Politics Coronavirus

[Raven]

You did't make a point @Job. You just waffle endlessly about people of colour, homosexuals, women, whatever, then flip flop onto something else. You are incapable of backing up what you say because you are just parroting what you read on some weirdo sub-reddit.

You're a sheep. Baaaaah

 

[Raven]

@Job, recently.

 

[Raven]

 

[Yoni]

I so not think you should include being dubious about this vaccine with the anti vaccination group. The issues with the H1N1 vaccination are still fresh in a lot of people’s minds....

 

[Raven]

Covid-19: Drinkers in tier two 'could order Scotch egg' as substantial meal

They would count as a "substantial meal" under new rules for parts of England, a minister says.

www.bbc.co.uk

...and people wonder why rules are ignored.

 

[Scouse]

The absolute and only way to counter mis information is to debate with them, let them have a say.
RIidiculing them, ordering platforms to silence them, just cements their opinons and increases their base.

I never advocate deplatforming. But debate doesn't counter mis-information. FACTS do. And if you can't bring facts to your debate, you've lost, no matter how much you whine.

If anti-vaxxers continue to whine, without bringing facts, then they are just dangerous and pointless morons.

And, to answer you directly:

How do YOU know its safe.

By the same mechanism we all know it's safe - we trust the system we use to test the safety of all vaccines.

We've used that system to produce safe vaccines that save lives for a very long time very succesfully. And it's churned out safe vaccine after safe vaccine, saving hundreds of millions of people.

There is NO other way to determine whether vaccines are safe or not.


For your fearful anti-vaxxer friends - there's only one way to argue with that. That's to conduct your own well-designed trials and publish your results. However, all they do is shit-talk on the internet and spread rumours, misinformation and bullshit that scares people. That is all they do.

So, I know it's safe - because the system we use to test for safety has told us it is safe. And it tells you so too @Job. It also tells the anti-vaxxers - but they don't use logic and reason. They use tin foil hats, belief and fear - and they are morons.

 

[Moriath]

Rita Ora 'sorry' for breaking lockdown rules to attend birthday party

The singer says her actions were 'irresponsible' and she takes 'full responsibility' for the event.

www.bbc.co.uk

these celebs have their parties say oo my bad. And get away with it. They should be fined as an example to the rest. Tbh

 

[Moriath]

Covid-19: Drinkers in tier two 'could order Scotch egg' as substantial meal

They would count as a "substantial meal" under new rules for parts of England, a minister says.

www.bbc.co.uk

...and people wonder why rules are ignored.

They said before A pasty was enough it had to have a salad or chips with it. Cornish be going nuts about accepting a scotch egg lol

 

[Job]

You know its safe because studies are peer reviewed , the process and the conclusions are open for anyone to criticise or contend, they survive because they are the truth. I'll ignore that these are emergency validations and the usual process has been shortened..

This is the scientific method.

You cant use openess and then deny it to others, its the bedrock of our belief in science and now we are silencing actual fucking scientists who question the conclusions and offer alternative ones because it doesnt fit the decisions made and then ridiculing them for even suggesting it.

 

[Scouse]

You cant use openess and then deny it to others

No-one is being denied anything @Job.

The way to challenge science is with more science - studies, results that disprove the science that has been done.

It's not 'doctors' disagreeing or people sat around a room arguing. Science is proof and evidence - which stands as "what is" - and can only be refuted by proof and evidence showing otherwise.

THAT is the scientific method.


The vaccination studies are open for people to challenge. With science.

Anti-vaxxers aren't scientists. They don't bring proof. If they don't bring proof to the party then, quite rightly, they get told to shut the fuck up. Nut up or shut up.

If any anti-vaxxer does a study proving that a vaccine is dangerous - then we'll withdraw it. It's as simple as that.


But they don't, because they've got no proof. So they (and you) should shut the fuck up.

 

[Raven]

You know its safe because studies are peer reviewed , the process and the conclusions are open for anyone to criticise or contend, they survive because they are the truth. I'll ignore that these are emergency validations and the usual process has been shortened..

This is the scientific method.

You cant use openess and then deny it to others, its the bedrock of our belief in science and now we are silencing actual fucking scientists who question the conclusions and offer alternative ones because it doesnt fit the decisions made and then ridiculing them for even suggesting it.

