercive, they would almost certainly lead to authoritarian identity systems. It could be the biggest expansion of the surveillance state that we’ve seen in western democracies.”

kropotkin1951

I don't trust any private citizen to be in charge of my health records. That is why they are under the authority of the provincial government and subject to various layers of privacy laws. COVID related information getting out is no different than my mental health records or current vaccination records being hacked. As for vaccination booklets I guess since I remember having one as a kid it doesn't seem so weird. I also remember having to get a whole range of shots to go traveling in Asia and needed to carry proof of them to get into various countries.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I also remember needing to update shots and get extra ones before travelling to Asia for an extensive period. And yes, I had that little yellow booklet that recorded my vaccine record. It was not a big deal. My only worry is if it is an impediment to citizens from poorer countries to get these kinds of record booklets together. As long as it is an even playing field globally, I have no problem with it.

cco

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So there are ways for societies to handle people it considers internal threats.

If your argument is that vaccination is what totalitarian governments do to wipe out dissidents, then using Israel and the Palestinians as an example is bizarre, since as your own quoted article indicates, Israel is massively vaccinating its Jewish population and denying the Palestinian majority the vaccine in the hopes that COVID will kill as many of them as possible.

JKR

Israel has obviously been manipulated by Bill Gates!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aristotleded24

cco wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

So there are ways for societies to handle people it considers internal threats.

If your argument is that vaccination is what totalitarian governments do to wipe out dissidents, then using Israel and the Palestinians as an example is bizarre, since as your own quoted article indicates, Israel is massively vaccinating its Jewish population and denying the Palestinian majority the vaccine in the hopes that COVID will kill as many of them as possible.

I used Israel as an example because if the vaccine passport plan goes ahead as planned, that is where this will lead: people who choose to be vaccinated will be allowed to participate in things, and people who don't will be excluded. There is no reason for such a system to be put in place from a public health perspective. If enough people choose to take the vaccine, the population is protected. Presumably with the vaccine being available, anyone who chooses to not take the vaccine is aware of the risk and can accept the consequences. Once you start priming populations to start seeing individuals as threats to public health based on their disease status, it never goes in a good direction and leads to exclusion. Take the issue of colleges and universities. For most of the students, the direct risk from coronavirus is next to nothing. We still don't know enough about the long term negative effects from the vaccine, but if you look at the VAERS in the United States, initial reports are very troubling. The risk-benefit calcualtion for most university students is the vaccine is generally more risk than benefits. Should they be required to take the shot and risk their health in order to attend school? Don't be fooled, these proposed vaccine passport systems are a great deal of work to set up. They would not do so if they expected this pandemic to eventually ebb out, they intend to have such a system permanently. That is why they are aiming for high uptake, so they can roll it out and then people who aren't vaccinated will be excluded from society. Think about what that means. No concerts, no sporting events, cultural events, being denied entry into stores, no access to employment, no access to education for your choice to decline what should be a personal medical decision. That is, in practice, mandatory vaccination, which violates the important medical ethical principle of free and informed consent. We as a society tried mandating medical interventions against people we deemed a threat to public health in the early part of the 20th centruy. It did not go that well, and that is a part of our history we look back on in shame.

The reason I also mentioned Israel is, as the country is deliberately withholding vaccines from a certain portion of its population, I wanted to highlight the dangers of permitting people to do certain things within a country based on vaccination status. If countries, private businesses, and employers have the power to deny access based on vaccination status, do you think there aren't horrific, despotic regimes that would play politics with this kind of thing?

My body, my choice also means the covid vaccine. The only reason anyone should take the vaccine is if they've done the risk-benefit analysis and concluded that it is a benefit for their health. They shouldn't feel pressured to do so in order to participate in doing the things they love.

Aristotleded24

laine lowe wrote:
I also remember needing to update shots and get extra ones before travelling to Asia for an extensive period. And yes, I had that little yellow booklet that recorded my vaccine record. It was not a big deal. My only worry is if it is an impediment to citizens from poorer countries to get these kinds of record booklets together. As long as it is an even playing field globally, I have no problem with it.

The fact that covid primarily strikes people who are older should say a great deal about the direct impact the virus alone has in developing countries with shorter life expectancies (which is very small). Wishing for such a system to be set up equitably is fallicious, it is not going to happen. With the logistics of vaccinating the entire world for covid, it's going to take a long time before people in poorer countries have equal access. Furthermore, the vaccine manufacturers are private entities who expect to make money, and they are all to happy to hold world governments hostage. I wonder if the money many developing countries are spending on the covid vaccine would be better spent on more pressing health issues.

Aristotleded24

This is interesting:

Quote:

Health and social care workers who felt under greater pressure from their employers to receive COVID-19 vaccination were more likely to decline it, according to preliminary new research highlighting factors influencing uptake.

