Support NeoGAF

[vpance]

Oh, great, I'm sure this will reassure a lot of people who are suspicious of the process.

Covid-19: FDA set to grant full approval to Pfizer vaccine without public discussion of data

Transparency advocates have criticised the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision not to hold a formal advisory committee meeting to discuss Pfizer’s application for full approval of its covid-19 vaccine. Last year the FDA said it was “committed to use an advisory committee composed...

www.bmj.com

Jesus Christ... how do they keep bungling this?

There is no bungle, this is what they wanted from the start. Fast track EUA and full approval

 

[DeepBreath87]

Ah, I see you didn't really read the article in its entirety, and are parroting the typical anti-science, anti-vax messages. Thanks, going to add you to the ignore list now.

I think the point is we are a long way off from having nearly enough understanding to make any strong statements about “The Science” right now. A mere four months ago the science was that vaccinated people don’t get sick, don’t need masks, don’t carry the virus. Turns out the science can change pretty fast. Now we’re being told to mask everyone, the vaccinated still get sick, and roll up your sleeves for round 3.

And that’s all fine and dandy. Seems like there is some actual science indicating that the vaccine is effective for mortality and severe illness. That’s wonderful. But getting all bent out of shape when people point out that our public health leaders got WAY out in front of their skis with regards to some of the things they said about the vaccines and the unvaccinated isn’t anti science.

 

[Loki]

Death rate as percentage of total "emergency care" cases:

• Of those <50 and fully vaccinated, 40,544 received emergency care and 27 died, or 0.06659%.
• Of those <50 and unvaccinated, 178,240 received emergency care and 72 died, or 0.04039%.
• Of those >50 and fully vaccinated, 32,828 received emergency care and 652 died, or 1.98611%.
• Of those >50 and unvaccinated, 4,891 received emergency care and 318 died, or 6.50174%.

Let me present the data you cite in a different way:

Risk of death for vaccinated folks < 50 who required emergent care is 1 in 1501
Risk of death for unvaccinated folks < 50 who required emergent care is 1 in 2457

Keep in mind that this is for cases which required emergency care - the actual risk of death for each group when looking at all cases would be much lower than even these absurdly low numbers. Essentially, you'd just have to look at the percentage of cases requiring emergency care, which I'm not sure of but is probably between 5-20% - then you just do the math. Even assuming that 20% (again, this is hypothetical) of all cases required a visit to the emergency room, the actual Delta IFR for these cohorts would be roughly 1 in 7500 for the vaccinated group and 1 in 10,000 for the unvaccinated group. If the actual rate of hospitalization is lower than 20%, those probabilities are even smaller. I'm sure there are some people who die from COVID without ever having gone to the hospital, but I'd imagine it's a negligible percentage all things considered.

MANDATE VACCINES!! ABROGATE ALL RIGHTS FORTHWITH!! FROTH AT YOUR MOUTH WITH HYSTERIA!!!!111

 

[BadBurger]

I think the point is we are a long way off from having nearly enough understanding to make any strong statements about “The Science” right now. A mere four months ago the science was that vaccinated people don’t get sick, don’t need masks, don’t carry the virus. Turns out the science can change pretty fast.

It has always been known to science that vaccines are not 100% effective, and while they may help prevent infection they're designed to help the immune system fight once infected. It was also always known, therefore, that the vaccinated could carry the virus - just like those inoculated against influenza do. While the opinions on masks change given circumstances, it has always been accepted that if everyone is masked it can help prevent the spread of these kinds of airborne viruses.

At a very specific point in time the messaging from the CDC and other government and medical agencies became consistent and science driven, and it hasn't changed since then. The delta variant has certainly thrown a wrench into plans, though.

 

[Chaplain]

Edited

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It has always been known to science

Hopefully you've got me on ignore by now, but this is such a creepy phrase.

Who the fuck is Science?

It was also always known, therefore, that the vaccinated could carry the virus - just like those inoculated against influenza do.

it has always been accepted that if everyone is masked it can help prevent the spread of these kinds of airborne viruses.

These two are pure revisionist history. Insane what you can convince yourself of. Some right "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia." shit right here.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Hopefully you've got me on ignore by now, but this is such a creepy phrase.

Who the fuck is Science?





These two are pure revisionist history. Insane what you can convince yourself of. Some right "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia." shit right here.

It’s insane, isn’t it? The idea that standard masks are remotely effective at protecting anyone from an aerosolized, airborne virus is somehow considered science now. When anyone who has ever worked with the various infectious disease precaution levels will tell you that just isn’t the case now or in the past.

