What happens when you rush a vaccine to market? Lack of critical data is what happens

[beachbumbob]

Pfizer chairman: We're not sure if someone can transmit virus after vaccination



https://thehill.com/news-by-subject/healthcare/528619-pfizer-chairman-were-not-sure-if-someone-can-transmit-virus-after




Pfizer chairman Albert Bourla told Dateline host Lester Holt that the pharmaceutical company was “not certain” if the vaccine prevented the coronavirus from being transmitted, saying, “This is something that needs to be examined.”

[samnsara]

2. i keep recalling Prez Ford and the Swine flu vaccine....

..thank goodness UK is taking it first ( I'm sure it will be OK!)

[a la izquierda]

7. Happy to oblige...

I'm a US citizen living (hopefully permanently) in the UK. I'm pretty low on the list to get the vaccine (early 40s, no pre-existing conditions), but when I can, I'll be in line.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

115. I recall that very well.

The essential problem was that there was a terrible, rare, side-effect that wasn't picked up in the early testing. Something similar could be lurking in any one of these rushed vaccines.

[Maxheader]

3. Were the manufacturers..

Saying the vaccine would prohibit transmission?....

[Klaralven]

4. It doesn't really matter, so long as the vaccine protects the person vaccinated

The purpose of the vaccine is to activate your immune system, so that when you contract a case of the virus, it is asymptomatic and doesn't harm you.

Whether, during your very mild case, you can infect others is a separate issue. Most likely you are not very infectious, but not 100%.

[NurseJackie]

6. Thanks for the info and analysis.

[beachbumbob]

9. the CEO of Pzizer said they have no idea concerning a vaccinated person infecting others

is a possibility. So now you say so what, go ahead and infect at will as long as YOU are safe?

[Klaralven]

13. The vaccinated person is not infectious because of the vaccine

The Pfizer vaccine does not contain any virus.

However, after being vaccinated, you may be very weakly infectious if you contract the virus from someone else and your body's immune system is fighting the virus off.

What he said was:

In a list of interview highlights released before the special, Holt asked Bourla, “Even though I’ve had the protection, am I still able to transmit it to other people?”

“I think this is something that needs to be examined. We are not certain about that right now with what we know,” Bourla responded.

[rainin]

12. So, they roll it out in stages and only my elderly mom is vaccinated in my family

She lives with us. Her transmitting the virus to the rest of us who don't have access to the vaccine sounds like a problem to me.

[Klaralven]

15. Your elderly mom does not become infectious because of being vaccinated

The Pfizer vaccine does not contain any virus and cannot cause your elderly mom to have Covid.

However, even after being vaccinated, your elderly mom should continue to take precautions against being exposed to Covid, since if she is, her immune system still has to fight off the Covid virus. While that is happening, she may be weakly infectious, similar to someone who has Covid but is asymptomatic.

[hlthe2b]

34. This is correct.

[tanyev]

46. Thank you. I suspect my husband will be vaccinated long before I qualify,

and I was already wondering about that.

[Hortensis]

21. No more than a child vaccinated against polio would infect his classmates.

Or a baby getting his first DPT risks bringing three diseases home to his family.

[hlthe2b]

37. Not a great example. The polio vaccine we administer NOW is not infectious, but the oral polio

still used with great success across the world where polio remains an issue AND USED IN THIS COUNTRY FOR DECADES PRIOR, IS infectious (live, but modified virus)--in fact that is why it was chosen for polio eradication in developing countries because shedding in feces can help infect and thus "vaccinate" others.

But the point here, is there is no virus in this vaccine. Only an mRNA component stimulates a specific immune response in the host. NONE of the vaccines under development will contain live virus.

[Hortensis]

44. True, and serious points. Mine is just that people should, you know, THINK.

Even without reading a word about these new vaccines, alarms should be evaluated against what they know just by living.

Hmmm, is a woman over 40 REALLY more likely to be killed by a vaccination than to get married?

[uponit7771]

45. has the mRNA ever been used before? Has it been infectious before? thx in advance

[hlthe2b]

51. It has not been used in previously licensed vaccinations. But, there is nothing infecious in mRNA.

It is the genetic "messenger" that informs cells to respond. It is not a virus. All cells contain mRNA.

However, mRNA mechanism has been used in vaccines that have not yet come to market--mainly because there was not the same urgency, so the technology has been around for a while.

