Coronavirus Outbreak

[mike]

>So many people just dismiss they opposing view , no matter whether the person put a lot of thought into it. You’re a lefty , do gooder from the right , and your a racist bogan from the left . Both wanting the other side silenced . I know it’s not really relevant to this , but I personally worry when I see this stuff .

This polarising binary of speech now removes all nuance from discussions. IMO it is a consequence of the politicisation of everything (particulary in the US), red team v blue team.

COVID vaccines are the perfect example. Its either the VACCINE IS PROVEN TO BE SAFE or the only other response is YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE THE VACCINE ANTIVAX view. Neither side of this binary is correct or tells the whole story. The vaccines are not proven to be safe, there has been no longitudinal studies done on the safety of them, but they have been proven (within acceptable parameters) to be safe in the short term. The choices people make are for their individual and community benefit, but it seems the media and social media narrative regarding it is that the community is incapable of discussing or making decisions as adults.

Im not an antivaxer, if/when my time comes I'll stick my arm out for the Oxford/Astra Zenaca vaccine(only).

Yep . Me too . So will my kids . But the conversation around how safe the vaccines are needs to be had . Especially if some unforeseen side effect rears it’s ugly head in the future .


I dont think kids will get any vaccines for COVID. They are not vaccinating kids in the US and with the epidemiology of this virus, it doesnt really serve a purpose. IMO they will use a top down approach (oldest/most at risk) and probably reach sufficient herd immunity before needing to vaccinate kids. If kids get it they dont seem to get sick with it and are not efficient spreaders. If the majority of the adult pop is vaccinated, I cant see the need to vaccinate kids.

I didn’t know that . Makes sense really . I just thought due to how they spend a lot of thier days in extreme proximity to each other , they would try and nullify the so called super carriers . But whatever .

At this stage I don’t think any of the manufacturers are recommending their Covid vaccine for 16 and under. My understanding is they haven’t done the studies.

 

[cochise]

>So many people just dismiss they opposing view , no matter whether the person put a lot of thought into it. You’re a lefty , do gooder from the right , and your a racist bogan from the left . Both wanting the other side silenced . I know it’s not really relevant to this , but I personally worry when I see this stuff .

This polarising binary of speech now removes all nuance from discussions. IMO it is a consequence of the politicisation of everything (particulary in the US), red team v blue team.

COVID vaccines are the perfect example. Its either the VACCINE IS PROVEN TO BE SAFE or the only other response is YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE THE VACCINE ANTIVAX view. Neither side of this binary is correct or tells the whole story. The vaccines are not proven to be safe, there has been no longitudinal studies done on the safety of them, but they have been proven (within acceptable parameters) to be safe in the short term. The choices people make are for their individual and community benefit, but it seems the media and social media narrative regarding it is that the community is incapable of discussing or making decisions as adults.

Im not an antivaxer, if/when my time comes I'll stick my arm out for the Oxford/Astra Zenaca vaccine(only).

Yep . Me too . So will my kids . But the conversation around how safe the vaccines are needs to be had . Especially if some unforeseen side effect rears it’s ugly head in the future .


I dont think kids will get any vaccines for COVID. They are not vaccinating kids in the US and with the epidemiology of this virus, it doesnt really serve a purpose. IMO they will use a top down approach (oldest/most at risk) and probably reach sufficient herd immunity before needing to vaccinate kids. If kids get it they dont seem to get sick with it and are not efficient spreaders. If the majority of the adult pop is vaccinated, I cant see the need to vaccinate kids.

I didn’t know that . Makes sense really . I just thought due to how they spend a lot of thier days in extreme proximity to each other , they would try and nullify the so called super carriers . But whatever .

They haven't been super spreaders though, I honestly don't remember any transmission events in schools.

 

[happy_tiger]

There is a virus killing people. It’s not up for discussion. To discuss otherwise is endangering lives. We are in the fortunate position that most of Australia aren’t morons.


Sure, but where do you draw the line and who decides to draw that line? Take my recent to and fro with Earl here (no I dont want to reignite it). I was discussing the Lab Leak Hypothesis. Now to some, including Earl, it may seem like a conspiracy but there is actually very good science backing it up ( and the WHO are currently making a sham investigation into it as we speak). I admit that it is a slippery slope to "an intentional weaponised release" or "COVID does not exist", but IMO the problem with censorship is always the question of who gets to decide on what the boundary is.