The study, not yet peer reviewed, was led by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) in collaboration with the NHS Race and Health Observatory, Public Health England and the Royal College of Nursing.

In a survey of nearly 2,000 people, participants were asked for their level of agreement with the statement ‘I feel/felt under pressure from my employer to get a COVID-19 vaccine’. This was asked on a 4-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree. For each additional point of agreement on the scale, participants were 75% more likely to have declined COVID-19 vaccination.

Amongst unvaccinated participants, worrying concerns were raised about how their vaccination decision might impact their job security. For social care workers, pressure was exacerbated by hearing of care sector employers making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for staff, and the vulnerability of social care worker positions (e.g. employment on zero-hours contracts).

Feeling pressurised had damaging effects, eroding trust and negatively affecting relationships at work, and often exacerbated COVID-19 vaccination concerns and hardened stances on declining vaccination.

Why would health care workers refuse vaccination? Do they know something we don't? We also know that these jobs are often short-staffed. If you mandate a vaccine, how big a risk is it that people will either leave the profession or not apply at all rather than get the shot, thus making the shortage even worse?

Aristotleded24

As always, Phil Shannon has an excellent piece:

Quote:

“Have you had your jab, yet?”, seems to have become the standard greeting these days whenever friends or colleagues gather. The Covid Hysterics amongst them will excitedly announce that they have had theirs or are counting down the days to the Big Jab whilst the Guardian-readers and BBC-watchers will smugly exude a self-satisfied aura of having done their bit as virtuous citizens to defeat the viral enemy whilst wearing the vaccine’s often debilitating side-effects as proud war wounds. The more aggressive of these will probably be belligerent towards those vaccine-refuseniks for being dangerous health miscreants and political troublemakers who are probably pining for Donald Trump. For all these ‘New Normals’, vaccine-shaming has become the new mask-shaming. How have we got to such a pass, where getting vaccinated has become a political purity test rather than a purely medical issue?

It all began with the virus itself as most governments and all establishment media, relying uncritically on Dodgy Brothers modelling, lost their collective minds over it, mistaking it for a visitation from the bowels of hell. Then came the ineffective, and damaging policy response as most governments hit the big, shiny, new self-destruct lockdown button, binning carefully thought-through respiratory virus pandemic planning in favour of copying neo-Stalinist China’s frenzied reaction. Then it was time for facemasks and the same crowd drooled over these useless, fear-promoting symbols of conformism. Along the way, each of these steps has been moralised, with the self-identifying ‘good’ people backing the official narrative at every turn and demonising the sceptics of the unscientific social distancing/lockdown/masking nonsense as ‘bad’ people, as uncaring selfish ‘Covidiots’. Now it is the turn of the vaccine, and it is getting the same treatment.

All Hail The Vaccine

The Covid vaccines have been enthusiastically embraced by all those stricken with virus hysteria and lockdown policy panic. For lockdown-addicted governments, the vaccines mean that they will never have to say they’re sorry for the ugly and pointless lockdown mess they created, including a police state, in their futile policy over-reaction. Now, through mass vaccination, governments hope, in theory, to end the lockdown cycle and save face without having to admit to the monumental error of strangling the economy, placing the healthy under house arrest and trashing traditional rights and freedoms.

Worldwide, government lockdown junkies have now become hooked on the drug of a Covid vaccine as a kind of methadone to wean themselves off the hard lockdown stuff. Government politicians love ‘deliverables’ and a smooth vaccine rollout is most definitely a hi-viz ‘deliverable’, a ready-made, feel-good data-filler for press releases and doorstop interviews, backed by a marketing blitz of a nation’s sleeves being rolled up as the long-awaited vaccination counter-offensive is launched after a year of retreat and siege. Even if vaccine rollout figures are lagging, the vaccine theatre allows governments to look good through robust crisis management and national ‘leadership’. The vaccines are primarily about political show, exactly as the whole misguided policy response to the virus has been from the off.

...

The threshold vaccine question, which rarely, if ever, gets asked by Covid Hysterics, is ‘are Covid vaccines actually necessary?’. Short answer, no. According to a meta-analysis of some six dozen studies, conducted by Dr. John Ioannidis (Professor of Medicine, Stanford University), the global infection fatality rate for Covid is between just 0.15% and 0.20%. So, fewer than twenty out of every 10,000 people infected with Covid will perish with it (with even fewer dying from it since around 73% of those whose death is attributed to Covid die with the virus, not because of it). For people aged under 70 years, the infection fatality rate of 0.03% to 0.04% barely nudges their mortality needle.