And the speed at which the goalpost are shifted is matched with their stubborn refusal to even acknowledge they are shifting them. Masks were always recommended, even as the CDC said they weren’t. The vaccines were always leaky, even when the CDC said they weren’t. The vaccines were always only meant to prevent severe disease and death, even when we said unvaccinated people where the ONLY ones spreading the virus.

And then they expect people to trust them, without ever really acknowledging they have completely reversed from things they said at the beginning of the summer. Suddenly delta is the excuse for everything. Could be. Or it could be that they were just full of shit. Maybe people would believe the public health “experts” more if they admitted they made some mistakes along the way.

 

[synchronicity]

Who the fuck is Science?

Lol. You know, we've surely learned (and benefited) a great deal through scientific observation and application, but the view some hold of science is not dissimilar to the view some religious folk hold of their deity. Granted, it doesn't apply to everyone by any stretch, but I always wonder if those who do "deify" science are aware of the irony. No one will save us from inevitable change (read death) Zeus or "Science".

 

[Nobody_Important]

Who the fuck is Science?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It’s insane, isn’t it? The idea that standard masks are remotely effective at protecting anyone from an aerosolized, airborne virus is somehow considered science now. When anyone who has ever worked with the various infectious disease precaution levels will tell you that just isn’t the case now or in the past.

And the speed at which the goalpost are shifted is matched with their stubborn refusal to even acknowledge they are shifting them. Masks were always recommended, even as the CDC said they weren’t.

Yep. The only reason masks got recommended back then is because it was thought that the virus was primarily spreading basically through snot and spittle either directly hitting other people or falling onto surfaces that people touch (remember the surface spread panic and all of the crazy surface sanitation last year?). Now that we know it's primarily spread through tiny aerosolized particles that rapidly fill up the air in a space that is poorly ventilated, we know that most masks do next to nothing. If you can breathe, then well, you can breathe in the virus, too.

The vaccines were always leaky, even when the CDC said they weren’t. The vaccines were always only meant to prevent severe disease and death, even when we said unvaccinated people where the ONLY ones spreading the virus.

People are still saying it's the unvaccinated primarily spreading the virus despite knowing that the vaccinated still get infected and spread to others. Despite this knowledge, they still cling to this idea that if only everyone would get vaccinated we could eliminate the virus. It's pure cognitive dissonance.

 

[BadBurger]

I have them on ignore so I can't see the answer, but let me guess: they doubled down on the whole "Not going to believe any thing the scientists and professionals say, ever, until it fits our alternate universe narrative that this 'isn't a big deal' " while saying masks don't work at all. How close am I? Did they also throw in something about it not being a big deal because not many people under age X die?

 

[BadBurger]

It’s insane, isn’t it? The idea that standard masks are remotely effective at protecting anyone from an aerosolized, airborne virus is somehow considered science now. When anyone who has ever worked with the various infectious disease precaution levels will tell you that just isn’t the case now or in the past.

And the speed at which the goalpost are shifted is matched with their stubborn refusal to even acknowledge they are shifting them. Masks were always recommended, even as the CDC said they weren’t. The vaccines were always leaky, even when the CDC said they weren’t. The vaccines were always only meant to prevent severe disease and death, even when we said unvaccinated people where the ONLY ones spreading the virus.

And then they expect people to trust them, without ever really acknowledging they have completely reversed from things they said at the beginning of the summer. Suddenly delta is the excuse for everything. Could be. Or it could be that they were just full of shit. Maybe people would believe the public health “experts” more if they admitted they made some mistakes along the way.

There are no moving goal posts from the position of science, medicine, and history. The reaction to the pandemic changes as new information is revealed and circumstances (like the delta or observed efficacy of the vaccines over time) arise. Myself and others have pointed out within this thread that scientists are not infallible, and that's why science is a process - it isn't a one and done thing - especially in the very midst of a still developing pandemic. Beyond that, you detractors of science and fact never offer any opposing data of merit because you can't, only conjecture and opinion.

It's becoming a tiring exercise of discussing things from that respect because one cannot pierce conspiratorial, non-fact based thinking. Because unless the facts, as a whole or cherry picked, fit some facet of whatever today's anti-science narrative is you'll reject it. It's like trying to discuss the felling of The World Trade Center with "truthers" all over again. Only this time, the longer some of the population keep rejecting the truth, denying vaccines, and rejecting the same basic practices civilizations have used throughout history to combat plagues, the more people keep dying every day.