I am a straight shooter. There are some questions with these vaccines, as there are with all vaccines, that won't be answered UNTIL millions receive them, but I do believe their safety profile will outweigh any concerns. The remaining questions will include the duration and durability of the protection conferred and thus how frequently it must be bolstered in the future, as well as how early it might be given in children and whether severely immune-compromised patients can mount a sufficient response or whether they may need a different dosing schedule. But given the immediacy and urgency of need and the incredible morbidity and risk of death from natural infection with COVID-19, there does appear to be sufficient information on safety and efficacy to proceed as long as the data reviewed by FDA are validated.

[Drahthaardogs]

54. It's not a new technology

Just a new application

[hlthe2b]

55. I said that in my post. Please re-read.

second line:

However, mRNA mechanism has been used in vaccines that have not yet come to market--mainly because there was not the same urgency, so the technology has been around for a while.

[Drahthaardogs]

58. I'm talking about cancer treatments

Not vaccines. It’s been approved and used in that application

[hlthe2b]

59. The question was about vaccines. The issue of use in therapeutics is not at issue.

[Drahthaardogs]

62. No. The question was "Has mRNA been used before?"

The correct answer is “Yes, it has been used to produce specific cancer treatments, but this is the first time the technology has been approved in a vaccine”.

[hlthe2b]

63. The entire thread is about the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.

You aren't helping by adding to the confusion with side issues. We have a lay audience here that is confused about the vaccines so it would be helpful to answer their questions.

[Drahthaardogs]

66. Well I disagree. The point is the efficacy of the vaccine

And it is important people know that this technology has been approved and used with great success in other in-vivo applications. It assuages their trepidation and is pertinent.

[hlthe2b]

68. Exactly... The thread is about the vaccine. Your misrepresenting what i posted is not helpful

and it sure is hell is not helpful to those coming here to understand the facts of the virus, the vaccine, and these differing vaccine methodologies. That really ought to be your concern, not making an unrelated point.

[Ms. Toad]

67. Actually, I find that information useful.

Whenever something new is being offered (mRNA as a vaccine), I am curious about whether it has been used in other capacities - since that is rich source of information about how the body responds its introduction (even in a different capacity than the one currently proposed).

[uponit7771]

71. +1, thx for answering in the context of vaccines and not in the context of any other application ...

... seeing vaccines is the subject of the OP

[hlthe2b]

72. You are quite welcome.

[uponit7771]

69. THANK YOU !!! This is way better than being called anti-vax ... thx for this, should be OP

[Drahthaardogs]

53. Yes and no. It is a proven cancer treatment

This is the first time the technology has. Even applied to a vaccine

[NurseJackie]

5. Does this mean that people shouldn't get the vaccine? Is this promoting an anti-vax message?

[Happyhippychick]

8. Sounds that way...

[NurseJackie]

16. The "be afraid... be very very afraid" message is starting to show up on DU.

There are those who are already promoting distrust and suspicion and "conspiracy theories"... or making anti-vax arguments such as "masks and social distancing are just-as-good as a vaccine" (argh!!!)

[Hortensis]

23. :) I'm not afraid. Lots of hospital staff will be dropping dead

before the needle gets to us. By one phased plan, we'd be in group 1C.

Seriously, the people I listen to are all saying do it. That's enough.

I will, of course, watch suspiciously to see if Presidents Carter, Clinton and Bush really go through with it. One hint of trickery, and we're out!

[NurseJackie]

32. I'll be in an early group too (I hope) but not among the VERY first.

[uponit7771]

36. "(I hope) but not among the VERY first." Wait, WTF !?!? Has is this a message of trust vaccines ?

This is about all I'm saying too; I'm going to wait and see what happens with the people who take it first and don't think that's unreasonable and I see you posting something similar.

There needs to be an anti vaxxer dictionary or something

[NurseJackie]

70. Oh good grief! GMAFB! Read it again... the whole sentence.

36. &quot I hope) but not among the VERY first." Wait, WTF !?!? Has is this a message of trust vaccines ?

Oh good grief! GMAFB! Read it again... the whole sentence.

Here's what I said:

32. I'll be in an early group too (I hope) but not among the VERY first.

It's really not that hard to understand. But I'll be happy to break it down for you anyway.

Here's what it means: Because of my age, I hope that I will be in an early group to receive the vaccine. However, I won't be among the VERY first because I'm not a healthcare provider, and because I don't live in a nursing home.

This means that I want to receive the vaccine as soon as possible. I means I don't want to wait. It means that I understand the necessity for others to receive the first-available doses ahead of me. It means that in spite of my eagerness to receive the vaccine, I'm willing to wait my turn FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY!!

