Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, JonStark said:

Right, but putting the pressure on the businesses to make that call is different because if an employee doesn't agree with them, they can leave and find another job. If the government makes the call then you're saying that if you don't agree, you need to leave the country? 

I feel that you can believe both that refusing the vaccine is stupid and that the government should not be able to mandate a non-approved vaccine. It doesn't have to be one or the other. 

Decisions don't happen in a vacuum. Someone refusing the vaccine directly leads to outbreak risk that overwhelms our entire society's healthcare system and forces lockdowns. You don't get to pretend that individual actions don't have societal consequences.

Edited by ramssuperbowl99
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Decisions don't happen in a vacuum. Someone refusing the vaccine means directly leads to outbreak risk that overwhelms our entire society's healthcare system and forces lockdowns. You don't get to pretend that individual actions don't have societal consequences.

So hypothetically, if the vaccine they released was a mess and you as someone who is knowledgeable on the subject didn't feel comfortable taking it, you would be fine with the government mandating it before the FDA approved it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JonStark said:

So hypothetically, if the vaccine they released was a mess and you as someone who is knowledgeable on the subject didn't feel comfortable taking it, you would be fine with the government mandating it before the FDA approved it? 

The hypothetical you present is impossible. Even if it was possible, I would need way more information on the specifics to have an opinion.

Relevant factors would be the damage to society based on non-immunized people getting sick, the prevalence of non-immunized people, specific transmutability/infectiousness of the disease in question, and the specific safety and efficacy concerns of the vaccine. 

 

For a real example, the FDA recently paused the J&J vaccine over a 1:1 million risk for blood clots, despite no conclusive link and a literal handful of deaths versus millions of doses. The idea that the FDA would go rogue and approve something with any clearly identifiable danger is such a stark contrast to their current operating principles that my honest reaction is that if that is a legitimate concern of yours, you need to seriously evaluate the media you consume, because you are not getting an honest view of reality.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The hypothetical you present is impossible. Even if it was possible, I would need way more information on the specifics to have an opinion.

Relevant factors would be the damage to society based on non-immunized people getting sick, the prevalence of non-immunized people, specific transmutability/infectiousness of the disease in question, and the specific safety and efficacy concerns of the vaccine. 

 

For a real example, the FDA recently paused the J&J vaccine over a 1:1 million risk for blood clots, despite no conclusive link and a literal handful of deaths versus millions of doses. The idea that the FDA would go rogue and approve something with any clearly identifiable danger is such a stark contrast to their current operating principles that my honest reaction is that if that is a legitimate concern of yours, you need to seriously evaluate the media you consume, because you are not getting an honest view of reality.

It wasn't impossible. It was a specific blanket statement for something before the approval (ie your example has nothing to do with it). It's fine if you don't want to answer though.

I'm just saying that allowing the government the power to mandate anything without approval is a slippery slope. If a business mandates it, you can leave your job. If the government mandates it, you'd have to leave the country. 

Edited by JonStark
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JonStark said:

It wasn't impossible. It was a specific blanket statement for something before the approval (ie your example has nothing to do with it). It's fine if you don't want to answer though.

I'm telling you right now, that's an impossible hypothetical.

It would require a pharmaceutical company to legally attest that they are unaware of data that would exist, submit their data and either have the FDA fail to resolve the obvious discrepancies that come with trying to fake an entire 10,000 person plus clinical trial, or that they'd have to be in on it too. The entire time, the results would need to be published to the larger community of scientists at large. We'd all have to be in on it.

It's the type of question that reveals you have no idea about how drugs are actually developed.

3 hours ago, JonStark said:

I'm just saying that allowing the government the power to mandate anything without approval is a slippery slope. If a business mandates it, you can leave your job. If the government mandates it, you'd have to leave the country. 

"Mandate anything without approval" is entirely devoid of any substance and context. Current law allows governments to mandate all sorts of things provided they can demonstrate it's necessary and effective. And it's a good thing they do. We may not be fans of being forbidden from driving on the left side of the road, but if we didn't tell everyone they had to drive on the right side, some idiot would ruin it for everybody else and brag about it from his hospital bed.

You need to consider the context and surrounding circumstances in order to have educated, in-depth opinions. 2 line, Ben Shaprio style hypotheticals detract from that. And that's not just about vaccinations or COVID dude - @pwny very patiently gave you this advice in the Carl Nassib thread. Presenting arguments like this is going to limit the depth of conversation, and that's going to hold you back over time.

Edited by ramssuperbowl99
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, the world is becoming in increasingly polarised place. Everyone is so quick to label other people, discredit them, attack the person rather than the argument. There is no room for nuance anymore.

There are some people out there who think that the vaccine is a Bill-Gates led experiment to sterilise and microchip people.These people are genuine loons

However there are also people out there who are skeptical of the speed at which this vaccine has been delivered, doubtful whether the full short/long term side effects of the vaccine are truly understood, and maybe somewhat questioning of the true motivations of the big pharma/big tech/government who have a very chequered past when it comes to pretty much everything. These people also think that they should be able to make decisions related to their own health and that the government mandating what medication you need to take to carry on living a normal life is somewhat of a slippery slope.

It's very easy to discredit this second group of people by labeling them 'anti-vax' and throwing them in with the first group, but it hardly helps in having an adult conversation about what are very important issues.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought experiment:

Evidence emerges to show that eating fish/meat gives an individual a significant risk reduction in contracting covid. The nutrients and fats in fish/meat seem to offer a unique advantage against the disease. You are less likely to catch covid, less likely to have a severe case of it, less likely to pass it on if you do catch it.