Speaking of moving goal posts: when it was observed that the unvaccinated became over 90% of those hospitalized (predicted), and therefore began overwhelming healthcare systems again (also predicted), during the most recent (predicted) outbreak, your lot doubled down on statistics regarding what we already knew: that younger and healthier people die less from COVID-19. Of course. As if because of that known data point we should ignore our increasingly overwhelmed healthcare systems and abandon masks and social distancing and the very real potential of a worse variant arising and stop vaccinating and never vaccinate kids or never approve the vaccines by the FDA and take some new, unproven antiparasitic drug instead (or whatever nonsense keeps worming its way into the global conversation from the uninformed and misinformed). It's all so stupid, and made sad by the fact that if everyone who could have gotten the vaccine would have gotten it, and everyone had always wore masks and social distanced and not attended super spreaders, we'd be coasting down the other side of this mountain. Even with delta.

Ah well. That's all I have to say on that. I am exhausted with trying to get the unwilling to accept basic truths. Meanwhile the hospital my office is in is considering trying to apply for more ICU beds and had to reopen a lab they'd closed earlier in the year for testing and treatment. All because of the new influx of anti-vaxx, anti-science patients are overwhelming us again.

 

[FunkMiller]

If you think giving free money to everyone or controlling people through police is a right wing thing, I dont know what to tell you.

Covid response has completely warped your view of a party that’s more right wing than the Tories.

 

[FunkMiller]

GOP Leader Who Fought Against Vaccine Dies After Weekslong Battle With Coronavirus

Pressley Stutts, a Republican leader in South Carolina, shared conspiracy theories from his ICU bed.

www.huffpost.com

There’s going to genuinely be some sort of Darwinian study into this pandemic at some point. These morons are natural selecting themselves out of the gene pool, and possibly increasing the intelligence of the human race just a tiny bit.

 

[DeepBreath87]

There are no moving goal posts from the position of science, medicine, and history. The reaction to the pandemic changes as new information is revealed and circumstances (like the delta or observed efficacy of the vaccines over time) arise. Myself and others have pointed out within this thread that scientists are not infallible, and that's why science is a process - it isn't a one and done thing - especially in the very midst of a still developing pandemic. Beyond that, you detractors of science and fact never offer any opposing data of merit because you can't, only conjecture and opinion.

It's becoming a tiring exercise of discussing things from that respect because one cannot pierce conspiratorial, non-fact based thinking. Because unless the facts, as a whole or cherry picked, fit some facet of whatever today's anti-science narrative is you'll reject it. It's like trying to discuss the felling of The World Trade Center with "truthers" all over again. Only this time, the longer some of the population keep rejecting the truth, denying vaccines, and rejecting the same basic practices civilizations have used throughout history to combat plagues, the more people keep dying every day.

Speaking of moving goal posts: when it was observed that the unvaccinated became over 90% of those hospitalized (predicted), and therefore began overwhelming healthcare systems again (also predicted), during the most recent (predicted) outbreak, your lot doubled down on statistics regarding what we already knew: that younger and healthier people die less from COVID-19. Of course. As if because of that known data point we should ignore our increasingly overwhelmed healthcare systems and abandon masks and social distancing and the very real potential of a worse variant arising and stop vaccinating and never vaccinate kids or never approve the vaccines by the FDA and take some new, unproven antiparasitic drug instead (or whatever nonsense keeps worming its way into the global conversation from the uninformed and misinformed). It's all so stupid, and made sad by the fact that if everyone who could have gotten the vaccine would have gotten it, and everyone had always wore masks and social distanced and not attended super spreaders, we'd be coasting down the other side of this mountain. Even with delta.

Ah well. That's all I have to say on that. I am exhausted with trying to get the unwilling to accept basic truths. Meanwhile the hospital my office is in is considering trying to apply for more ICU beds and had to reopen a lab they'd closed earlier in the year for testing and treatment. All because of the new influx of anti-vaxx, anti-science patients are overwhelming us again.

You guys have a really really tough time understanding that public health experts are not “science”. So when I point out their many mistakes over this past year and their refusal to acknowledge them, that isn’t an attack on science. It’s an attack on the idea that these people’s poor judgement should be allowed to dictate how we live our lives.

I could go through the litany of times they have contradicted themselves or been completely unable to justify their own recommendations. The point isn’t that people can’t be wrong. Far from it. I don’t care if scientists are wrong sometimes. That’s the nature of science. What I can about is that governments have empowered people who have been wrong repeatedly to become mini dictators. They get to say which businesses are safe to open, who has to cover their face, how far apart people stand, where you’re allowed to go based on what medicine you’ve taken.