[uponit7771]

73. OK, I'm same ... I want to be early but not the first too... we're not that different Jackie :D

[NurseJackie]

77. No... if I could be first I would be first. I actually WANT to be first....

No... if I could be first I would be first. I actually WANT to be first. But I'm a decent human being and I know that for the sake of humanity, it's important that others get the vaccine first.

we're not that different Jackie

From what I've seen, I cannot agree. I'm among those who think it's vital that people STOP spreading irrational FUDD (fear uncertainty doubt distrust) and that the same should stop engaging in unnecessary rhetoric or other anti-vax propaganda that has the ultimate effect of dissuading ANYONE from not receiving the vaccine. The more people who buy in to the anti-vax fear mongering and mad-scientist conspiracy theories... well, that just means the less effective the vaccine will be.

This is not intentionally giving people syphilis, this is not giving lobotomies, it's not smallpox blankets, it's not Nazi torture experiments or live human vivisection. It's less controversial than adding fluoride in drinking water. People need to stop being selfish and stop trying to sabotage this. We have one chance to get it right and we need to act NOW!!!

[uponit7771]

79. Same here except I can't. After finding out there were not broad enough testing for PECs I'm out

... of the first group.

I'm glad I asked and can now see the first group is going to be narrower than I thought.

We're not that different on this subject Jackie 😉

[NurseJackie]

81. Yes we are.

We're not that different on this subject Jackie

I'm eager to receive the vaccine. I'm not spreading FUDD.

We're very different.

[uponit7771]

83. I'm not spreading FUDD and I'm eager too soooo ... yeah, we're more same than different.

[NurseJackie]

84. LOL!

I'm not spreading FUDD

LOL. I may need hearing aids, but I can see just fine... and I can comprehend what I read. I know what I saw. I have a good memory.

yeah, we're more same than different.

No... I'm not seeing it. We're nothing alike.

[uponit7771]

85. lol, we'll disagree on that lil iddy biddy tiny point then

[NurseJackie]

87. No, FUDD is not "iddy-biddy". Irrational disinformation and fear-mongering hurts everyone.

No, FUDD is not "iddy-biddy". Irrational disinformation and fear-mongering hurts everyone. Not just the people who fall for it (and therefore refuse to get the vaccine). But by doing so, they will become spreaders of the virus. And risk spreading the virus to those for whom the vaccine isn't as effective. Or to those who haven't yet had their booster shot, or annual shot. They also become incubators for the virus to mutate into something entirely different... something that can evade the current vaccine and something that can infect ANYONE. It starts all over again.

No... it's not "lil iddy biddy tiny" anything!

I'm not selfish. I have a conscience. I have the ability to comprehend large numbers and I know that MILLIONS of lives are at stake. I know that RIGHT NOW people are dying at a rate exceeding one person every thirty seconds. EVERY THIRTY SECONDS SOMEONE IS DYING! (And that's just in the United States!!)

[Hortensis]

39. :) If I were a nursing home staffer, I'd be hoping to get it FIRST day. nt

[beachbumbob]

10. means any COVID vaccine has lacking data hat could give people a false sense, has nothing to do with

anti-vax messaging.

[uponit7771]

38. THIS !!! I don't see how "shut up and take it or you're anti-vax" helps with reasonable trepidation

[Squinch]

11. I don't think so. It doesn't say don't get the vaccine, it's saying we don't have good information.

If, after one gets the vaccine, one is contagious, that's information we need to know if we are going to administer it responsibly. People need to know if they need to isolate after getting the vaccine, and for how long?

[Claire Oh Nette]

113. no live virus in this vaccine

People will not be contagious after getting a vaccine with zero live virus in it.

Once vaccinated, a person's immune system will fight off any infection. Being vaccinated will not produce a mild case similar to asymptomatic spreaders. Vaccinated people will not be shedding viral loads like the current asymptomatics are now.

The data produced to determine efficacy has been calculated and spun by highly paid statisticians. Another poster wanted access to the data itself, as though he might be able to extrapolate differently than those with PhDs in statistics. Never mind the peer reviewed articles and studies being published.

Had the current (mal)administration not politicized and poisoned mask wearing and the vaccine itself, we'd not be so fearful or doubtful. That Obama, Clinton, and Bush 43 will step up says a great deal about just how damaged our national sense of trust is. I wonder, too, if Carter will be getting the vaccine.