Yes and your to and fro with Earl was not censored. Why? Probably because you were actually trying to legitimately debate a point and not just posting links to articles littered with deliberate misinformation by people with clear agendas and accompanying the links with baseless comments that were insensitive to others.
They weren't trying to debate or understand anything, just spread misinformation and then, in accordance with their playbook, spout off about free speech and seek to claim the victimhood mantle when anyone was critical of the content they posted.

You've nailed it Nelson.

These people were just using this forum as a platform to spread dangerous misinformation. They were asked to stop and didn't. At no stage were they engaged in a legitimate exchange of views with other forum members (in my opinion). They were simply abusing the privilege of being on this forum.

I don't see it as censorship. I don't think this is the forum for that sort of ratbag behaviour (regardless of the thread subject) and I applaud the mods for clearing them off.

But doesn't having one iota of common sense come into it ...let them speak junk ...and if you don't agree ..foe them ..it's like when the Mormons come to the front door ...you can ignore them ...or you can try and make them see where they are possibly wrong ...choice and free speech is exactly that ....True ??

Up to a point Happy T.

I wasn't personally bothered by them. The ratbags are pretty easy to recognise and I never engage with them. I don't respond to them and I don't debate with them because there is no point.

But coronavirus is a real crisis for our global community. It's a life or death issue not an issue about whether Moses Mbye or Daine Laurie would be better playing fullback. Our success in Australia at containing this disease has been largely as a result of the Australian community adopting a responsible attitude towards it. Then you have these idiots, utilising our forum, to undermine that by pedalling their misinformation.

Free speech is a right, but with all rights come responsibilities. The people pedalling this rubbish are being irresponsible so I don't have the same issues around curtailing their right free speech on a subject such as this, as I might do on other subjects.

Lots of people will disagree with me on that. For lots of people "free speech" is an absolute given which cannot be controverted. I think if you aren't being responsible in your use of free speech then you forgo your rights.

Again history will prove them wrong .....I still think if everyone Foed them they'd be arguing with themselves ......again your own common sense and reasoning then takes over ...if you can't use those things you probably shouldn't be getting involved in this thread ...accountable for your own thoughts / opinions ...is it really worth getting overly upset about it ??


The three people I had foe'd are now banned. Well done mods.

Didn't you tell me you Foed Geo in that thread .....

Nah, but you came close !!!

I can live with that

 

[mike]

There is a virus killing people. It’s not up for discussion. To discuss otherwise is endangering lives. We are in the fortunate position that most of Australia aren’t morons.


Sure, but where do you draw the line and who decides to draw that line? Take my recent to and fro with Earl here (no I dont want to reignite it). I was discussing the Lab Leak Hypothesis. Now to some, including Earl, it may seem like a conspiracy but there is actually very good science backing it up ( and the WHO are currently making a sham investigation into it as we speak). I admit that it is a slippery slope to "an intentional weaponised release" or "COVID does not exist", but IMO the problem with censorship is always the question of who gets to decide on what the boundary is.

Yes and your to and fro with Earl was not censored. Why? Probably because you were actually trying to legitimately debate a point and not just posting links to articles littered with deliberate misinformation by people with clear agendas and accompanying the links with baseless comments that were insensitive to others.
They weren't trying to debate or understand anything, just spread misinformation and then, in accordance with their playbook, spout off about free speech and seek to claim the victimhood mantle when anyone was critical of the content they posted.

You've nailed it Nelson.

These people were just using this forum as a platform to spread dangerous misinformation. They were asked to stop and didn't. At no stage were they engaged in a legitimate exchange of views with other forum members (in my opinion). They were simply abusing the privilege of being on this forum.

I don't see it as censorship. I don't think this is the forum for that sort of ratbag behaviour (regardless of the thread subject) and I applaud the mods for clearing them off.

But doesn't having one iota of common sense come into it ...let them speak junk ...and if you don't agree ..foe them ..it's like when the Mormons come to the front door ...you can ignore them ...or you can try and make them see where they are possibly wrong ...choice and free speech is exactly that ....True ??

Up to a point Happy T.

I wasn't personally bothered by them. The ratbags are pretty easy to recognise and I never engage with them. I don't respond to them and I don't debate with them because there is no point.

But coronavirus is a real crisis for our global community. It's a life or death issue not an issue about whether Moses Mbye or Daine Laurie would be better playing fullback. Our success in Australia at containing this disease has been largely as a result of the Australian community adopting a responsible attitude towards it. Then you have these idiots, utilising our forum, to undermine that by pedalling their misinformation.