The problem isn’t science. The problem is the people we pretend are always following the science (public health experts) have made all kinds of proclamations before they had enough actual science to justify them, and we have empowered them far too much.

And worse is the constant excuse making. It’s never “we made mistakes”. It’s always “the science changed” or “the virus changed”. Science is just the process we use to learn about the world. The decisions we make can be guided by it, but they are not “science” in and of themselves. And when the public health experts get things wrong, that isn’t the science changing. That’s them either operating on incomplete information or using bad judgement to misread the situation.

So no, I’m not attacking science.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

You guys have a really really tough time understanding that public health experts are not “science”. So when I point out their many mistakes over this past year and their refusal to acknowledge them, that isn’t an attack on science. It’s an attack on the idea that these people’s poor judgement should be allowed to dictate how we live our lives.

Only been watching this thread for a month.

Most times that you pointed something out you've been completely wrong and public health had nothing to acknowledge. Poor judgement would be taking your ridiculous conceited boast at your word over public health.

And for the few times you were right, only because they were extreme and obvious cases, doesn't make every previous claim you made was right

 

[Bernd Lauert]

When FDA approval becomes a rubber stamp, it doesn't exactly improve the people's trust in that institution, you know...

 

[EviLore]

When FDA approval becomes a rubber stamp, it doesn't exactly improve the people's trust in that institution, you know...

A booster shot isn’t an unknown quantity.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

A booster shot isn’t an unknown quantity.

The approval is about the xeen in general. It's happening based on 6 months of data (trial was designed for 2 years) and there is no control group. And it's happening behind closed doors. They're likely doing this so they can say "take the booster, it's FDA approved", but the way they're doing it could make people become more hesitant about taking it, not less.

 

[EviLore]

The approval is about the xeen in general. It's happening based on 6 months of data (trial was designed for 2 years) and there is no control group. And it's happening behind closed doors. They're likely doing this so they can say "take the booster, it's FDA approved", but the way they're doing it could make people become more hesitant about taking it, not less.

Those standard protocols re: trial length etc. were designed for normal circumstances, not a pandemic. Speeding things up saves hundreds of thousands of lives. It's an appropriate judgment call. We haven't turned into zombies.

Antivaxxers won't become less delusional if the FDA does something differently, so their perspectives shouldn't be considered.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Those standard protocols re: trial length etc. were designed for normal circumstances, not a pandemic. Speeding things up saves hundreds of thousands of lives. It's an appropriate judgment call. We haven't turned into zombies.

Antivaxxers won't become less delusional if the FDA does something differently, so their perspectives shouldn't be considered.

I guess the question is what's the long term goal here. Because the way things are going, we'll never be even close to herd immunity, and the FDA's approach to this probably won't help.

I don't think antivaxxers even matter in the big picture. We're talking about less than 10% of the population.

 

[CAB_Life]

I ask that question every day.



Because Gilead filled the pockets of people with power since the beginning of the pandemic. And while WHO has recommended against its use since November 2020, this didn't stop Biden to send remdesivir to India in April 2021, touting it as help.

EDIT: Same reason why AZ vaccine been fudded to oblivion vs the others. Been waiting to see if this manuscript ends up being published in Lancet

Don’t forget that AstraZenica (Oxford) was supposed to be FREE. Then Bill and Melinda stepped in and counselled Oxford on the evils of releasing an open-sourced vaccine during a pandemic. For our own protection, of course. Can’t have the poors getting vaccinated for pennies each, it would be terrible for reasons that have yet to be explained, reasons we’re presumed too stupid to understand. Between that and Gate’s numerous, intimate dealings with Epstein I can only imagine Melinda left him before her skin crawled right off her body, She had to do the damage control for the AZ fiasco on national TV too, while he just sat back and played the thoughtful philanthropist, as usual.

To be clear: I’m not disputing the reality of a pandemic or the necessity of vaccines. However, let’s not pretend as if a significant amount of opportunism and exploitation isn’t happening, either.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Only been watching this thread for a month.

Most times that you pointed something out you've been completely wrong and public health had nothing to acknowledge. Poor judgement would be taking your ridiculous conceited boast at your word over public health.

And for the few times you were right, only because they were extreme and obvious cases, doesn't make every previous claim you made was right

Feel free to catalog my positions here that have been wrong if it makes you feel better. He’s the thing. It’s irrelevant. I don’t have the authority to force you to wear a piece of cloth over your face or keep you within a few kilometers of your home or keep you from collecting rent while the bank keeps expecting you to pay the mortgage.

