Wuhan Killer Sneeze (thanks Tea)

[mixed_biscuits]

I think it's more than enough, don't you?

The manufacturers and regulators obviously both think that there is a non-negligible chance of a large downside, which downside the recipient will now have to bear.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think it's more than enough, don't you?

No, I don't. If your agenda here is to demonstrate that vaccines are horribly dangerous, which it clearly is, then it's woefully inadequate.

The risk of serious abreactions, although very tiny and confined almost entirely to people who are already very old or ill, is not zero. So obviously they need to avoid a situation where a lawsuit brought by the family of an old lady who's had the jab and subsequently died (whether from the jab or coincidentally) scuppers the entire vaccination programme.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

The important distinction is that normally a vaccine would need proper approval and the manufacturers would not be indemnified - standards have been lowered because it's an 'emergency'

 

[Mr. Tea]

Globally, the far right is almost unanimously anti-lockdown, anti-mask, indeed many are in denial that the pandemic even exists.

The important distinction is that normally a vaccine would need proper approval and the manufacturers would not be indemnified - standards have been lowered because it's an 'emergency'

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Do you think that the vaccines should be given complete approval and manufacturers forced to accept liability, in order to combat vaccine hesitancy?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Just out of interest, the latest figures for possible fatal abreactions to the vaccines (which will certainly be an overestimate, since nearly all of them occurred in very elderly people, some of whom will have died coincidentally), make getting vaccinated at least 60,000 times less dangerous than catching the virus.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

So why have the makers fought so hard to avoid liability?

 

[Slothrop]

Hypothetically, if Tea were to respond with "because the trial process was marginally quicker and less cautious than usual and the manufacturers wanted governments to shoulder that risk rather than them, and because most governments correctly took the view that the slightly increased but still tiny risk in the vaccine development process was still much less significant and easier to deal with than the obvious and massive risk of just fucking around and waiting for everyone to catch the virus and millions of people to die", would you interpret that as meaning "the vaccines were rushed through and will definitely kill you"?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

No?

btw point me towards a quantified expert estimate of the probability of unforeseen long-term side effects rather than this 'tiny risk' waffle.

It also doesn't make sense that manufacturers would be so keen to avoid what is purported to be a tiny risk.

The UK gvt will pay out max. £120k for vaccine harms to an individual; doing an expected value calculation with Tea's assertion of it being 60,000 times less bad than the virus is not going to output a downside that will break any bank, so what gives?

 

[Mr. Tea]

So why have the makers fought so hard to avoid liability?

Oh give it the fuck up already.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

@Mr. Tea capitulated once the gaping holes in his logic were pointed out.

 

[Mr. Tea]

btw point me towards a quantified expert estimate of the probability of unforeseen long-term side effects rather than this 'tiny risk' waffle.

Disingenuous argument is disingenuous, because obviously it's impossible to assess "long-term side effects" of vaccines that have existed for about a year.

But other vaccines (of which there are dozens? hundreds?) don't have common long-term side effects, so why should any of the ones developed against this virus be any different?

 

[Mr. Tea]

@Mr. Tea capitulated once the gaping holes in his logic were pointed out.

That's one way of putting it. Alternatively I'm just sick and tired of your mendacious bullshit. Also, what Slothrop said.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

So why does no-one in the know want to be responsible for it?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Also, what Slothrop said.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/cep/COVID/mRNA vaccine review final.pdf

 

[Slothrop]

The thing is, there's no point wasting time arguing with you and putting in the effort to find the standard of evidence that you claim to want, because you aren't actually interested. You post something or assert something, and if people put in the time to explain why it doesn't say what you think it says then rather than reconsider your position in any way you just forget about it and flit on to the next thing that popped up on your timeline and post that instead.

This isn't discussion, it's a denial-of-service attack on discussion. You keep putting up low-effort fluff that you've barely read let alone understood, demanding that people put in the leg work to debunk it, and then when they finally get tired of doing that and can't be bothered you claim to have won.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

@Slothrop You basically fell at the first hurdle and have gone meta when I said this: "point me towards a quantified expert estimate of the probability of unforeseen long-term side effects rather than this 'tiny risk' waffle.

It also doesn't make sense that manufacturers would be so keen to avoid what is purported to be a tiny risk.

The UK gvt will pay out max. £120k for vaccine harms to an individual; doing an expected value calculation with Tea's assertion of it being 60,000 times less bad than the virus is not going to output a downside that will break any bank, so what gives?"

 

[mixed_biscuits]

The manufacturers are clearly aware of a potential downside that would wipe out any benefits from their having got involved in this enterprise...or they just want to maximise their profits, which is almost as worrying.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Then @Mr. Tea contradicted himself by saying that obviously we know that the vaccines have very few expected long-term harms while also obviously we don't know because they're novel.