Free speech is a right, but with all rights come responsibilities. The people pedalling this rubbish are being irresponsible so I don't have the same issues around curtailing their right free speech on a subject such as this, as I might do on other subjects.

Lots of people will disagree with me on that. For lots of people "free speech" is an absolute given which cannot be controverted. I think if you aren't being responsible in your use of free speech then you forgo your rights.

Again history will prove them wrong .....I still think if everyone Foed them they'd be arguing with themselves ......again your own common sense and reasoning then takes over ...if you can't use those things you probably shouldn't be getting involved in this thread ...accountable for your own thoughts / opinions ...is it really worth getting overly upset about it ??


The three people I had foe'd are now banned. Well done mods.

Didn't you tell me you Foed Geo in that thread .....

Nah, but you came close !!!

I can live with that

I was joking...

 

[happy_tiger]

There is a virus killing people. It’s not up for discussion. To discuss otherwise is endangering lives. We are in the fortunate position that most of Australia aren’t morons.


Sure, but where do you draw the line and who decides to draw that line? Take my recent to and fro with Earl here (no I dont want to reignite it). I was discussing the Lab Leak Hypothesis. Now to some, including Earl, it may seem like a conspiracy but there is actually very good science backing it up ( and the WHO are currently making a sham investigation into it as we speak). I admit that it is a slippery slope to "an intentional weaponised release" or "COVID does not exist", but IMO the problem with censorship is always the question of who gets to decide on what the boundary is.

Yes and your to and fro with Earl was not censored. Why? Probably because you were actually trying to legitimately debate a point and not just posting links to articles littered with deliberate misinformation by people with clear agendas and accompanying the links with baseless comments that were insensitive to others.
They weren't trying to debate or understand anything, just spread misinformation and then, in accordance with their playbook, spout off about free speech and seek to claim the victimhood mantle when anyone was critical of the content they posted.

You've nailed it Nelson.

These people were just using this forum as a platform to spread dangerous misinformation. They were asked to stop and didn't. At no stage were they engaged in a legitimate exchange of views with other forum members (in my opinion). They were simply abusing the privilege of being on this forum.

I don't see it as censorship. I don't think this is the forum for that sort of ratbag behaviour (regardless of the thread subject) and I applaud the mods for clearing them off.

But doesn't having one iota of common sense come into it ...let them speak junk ...and if you don't agree ..foe them ..it's like when the Mormons come to the front door ...you can ignore them ...or you can try and make them see where they are possibly wrong ...choice and free speech is exactly that ....True ??

Up to a point Happy T.

I wasn't personally bothered by them. The ratbags are pretty easy to recognise and I never engage with them. I don't respond to them and I don't debate with them because there is no point.

But coronavirus is a real crisis for our global community. It's a life or death issue not an issue about whether Moses Mbye or Daine Laurie would be better playing fullback. Our success in Australia at containing this disease has been largely as a result of the Australian community adopting a responsible attitude towards it. Then you have these idiots, utilising our forum, to undermine that by pedalling their misinformation.

Free speech is a right, but with all rights come responsibilities. The people pedalling this rubbish are being irresponsible so I don't have the same issues around curtailing their right free speech on a subject such as this, as I might do on other subjects.

Lots of people will disagree with me on that. For lots of people "free speech" is an absolute given which cannot be controverted. I think if you aren't being responsible in your use of free speech then you forgo your rights.

Again history will prove them wrong .....I still think if everyone Foed them they'd be arguing with themselves ......again your own common sense and reasoning then takes over ...if you can't use those things you probably shouldn't be getting involved in this thread ...accountable for your own thoughts / opinions ...is it really worth getting overly upset about it ??


The three people I had foe'd are now banned. Well done mods.

Didn't you tell me you Foed Geo in that thread .....

Nah, but you came close !!!

I can live with that

I was joking...

No you weren't ......you , Hobbo and Geo just can't be trusted lol

 

[mike]

There is a virus killing people. It’s not up for discussion. To discuss otherwise is endangering lives. We are in the fortunate position that most of Australia aren’t morons.