I hold public health officials to a higher standard because the consequences of their bad opinions actually matter. The reason we shouldn’t be empowering these ridiculous public health officials to dictate the rules is precisely because science is constantly changing. It’s because scientific opinions are often wrong and operating based on incomplete data that we should not just reflexively follow ever word that escapes a public health expert’s mouth.

If you think my opinions arrogant, I wonder what you think of the people who declared vaccinated people “don’t get sick” and “don’t carry the virus” and then made sweeping policy decisions based on those false assumptions.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Feel free to catalog my positions here that have been wrong if it makes you feel better. He’s the thing. It’s irrelevant. I don’t have the authority to force you to wear a piece of cloth over your face or keep you a few kilometers from your home or keep you from collecting rent while the bank keeps expecting you to pay the mortgage.

I hold public health officials to a higher standard because the consequences of their bad opinions actually matter. The reason we shouldn’t be empowering these ridiculous public health officials to dictate the rules is precisely because science is constantly changing. It’s because scientific opinions are often wrong and operating based on incomplete data that we should not just reflexively follow ever word that escapes a public health expert’s mouth.

If you think my opinions arrogant, I wonder what you think of the people who declared vaccinated people “don’t get sick” and “don’t carry the virus” and then made sweeping policy decisions based on those false assumptions.

You're the braggart that made the claim. It's up to you to prove someone who thinks far too much of their themselves and their opinion is the better source over the entire education and oversight of every member of public health across the planet.

Nice way to close out your post with a stupid whatabout.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Not saying public health is infallible either

Alberta PHO is a great example. Still hasn't released the model used for their policy of dropping all restrictions along with all testing and tracking.



That pushback to Public Health is supported by the doctors and medical professionals in the province.

No one believes there is any data.

Common opinion is PHO in Alberta has lore that needs dressing up to look like data. It may not even possible for the AB PHO to even cherry pick to make it convincing to scrutiny and is hoping people will forget.

 

[DeepBreath87]

You're the braggart that made the claim. It's up to you to prove someone who thinks far too much of their themselves and their opinion is the better source over the entire education and oversight of every member of public health across the planet.

Nice way to close out your post with a stupid whatabout.

What claim did I make? Other than public health officials have been almost continuously wrong throughout the pandemic. Shifting goalposts without acknowledging past mistakes. Pretending every bad recommendation is just due to changing circumstances rather than bad public policy often based on faulty, incomplete data. That’s not so much a claim as it is a fact. I’m not saying they can’t be wrong. I’m saying they can’t be granted all the power they have been to dictate how people get to live their lives while also being wrong. Your wish to hold me accountable for message board posts in misplaced. It should directed at the people who told us to stay six feet apart for the last year, based on zero actual data, among other things.

 

[betrayal]

Antivaxxers won't become less delusional if the FDA does something differently, so their perspectives shouldn't be considered.

I do not agree with that. I would agree with you when we talk about anti-vaxxers in the sense of people who talk about conspiracies, Bill Gates, God and microchips and they don't get vaccinated for these reasons.

But the vast majority of "anti-vaxxers" are not against vaccination in general, but are still undecided about the COVID-19 vaccination. God, Bill Gates or a NWO have nothing to do with that. It is precisely these people who do not feel that they are being taken seriously and it does not matter at all why they do not want to be vaccinated. By constantly tossing this large number into the same category as the complete idiots, i.e. the actual conspiracy anti-vaxxers, you are not doing society as a whole any favors.

The very success of vaccination depends on reaching a certain critical mass of vaccinated people, depending on the population and several factors. Depending on the region, 10%, but sometimes even only 1% of people who do not get vaccinated can be enough to not reach this critical mass.

I find it beyond belief why no high-ranking politician has yet managed to say publicly: "Yes, the vaccine only has emergency approval, and yes, even full approval will not be subject to the same criteria as previous vaccines. We simply cannot afford that in terms of time. And yes, the vaccine may also have side effects and we can never rule out possible long-term effects, even if the chance is extremely small. So we understand your legitimate concerns, but please understand that we currently have no better option in the fight against this virus. Even if you yourself are unlikely to be at risk if infected, by getting vaccinated you are helping to better protect the health of others and your community. So please consider getting vaccinated."

It's simply about giving people the feeling that you understand them and that their opinion matters. Whether you really do that or want to is a completely different topic, but if the general communication in the world were similar to this, then I'm sure that significantly more people would get vaccinated. All the conspiracy anti-vaxxers could be easily ignored, because they represent only a negligible number.