Treat this like the flu vaccine in the sense that you might feel crummy for a day after the shot, but you don't spread the flu when you get vaccinated, anymore than you might spread measles, mumps, whooping cough, or chicknpox after those vaccines.

Maybe we ought to teach a course in Medical terminology and public health in school.

(Full disclaimer: I spent ten years in pharmaceuticals, in clinical research, so I have better than average understanding of clinical trials and the work that goes into them).

[BannonsLiver]

14. +1000

I get a back door anti-vaxx vibe. Or worse yet, the desire to wait 4-8 years to make sure every single question they have is answered. Meanwhile, a few million people are dead over the same period.

[NurseJackie]

17. Same here...

Or worse yet, the desire to wait 4-8 years to make sure every single question they have is answered.

Same here. Intentional or not, that's what's coming through to me as well.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Pretty much ...

[uponit7771]

24. No its not. People with reasonable trepidation about vaxxines should ask questions

Shut up and take it or your anti vax doesn't address rational trepidations it feeds the skepticism.

https://www.reliasmedia.com/blogs/1-hospital-report/post/147266-new-survey-reveals-covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy-in-black-latino-communities

Only 14% of Black Americans mostly or completely trust a vaccine will be safe, and 18% believe it will be effective.

and

“Transparency seems key to trust-building. When Black Americans have greater information about how the vaccine works and how it was developed, they have greater willingness to take the vaccine,” the survey authors noted. “Therefore effective messaging should be open, honest, and comprehensive.”

And relative to what just happened in S Asian Flu vaccines people should not be blamed for skepticism.

[StarfishSaver]

25. Yes, it is

This question is not "reasonable trepidation." I see it all over DU. And it has nothing to do with trying to alleviate any reasonable concerns that African Americans may have about vaccines.

In fact, it could be argued that exactly the opposite dynamic is at play - discouraging the people most vulnerable to the virus from protecting themselves from it.

[uponit7771]

40. False on its face, we at least have to agree with reality. Distrust in big pharm IS reasonable, that

... is a fact that's not in dispute relative to their recent history.

If institutions habitually screw up (and big pharma has) then they lose rational peoples trust, period.

That's reality, not a point of discussion.

[StarfishSaver]

52. The fact that this history exists doesn't mean that every expression of "concern"

is a valid response thereto.

I don't deny the history - I'm probably more aware of it than the average person. But I don't believe that every anti-vax argument should be given credence because that history occurred. I believe in healthy and rational skeptisicm. But I find attempts to hide behind the very real suffering of African Americans and other minorities in our health care system to push unrelated and baseless conspiracy theories that can actually undermine the health of my community to be deeply offensive.

[uponit7771]

82. Strawman, no one said "every expression of concern is valid". My position is expressions of .....

... concerns are valid relative how an intuitions historically perform and that's reality and not a point of discussion.

We're not here to discuss how wet water is ...

I don't see too many stupid concerns on DU related to the vaccines, I actually found out I don't qualify for even the second phase and I'm glad I did

I do see an over reaction to AV lingo talk though.

Folk with ... RELATIVELY ... reasonable concerns shouldn't be dismissed,

Relatively cause not all of us have retained every jot and tittle from the AV trope book not to trigger people who have a better understanding of vaxes and more trust of pharma industry.

[NurseJackie]

89. By "every" she meant "your".

Strawman, no one said "every expression of concern is valid".

No... your accusation of "strawman" is the strawman. You're accusing her of saying something she never said (or assigning an alternate meaning to her words that's entirely different from what reasonable individuals clearly understand and comprehend.) By "every" she meant "your".

It was a polite way of saying that your "expressions of concern" are not automatically a valid response ... and that anyone (including you) who shall attempt to shield their FUDD and baseless conspiracy theories behind the suffering of African Americans and other minorities in our health care system will actually undermine the health of many others who are genuinely vulnerable and at very high risk.

She has a conscience. She's not selfish.

[uponit7771]

93. We agree :D

[NurseJackie]

96. No. Actually, we don't.

[Klaralven]

60. People with reasonable trepidation should learn how vaccines work

This require studying enough human physiology and cell and molecular biology to understand the principles involved.

Science is not based on argumentation or voting.

[NurseJackie]

90. Thank you!

Science is not based on argumentation or voting.

It's infuriating to hear anti-vaxers spreading fear, uncertainty, doubt and distrust with such thin justifications like "85% of my community distrusts the vaccine" ... and therefore I'm going to distrust it too because 85% is more than 15% and so they "win".