Sure, but where do you draw the line and who decides to draw that line? Take my recent to and fro with Earl here (no I dont want to reignite it). I was discussing the Lab Leak Hypothesis. Now to some, including Earl, it may seem like a conspiracy but there is actually very good science backing it up ( and the WHO are currently making a sham investigation into it as we speak). I admit that it is a slippery slope to "an intentional weaponised release" or "COVID does not exist", but IMO the problem with censorship is always the question of who gets to decide on what the boundary is.

Yes and your to and fro with Earl was not censored. Why? Probably because you were actually trying to legitimately debate a point and not just posting links to articles littered with deliberate misinformation by people with clear agendas and accompanying the links with baseless comments that were insensitive to others.
They weren't trying to debate or understand anything, just spread misinformation and then, in accordance with their playbook, spout off about free speech and seek to claim the victimhood mantle when anyone was critical of the content they posted.

You've nailed it Nelson.

These people were just using this forum as a platform to spread dangerous misinformation. They were asked to stop and didn't. At no stage were they engaged in a legitimate exchange of views with other forum members (in my opinion). They were simply abusing the privilege of being on this forum.

I don't see it as censorship. I don't think this is the forum for that sort of ratbag behaviour (regardless of the thread subject) and I applaud the mods for clearing them off.

But doesn't having one iota of common sense come into it ...let them speak junk ...and if you don't agree ..foe them ..it's like when the Mormons come to the front door ...you can ignore them ...or you can try and make them see where they are possibly wrong ...choice and free speech is exactly that ....True ??

Up to a point Happy T.

I wasn't personally bothered by them. The ratbags are pretty easy to recognise and I never engage with them. I don't respond to them and I don't debate with them because there is no point.

But coronavirus is a real crisis for our global community. It's a life or death issue not an issue about whether Moses Mbye or Daine Laurie would be better playing fullback. Our success in Australia at containing this disease has been largely as a result of the Australian community adopting a responsible attitude towards it. Then you have these idiots, utilising our forum, to undermine that by pedalling their misinformation.

Free speech is a right, but with all rights come responsibilities. The people pedalling this rubbish are being irresponsible so I don't have the same issues around curtailing their right free speech on a subject such as this, as I might do on other subjects.

Lots of people will disagree with me on that. For lots of people "free speech" is an absolute given which cannot be controverted. I think if you aren't being responsible in your use of free speech then you forgo your rights.

Again history will prove them wrong .....I still think if everyone Foed them they'd be arguing with themselves ......again your own common sense and reasoning then takes over ...if you can't use those things you probably shouldn't be getting involved in this thread ...accountable for your own thoughts / opinions ...is it really worth getting overly upset about it ??


The three people I had foe'd are now banned. Well done mods.

Didn't you tell me you Foed Geo in that thread .....

Nah, but you came close !!!

I can live with that

I was joking...

No you weren't ......you , Hobbo and Geo just can't be trusted lol

Paranoid much ... lol

 

[happy_tiger]

There is a virus killing people. It’s not up for discussion. To discuss otherwise is endangering lives. We are in the fortunate position that most of Australia aren’t morons.


Sure, but where do you draw the line and who decides to draw that line? Take my recent to and fro with Earl here (no I dont want to reignite it). I was discussing the Lab Leak Hypothesis. Now to some, including Earl, it may seem like a conspiracy but there is actually very good science backing it up ( and the WHO are currently making a sham investigation into it as we speak). I admit that it is a slippery slope to "an intentional weaponised release" or "COVID does not exist", but IMO the problem with censorship is always the question of who gets to decide on what the boundary is.

Yes and your to and fro with Earl was not censored. Why? Probably because you were actually trying to legitimately debate a point and not just posting links to articles littered with deliberate misinformation by people with clear agendas and accompanying the links with baseless comments that were insensitive to others.
They weren't trying to debate or understand anything, just spread misinformation and then, in accordance with their playbook, spout off about free speech and seek to claim the victimhood mantle when anyone was critical of the content they posted.

You've nailed it Nelson.

These people were just using this forum as a platform to spread dangerous misinformation. They were asked to stop and didn't. At no stage were they engaged in a legitimate exchange of views with other forum members (in my opinion). They were simply abusing the privilege of being on this forum.

I don't see it as censorship. I don't think this is the forum for that sort of ratbag behaviour (regardless of the thread subject) and I applaud the mods for clearing them off.

But doesn't having one iota of common sense come into it ...let them speak junk ...and if you don't agree ..foe them ..it's like when the Mormons come to the front door ...you can ignore them ...or you can try and make them see where they are possibly wrong ...choice and free speech is exactly that ....True ??

