Covid Vaccine. Your plans?

[Ken Gargett]

1 minute ago, mprach024 said:

No arguments here.  With trust in government at an all time low in many parts of the world, we need the scientists and doctors to start yelling at the world, because unfortunately the ones that are yelling the loudest are the wrong ones.

scientists have been screaming about climate change. and yet there are so many determined to ignore the science. i suppose we should not be surprised that the same thing happening here. 

[PuroDan]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

scientists have been screaming about climate change. and yet there are so many determined to ignore the science. i suppose we should not be surprised that the same thing happening here. 

Science was also screaming about "Lucy" the missing link. Debunked...How many elements are missing from the periodic table? My point is there is good science and bad science. Any science that rushes a vaccine that quick with monetary interests is suspect in my book. So i guess i will pass

[Bijan]

12 minutes ago, PuroDan said:

How many elements are missing from the periodic table?

I think there's nothing left missing below lead, which is the heaviest stable element (I could be wrong it's been a while since I've taken a physics or chemistry course). If some ultra-rare radioactive element with a split-second half-life hasn't been created in a lab yet I don't take this as a failure of physics or chemistry.

Edit: Seems that since 1945 we've been good up to at least Uranium:

http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/articles/ELEM399.HTML

[PuroDan]

4 minutes ago, Bijan said:

I think there's nothing left missing below lead, which is the heaviest stable element (I could be wrong it's been a while since I've taken a physics or chemistry course). If some ultra-rare radioactive element with a split-second half-life hasn't been created in a lab yet I don't take this as a failure of physics or chemistry.

So your saying element 125 has been observed?

[Bijan]

10 minutes ago, PuroDan said:

So your saying element 125 has been observed?

I'm saying giving the example of one of the great successes in theoretical physics/chemistry that turned out to be validated time and again by experiments, as a reason not to trust science is weird.

I don't question your reasoning on the vaccine itself, just the choice of this example.

The last missing element in the seventh row of the table, element 118 has been observed. No element in row 8 has been observed. That's the state of the matter now. Do you expect the periodic nature of elements will be falsified as a theory?

[PuroDan]

28 minutes ago, PuroDan said:

So your saying element 125 has been observed?

At least we agree on Cuban Cigars. I should have never commented on this.

 

24 minutes ago, Bijan said:

I'm saying giving the example of one of the great successes in theoretical physics/chemistry that turned out to be validated time and again by experiments, as a reason not to trust science is weird.

I don't question your reasoning on the vaccine itself, just the choice of this example.

The last element in the seventh row of the table, element 118 has been observed. No element in row 8 has been observed. That's the state of the matter now. Do you expect the periodic nature of elements will be falsified as a theory?

No. What i am saying is that i want facts not observations/hypothesis/ when it comes to somebody sticking me with a needle. So i guess i should have used a better analogy. Science has been caught in many lies over the years. That is a fact. Not a hypothesis. Here is a better analogy. I always wonder why they continually change the DSM's in psychology. It reminds me of "some" science today. Here is an example

• Back in 1770 they taught the earth was 70,000 years old.
• In 1905 they said it's 2 billion years old.
• By 1969, they went to the moon, they brought back moon rocks and said: “Oh, they're 3.5 billion years old.” That was the official age; 3.5 billion.
• Today they say it's 4.6 billion years old or much older

So were they right in 1905 or are they right now??? Its always changing. So why trust it????

[Bijan]

1 minute ago, PuroDan said:

So i guess i should have used a better analogy.

Yeah literally the only thing I objected to was the analogy, the periodic table to me is an example of where science got it right 

Sorry if it came across as argumentative.

[PuroDan]

Just now, Bijan said:

Yeah literally the only thing I objected to was the analogy, the periodic table to me is an example of where science got it right 

Sorry if it came across as argumentative.

You didnt at all. And you are somewhat right about the periodic table ?

[Ken Gargett]

11 minutes ago, PuroDan said:

Science was also screaming about "Lucy" the missing link. Debunked...How many elements are missing from the periodic table? My point is there is good science and bad science. Any science that rushes a vaccine that quick with monetary interests is suspect in my book. So i guess i will pass

PD,anything along these lines that is rushed is unlikely to be a good thing but they needed to get what they could out as soon as possible. 

the difference is climate change has had scientists looking at this for years and we have something like 98% acceptance and those opposed tend to be self-appointed without any genuine background. 