Should a company be able to compel its employees to eat fish/meat to continue working there?

Edited by JonMcC2018
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JonMcC2018 said:

Man, the world is becoming in increasingly polarised place. Everyone is so quick to label other people, discredit them, attack the person rather than the argument. There is no room for nuance anymore.

There are some people out there who think that the vaccine is a Bill-Gates led experiment to sterilise and microchip people.These people are genuine loons

However there are also people out there who are skeptical of the speed at which this vaccine has been delivered, doubtful whether the full short/long term side effects of the vaccine are truly understood, and maybe somewhat questioning of the true motivations of the big pharma/big tech/government who have a very chequered past when it comes to pretty much everything. These people also think that they should be able to make decisions related to their own health and that the government mandating what medication you need to take to carry on living a normal life is somewhat of a slippery slope.

It's very easy to discredit this second group of people by labeling them 'anti-vax' and throwing them in with the first group, but it hardly helps in having an adult conversation about what are very important issues.

There’s plenty of legitimate resources to address the concerns I bolded, especially the part about the speed. I was worried about it being rushed also but I kept on the development so it didn’t surprised me as much. Likewise, the “long term” effects are discovered within months, not years. We know essentially everything about the vaccines at this point.

Edited by Xenos
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JonMcC2018 said:

Thought experiment:

Evidence emerges to show that eating fish/meat gives an individual a significant risk reduction in contracting covid. The nutrients and fats in fish/meat seem to offer a unique advantage against the disease. You are less likely to catch covid, less likely to have a severe case of it, less likely to pass it on if you do catch it.

Should a company be able to compel its employees to eat fish/meat to continue working there?

Thought experiment:

Evidence emerges to show that drinking and driving gives an individual a significant risk increase in having a fatal car accident. The alcohol in the blood seems to offer a unique disadvantage to motor skills, which present poorly in driving scenarios. You are less likely to be in an accident, less likely to have severe injuries, less likely to kill someone else if you do happen to be in an accident.

Should a government be able to compel its citizens to not drink and drive? Should a government be able to compel its citizens to wear a seat belt?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I'm telling you right now, that's an impossible hypothetical.

It would require a pharmaceutical company to legally attest that they are unaware of data that would exist, submit their data and either have the FDA fail to resolve the obvious discrepancies that come with trying to fake an entire 10,000 person plus clinical trial, or that they'd have to be in on it too. The entire time, the results would need to be published to the larger community of scientists at large. We'd all have to be in on it.

It's the type of question that reveals you have no idea about how drugs are actually developed.

"Mandate anything without approval" is entirely devoid of an substance and context. Current law allows governments to mandate all sorts of things with provide they can demonstrate it's necessary and effective. And it's a good thing they do. We may not be fans of being forbidden from driving on the left side of the road, but if we didn't tell everyone they had to drive on the right side, some idiot would ruin it for everybody else and brag about it from his hospital bed.

You need to consider the context and surrounding circumstances in order to have educated, in-depth opinions. 2 line, Ben Shaprio style hypotheticals detract from that. And that's not just about vaccinations or COVID dude - @pwny very patiently gave you this advice in the Carl Nassib thread. Presenting arguments like this is going to limit the depth of conversation, and that's going to hold you back over time.

Nah man this was a straightforward blanket example that I laid out and instead of answering it, you tried to poke holes in it to discredit me. This isn't the hill I want to die on so you can have your victory lap, but this is the type of self-righteous attitude that turns people away from the vaccine before they even look into it (which is still on them, but doesn't help us get through this any better). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JonStark said:

Nah man this was a straightforward blanket example that I laid out and instead of answering it, you tried to poke holes in it to discredit me. This isn't the hill I want to die on so you can have your victory lap, but this is the type of self-righteous attitude that turns people away from the vaccine before they even look into it (which is still on them, but doesn't help us get through this any better). 

I understand that to you it's "straightforward and simple": that's because you have no relevant experience. Unfortunately, reality isn't straightforward or simple, and what you presented isn't answerable because that's not how companies develop drugs or regulatory agencies review submissions. That's why I tried to present a real example, so we could talk about something with details that actually add up.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WizeGuy said:

"We don't know the long term side effects...."

While they consistently eat processed food and rarely workout...

Its quite amusing to hear fat ****s complain about the risks of putting some chemical into their body 

@TLO

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pwny said:

Thought experiment:

Evidence emerges to show that drinking and driving gives an individual a significant risk increase in having a fatal car accident. The alcohol in the blood seems to offer a unique disadvantage to motor skills, which present poorly in driving scenarios. You are less likely to be in an accident, less likely to have severe injuries, less likely to kill someone else if you do happen to be in an accident.

Should a government be able to compel its citizens to not drink and drive? Should a government be able to compel its citizens to wear a seat belt?

Yes.

What would your answer be to my scenario?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DontTazeMeBro said:

For me it’s not even the speed as much as the fact that mRNA vaccines are experimental. It’s considered blasphemy to call them experimental but they are. mRNA vaccines have only gone through phase 1 and 2 trials. This mass distribution happening right now is phase 3.

Incorrect. Phase 3 trials were concluded in November, 2020. 

See here

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...