 

[FunkMiller]

You silly fucking cunts.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Other than public health officials have been almost continuously wrong throughout the pandemic. Shifting goalposts without acknowledging past mistakes. Pretending every bad recommendation is just due to changing circumstances rather than bad public policy often based on faulty, incomplete data. That’s not so much a claim as it is a fact. I’m not saying they can’t be wrong. I’m saying they can’t be granted all the power they have been to dictate how people get to live their lives while also being wrong. Your wish to hold me accountable for message board posts in misplaced. It should directed at the people who told us to stay six feet apart for the last year, based on zero actual data, among other things.

They haven't been continuously wrong or shifting goalposts. It's not a political debate. It's a public health emergency to a new pandemic virus and that requires learning new information and continually adapting to a with changing circumstances. Focusing on what caused any errors is more important than the error itself in terms of future response.

Framing health policy as a political debate is predicated on the idea that these have all the answers already. That they are withholding or preventing the proper solution. There isn't even a debate about the details to be had about the medical information outside the medical community and their response to any new information or protocols.

The strangest argument seen on here presented by many is that one particular mode of dealing with the pandemic will work across all geographies, population densities, social cultural factors, acquisition of limited vaccines and the myriad of other factors that makes each region unique in their response.

 

[ManaByte]

Brace for anti-vaxxer meltdowns as every company in the US will now mandate it since it's FDA approved.

 

[EviLore]

Brace for anti-vaxxer meltdowns as every company in the US will now mandate it since it's FDA approved.

 

[DeepBreath87]

They haven't been continuously wrong or shifting goalposts. It's not a political debate. It's a public health emergency to a new pandemic virus and that requires learning new information and continually adapting to a with changing circumstances. Focusing on what caused any errors is more important than the error itself in terms of future response.

Framing health policy as a political debate is predicated on the idea that these have all the answers already. That they are withholding or preventing the proper solution. There isn't even a debate about the details to be had about the medical information outside the medical community and their response to any new information or protocols.

The strangest argument seen on here presented by many is that one particular mode of dealing with the pandemic will work across all geographies, population densities, social cultural factors, acquisition of limited vaccines and the myriad of other factors that makes each region unique in their response.

The debate about public health policy is inherently political. Not right vs left political. They’re political like all public policy is political. I shouldn’t have to explain why that is, but I can. So covid is not the most important thing on earth. It has to be placed within the greater framework of public policy.

The point isn’t that public health officials are not allowed to make recommendations which turn out to be bad advice because the data changes or they have bad opinions or whatever. The debate is over how much weight we give their recommendations considering we know they are making them about topics they are still learning about. Where do their recommendations fit into the larger framework of society.

We have treated their recommendations with a reverence they do not deserve. Reordered society based on them. Six feet apart. Cloth masks. Plastic barriers. Vaccine passports. Even if these people are just doing the best they can, how many times are we going to keep imposing measures on people only to find out they were at best ineffective before we decide to stop placing so much stock in what they are saying?

 

[Chaplain]

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

The debate about public health policy is inherently political. I shouldn’t have to explain why that is, but I can. So covid is not the most important thing on earth. It has to be placed within the greater framework of public policy.

The point isn’t that public health officials are not allowed to make recommendations which turn out to be bad advice because the data changes or they have bad opinions or whatever. The debate is over how much weight we give their recommendations considering we know they are making them about topics they are still learning about. Where do their recommendations fit into the larger framework of society.

We have treated their recommendations with a reverence they do not deserve. Reordered society based on them. Six feet apart. Cloth masks. Plastic barriers. Vaccine passports. Even if these people are just doing the best they can, how many times are we going to keep imposing measures on people only to find out they were at best ineffective before we decide to stop placing so much stock in what they are saying?

Not so sure if there is unquestioning reverence to their recommendations. Not across the board anyhow.
Look to Alberta. A hint of politics influencing recommendations and the medical community is on it for review. Now that AB PHO is stalling on releasing their data and changed course.

Politician have to enact public health recommendation, that is where the politics should come in.

Framing the public health policy advice as put forward by PHOs as inherently political is an incorrect assumption regarding their work. Politics isn't something that is in their work or influencing their advice on public health policy. It's data driven.

It's how the politicians who legislate around that health policy recommendations where the politics come with the balancing other considerations. When politics might be influencing the advice of public health officers is something to look for, as in the case of Alberta.