Up to a point Happy T.

I wasn't personally bothered by them. The ratbags are pretty easy to recognise and I never engage with them. I don't respond to them and I don't debate with them because there is no point.

But coronavirus is a real crisis for our global community. It's a life or death issue not an issue about whether Moses Mbye or Daine Laurie would be better playing fullback. Our success in Australia at containing this disease has been largely as a result of the Australian community adopting a responsible attitude towards it. Then you have these idiots, utilising our forum, to undermine that by pedalling their misinformation.

Free speech is a right, but with all rights come responsibilities. The people pedalling this rubbish are being irresponsible so I don't have the same issues around curtailing their right free speech on a subject such as this, as I might do on other subjects.

Lots of people will disagree with me on that. For lots of people "free speech" is an absolute given which cannot be controverted. I think if you aren't being responsible in your use of free speech then you forgo your rights.

Again history will prove them wrong .....I still think if everyone Foed them they'd be arguing with themselves ......again your own common sense and reasoning then takes over ...if you can't use those things you probably shouldn't be getting involved in this thread ...accountable for your own thoughts / opinions ...is it really worth getting overly upset about it ??


The three people I had foe'd are now banned. Well done mods.

Didn't you tell me you Foed Geo in that thread .....

Nah, but you came close !!!

I can live with that

I was joking...

No you weren't ......you , Hobbo and Geo just can't be trusted lol

Paranoid much ... lol

I'm not paranoid I just don't trust anyone even have it broken down DTA ..or does that mean DT Andrew lol

 

[Guest]

Back on topic thanks guys

 

[tigger]

>So many people just dismiss they opposing view , no matter whether the person put a lot of thought into it. You’re a lefty , do gooder from the right , and your a racist bogan from the left . Both wanting the other side silenced . I know it’s not really relevant to this , but I personally worry when I see this stuff .

This polarising binary of speech now removes all nuance from discussions. IMO it is a consequence of the politicisation of everything (particulary in the US), red team v blue team.

COVID vaccines are the perfect example. Its either the VACCINE IS PROVEN TO BE SAFE or the only other response is YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE THE VACCINE ANTIVAX view. Neither side of this binary is correct or tells the whole story. The vaccines are not proven to be safe, there has been no longitudinal studies done on the safety of them, but they have been proven (within acceptable parameters) to be safe in the short term. The choices people make are for their individual and community benefit, but it seems the media and social media narrative regarding it is that the community is incapable of discussing or making decisions as adults.

Im not an antivaxer, if/when my time comes I'll stick my arm out for the Oxford/Astra Zenaca vaccine(only).

Yep . Me too . So will my kids . But the conversation around how safe the vaccines are needs to be had . Especially if some unforeseen side effect rears it’s ugly head in the future .


I dont think kids will get any vaccines for COVID. They are not vaccinating kids in the US and with the epidemiology of this virus, it doesnt really serve a purpose. IMO they will use a top down approach (oldest/most at risk) and probably reach sufficient herd immunity before needing to vaccinate kids. If kids get it they dont seem to get sick with it and are not efficient spreaders. If the majority of the adult pop is vaccinated, I cant see the need to vaccinate kids.

I didn’t know that . Makes sense really . I just thought due to how they spend a lot of thier days in extreme proximity to each other , they would try and nullify the so called super carriers . But whatever .

They haven't been super spreaders though, I honestly don't remember any transmission events in schools.

The Al Taqwa College cluster was the largest single cluster in Victoria's second wave last year. However that cluster had links to Victoria's public housing cluster and to other family clusters so, even at this stage, DHS is unsure as to the extent of actual transmission within the college.

 

[Kul]


I’m not pointing fingers, but....

 

[happy_tiger]

>So many people just dismiss they opposing view , no matter whether the person put a lot of thought into it. You’re a lefty , do gooder from the right , and your a racist bogan from the left . Both wanting the other side silenced . I know it’s not really relevant to this , but I personally worry when I see this stuff .

This polarising binary of speech now removes all nuance from discussions. IMO it is a consequence of the politicisation of everything (particulary in the US), red team v blue team.

COVID vaccines are the perfect example. Its either the VACCINE IS PROVEN TO BE SAFE or the only other response is YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE THE VACCINE ANTIVAX view. Neither side of this binary is correct or tells the whole story. The vaccines are not proven to be safe, there has been no longitudinal studies done on the safety of them, but they have been proven (within acceptable parameters) to be safe in the short term. The choices people make are for their individual and community benefit, but it seems the media and social media narrative regarding it is that the community is incapable of discussing or making decisions as adults.