Covid is thus in the same mortality ballpark as seasonal flu and way out of the league of the 1918-1919 Spanish flu whose infection mortality rate was estimated to be a much more serious 15%, a rate one hundred times more lethal and with a liking for the young, having a median age of victim of 28 years compared to Covid’s median age of victim of 82 years (bang on average life expectancy). We are not in Spanish flu, or Ebola (infection mortality rate 30%) territory, here, with Covid.

...

Assuming, however, for the sake of argument, that a vaccine is, in fact, necessary for Covid, the key question then is do the current crop of vaccines actually work. Short answer, again, no. Pharmaceutical product manufacturers, government health regulators and even the WHO have been explicit (in the small print) that the vaccines have not been designed to do the basic job of a vaccine which is to make people immune and to halt viral transmission. In the UK, for example, the NHS leaflet that comes with the invitation to make a vaccination appointment puts it bluntly – “We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus”.

The entirely more modest claim of all the Covid vaccines is simply that they reduce the severity of non-serious symptoms of the disease caused by the virus. They make no claim to be effective in reducing serious symptoms – as the British Medical Journal has pointed out, none of the truncated vaccine trials were designed to detect a reduction in serious outcomes such as hospitalisations, Intensive Care Unit use, or deaths.

...

The underwhelming trial data on vaccine efficacy is now being complemented by real world reports from the vaccine rollouts with many fully-vaccinated people still contracting Covid (so-called ‘breakthrough cases’) and, especially in closed environments like nursing homes, infecting others, vaccinated or not. The Covid vaccines may reduce the severity of non-serious symptoms in some people but they do not make anyone immune nor stop transmission.

So, why bother with them, unless you are the kind of person who falls asleep at night watching reality-distorting Covid specials on the BBC before a fitful night of Covid nightmares. All the Covid vaccines should come with a disclaimer similar to that for the worthless blue facemasks whose packaging includes the (legally-advisable) fine print that they ‘will not protect from Coronavirus or other viruses’.

...

The safety of the Covid vaccines is questionable. They were recklessly authorised for emergency use based on only a few months of preliminary human trial data whilst the rollout itself is flagging numerous safety issues. Vaccine adverse event reporting systems in the US, EU and the UK indicate that Covid vaccinations have already been associated with around ten thousand deaths and with several more thousand non-trivial health reactions.

These officially logged adverse reactions are likely to be a major underestimate of their real incidence as the various vaccine reporting mechanisms are passive systems only (dependent on self-report), covering as little as around 1% of all reactions in the US (according to a US government-commissioned study by Harvard University) whilst the UK government’s website states that “it is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions, and between 2% and 4% of non-serious reactions, are reported”.

...

The Covid vaccine adverse events are being recorded at significantly higher incidence rates compared to traditional virus vaccines. Whilst there are only two to three dozen vaccine-related deaths (from close to 200 million inoculations) related to the annual flu shot reported every year in the US, the Covid vaccines (currently with just one-third of the jabs compared to the flu vaccine) have notched up 2,600 reported deaths – a rate one hundred times that of the seasonal flu inoculations. The Covid vaccines represent the highest ratio of reported deaths per inoculation of any vaccine in US history. Something unusual is going on.

As vaccine defenders are quick to point out, however, association is not necessarily causation and the adverse events reported may not be related to the vaccination – they could simply be ‘coincidence’. It is noteworthy, however, that almost all the members of the vaccine fan-club are the very same Covid Hysterics who, when they were fanning hysteria about Covid mortality, went out of their way to dismiss the possibility of coincidence by directly inferring causation of any deaths which involved Covid in any way, no matter how incidental, to Covid as the underlying cause. For the Covid Hysteric, if a person dies from, say, gunshot wound or motor vehicle accident, within two months of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, they are a “Covid death”, no question about it, but a healthy person who dies within two days of getting the vaccine is merely a ‘coincidence’. Expect a wave of deaths by ‘coincidence’ as the experimental Covid vaccine rollout thunders on.

...

One of the barrels of the roulette gun is loaded with the bullet of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), a clinical outcome that has sunk all previous attempts at launching any vaccine for a coronavirus. ADE is the exaggerated and potentially deadly over-exuberance of the vaccinated person’s inflammatory response (the “cytokine storm”, which attacks the healthy body itself) following any subsequent natural exposure to the coronavirus in the wild. In previous animal safety trials for vaccines for the SARS, MERS and Dengue Fever coronaviruses, for example, vaccinated lab ferrets, mice and civets later exposed to the natural virus keeled over at a great rate of knots. It is not known whether ADE will be a problem with the COVID vaccines because the relevant animal trials were skipped in the urgent political rush but the ADE history of its coronavirus vaccine peers would suggest an incipient problem.