Which scientists? Sources man, sources


Baaaah!

 

[Scouse]

Actually @Job - I can really help you understand something new here. Genuine help incoming:

You know its safe because studies are peer reviewed

Peer review doesn't ensure safety of anything.

Peer review is a quality control procedure for scientific publishing. You submit your paper to a journal for publishing (this is how you show the world your work) - then the editor looks at it. If it's poorly written or designed the editor will reject your paper - if not, then he'll submit it to your peers to review.

They'll review your paper, decide if your scientific experiment was well-designed and not open to bias. They'll often ask for amendments and clarifications if you haven't been clear in your paper. Once it's been round the houses your paper will either be accepted for publication or rejected as fundamentally flawed.


What peer review is NOT - is a challenge to the science. Or a safety check.

Challenges to science are only resolved by more science. Say an anti-vaxxer reads that published scientific paper and thinks "I think this is a pile of shit - the results don't tell the whole story and the vaccine is dangerous" - he has to go and design a study, conduct the experiments, write and then submit HIS paper for peer-review.

If his paper gets through peer-review and is published then and only then is he having a say in the "scientific debate". He will have brought evidence to the party. In the form of science.



The thing with the anti-vaxxers @Job - is that they've done no studies, never mind submitted anything for peer-review. So they need to shut the fuck up because their rumour-mongering (which is all their argument can be without a peer-reviewed and published scientific paper in their hand) is dangerous and kills people.

 

[Scouse]

Here you go @Job. This is the sort of length that scientists go to when they're trying to remove bias in the "read the paper" peer-review process.

And that's just reviewing the paper, never mind qualitatively judging the science.

 

[Yoni]

Sorry but no not enough testing has been done in my opinion it was not until a year after the vaccination for H1N1 was being administered that the issue with narcolepsy was discovered.

Pandemrix - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scouse]

Sorry but no not enough testing has been done in my opinion it was not until a year after the vaccination for H1N1 was being administered that the issue with narcolepsy was discovered.

That's an easy issue to resolve @Yoni.

You weigh the possibility of adverse reaction in a population against the certainty of deaths.

Rapid rollout of a vaccine in this situation warrants that. And, like with H1N1, they'll monitor these three vaccines (and the others that come on market). And if one is found to cause unforseen complications that were not picked up in testing (like the pandemix one) then it could be withdrawn.

 

[Job]

Studies and conclusions are peer reviewed and objections are noted, the Oxford vaccine is having its testing repeated because of concerns about process, not by someone else starting their own.


I have one simple question , your favourite approach.

Do you believe climate sceptics and anti vaxxers should have their opinions squashed at source by the major world social and conversation platforms?

 

[Raven]

Sources job, you absolute sheep.

 

[Gwadien]

Studies and conclusions are peer reviewed and objections are noted, the Oxford vaccine is having its testing repeated because of concerns about process, not by someone else starting their own.


I have one simple question , your favourite approach.

Do you believe climate sceptics and anti vaxxers should have their opinions squashed at source by the major world social and conversation platforms?

Tough one really innit.

I mean, I could say we should fight fire with fire and spend billions on advertisement to plaster the importance of climate change and using vaccines, but that money is obviously spent better on fixing things, but if you don't get the people behind it then there's no point.

Unfortunately when it comes to vaccines for something as disruptive as covid we need collectivism or there's little point. Evidence backed reassurance would be enough to calm fears, but 'omg the government is putting implants in us' needs to be prevented from becoming mainstream, somehow.

It would be ironic if vaccines wiped out humanity after something as relatively mild as covid.

 

[Job]

Sources job, you absolute sheep.

Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine to undergo new global trial

Share price drops as critics question claim vaccine could protect up to 90% of people

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bodhi]

The thing with the anti-vaxxers @Job - is that they've done no studies, never mind submitted anything for peer-review. So they need to shut the fuck up because their rumour-mongering (which is all their argument can be without a peer-reviewed and published scientific paper in their hand) is dangerous and kills people.

That isn't entirely true - the infamous Wakefield MMR Vaccine paper was printed in The Lancet and was only withdrawn 12 years later after years of requests it be pulled.

 

[Raven]

Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine to undergo new global trial

Share price drops as critics question claim vaccine could protect up to 90% of people

www.theguardian.com

You might want to actually read that article. They are challenging the effectiveness of it, not that there might be side effects.