Im not an antivaxer, if/when my time comes I'll stick my arm out for the Oxford/Astra Zenaca vaccine(only).

Yep . Me too . So will my kids . But the conversation around how safe the vaccines are needs to be had . Especially if some unforeseen side effect rears it’s ugly head in the future .


I dont think kids will get any vaccines for COVID. They are not vaccinating kids in the US and with the epidemiology of this virus, it doesnt really serve a purpose. IMO they will use a top down approach (oldest/most at risk) and probably reach sufficient herd immunity before needing to vaccinate kids. If kids get it they dont seem to get sick with it and are not efficient spreaders. If the majority of the adult pop is vaccinated, I cant see the need to vaccinate kids.

I didn’t know that . Makes sense really . I just thought due to how they spend a lot of thier days in extreme proximity to each other , they would try and nullify the so called super carriers . But whatever .

They haven't been super spreaders though, I honestly don't remember any transmission events in schools.

The Al Taqwa College cluster was the largest single cluster in Victoria's second wave last year. However that cluster had links to Victoria's public housing cluster and to other family clusters so, even at this stage, DHS is unsure as to the extent of actual transmission within the college.

Yeah it was 4 family members from memory

 

[TrueTiger]

I was at work yesterday and had a conversation with a young mother,in her late 30s,we were saying will this virus ever end,we seem to get on top of it and next thing there is a mutant strain rearing its head ready to cause havoc...I said that when a vaccine becomes available I will get the jab,not only because of my age,but because I work in hospitality amongst many people from all walks of life...
The mother said,"I wont get the vaccine,but can understand your point to getting it "...
So my main point is that although the people are working on getting a suitable vaccine ready to roll out,there are many in the community that are shunning getting the jab,obviously their choice,but in the broader sense of developing a vaccine to protect the whole community at large,I suppose that their thought process is "if I get it Im young enough to get over it"...But if they do wont they become a spreader if they dont isolate and we end up back at square one with people who havent vaccinated also contracting it and becoming infectious?..just looking from outside the square,I could be totally wrong,but then again Im no expert in the field...
I do suppose its an individual choice,I just would like to see the virus completely eradicated as soon as possible...

 

[Tiger5150]

I was at work yesterday and had a conversation with a young mother,in her late 30s,we were saying will this virus ever end,we seem to get on top of it and next thing there is a mutant strain rearing its head ready to cause havoc...I said that when a vaccine becomes available I will get the jab,not only because of my age,but because I work in hospitality amongst many people from all walks of life...
The mother said,"I wont get the vaccine,but can understand your point to getting it "...
So my main point is that although the people are working on getting a suitable vaccine ready to roll out,there are many in the community that are shunning getting the jab,obviously their choice,but in the broader sense of developing a vaccine to protect the whole community at large,I suppose that their thought process is "if I get it Im young enough to get over it"...But if they do wont they become a spreader if they dont isolate and we end up back at square one with people who havent vaccinated also contracting it and becoming infectious?..just looking from outside the square,I could be totally wrong,but then again Im no expert in the field...
I do suppose its an individual choice,I just would like to see the virus completely eradicated as soon as possible...

IMO its an unsolveable conflict. People will get the jab, others will not. I think in Australia (I hope) we will never make it compulsory however I can see it get to the point where the vaccine is either broadly enough distributed or available that they just forget about it. If you chose not to get it vaccinated, its on you. There will be no more lockdowns.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

I would like to share your optimism, however, totalitarians on both sides will conveniently use lockdown/masks/curfew whenever they feel 'necessary' (read when they want)!:confounded:

 

[Tiger5150]

I would like to share your optimism, however, totalitarians on both sides will conveniently use lockdown/masks/curfew whenever they feel 'necessary' (read when they want)!:confounded:

If one day the vaccine is freely available to anyone who wants it and a political party imposes lockdowns/masks mandates/curfews, they will be handing the election to the other side. IMO

 

[mike]


I’m not pointing fingers, but....

Exactly

 

[jirskyr]

>So many people just dismiss they opposing view , no matter whether the person put a lot of thought into it. You’re a lefty , do gooder from the right , and your a racist bogan from the left . Both wanting the other side silenced . I know it’s not really relevant to this , but I personally worry when I see this stuff .