Any future ADE bump in mortality related to the Covid vaccines will pose a conundrum for the vaccine lobby – if the ADE deaths are coded to Covid as cause of death (and, as the vaccinated body is manufacturing a part of the virus itself, any Covid test will be positive), then that will show how useless the vaccine is at providing immunity but if the ADE deaths are attributed to the vaccine that will show how dangerous the vaccine is. Good luck with the PR on that one, vaccine guys.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The only reason anyone should take the vaccine is if they've done the risk-benefit analysis and concluded that it is a benefit for their health. They shouldn't feel pressured to do so in order to participate in doing the things they love.

What about society as a whole?

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The only reason anyone should take the vaccine is if they've done the risk-benefit analysis and concluded that it is a benefit for their health. They shouldn't feel pressured to do so in order to participate in doing the things they love.

What about society as a whole?

How do you even determine what is good for society as a whole when there are competing interests between individuals and groups within the society? From a risk-benefit perspective, the vaccines might make sense for older people to take, but not for young people and certainly not for children. So how can you mandate taking the vaccine as being good for society?

I would argue that what's good for society as a whole is for individuals to have as much information as they can and to be free to make their own health decisions. People who are free to do as they choose are generally happier. People who are coerced can become resentful, and that can lead to serious social unrest.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

How do you even determine what is good for society as a whole when there are competing interests between individuals and groups within the society? From a risk-benefit perspective, the vaccines might make sense for older people to take, but not for young people and certainly not for children. So how can you mandate taking the vaccine as being good for society?

Because it brings society closer to herd immunity without overloading the health care system and costing too many lives. It's a difficult balancing act. It's not either individual freedoms versus individual safety. It's about what's best for society as a whole as an aggregate which is a difficult balancing act.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

How do you even determine what is good for society as a whole when there are competing interests between individuals and groups within the society? From a risk-benefit perspective, the vaccines might make sense for older people to take, but not for young people and certainly not for children. So how can you mandate taking the vaccine as being good for society?

Because it brings society closer to herd immunity without overloading the health care system and costing too many lives. It's a difficult balancing act. It's not either individual freedoms versus individual safety. It's about what's best for society as a whole as an aggregate which is a difficult balancing act.

Actually, yes it is. The only thing I'm concerned about when I decide what medical interventions to take is the impact on my health. Mandating people take certain medical procedures is very ethically fraught. Herd immunity is assisted by the fact that many people have been infected and recovered. The vaccine is not exactly a safe route to immunity either, since the number of vaccine related deaths and injuries reported in the US has literally jumped off the chart since covid vaccinations began rolling out.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I would argue that what's good for society as a whole is for individuals to have as much information as they can and to be free to make their own health decisions. People who are free to do as they choose are generally happier. People who are coerced can become resentful, and that can lead to serious social unrest.

You are taking the classical libertarian position here. There are many arguments against libertarianism. One is that different groups in society have different levels of power so groups will always compete for power and governments have to seek the common good by curtailing individual freedoms. That individuals cannot be counted on to put the common good ahead of their individual interests. The prisoners' dilemma is an example of why we need government to put the common good ahead of individual rights. Of course upholding individual rights is part of establishing the greater objective of supporting the common good. 

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The only thing I'm concerned about when I decide what medical interventions to take is the impact on my health.

That's why government has to step in to protect the overall health of society. What a segment of society thinks is good for them may be very bad for society as a whole and it's up to our government to determine that even though that can be a very difficult task at times. There are no perfect answers. Governments muddle through.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
You are taking the classical libertarian position here. There are many arguments against libertarianism. One is that different groups in society have different levels of power so groups will always compete for power and governments have to seek the common good by curtailing individual freedoms. That individuals cannot be counted on to put the common good ahead of their individual interests.

Ask anyone from Eastern Europe old enough to remember life prior to 1989 how great a system that ends up with in practice.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ask anyone from Eastern Europe old enough to remember life prior to 1989 how great a system that ends up with in practice.

I agree that Communism has its flaws. That's why we don't have a communist system. We have a constitutional democracy. That's why we have individual freedoms enshrined in our constitution that can only be taken away under extenuating circumstances. 

JKR

Aristotleded24, do you consider yourself a libertarian?

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
That's why we don't have a communist system.

I can't travel to Kenora unless I convince the police officers who are stationed there that my reason for going is essential to them. If stores are too crowded, we have to stand in certain spots a certain distance away while waiting to go inside. We are restricted from visiting friends and family, and in some cases that is even banned outright. Religious worship is either banned or severely curtailed. If I go to many places, I am asked personal private questions about where I have been for the last 2 weeks and can be denied service based on said answers. Large public demonstrations are effectively banned, unless you follow rules that the government says you are allowed to do. How is that in practice different from what happens in authoritarian countries?

JKR wrote:
That's why we have individual freedoms enshrined in our constitution that can only be taken away under extenuating circumstances.

There's always an extenuating circumstance, just ask the government. Do you know what tends to happen historically when governments grant themselves emergency powers for long periods of time?