[uponit7771]

22. Questioning CV19 vax data isn't AntiVax & expecting folk to blindly trust Big Pharma isnt reasonable

... either.

There has to be a middle ground, people have rational well grounded and reasonable trepidation and I don't see shut up and take it as a reasonable response to it.

[NurseJackie]

26. Promoting "trepidation" is a back-door anti-vax messaging.

And the "don't trust big pharma" trope is also a passive-aggressive anti-vax message.

and I don't see shut up and take it as a reasonable response to it.

Sigh. These are the same types of noises that the anti-mask crowd are making.

people have rational well grounded and reasonable trepidation

I have yet to hear any objection that's "well-grounded" or reasonable. This is a vaccine. These are desperate times. This is a crisis. People are dying at the rate of over TWO PER MINUTE... every minute, every hour, every week, every month... and it's ONLY GETTING WORSE! This is not the same as smallpox-infected-blankets; this is not mind-control; this is not forced sterilization; this is not a tracking-chip; this is not syphilis-experiments; this is not Nazi Germany and Josef Mengele is not in charge.

[uponit7771]

28. But NJ, "don't trust big pharma" *IS* a rational reaction to what Big Pharma has done throughout

... history even RECENLTY !!

I'm not understanding this one, every reasonable response to skepticism of rushed out meds isn't a trope of anti vax crowd.

Of course I don't blindly trust big pharm's asses look at what Perdue Pharma did with pain meds?

I'm supposed to ignore that?!

Look, I'm not ever going to trust Boeing either with their MAX line of jets cause they've lost that benefit of the doubt and I don't see that as an irrational response to their actions.

Where's the middle ground on this?

Thx in advance

[NurseJackie]

30. These are ridiculous irrational fears.

Of course I don't blindly trust big pharm's asses look at what Perdue Pharma did with pain meds?

LOL! Well, I think it's unlikely that anyone will become addicted to vaccines.

Where's the middle ground on this?

Oh, I don't know: The hospital? The ICU ward on a respirator? The cemetery? ... It's your choice. Roll-the-dice or spin-the-wheel and see what happens. Good luck! I hope you don't spread the virus to your loved ones, friends and colleagues before THEY get a chance to receive the vaccine.

[uponit7771]

33. Institutions that habitually screw up lose peoples trust can we agree on that? I don't see the CDC

... NPI recommendations as "rolling the dice", they've worked in .... plenty ... of other countries.

[NurseJackie]

41. There's nothing we agree on.

And clearly the CDC recommendations aren't enough. They help, but they're not enough. It allows the bare minimum of a functioning society, but it cannot go on indefinitely, nor will it work indefinitely. The longer the virus is allowed to spread... the longer the anti-mask and anti-vax and the "ooooh I'm scared" and "oooh I don't trust big pharma" people are allowed to perpetuate the existence of the virus, the more likely it is that the virus will mutate until it become so different that the original vaccine no longer works. Then we're back to square one with trying to develop a new and effective vaccine and trying to convince people to take the vaccine. But this time there will be even more resistance BECAUSE OF the actions of the "anti-vax" crowd and the "anti-mask" crowd (and others) who refused to participate... and who encouraged others to not participate. In the end it is the anti-vax people and the anti-mask people who will end up SABOTAGING the vaccine's effectiveness. SHAME ON THEM! It disgusts me how selfish people can be.

[uponit7771]

43. We agree that we ... BOTH ... don't want to be the first to take the vaccine !! lol, we no doubt

... agree on that !!!

I'm just not reading the anti-vax trope magazine of the month so its hard to ask reasonable well founded questions and not sound anti-vax to some.

On the other hand I think some of yaw are taking the anti-vax tropes to broadly

[NurseJackie]

49. I never said that. I'll happily stand in line to be FIRST to get the vaccine.

We agree that we ... BOTH ... don't want to be the first to take the vaccine !! lol, we no doubt... agree on that !!!

I never said that. I'll happily stand in line to be FIRST to get the vaccine.

Unfortunately for me, I do not qualify. I'm not a healthcare provider; I'm not a first-responder; I'm not a teacher; and I don't live in a nursing home or assisted living facility.

I'm just not reading the anti-vax trope magazine of the month so its hard to ask reasonable well founded questions and not sound anti-vax to some.

I've heard no "reasonable" or "well-founded" questions. If I did hear them, that would be an improvement. Instead, it's nothing more than promoting irrational fears and suspicions without proof. It ignores the REALITY of the mess we're in and the shitstorm that's coming. It's selfish and "privileged" (that's a word I heard tossed in my general direction recently.)