 

[Jaysen]

I have them on ignore so I can't see the answer, but let me guess: they doubled down on the whole "Not going to believe any thing the scientists and professionals say, ever, until it fits our alternate universe narrative that this 'isn't a big deal' " while saying masks don't work at all. How close am I? Did they also throw in something about it not being a big deal because not many people under age X die?

Meanwhile big thumbs up to eating horse paste and injecting bleach. All antivaxers are the same level of pathetic. Putting them on ignore is the right move.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Don’t forget that AstraZenica (Oxford) was supposed to be FREE. Then Bill and Melinda stepped in and counselled Oxford on the evils of releasing an open-sourced vaccine during a pandemic. For our own protection, of course. Can’t have the poors getting vaccinated for pennies each, it would be terrible for reasons that have yet to be explained, reasons we’re presumed too stupid to understand. Between that and Gate’s numerous, intimate dealings with Epstein I can only imagine Melinda left him before her skin crawled right off her body, She had to do the damage control for the AZ fiasco on national TV too, while he just sat back and played the thoughtful philanthropist, as usual.

To be clear: I’m not disputing the reality of a pandemic or the necessity of vaccines. However, let’s not pretend as if a significant amount of opportunism and exploitation isn’t happening, either.

So capitalism bad?

I don't wan't to be an arse, but I find hard to reconcile gaf's pro-capitalism and free market ideologies with demanding pharma companies give up the business opportunity of a vaccine to fix a pandemic.

 

[Jaysen]

So capitalism bad?

I don't wan't to be an arse, but I find hard to reconcile gaf's pro-capitalism and free market ideologies with demanding pharma companies give up the business opportunity of a vaccine to fix a pandemic.

All depends on what the agenda of the day is on the Facebook conspiracy accounts they follow are.

 

[ManaByte]

All depends on what the agenda of the day is on the Facebook conspiracy accounts they follow are.

Those accounts are too busy making new meme images to alter the narrative that now FDA approval is just a "rubber stamp" and not real.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Not so sure if there is unquestioning reverence to their recommendations. Not across the board anyhow.
Look to Alberta. A hint of politics influencing recommendations and the medical community is on it for review. Now that AB PHO is stalling on releasing their data and changed course.

Politician have to enact public health recommendation, that is where the politics should come in.

Framing the public health policy advice as put forward by PHOs as inherently political is an incorrect assumption regarding their work. Politics isn't something that is in their work or influencing their advice on public health policy. It's data driven.

It's how the politicians who legislate around that health policy recommendations where the politics come with the balancing other considerations. When politics might be influencing the advice of public health officers is something to look for, as in the case of Alberta.

The part you underlined just isn’t the case writ large. Case in point:

Fauci: Stimulus bill needs to be passed for schools to reopen

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said on Sunday that a stimulus bill needed to be passed in order for schools to safely reopen.While appearing on ABC’s “This …

thehill.com

There have been other similar examples:

Risking Their Lives To Save Their Lives: Why Public Health Experts Support Black Lives Matter Protests

Public health support of the Black Lives Matter protests seems to contradict public health advice to stay home. But the issue isn't so simple.

www.forbes.com

The idea that public health officials and the advice they’ve given has always been entirely separate from political considerations belies reality. That doesn’t mean everything they say is political or that we should just ignore them outright. It means what they say should be put into context and that for the past 18 months they have been unwilling to put it into that context themselves.

They have spent a lot of time ordering people around and basically accusing anyone who disobeys their edicts as being reckless. But they don’t spend much time acknowledging when they reverse themselves. It’s always “circumstances changed” and never “sorry, we gave you bad advice”. The lack of accountability is a problem, because the stuff these people say has had real consequences.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Those accounts are too busy making new meme images to alter the narrative that now FDA approval is just a "rubber stamp" and not real.

At this point the goalposts have been moved all over the field and are now sitting comfortably in the parking lot.

 

[Great Hair]

Pan-Sarbecovirus Neutralizing Antibodies in BNT162b2-Immunized SARS-CoV-1 Survivors​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108453?query=featured_home

Pfizer wins

 

[DeepBreath87]

Pan-Sarbecovirus Neutralizing Antibodies in BNT162b2-Immunized SARS-CoV-1 Survivors​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108453?query=featured_home

Pfizer wins

Can you summarize that for me? So the Pfizer vaccine is effective at immunizing against the original SARS?

 

[CAB_Life]

So capitalism bad?

I don't wan't to be an arse, but I find hard to reconcile gaf's pro-capitalism and free market ideologies with demanding pharma companies give up the business opportunity of a vaccine to fix a pandemic.