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Aristotleded24, do you consider yourself a libertarian?

First and foremost, I believe in democracy above all else, and I believe democracy to be inherently incompatible with rigth wing or left wing politics. I don't like to wear labels because wearing labels is confining.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Aristotleded24, do you consider yourself a libertarian?

First and foremost, I believe in democracy above all else, and I believe democracy to be inherently incompatible with rigth wing or left wing politics. I don't like to wear labels because wearing labels is confining.

If you believe in democracy above all else why are you in opposition to what our democratically elected governments are being allowed to do by our independent judicial system?

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
That's why we don't have a communist system.

I can't travel to Kenora unless I convince the police officers who are stationed there that my reason for going is essential to them. If stores are too crowded, we have to stand in certain spots a certain distance away while waiting to go inside. We are restricted from visiting friends and family, and in some cases that is even banned outright. Religious worship is either banned or severely curtailed. If I go to many places, I am asked personal private questions about where I have been for the last 2 weeks and can be denied service based on said answers. Large public demonstrations are effectively banned, unless you follow rules that the government says you are allowed to do. How is that in practice different from what happens in authoritarian countries?

JKR wrote:
That's why we have individual freedoms enshrined in our constitution that can only be taken away under extenuating circumstances.

There's always an extenuating circumstance, just ask the government. Do you know what tends to happen historically when governments grant themselves emergency powers for long periods of time?

I don't see our right to free and fair elections being taken away. I and most Canadians would not allow that!

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
That's why we don't have a communist system.

I can't travel to Kenora unless I convince the police officers who are stationed there that my reason for going is essential to them. If stores are too crowded, we have to stand in certain spots a certain distance away while waiting to go inside. We are restricted from visiting friends and family, and in some cases that is even banned outright. Religious worship is either banned or severely curtailed. If I go to many places, I am asked personal private questions about where I have been for the last 2 weeks and can be denied service based on said answers. Large public demonstrations are effectively banned, unless you follow rules that the government says you are allowed to do. How is that in practice different from what happens in authoritarian countries?

JKR wrote:
That's why we have individual freedoms enshrined in our constitution that can only be taken away under extenuating circumstances.

There's always an extenuating circumstance, just ask the government. Do you know what tends to happen historically when governments grant themselves emergency powers for long periods of time?

I don't see our right to free and fair elections being taken away. I and most Canadians would not allow that!

You've stood for everything else thus far. Lockdown measures have already disrupted elections in Newfoundland and Labrador and in New Brunswick. The government is also seriously talking about adjusting this election because of the pandemic, for example allowing mail-in ballots to come in after the election date. I fully expect Trudeau to cheat whenever he can. If the Liberals can get enough of their supporters out to the polls early enough in the campaign, "targetted lockdowns" because of "localized spikes" can easily cause enough disruption to tip the result. Rembember when the Conservatives sent robocalls to divert voters in close ridings?

As for elections, there is so little difference public policy wise between all major parties that they really don't matter that much anyways. Once the Liberals get a majority and ram austerity through to pay up the debt they have racked up, there will be so little money left that there will be little the government can do anyways.

I do agree with you on one thing: If Trudeau does win a majority, I expect people will take to the streets to protest.

JKR

What's wrong with mail-in ballots coming in after Election Day if they are postmarked before Election Day?

kropotkin1951

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
You are taking the classical libertarian position here. There are many arguments against libertarianism. One is that different groups in society have different levels of power so groups will always compete for power and governments have to seek the common good by curtailing individual freedoms. That individuals cannot be counted on to put the common good ahead of their individual interests.

Ask anyone from Eastern Europe old enough to remember life prior to 1989 how great a system that ends up with in practice.

Fuck off with the straw man arguments. Although it is a good way prevent people from being misguided enough to try to debate your me first libertarian viewpoint. Previous societies understood it as our language suggests. The devil take the hindmost (old people in brown countries)

If we all say you are right, will you go to some other board to preach? Your American political viewpoint has been shown to be anti-people over and over. It's not just the COVID response but it is hurricane responses and winter storms. Fuck the poor people if they don't know to buy the right insurance for their health and property. You seem to want the only system that might equal the Stalinist one for its record on incarceration as your preferred model. I'll stick with mutual aid.

Aristotleded24

“You know how you mentioned there were 50 nameless people who were recorded by the government to have died after receiving the vaccine?” asked Neil. “Well my dad was one of those 50.”

He died on April 11 after four miserable days in hospital.

“It was rough,” said Neil, who isn’t even close to being at the end of the grieving process. “He got very sick after that vaccination.”

The big question is, did he die of complications from the inoculation, from COVID-19, or as a result of pre-existing conditions that may have been a contributing factor?

JKR

Looks like science and more specifically vaccines will win the day!