On the other hand I think some of yaw are taking the anti-vax tropes to broadly

What's a yaw?

EDIT: Oh... never mind. I get it. It's "yawl" or "y'all" Okay, whatever. (I still think it's selfish behavior trying to spread fear and distrust. It's anti-vax no matter how you look at it.)

[uponit7771]

75. " ... but not among the VERY first." ?! Whatever, we're close enough in agreement

[NurseJackie]

80. Stop it. I never said that I don't want to be among the first.

What I've actually indicated is that I don't qualify to be chosen to be among the first. If I did qualify, then I'd be first in line. And I certainly do hope that I qualify for those who come NEXT in line after the first ones.

ASAP! I want to receive the vaccine ASAP! (ASAP means "as soon as possible'').

Whatever, we're close enough in agreement

No we're not. I'm not spreading FUDD.

[StarfishSaver]

86. I'm with you

I'd be with you at the head of the line, if I could be. But I don't qualify for any priority, so we can keep each other company while we wait waaaaay toward the back of the line.

[MineralMan]

64. Actually, if I got a call this morning that I could get the vaccine today,

I'd be out the door and on my way in less than 1 minute.

So, no, we don't agree on that, and neither does the person to whom you are replying.

See, I understand how vaccines work, so I have no fear of taking any of the Covid vaccines that are currently being considered for release.

[uponit7771]

76. I have PEC's so I'm out of the first group, I'm glad I asked for and got some information yestereday

... on it and now know that none of the vaxes tested broad enough for people with certain PEC's.

Wish you well

[beachbumbob]

47. with both myself and my wife in high risk category, I do NOT place my faith in Big Pharma

they DO NOT OWN the outcome for me or my wife. WE OWN OUR outcome. No way I will be a guinea pig, and since we have to remain in high alert with masks and social distances even with a vaccine, we can wait a year for the data to come.

I am the opposite of an anti-vaxer to start with

[NurseJackie]

61. The funeral-home industry and respirator industry definitely support anti-vax FUDD messaging.

Fear, uncertainty, doubt, distrust... it's all a backdoor anti-vax message. This is a crisis, not a science fiction movie with mad-scientists who are sneaking-in their mind-controlling drugs into a global vaccine effort. We're not going to turn into zombies. It's all so silly.

"They're coming to get you, Barbara!"

[beachbumbob]

65. I know NO person who has caught COVID that took all the precautions, OTH, I know 6

who did not that caught it. When Fauci says we have to learn to deal with the "side effects" of COVID vaccines, well whats the empirical data set? Isn;t any. The over 65 in high risk will BE GUINEA PIGS, the under 12 will be GUINEA PIGS

[NurseJackie]

74. Well, I guess that settles it then. Obviously no such thing has happened.

I know NO person who has caught COVID that took all the precautions,

Well, I guess that settles it then. Obviously no such thing has happened.

[uponit7771]

78. No no no !!! You need to blindly trust pharm groups or you hate vaccines to some people. Jus

... damn I think some people are getting out of hand with the av stuff

[Tanuki]

29. At least he's consistent

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14617620

[NurseJackie]

31. Promoting an anti-vax message is dangerous and irresponsible thing to do.

Irrational fears and science-fiction movies are partially to blame. But, in the end... these are desperate times. This is a crisis. People are dying at the rate of over TWO PER MINUTE... every minute, every hour, every week, every month... and it's ONLY GETTING WORSE! This is not the same as smallpox-infected-blankets; this is not mind-control; this is not forced sterilization; this is not a tracking-chip; this is not syphilis-experiments; this is not Nazi Germany and Josef Mengele is not in charge.

[Tanuki]

35. I couldn't agree with you more. I can't wait to get the vaccination.

This is our best chance (coupled with masking, social distancing, and adherence to other science-based guidelines) to get the pandemic under control and hopefully return to life as we knew it. I am a health-care professional and cannot avoid possible exposure every single day. Since I am literally taking my life in my hands several times a week, I will be very pleased to lower my risk and the risk of everyone in society by 95%. I don't have the luxury of sitting it out.

[NurseJackie]

42. As I just now mentioned to someone else in this thread...

The CDC recommendations are helping, but clearly it's not enough. By following those recommendations, it allows the bare minimum of a functioning society, but it cannot go on indefinitely, nor will it work indefinitely.