Oxford was 97% publically funded. Big pharma’s intervention was absolutely not needed. Nor was Gate’s “philanthropy”.

Is the Guardian a reliable enough source for you? They’re as left-leaning as it gets.

Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine research ‘was 97% publicly funded’

Analysis rebuts claim by Boris Johnson that jab was developed ‘because of greed’

www.theguardian.com

Capitalism is great and the best system humans have invented in a couple millennia to manage societies. However, obvious tweaks are needed to the system since it’s so easily exploited and built to sustain—often at the expense of others—the powers and hierarchies that run it. Clearly there are those who disproportionately benefit from said systems, and Gates is one of them. Only an absolute muppet would defend such obvious exploitation, especially during a time of crisis.

 

[Great Hair]

Can you summarize that for me? So the Pfizer vaccine is effective at immunizing against the original SARS?

Based on "intel", that seems to be the case. Not sure by how much (effective) it is over the other. But there are other outlets claiming the Pfizer is weak ...

Vaccines Are Less Effective Against Delta—And Pfizer’s Protection Wanes Rapidly—But Are The Best Way To Protect Against Covid, Large Study Finds

The researchers found that fully vaccinated people carry just as much virus as unvaccinated people and warned that herd immunity for Covid-19 may be “unachievable” if they can also spread the disease as easily.

www.forbes.com

Pfizer Vaccine's Efficacy Against Delta Variant Drops After Three Months: Study

A study ran by the U.K. government found that the efficacy of Pfizer's Covid vaccine against the Delta variant dropped over time.

www.barrons.com

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

The part you underlined just isn’t the case writ large. Case in point:

Fauci: Stimulus bill needs to be passed for schools to reopen

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said on Sunday that a stimulus bill needed to be passed in order for schools to safely reopen.While appearing on ABC’s “This …

thehill.com

There have been other similar examples:

Risking Their Lives To Save Their Lives: Why Public Health Experts Support Black Lives Matter Protests

Public health support of the Black Lives Matter protests seems to contradict public health advice to stay home. But the issue isn't so simple.

www.forbes.com

The idea that public health officials and the advice they’ve given has always been entirely separate from political considerations belies reality. That doesn’t mean everything they say is political or that we should just ignore them outright. It means what they say should be put into context and that for the past 18 months they have been unwilling to put it into that context themselves.

They have spent a lot of time ordering people around and basically accusing anyone who disobeys their edicts as being reckless. But they don’t spend much time acknowledging when they reverse themselves. It’s always “circumstances changed” and never “sorry, we gave you bad advice”. The lack of accountability is a problem, because the stuff these people say has had real consequences.

Don't disagree with your examples and your raise good points.

Messaging is starting to change in my province as policy is adapting. As restrictions are reduced gotta wonder how some people going to take it. While there's been a pause on re-opening plans due to Delta, there's been no full reversal. There's been data based(provided) regional restrictions and more are coming based on circumstances.

School plans haven't been released. I like to think our PHO was waiting for more(the latest) data to give that response and not an unqualified recommendation either way.

There's restriction supporting people that want to tell our PHO Dr. Bonnie Henry when she should wear a mask and what policies to make from their armchair and incomplete understanding of what's going on.

 

[Chaplain]

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

 

[ManaByte]

Edit: This made me LOL

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Those standard protocols re: trial length etc. were designed for normal circumstances, not a pandemic. Speeding things up saves hundreds of thousands of lives. It's an appropriate judgment call. We haven't turned into zombies.

Antivaxxers won't become less delusional if the FDA does something differently, so their perspectives shouldn't be considered.

I don't think it's fair at all to call people who are skeptical about these very particular vaccines and how they were rushed to market "anti-vaxxers."

With that said, if this is the process under which every future vaccine gets approved, then yeah, you're probably going to see a lot more anti-vaxxers in the future.

There are actually a good number of people out there waiting for these to be fully approved by the FDA, because they still trust in that traditionally rigorous and transparent review process and just didn't want to get them on an emergency use authorization basis. We already have more vaccines than there is demand in this country, so the only reason to give them full FDA approval at this point is to further legitimize them, but I think the opposite effect will be had if the FDA cuts corners and rushes the full approval process.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Edit: This made me LOL

Guys guys come on now I'm sure that the concern over the emergency approval was entirely genuine and now that full approval is on the way it means that many of the people in this thread and beyond it who were previously against the vaccine will maturely admit that the situation has changed and that their views have as well.


And then this thread can go from being a debate about the vaccine and to be more about news regarding it safe implementation and recommendation.