----------------

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: 'Race for the Vaccine'

----------------

(CNN)In the United States, the finish line for the pandemic as we've been experiencing it for the past year-plus is very much in sight -- so much so that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention essentially said so on Thursday: Fully vaccinated people no longer need to wear masks indoors or out, or socially distance, except in a rare circumstances.

This new guidance speaks not only to the effectiveness of the vaccines, but also the trust major medical and public health organizations have placed in them. They believe that when the story of this pandemic is finally written, it will be about the vaccines -- and the science behind them -- that finally rescued us.

----------------

Aristotleded24

As the vaccination roll-out continues, and with serious proposals granting schools, colleges, universities, workplaces, large statiums, and numbers of other establishments the right to decline entry for people who don't have the covid vaccine, along with serious proposals to limit travel only to people who have the covid vaccine this point cannot be overstated:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Vaccines should be a tool for freedom, but the covid vaccine is going to be used to further control our behaviours. The requirement to be vaccinated for covid in as a condition for evacuation from the St. Vincent volcano foreshadows the world we are hurtling towards: priviledges for people who are vaccinated, and exclusion of those who are not.

Aristotleded24

Seychelles locks down after successful vaccination campaign:

Quote:

The Seychelles, which has fully vaccinated over 60% of its population against Covid-19, is bringing back restrictions amid a rise in cases.

The archipelago of nearly 100,000 people recorded close to 500 new cases in the three days to 1 May and has about 1,000 active cases.

A third of the active cases involved people who had had two vaccine doses, the country's news agency said.

The rest had either had a single dose or were unvaccinated.

Schools have been closed and sports activities cancelled for two weeks. Bars, restaurants and shops are to close early and some gatherings have been banned.

If the vaccines work, why did they have to lock down again?

Pondering

If the vaccines work, why did they have to lock down again?

Because 60% is not nearly enough to reopen. The vaccine is effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths not against catching it. Even though I have been vaccinated once I continue to take all the same precautions because I can still catch it and pass it to others who are not vaccinated. 

I don't want to be in the company of people who refuse to be vaccinated. That means either my activities will be curtailed or their activities will be curtailed. Seeing as I am the one accepting the approach that we are taking collectively the minority of people who refuse to be vaccinated are the ones who will find themselves unwelcome where the rest of us get together. 

People who reject vaccination can have their own parties and events. There are people who run all kinds of establishments that are against vaccines. 

Furthermore there are no plans to force people to prove their vaccine status within Canada at this time. If we reach 75 to 80% coverage it is possible, likely even, that there will be no id required with the exception of international travel and possibly some businesses like meat packing plants etc. 

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I don't trust any private citizen to be in charge of my health records. That is why they are under the authority of the provincial government and subject to various layers of privacy laws. COVID related information getting out is no different than my mental health records or current vaccination records being hacked. As for vaccination booklets I guess since I remember having one as a kid it doesn't seem so weird. I also remember having to get a whole range of shots to go traveling in Asia and needed to carry proof of them to get into various countries.

laine lowe wrote:

I also remember needing to update shots and get extra ones before travelling to Asia for an extensive period. And yes, I had that little yellow booklet that recorded my vaccine record. It was not a big deal. My only worry is if it is an impediment to citizens from poorer countries to get these kinds of record booklets together. As long as it is an even playing field globally, I have no problem with it.

How about refugees? Should they have to be vaccinated as a condition of being allowed entry into Canada?

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Because 60% is not nearly enough to reopen. The vaccine is effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths not against catching it. Even though I have been vaccinated once I continue to take all the same precautions because I can still catch it and pass it to others who are not vaccinated. 

I don't want to be in the company of people who refuse to be vaccinated. That means either my activities will be curtailed or their activities will be curtailed. Seeing as I am the one accepting the approach that we are taking collectively the minority of people who refuse to be vaccinated are the ones who will find themselves unwelcome where the rest of us get together.

They tried the approach of segregating society into different groups in the United States, only instead of the dividing line being medical interventions, the dividing line was race. It's not a period of time that people think too kindly of when they look back on things.

People who support mandatory vaccination are the type to show how caring and inclusive they are by wanting to force people to take on certain medical interventions. If I'm worried about the long-term health impacts of the vaccine, why should I risk not being able to do certain things for refusal just because you are scared of covid? I thought the whole thing was to protect public health. Are you effectively saying you want others to risk their health in order for you to feel safe?

kropotkin1951

Aristotleded24 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I don't trust any private citizen to be in charge of my health records. That is why they are under the authority of the provincial government and subject to various layers of privacy laws. COVID related information getting out is no different than my mental health records or current vaccination records being hacked. As for vaccination booklets I guess since I remember having one as a kid it doesn't seem so weird. I also remember having to get a whole range of shots to go traveling in Asia and needed to carry proof of them to get into various countries.

laine lowe wrote:

I also remember needing to update shots and get extra ones before travelling to Asia for an extensive period. And yes, I had that little yellow booklet that recorded my vaccine record. It was not a big deal. My only worry is if it is an impediment to citizens from poorer countries to get these kinds of record booklets together. As long as it is an even playing field globally, I have no problem with it.