[PuroDan]

4 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

PD,anything along these lines that is rushed is unlikely to be a good thing but they needed to get what they could out as soon as possible. 

the difference is climate change has had scientists looking at this for years and we have something like 98% acceptance and those opposed tend to be self-appointed without any genuine background. 

I agree with that on the PD and somewhat on the global warming i mean climate change. You see what i mean. It used to be global warming... But now its climate change??? Its just keeps on changing. No pun intended

[CaptainQuintero]

2 hours ago, PuroDan said:

Science was also screaming about "Lucy" the missing link. Debunked...How many elements are missing from the periodic table? My point is there is good science and bad science. Any science that rushes a vaccine that quick with monetary interests is suspect in my book. So i guess i will pass

  That's probably looking at it through a US healthcare optic and giving you a slanted view. The Oxford vaccine for example was developed to be sold at cost to anyone, zero profit. There isn't a monetary issue involved beyond covering cost of production.

  There wasn't any bad science in development or trials but I can see how people could think it's been rush, the speed issue isn't a negative because things were able to be done at a fast pace due to funding. Trials were ran in the same way but at the same time instead of one after the other. Money was thrown at the labs in terms of literal blank cheques so funding was not an issue, one of the major reasons behind why usual trials take so long. The science behind these 3 jabs isn't just good science, it's incredible stuff

[mprach024]

31 minutes ago, CaptainQuintero said:

  That's probably looking at it through a US healthcare optic and giving you a slanted view. The Oxford vaccine for example was developed to be sold at cost to anyone, zero profit. There isn't a monetary issue involved beyond covering cost of production.

  There wasn't any bad science in development or trials but I can see how people could think it's been rush, the speed issue isn't a negative because things were able to be done at a fast pace due to funding. Trials were ran in the same way but at the same time instead of one after the other. Money was thrown at the labs in terms of literal blank cheques so funding was not an issue, one of the major reasons behind why usual trials take so long. The science behind these 3 jabs isn't just good science, it's incredible stuff

Right on.  And had the governments not cut the red tape and thrown a bunch of funding to provide a solution and let potentially millions more die, they’d be getting massacred for that.  A no-win scenario from a perception standpoint, so if you’re going to get clobbered might as well save a million lives while your at it.  This was historic, unprecedented, and miraculous.  ????????

[Shrimpchips]

3 hours ago, PuroDan said:

What i am saying is that i want facts not observations/hypothesis/ when it comes to somebody sticking me with a needle. So i guess i should have used a better analogy. Science has been caught in many lies over the years. That is a fact. Not a hypothesis.

Science doesn’t have any facts.  Everything is a hypothesis or theory with varying degrees of supportive evidence.  At any time, new evidence can come up which might add to what’s known, slightly or considerably changing what we regard to be the accepted theory on “how things work”.  By changing what we can observe or how we observe things, our ideas change.  In the case of medicines, we can only observe as fact what we know to look for, and in timeframes we are able to observe and have some degree of confidence in causality. And sometimes, it’s simple strategy - how would you balance a theoretically possible albeit extremely unlikely unanticipated complication from a therapy, or a much more likely to occur mortality/morbidity?  In the case of the vaccines, yes, we don’t know all the long term potential complications - the short/medium term risks are mostly found out in clinical trials however, and they’re all acceptable.  But the potential risks are worth taking, because the alternative is to leave the world without any defense against a pathogen that is currently ravaging all of humanity. 

[smokum]

Im going to wait. I was un fortunate to have been hit with heparin induced thrombocytopenia thrombosis. It was no fun. Nearly killed me if not for a very astute doctor who recognized it. If doc says its safe for me then maybe I will take it. Personal choice I guess. Daughter is an ER nurse, son in law is a fireman, grandaughter is just plain beautiful. They all had it. I believe I had it in late November 2019 a few weeks before it was recognized. It was pretty horrible for over a month. But that thrombocytopenia stuff is no joke either.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, CaptainQuintero said:

  That's probably looking at it through a US healthcare optic and giving you a slanted view. The Oxford vaccine for example was developed to be sold at cost to anyone, zero profit. There isn't a monetary issue involved beyond covering cost of production.