The CDC guidelines are not perfect. Even those who are as careful as they can possibly be are getting (and spreading) the virus. The longer the virus is allowed to spread --- and the longer the anti-mask and anti-vax and the "ooooh I'm scared" and "oooh I don't trust big pharma" people are allowed to perpetuate the existence of the virus, the more likely it is that the virus will mutate until it become so different that the original vaccine no longer works.

At that point, we're back to square one with trying to develop a new and effective vaccine and trying to convince people to take the vaccine. But this time there will be even more resistance BECAUSE OF the actions of the "anti-vax" crowd and the "anti-mask" crowd (and others) who refused to participate... and who encouraged others to not participate.

In the end it is the anti-vax people and the anti-mask people who will end up SABOTAGING the vaccine's effectiveness. SHAME ON THEM! It disgusts me how selfish people can be.

[uponit7771]

18. Oh crap, you up & done it now I asked about vax data yesterday and got swarmed. Touchy subject

... cause people thinking asking reasonable questions about Vaxxine data is AV

[NurseJackie]

20. Someone posted yesterday that the government (or perhaps "big pharma" woooo!) couldn't be trusted...

... and that something nefarious was afoot. There were even insinuations it was similar to (or related to) the gifting of smallpox-infected blankets to Indigenous Americans along with references comparing it to the horrific Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Yeah... there's definitely some an anti-vax sentiment going on.

[uponit7771]

27. Thx, I have to read about it cause I'm not familiar with the lingo they use. There has to be middle

... ground between asking well founded and reasonable questions about vaccines and sounding anti vax.

[beachbumbob]

50. it were about trust, why does Big Pharma have shield laws?

[NurseJackie]

57. To protect from the insane anti-vax accusations that the vaccine causes autism.

[beachbumbob]

48. I find this as dangerous as being an anti-vaxer as it sounds, damn the outcome, just do it

[uponit7771]

91. THIS !!!! ☝🏾☝🏾☝🏾

[NurseJackie]

97. See? I told you we don't agree.

[mtnsnake]

88. haha, no kidding. People bring up perfectly legit questions about vaccines and

they get attacked by the usual people accusing them of being anti-vaxxers, or even sillier, of posting a "back door" anti-vax thread, followed up by some ridiculous claim that your question could result in the deaths of millions of people, maybe even wipe humanity off the face of the earth. I saw what happened to you and your thread yesterday, too. It was like something out of the twilight zone.

[uponit7771]

92. They're still up to it today !! They think they're the majority in thinking

[NurseJackie]

98. You don't vote on science. Whether or not someone is in the majority is irrelevant...

If you have a room full of people with 95% of them claiming that the moon is made of cheese ... and 5% saying it's made of rock and metal (the same as Earth) that does not mean that 95% are correct or reasonable simply because they belong to the majority.

I read this elsewhere in this thread... maybe it will help:

This requires studying enough human physiology and cell and molecular biology to understand the principles involved. Science is not based on argumentation or voting.

[NurseJackie]

94. Ridiculous. Nobody said that.

followed up by some ridiculous claim that your question could result in the deaths of millions of people, maybe even wipe humanity off the face of the earth.

Ridiculous. Nobody said that.

More than one person has pointed out, however, that by needlessly spreading FUDD and therefore discouraging or delaying people from receiving the vaccine, it could have disastrous effects. Delays allow the disease to spread more: to those who have not yet taken the vaccine, and to those few for whom the vaccine is less effective. It also gives time for the virus to mutate into something against which the vaccine may not work.

The population of the earth is approximately 7,590,000,000 (7.59 billion). We know that the virus is airborne and easily spread and easily contracted. If we assume a death rate of a mere 1%, that's 7.59 MILLION people. --- So, yes, indeed. "millions" are at risk. (I don't recall anyone using the phrase "wipe humanity from the face of the earth".)

It was like something out of the twilight zone.

No. Actually, the world anti-vaxxers will have a hand in trying to create with their idiotic claims, passive-aggressive FUDD, and back-door attacks will indeed be like "something out of the Twilight Zone".

[mtnsnake]

99. If you missed it then you need to look again

And yes, this thread, like others, is like an episode out of the twilight zone where someone with a legitimate message gets whacked because of paranoia run rampant.

[NurseJackie]

100. Control-F "face of the earth" ...

If you missed it then you need to look again

After clicking "view all" to expand every post in this thread... then doing a simple "find" command for the phrase in question, I was able to find just 3 instances... and ALL THREE were related to the first and ONLY time that you typed it. (Your original utterance, then my direct "excerpt" of your words, and then subsequently repeating it back to you.)

