SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
Vaccines require a minimum threshold of adoption among the general population to be fully effective. Smallpox, measles, polio, etc, were not "eradicated" in populations until this threshold was passed. Falling acceptance rates in certain localities in the western world mean that easily preventable but deadly diseases such as measles are killing children again.
It's as simple as that.
It's as simple as that.
View 3 more replies »
mksworld · 46-50, C
@SunshineGirl So you firmly think covid drugs that are still not fully proven should have been forced on all humans including young children who cannot give informed consent?
Adeptlinguist · M
Adeptlinguist · M
@mksworld That is simply not true.
mksworld · 46-50, C
@Adeptlinguist WHich bit(s)?
Adeptlinguist · M
@mksworld Your claim that vaccines are not properly tested and only available under EUA.
The main mRNA vaccines are fully approved for adults, but a couple are still under EUA for use on young children.
The main mRNA vaccines are fully approved for adults, but a couple are still under EUA for use on young children.
SomeMichGuy · M
Easy.
1) For diseases eradicated/well-controlled by vaccinating enough people, the rise of this stupidity can constitute a breakdown in the herd immunity.
That impacts people differently, but it certainly affects:
• the very young (look at a "standard mortality table"--the first two years are dangerous years for babies/very young children; the chance of surviving to the next year goes up after this(
• the older
• anyone with a compromised immune system, such as, e.g., people who have had an organ transplant, those on chemotherapy drugs, those with conditions affecting the parts of the body most involved in this protection
• people with a genetic tendency to catch this
• people who can't be vaccinated
2) For measles...well measles is a bad gift which keeps hurting:
3) Getting infected means you have given an organism a chance to evolve.
CoViD can evolve quickly, and has; being a flu-like virus, this is apparently unremarkable, but it is dangerous.
Enough unvaccinated ppl is what made CoViD become endemic...
4) For CoViD, the worst thing is you can be an asymptomatic carrier...
1) For diseases eradicated/well-controlled by vaccinating enough people, the rise of this stupidity can constitute a breakdown in the herd immunity.
That impacts people differently, but it certainly affects:
• the very young (look at a "standard mortality table"--the first two years are dangerous years for babies/very young children; the chance of surviving to the next year goes up after this(
• the older
• anyone with a compromised immune system, such as, e.g., people who have had an organ transplant, those on chemotherapy drugs, those with conditions affecting the parts of the body most involved in this protection
• people with a genetic tendency to catch this
• people who can't be vaccinated
2) For measles...well measles is a bad gift which keeps hurting:
The measles virus can deplete previously acquired immune memory by killing cells that make antibodies, and thus weakens the immune system, which can cause deaths from other diseases.[28][29][30] Suppression of the immune system by measles lasts about two years and has been epidemiologically implicated in up to 90% of childhood deaths in third world countries, and historically may have caused rather more deaths in the United States, the UK and Denmark than were directly caused by measles.[83][84
(Emphasis added; from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles)3) Getting infected means you have given an organism a chance to evolve.
CoViD can evolve quickly, and has; being a flu-like virus, this is apparently unremarkable, but it is dangerous.
Enough unvaccinated ppl is what made CoViD become endemic...
4) For CoViD, the worst thing is you can be an asymptomatic carrier...
mksworld · 46-50, C
@SomeMichGuy We like vaccines that are effective, *proven* to be so, plus safe with well-understood risks and contra-indications. Covid vaxes are none of that. Flu vaxes are at least positively accepted without fear.
SomeMichGuy · M
@mksworld LMAO
Then you don't understand those terms.
The initial vaccines were surprisingly effective, at ~95%.
And proven through testing.
One vaccine had a few problems, but the lack of planning here and crazy, inconsistent messaging led to many people like yourself listening to rumors, etc.
If you recall, DJT admitted to a Watergate reporter that CoViD was "serious, because it [is] in the air" and you have to breathe (comparing it to contact transmission, which was the original theory posited). And he was vaccinated off-camera, in the shadows, as be left office.
So he thought it was greaf.
Then you don't understand those terms.
The initial vaccines were surprisingly effective, at ~95%.
And proven through testing.
One vaccine had a few problems, but the lack of planning here and crazy, inconsistent messaging led to many people like yourself listening to rumors, etc.
If you recall, DJT admitted to a Watergate reporter that CoViD was "serious, because it [is] in the air" and you have to breathe (comparing it to contact transmission, which was the original theory posited). And he was vaccinated off-camera, in the shadows, as be left office.
So he thought it was greaf.
ElwoodBlues · M
@mksworld says
The laws of physics & chemistry are "still not fully proven." Scientific testing can only disprove a hypothesis. If a hypothesis - such as Newton's Law of Gravity - stands up to lots of testing and makes accurate predictions, it starts to get used. However, that doesn't mean it has been proven.
For example, although Newton's Laws are very widely used, e.g. to launch satellites into orbit and land exploratory robots on distant planets, they were proven wrong by Einstein!
That's right! Newton's Laws are good enough for most purposes, even though they have been proven wrong!! What this should be telling you is that your notions of "scientific proof" may need updating.
covid drugs that are still not fully proven should
The laws of physics & chemistry are "still not fully proven." Scientific testing can only disprove a hypothesis. If a hypothesis - such as Newton's Law of Gravity - stands up to lots of testing and makes accurate predictions, it starts to get used. However, that doesn't mean it has been proven.
For example, although Newton's Laws are very widely used, e.g. to launch satellites into orbit and land exploratory robots on distant planets, they were proven wrong by Einstein!
That's right! Newton's Laws are good enough for most purposes, even though they have been proven wrong!! What this should be telling you is that your notions of "scientific proof" may need updating.
Convivial · 26-30, F
There's a huge amount of ignorance displayed here....