  There wasn't any bad science in development or trials but I can see how people could think it's been rush, the speed issue isn't a negative because things were able to be done at a fast pace due to funding. Trials were ran in the same way but at the same time instead of one after the other. Money was thrown at the labs in terms of literal blank cheques so funding was not an issue, one of the major reasons behind why usual trials take so long. The science behind these 3 jabs isn't just good science, it's incredible stuff

The "its been rushed and they have not done the long term evaluation" line is one of the most frustrating. Exactly as you have mentioned there are clear reasons why the development has been relatively much faster than usual. Another really important factor was that usually the disease is not so prevalent by the time initial trails are ready so its not easy to get the required number of trials done. Not an issue with Covid with millions infected worldwide and thus another accelerating reason, not a short cut. As for the long term evaluation, this is not part of the normal release factors for any vaccine.

[Fuzz]

Take any problem, throw a nearly unlimited budget against it, have hundreds of scientists working on a solution night and day, cut all the red tape bullshit, have thousands of willing test subjects on hand, and then tell me how fast a solution could be developed.

We have never seen this kind of combined effort to solve a problem. It only goes to show what we can do if we all work together. Unfortunately, it takes a global disaster to make it happen. I just hope that the next time, it is not too late.

[PuroDan]

14 hours ago, Shrimpchips said:

Science doesn’t have any facts.  Everything is a hypothesis or theory with varying degrees of supportive evidence.  At any time, new evidence can come up which might add to what’s known, slightly or considerably changing what we regard to be the accepted theory on “how things work”.  By changing what we can observe or how we observe things, our ideas change.  In the case of medicines, we can only observe as fact what we know to look for, and in timeframes we are able to observe and have some degree of confidence in causality. And sometimes, it’s simple strategy - how would you balance a theoretically possible albeit extremely unlikely unanticipated complication from a therapy, or a much more likely to occur mortality/morbidity?  In the case of the vaccines, yes, we don’t know all the long term potential complications - the short/medium term risks are mostly found out in clinical trials however, and they’re all acceptable.  But the potential risks are worth taking, because the alternative is to leave the world without any defense against a pathogen that is currently ravaging all of humanity. 

I understand all that as you can see my replies above on this thread and i respect your view. Heres the thing. If you want the vaccine get it. If not, dont. I choose to pass. I take my temp three times a day and all precautions ect. If i am sick i wont leave my house.

 

14 hours ago, CaptainQuintero said:

  That's probably looking at it through a US healthcare optic and giving you a slanted view. The Oxford vaccine for example was developed to be sold at cost to anyone, zero profit. There isn't a monetary issue involved beyond covering cost of production.

  There wasn't any bad science in development or trials but I can see how people could think it's been rush, the speed issue isn't a negative because things were able to be done at a fast pace due to funding. Trials were ran in the same way but at the same time instead of one after the other. Money was thrown at the labs in terms of literal blank cheques so funding was not an issue, one of the major reasons behind why usual trials take so long. The science behind these 3 jabs isn't just good science, it's incredible stuff

I respect your view but that is a presupposition.

[Cigar Surgeon]

14 hours ago, PuroDan said:

• Back in 1770 they taught the earth was 70,000 years old.
• In 1905 they said it's 2 billion years old.
• By 1969, they went to the moon, they brought back moon rocks and said: “Oh, they're 3.5 billion years old.” That was the official age; 3.5 billion.
• Today they say it's 4.6 billion years old or much older

So were they right in 1905 or are they right now??? Its always changing. So why trust it????

That's a strength, not a weakness.

The ability to gather new, and better information, and create new, and better processes is why less people die in car accidents, and we have faster, smaller computer devices, and why extremely dangerous procedures even a decade ago are an inpatient procedure today.

Believing something to be true despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary is "Belief perseverance" and is a failure of rational thinking.

[PuroDan]

3 hours ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

That's a strength, not a weakness.

The ability to gather new, and better information, and create new, and better processes is why less people die in car accidents, and we have faster, smaller computer devices, and why extremely dangerous procedures even a decade ago are an inpatient procedure today.

Believing something to be true despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary is "Belief perseverance" and is a failure of rational thinking.