How about refugees? Should they have to be vaccinated as a condition of being allowed entry into Canada?

I guess you slept through the modern age. Are you totally ill informed or just being disingenuous? Can you really think that before COVID, immunization was not a topic for refugees and other people seeking entry into Canada,especially without the proper documents.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-liv...

cco

Aristotleded24 wrote:

They tried the approach of segregating society into different groups in the United States, only instead of the dividing line being medical interventions, the dividing line was race. It's not a period of time that people think too kindly of when they look back on things.

Since I'm sure most people are just going to roll their eyes and ignore your comparison of Jim Crow and vaccine requirements, I think I, as someone who lived in a former Jim Crow state and was also required to get a measles vaccine before attending a (desegregated) school, will take a crack at addressing the flaws in your comparison.

First, it's incredibly reductionist and simplistic. Governments and private organizations divide people into groups in hundreds of different ways, some beneficial, some harmless, some of mixed effect, and some hugely problematic. Here are a handful of examples, not all of which will be without controversy:

Dividing people by race in order to enslave, murder, segregate, et cetera. On this board, I hope everyone can agree that's bad.

Dividing people by race in order to take actions to redress past or present wrongs (or uphold treaty commitments). While Jesse Helms and Lynn Beyak types are on the side of pretending differences don't exist in order to preserve existing structures of inequality (as Stephen Colbert satirically put it, "I don't see race. People tell me I'm white, and I believe them because the police call me 'sir'"), I think equity support policies are relatively uncontroversial on the left these days.

Dividing by gender: similarly to race, it can be done to exclude (all-male boardrooms) or to redress exclusion (the existence of a Minister for Status of Women).

Dividing by citizenship/immigration status. The original passport for which the vaccine passport's named. Enough ink's been spilled on this elsewhere that I don't have to dwell on it here.

Dividing by education: This could be its own thread, or multiple threads, but it seems to be largely uncontroversial to require people to graduate from medical school in order to practice medicine, or that people are required to graduate from high school to do the vast majority of jobs. High school is free in Canada, but medical school isn't. People graduate with large amounts of debt, in many cases, to get their coveted diploma. Which brings me to:

Dividing by wealth. This is so baked into our system that even bringing it up at all seems to get one pegged as a dangerous communist. Wealthy people don't pay taxes and are exempt from the majority of laws, in practice and sometimes even on paper. Poor people have systems of mass coercion, up to and including incarceration and forced labour, to keep them in line. But we should all definitely keep our eyes on Xinjiang, where that stuff's happening, so we can forget about it at home.

And of course, there's dividing by religion, which Canadians (myself excluded) mostly love. Which god you believe in determines which schools your children go to, which laws you're required to obey, which taxes you pay, and the degree to which everyone must go to make sure you never come into contact with infidels or contradictory ideas.

Dividing by criminal history: Even in the United States, it's a pretty widely supported idea that people with a history of armed robbery shouldn't be allowed to legally buy guns, whereas allowing employers to ask whether you have a criminal record during your application process is becoming increasingly controversial.

There are many other examples, such as language spoken, language your parents spoke, marital status, whether you own or rent property, age (there are no 5-year-olds legally driving cars, or 19-year-olds legally collecting OAS), whether you've been in the military, whether you're transgender, or even whether you've been elected to public office. There are varying degrees of justification for these – some withstand examination better than others – but putting them all into the category of "the government is dividing people, so it's the same as segregated washrooms and lunch counters" is preposterous, especially when the policy's goal is to get everyone vaccinated and thereby, were it to be successful, not discriminate against anyone.

Aristotleded24

cco wrote:
There are varying degrees of justification for these – some withstand examination better than others – but putting them all into the category of "the government is dividing people, so it's the same as segregated washrooms and lunch counters" is preposterous, especially when the policy's goal is to get everyone vaccinated and thereby, were it to be successful, not discriminate against anyone.

I know that the policy is to vaccinate everyone. Why, if it is about public health, is the government threatening that we can't go about our lives and treating us like delinquent children by telling us what we can't do unless we are vaccinated? If the vaccine is that great, why not simply say, "the vaccine is here, it works," let everyone make their own risk assessments about the vaccine, and open things up and let life go on? Why is the government and the media making such a fuss over what should be a private medical decision?

Jay Bhattacharya recently dubbed Dr. Fauci the leading anti-vaxxer in the United States. Dr. Bhattacharya stated that since Fauci argues that the vaccinated still need to wear masks, do social distancing etc, that Fauci is communicating the message that vaccines don't really work.

