incognito_man Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Brit Pack said: I doubt there is. But I believe there is opposition from scientists to how it is being done now and how this is a politcal and PR game. Unfortunately and it has been for some time, science, commerce and politics cannot be seperated. I will 100% agree that governmental decisions need to rely a LOT more on science and data. It's a problem that has the potential to make humanity go extinct. Unfortunately, unanimous science got heavily politicized to the point where there is now debate over some of the most fundamental and understood science we have. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 20 minutes ago, Brit Pack said: This Prof who is head of the Vaccine Centre at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicinegot got a lot of press in the UK. I agree with the sentiment that is quite politicised and more than just science. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/speed-coronavirus-vaccine-race-crazy-unsafe-scientists-warn/ Not that I agree with him but you got this dude, ex Pfizer VPhttps://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/ While not against vaccination per se these guys are anti lockdown and pro herd immunity and are comprised of senior scentists https://gbdeclaration.org/ A link from October expressing doubt about the realism of vaccine schedules, which turned out to be wrong. Nothing about not getting vaccinated. A link espousing the view of a guy who made a bunch of predictions. All of them wrong. A guy who made a wild *** claim with no attempt to explain it nor evidence to support it. If a guy says, "Don't get a vaccine because it's going to cause infertility," and then all the evidence says that there's zero link between vaccines and infertility, you stop listening to that dude. You can be anti-lockdown. That's fine. Being anti vaccine was the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 54 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: A link from October expressing doubt about the realism of vaccine schedules, which turned out to be wrong. Nothing about not getting vaccinated. A link espousing the view of a guy who made a bunch of predictions. All of them wrong. A guy who made a wild *** claim with no attempt to explain it nor evidence to support it. If a guy says, "Don't get a vaccine because it's going to cause infertility," and then all the evidence says that there's zero link between vaccines and infertility, you stop listening to that dude. You can be anti-lockdown. That's fine. Being anti vaccine was the conversation. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063 Do these people need to be vaccinated in your expert opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: I will 100% agree that governmental decisions need to rely a LOT more on science and data. It's a problem that has the potential to make humanity go extinct. Unfortunately, unanimous science got heavily politicized to the point where there is now debate over some of the most fundamental and understood science we have. Unanimous science that brought us hot takes like 'COVID naturally emerged.' Edited June 11, 2021 by HokieHigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, HokieHigh said: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063 Do these people need to be vaccinated in your expert opinion? Yes, if you tested positive in May 2020, according to the study, they're vulnerable again. Again though, why would you not? There's no downside to this. Everybody who isn't going to be compromise by the vaccine should be vaccinated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 3 minutes ago, HokieHigh said: Unanimous science that brought us hot takes like 'COVID naturally emerged.' Science is, by definition, the best CURRENT information. It is asking questions and seeking answers. Nobody claims science is flawless. But everyone should agree it is the best we have at any snapshot in time. Using hindsight to defend an anti-science stance that was originally baseless is terrible practice and will result in societal regression. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 6 minutes ago, HokieHigh said: Unanimous science that brought us hot takes like 'COVID naturally emerged.' You have an interesting definition of "unanimous science". That take was purely politically driven. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Yes, if you tested positive in May 2020, according to the study, they're vulnerable again. Again though, why would you not? There's no downside to this. Everybody who isn't going to be compromise by the vaccine should be vaccinated. Not only that, only a small percentage of the population actually contracted the virus, so they have no immune memory to fight off any of the existing or new variants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 1 minute ago, incognito_man said: Science is, by definition, the best CURRENT information. It is asking questions and seeking answers. Nobody claims science is flawless. But everyone should agree it is the best we have at any snapshot in time. Using hindsight to defend an anti-science stance that was originally baseless is terrible practice and will result in societal regression. You and I disagree here. That take was never originally baseless. There were concerns about the practices of these Chinese labs even before the outbreak happened. It might not have been proven, but to call it baseless isn't correct. We have our politicians, and our media bowing to Chinese investment interests to thank for the origins not being more thoroughly investigated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Science is, by definition, the best CURRENT information. It is asking questions and seeking answers. Nobody claims science is flawless. But everyone should agree it is the best we have at any snapshot in time. Using hindsight to defend an anti-science stance that was originally baseless is terrible practice and will result in societal regression. Science is a method. Lotta dumb people out there to be using unanimity as a measuring stick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 7 minutes ago, Sasquatch said: Not only that, only a small percentage of the population actually contracted the virus, so they have no immune memory to fight off any of the existing or new variants. "It's starting to kick in because the concept is more people have natural immunity from prior infection, you're adding some new vaccinated immunity -- that's adding up, and there are fewer susceptible people out there to get infected," Makary said.He thinks the number of people with natural immunity is severely underestimated due to a high number of asymptomatic infections and current antibody tests that aren't completely accurate because they only look for the actual antibodies. https://www.wbaltv.com/article/covid-19-herd-immunity-by-april/35639084# Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 (edited) 17 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Yes, if you tested positive in May 2020, according to the study, they're vulnerable again. Again though, why would you not? There's no downside to this. Everybody who isn't going to be compromise by the vaccine should be vaccinated. At 240 days (their final time point) helper cells are still present, with reason to believe that will endure. I think there is unsettled debate over whether those people would benefit from vaccine, but thats like - my opinion man. Edited June 11, 2021 by HokieHigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 34 minutes ago, HokieHigh said: At 240 days (their final time point) helper cells are still present, with reason to believe that will endure. I think there is unsettled debate over whether those people would benefit from vaccine, but thats like - my opinion man. I guess my response would be, "If unsettled, why not be sure?" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 41 minutes ago, HokieHigh said: "It's starting to kick in because the concept is more people have natural immunity from prior infection, you're adding some new vaccinated immunity -- that's adding up, and there are fewer susceptible people out there to get infected," Makary said.He thinks the number of people with natural immunity is severely underestimated due to a high number of asymptomatic infections and current antibody tests that aren't completely accurate because they only look for the actual antibodies. https://www.wbaltv.com/article/covid-19-herd-immunity-by-april/35639084# Which is something that I think is very true. I wouldn't be surprised if the true infection rate ends up being something like 10x higher than the number of positive tests. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonKarman Posted June 11, 2021 Share Posted June 11, 2021 4 hours ago, HokieHigh said: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063 Do these people need to be vaccinated in your expert opinion? Yes. It's been observed that the highest level of immunity is obtained by those who have been previously infected have gotten ONE mRNA vaccine. Besides, people where usually infected by previous variants that may have been less powerful, so it's good practice to vaccinate those people. There's tens of thousands of scientists (and therefore experts) all around the world who are working on this thing. If your car breaks downs and all the mechanics in the world tell you to fix it one way would oppose their view? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.