Ok I disagree and believe truth itself is strength. I repsect your view though

[Cigar Surgeon]

56 minutes ago, PuroDan said:

Ok I disagree and believe truth itself is strength. I repsect your view though

I doubt you believe the same things you did when you were 5. Your life is made up of learning new things and adapting your behavior and understanding of the world based on that experience.

Science is just a more rigorous version.

[Bijan]

8 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

I doubt you believe the same things you did when you were 5. Your life is made up of learning new things and adapting your behavior and understanding of the world based on that experience.

Science is just a more rigorous version.

On a slight tangent, agreeing with your assessment generally. I still think one needs to review the science. There are cases where the best theory science has or had to offer was not a very good one. I keep thinking of theories involving ether to explain electromagnetism.

[Ken Gargett]

23 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

I doubt you believe the same things you did when you were 5. Your life is made up of learning new things and adapting your behavior and understanding of the world based on that experience.

Science is just a more rigorous version.

there was a great quote from gandhi years ago when he expressed a view. no idea about what - doesn't matter. some young journo jumped all over him saying that was contrary to a previous statement he had made (what we'd call gotcha journalism today). why was he not consistent? what had forced him to change? you can imagine the sort of stuff.

gandhi looked at the journo and simply said, 'i have changed my view because this week i know more than i did last week'. 

always amazes me that politicians today never say anything like that. instead they seem to think they must rigidly stick to whatever opinion they expressed as a 12 year old. and it can apply to people looking at science as well. 

[PuroDan]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

there was a great quote from gandhi years ago when he expressed a view. no idea about what - doesn't matter. some young journo jumped all over him saying that was contrary to a previous statement he had made (what we'd call gotcha journalism today). why was he not consistent? what had forced him to change? you can imagine the sort of stuff.

gandhi looked at the journo and simply said, 'i have changed my view because this week i know more than i did last week'. 

always amazes me that politicians today never say anything like that. instead they seem to think they must rigidly stick to whatever opinion they expressed as a 12 year old. and it can apply to people looking at science as well. 

Gandhi was great and said lots of good things and i totally understand what your saying here. Gandhi's views may of changed based on his experiences, thoughts, feelings and maturation ect. But... The truth never did. here is what Gandhi himself said." Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth"

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, PuroDan said:

Gandhi was great and said lots of good things and i totally understand what your saying here. Gandhi's views may of changed based on his experiences, thoughts, feelings and maturation ect. But... The truth never did. here is what Gandhi himself said." Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth"

you would not believe the number of times i've used a version of that to justify myself to mates. sometimes with marginally less justification than was warranted.

no argument at all. the world could do with a few more gandhi's these days. 

but for the vaccine, how does anyone without serious medical training, especially in that field, make a decision other than by basing it on what we are being told by the relevant medical authorities? 

personally, as i have mentioned, i have a fabulous GP and i have a number of doctors/medical experts in the family. if they opposed it, then i would need an awful lot of convincing to have it. at this stage, they are definitely not.

if we go beyond the medical issue to the one i raised before - climate change. sure, we can all make decisions based on our own experience and i have been around more than long enough to see changes. but whether these were pendulum swings that extend beyond one's lifetime or something more permanent, without the science, how can we tell. and when 98% of credible scientists are all on the same page, in varying degrees, how does anyone justify opposing that? i really do not understand it. which is not aimed at you or anyone specifically. just general howling at the moon. 

[garnett]

11 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

you would not believe the number of times i've used a version of that to justify myself to mates. sometimes with marginally less justification than was warranted.

no argument at all. the world could do with a few more gandhi's these days. 

but for the vaccine, how does anyone without serious medical training, especially in that field, make a decision other than by basing it on what we are being told by the relevant medical authorities? 

personally, as i have mentioned, i have a fabulous GP and i have a number of doctors/medical experts in the family. if they opposed it, then i would need an awful lot of convincing to have it. at this stage, they are definitely not.

if we go beyond the medical issue to the one i raised before - climate change. sure, we can all make decisions based on our own experience and i have been around more than long enough to see changes. but whether these were pendulum swings that extend beyond one's lifetime or something more permanent, without the science, how can we tell. and when 98% of credible scientists are all on the same page, in varying degrees, how does anyone justify opposing that? i really do not understand it. which is not aimed at you or anyone specifically. just general howling at the moon. 

Ken you are making to much sense.