Pondering

 Why, if it is about public health, is the government threatening that we can't go about our lives and treating us like delinquent children by telling us what we can't do unless we are vaccinated? If the vaccine is that great, why not simply say, "the vaccine is here, it works," let everyone make their own risk assessments about the vaccine, and open things up and let life go on? 

The most likely outcome is you will only require proof of vaccination for traveling between countries or by air. 

It does not appear like people will require vaccinations to do anything else.  It is possible some private establishments will require it, like movie theatres or workplaces but it looks unlikely even for schools. 

Which government is threatening?

Aristotleded24

Of course we can trust the regulators to look out for our best interests and make decisions based on safety:

Quote:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has moved from an entirely taxpayer-funded entity to one increasingly funded by user fees paid by manufacturers that are being regulated. Today, close to 45% of its budget comes from these user fees that companies pay when they apply for approval of a medical device or drug.

As a pharmacist and medication and dietary supplement safety researcher, I understand the vital role that the FDA plays in ensuring the safety of medications and medical devices.

But I, along with many others, now wonder: Was this move a clever win-win for the manufacturers and the public, or did it place patient safety second to corporate profitability?

It is critical that the U.S. public understand the positive and negative ramifications so the nation can strike the right balance.

JKR

Sounds like you're being paranoid.

MegB

Aristotleded24, I see your flounce was short-lived. Here we are again, you arguing against the vaccine and posting crap about COVID "hysteria", etc. from dubious sources. You need to stop. Now. If you want to have another tantrum and flounce off again, I'm okay with that. More than okay. Feel free to share your opinions with the other "sceptics" and keep them the hell off babble.

Aristotleded24

MegB wrote:
Aristotleded24, I see your flounce was short-lived. Here we are again, you arguing against the vaccine and posting crap about COVID "hysteria", etc. from dubious sources. You need to stop. Now. If you want to have another tantrum and flounce off again, I'm okay with that. More than okay. Feel free to share your opinions with the other "sceptics" and keep them the hell off babble.

Why is it not okay to question the following ideas?

The idea that only a vaccine is necessary to end the pandemic.

The possibility that powerful interests would use the covid crisis to gain control of the population.

Potential conflicts of interst between those interests that promote vaccines and government regulators and media outlets

The idea that there may be more effective treatments and means available to treat covid that don't involve severely restricting what people are or are not allowed to do in their personal lives.

Much of what I have read promoting the vaccines comes across to me as talking points that could easily have been written by the drug companies without much critical analysis.

kropotkin1951

Questions are fine but right wing conspiracy driven bullshit is frankly not going anywhere on this site. You have now started trolling because it is clear that no one is changing their minds because of your arguments and you refuse to actually acknowledge any other point of view except the American libertarian whine; "what about MY rights?"

MegB

Aristotleded24 wrote:

MegB wrote:
Aristotleded24, I see your flounce was short-lived. Here we are again, you arguing against the vaccine and posting crap about COVID "hysteria", etc. from dubious sources. You need to stop. Now. If you want to have another tantrum and flounce off again, I'm okay with that. More than okay. Feel free to share your opinions with the other "sceptics" and keep them the hell off babble.

Why is it not okay to question the following ideas?

The idea that only a vaccine is necessary to end the pandemic.

The possibility that powerful interests would use the covid crisis to gain control of the population.

Potential conflicts of interst between those interests that promote vaccines and government regulators and media outlets

The idea that there may be more effective treatments and means available to treat covid that don't involve severely restricting what people are or are not allowed to do in their personal lives.

Much of what I have read promoting the vaccines comes across to me as talking points that could easily have been written by the drug companies without much critical analysis.

This is not a discussion. This is me, the babble moderator, telling you to either stop posting right-wing conspiracy theory on COVID, or stop posting altogether.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

MegB wrote:
Aristotleded24, I see your flounce was short-lived. Here we are again, you arguing against the vaccine and posting crap about COVID "hysteria", etc. from dubious sources. You need to stop. Now. If you want to have another tantrum and flounce off again, I'm okay with that. More than okay. Feel free to share your opinions with the other "sceptics" and keep them the hell off babble.

Why is it not okay to question the following ideas?

The idea that only a vaccine is necessary to end the pandemic.

The possibility that powerful interests would use the covid crisis to gain control of the population.

Potential conflicts of interst between those interests that promote vaccines and government regulators and media outlets

The idea that there may be more effective treatments and means available to treat covid that don't involve severely restricting what people are or are not allowed to do in their personal lives.

Much of what I have read promoting the vaccines comes across to me as talking points that could easily have been written by the drug companies without much critical analysis.

Sounds paranoid.

Pages