Baaaah

 

[Job]

I didnt say they were, maybe you should follow the thread.
If it was for safety, Im pretty sure that would be the end of the vaccine

 

[Scouse]

That isn't entirely true - the infamous Wakefield MMR Vaccine paper was printed in The Lancet and was only withdrawn 12 years later after years of requests it be pulled.

Yep. It's not perfect is it. But that's the humans for you. The lancet itself did publish other papers that debunked the original paper - with science. It was when data was found to be falsified that it was eventually removed.

And the editor of the lancet has paid quite hard for that - and the chastening experience (which he may well be defined for) has actually produced someone who really looks very hard at every paper he puts through for peer review.

 

[Scouse]

*Sigh* - I don't know why I bother when you don't have the common decency to answer direct questions yourself:

Studies and conclusions are peer reviewed and objections are noted, the Oxford vaccine is having its testing repeated because of concerns about process, not by someone else starting their own.

The re-testing isn't part of the peer review process. It's to do with improving the quality of the information, to learn more, through science.

In peer review - Objections aren't "noted". If there are objections that aren't addressed the paper is rejected. Rejected as not proper science.


There will be multiple long-term analysis and follow ups by competing teams with all these vaccines @Job. All of them will submit papers for peer review and all of them will contribute to the science.

None of those papers will be submitted by anti-vaxxers, because they're not interested in doing science. And if they don't do science, then they should stfu.

I have one simple question , your favourite approach.

I will answer it - unlike your approach.

Do you believe climate sceptics and anti vaxxers should have their opinions squashed at source by the major world social and conversation platforms?

I've already answered it. Multiple times, in multiple threads and, on this very topic, in the question by you, on this page, above.

I never advocate deplatforming.

Keep up.

 

[Scouse]

Tough one really innit.

No, not really.

Human nature, innit.

 

[Job]

Its just a bit hard to tell between you call them fucking morons who should shut the fuck up.

I mean I wouldnt have much faith if you were the person with your finger on the cancel button

 

[Scouse]

Its just a bit hard to tell between you call them fucking morons who should shut the fuck up.

If you struggle to differentiate between someone saying idiots should shut up and someonw who would take away their right to express their idiocy then you're going to struggle.

Oh. Wait

 

[Moriath]

That's an easy issue to resolve @Yoni.

You weigh the possibility of adverse reaction in a population against the certainty of deaths.

Rapid rollout of a vaccine in this situation warrants that. And, like with H1N1, they'll monitor these three vaccines (and the others that come on market). And if one is found to cause unforseen complications that were not picked up in testing (like the pandemix one) then it could be withdrawn.

Which is ok. Unless its birth deformities Or some such. Less than a year in development i assume they havent had that many births in their tests

 

[Scouse]

Which is ok. Unless its birth deformities Or some such. Less than a year in development i assume they havent had that many births in their tests

This is nothing more than fearmongering. Basic, outright, fearmongering. And it's powerful.

Vaccine safety has an incredibly good record. Humans have a long track record of pointing at the unknown and going "but but but what if!!!!!!!11!1eleventy!"

Covid is killing two hundred people a day in the UK alone.

As an animal we're not great at assessing risk. And I'll tell you right now - there's your risk, right there. It's called Covid. That's why you're not allowed to hug your elderly mum. Because in this world, today, hugging your mum might kill her.


Worry about that - and grab the thing that we've made that will save her with both hands.

 

[Moriath]

This is nothing more than fearmongering. Basic, outright, fearmongering. And it's powerful.

Vaccine safety has an incredibly good record. Humans have a long track record of pointing at the unknown and going "but but but what if!!!!!!!11!1eleventy!"

Covid is killing two hundred people a day in the UK alone.

As an animal we're not great at assessing risk. And I'll tell you right now - there's your risk, right there. It's called Covid. That's why you're not allowed to hug your elderly mum. Because in this world, today, hugging your mum might kill her.


Worry about that - and grab the thing that we've made that will save her with both hands.

I agree and will take the vaccine. I just curious as to how they have tested for un born babies in what it essentially less than a year in development let alone testing.
look at thalidomide for example.

or do pregnant women or those who might be not get given the jabs.

just curious, it doesnt affect me.