And yes, this thread, like others, is like an episode out of the twilight zone where someone with a legitimate message gets whacked because of paranoia run rampant.

No. First there would have to be a legitimate message. I must insist that FUDD is not a "legitimate message".

[mtnsnake]

101. Searching that particular phrase is just avoiding the reality that you don't want to find it.

Hint: Try searching on million instead.

on edit: changed millions to million.

[NurseJackie]

102. I did that. My statement that "millions of lives are at stake" doesn't even come close to your...

Searching that particular phrase is just avoiding the reality that you don't want to find it.

I know what I'm looking for. I know what I said. And I also recognize this kind of game playing and hair-splitting and attributing FALSE (invented) quotes to someone else indicates a position of weakness or an inability to support their own arguments.

Hint: Try searching on millions instead.

I did that. My statement was "millions of lives are at stake." But, anyone can plainly see that doesn't even come close to the false claim that I had anything to say that even comes close to: humanity being wiped from the earth. GMAFB!

Let's look again: here's how it was referred to in one of your posts:

followed up by some ridiculous claim that your question could result in the deaths of millions of people, maybe even wipe humanity off the face of the earth.

The figure of "millions" is not ridiculous. It's quite reasonable, and is likely an underestimate.

Someone else (not me) added the absurd melodramatic phrase: "wipe humanity off the face of the earth" in an obvious effort to attribute such silliness directly to me. Fact of the matter is that I never said such a thing (except, as I pointed out earlier, in quoting your own words back to you.)

Is this little game over? Or was is there something else you wanted to discuss?

[mtnsnake]

104. It wasn't you I was referring to

When I posted for you to search on millions, I should have said million without the s. I edited it right away but maybe you missed it. We're not supposed to point out other peoples posts on DU, so search on million, not millions and maybe you'll find it.

And if anyone is playing games, it isn't me.

[NurseJackie]

105. LOL! Sure. Whatever.

[mtnsnake]

107. LOL, I'm glad you found it!

or at least I think you found it.

[NurseJackie]

109. Oh, how clever. Someone edited...and then faulted ME for responding to the original version. Charming.

Well, let's see. The other quote that comes up is:

Meanwhile, a few million people are dead over the same period.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable estimate (if not a little LOW) if we were to follow the path of those who prefer to wait 5 years for more testing. That poster's point is quite reasonable.

But I think it's worth noting that he ALSO didn't say anything about "wipe humanity off the face of the earth".

[mtnsnake]

110. I told you in a post right after that that it was not millions

but million without the s. Didn't you see that? If you go back to that post you will see it.

[kairos12]

56. I've read that is why mask wearing is critical after getting the vaccine. You could be

a carrier and not know it. It's critical the population understand this reality.

[cbdo2007]

95. What does it matter if you keep spreading it to people who have had the vaccine?

that doesnt seem like a big deal

[NurseJackie]

103. It matters because the vaccine isn't 100% effective.

What does it matter if you keep spreading it to people who have had the vaccine?

It matters because the vaccine isn't 100% effective.

that doesnt seem like a big deal

What a cruel thing to say. Obviously it's a "big deal" to the people who get infected... who get sick... who survive but have long term effects... or especially to the people who die from it. It's a "big deal" to their loved ones and friends.

[meadowlander]

106. Not everyone is going to get the vaccine at the same time.

Immuno-compromised people might not be able to get the vaccine at all and they are also one of the biggest risk groups.

[mathematic]

108. You think it's good public policy to delay a vaccine during a global pandemic?

Was it a bad idea to rush face masks to market before we had studied the efficacy of face masks for preventing covid spread?

I think society is perfectly fine with being "not certain" if the vaccine can prevent the transmission of coronavirus in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives around the world.

[NurseJackie]

111. It's anti-vax rhetoric. It's an anti-vax message.

I'm surprised to see this sort of thing at DU.

[DeminPennswoods]

112. Is this all you got from the Dateline report?

What I got was what an amazing accomplishment bringing a vaccine to market in less than a year is.

I saw how companies and industries can innovate to solve problems like glass vials not being able to withstand ultra cold temperatures. I saw how they can work together to make sure everything is in place when distribution is ready.

I saw that the much-maligned and underappreciated DoD logistics planners are the best in the world at what they do.

I saw hospitals taking it upon themselves to make sure they had the storage capacity.

I saw Pfizer take a 2B risk by manufacturing vaccine ahead of time.

It made me feel good about America.

[MineralMan]

114. This!

These threads are really transparent.