This polarising binary of speech now removes all nuance from discussions. IMO it is a consequence of the politicisation of everything (particulary in the US), red team v blue team.

COVID vaccines are the perfect example. Its either the VACCINE IS PROVEN TO BE SAFE or the only other response is YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE THE VACCINE ANTIVAX view. Neither side of this binary is correct or tells the whole story. The vaccines are not proven to be safe, there has been no longitudinal studies done on the safety of them, but they have been proven (within acceptable parameters) to be safe in the short term. The choices people make are for their individual and community benefit, but it seems the media and social media narrative regarding it is that the community is incapable of discussing or making decisions as adults.

Im not an antivaxer, if/when my time comes I'll stick my arm out for the Oxford/Astra Zenaca vaccine(only).

Yep . Me too . So will my kids . But the conversation around how safe the vaccines are needs to be had . Especially if some unforeseen side effect rears it’s ugly head in the future .

I am a drug development project manager and I've been in the industry for 17 years. My company does contract work and we managed the Pfizer COVID vaccine study in the US, as well as the Novavax study (I did not work on it personally).

I don't really understand the comments about having a public "conversation" over the safety of vaccines. Your average person is not qualified to assess drug safety, nor does your average person understand the biostatistical analysis of trial data. The people who approve drugs for general consumption ARE the people who have expertise in the matter. So if a regulatory body deems that a drug is proven sufficiently safe, then that's about as good as you are going to get. Involving lay people in the discussion isn't really helpful.

By all means, do your own research on vaccines. The information is freely available. Do your research on everything, not just health. But also, you have to trust that the people who approve vaccines for general consumption are experts at doing so. Same as they approve other types of drugs for the general public, which aren't under scrutiny like vaccines are.

Or - don't trust the process, if you prefer, but understand that the process applies to ALL drugs, not just vaccines. So anti-vaxxers should also be wary of headache tablets, muscle relaxants, laxatives, cancer medications etc.

That's not to accuse anyone here of being an anti-vaxxer, just to give context about the process of developing and approving drugs - all drugs. I'm never quite clear why vaccines specifically have so much public focus. Or more correctly, I know that one guy published an article linking vaccines with autism many years ago, but that has been entirely hosed-down and I'm not sure why folks continue to worry more about vaccines than other medications. We've been giving shots to kids for a long time and the primary outcome has been near total eradication of a wide variety of illnesses that used to cause significant childhood mortality and morbidity.

People have to understand that the COVID vaccines are not being rushed or pushed through irresponsibly, despite political and social pressure to get the work done. In fact, these trials are getting much more medical and safety attention than any average trial would. Part of the reason the trials appear to be occurring quickly is because many of the red-tape hurdles have been removed. It's also proving much easier to get people to sign up for COVID trials than your average trial.

Furthermore, most, if not all, of the vaccines being applied to COVID are based on existing research/technologies. So pharma companies didn't have to wait to ramp up their trial abilities: they had the technology available once COVID was profiled/mapped.

For example the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, they've been fooling around with the technology for years. Once they isolated COVID they were ready to go, and my company has a pre-existing partnership for managing Pfizer clinical trials, so they rolled out a protocol for my company to start work on. The protocol designs are usually very similar; you basically drop the study into the existing framework and get going.

Secondary to the trial design, part of taking any medication is being reliably informed of the risk-benefit profile by a medical professional. But that's not a public debate, that's a discussion you have with your doctor. That's also the reason they stick the little paper pamphlets in every single prescription medication, with warnings all over the box. That IS the safety discussion.

If you are in doubt, like with anything, do your own research and discuss with a professional. There's plenty of easily-accessible and transparent information available online regarding COVID vaccines and their clinical trials:

Lastly in terms of long-term safety studies, I don't know how realistic that is. I don't mean from the POV of time elapsed, I simply mean due to the nature of vaccine delivery. Most drugs with long-term safety profiles are subscription products - i.e. you take them continuously for long periods. With vaccines, you treatment is normally over after a few weeks max, and typically side-effects present within a few days (e.g. injection-site reactions, allergies etc.). Vaccines have been well-studied over a very long period of time, so pharma companies have become pretty good at anticipating and managing side-effects, most of which tend to be quite benign.

Vaccines work to elicit an immune response, so they are typically quite weak products and it's your body that does the heavy lifting. Seriously, do the research on known and predicted adverse reactions to any/all vaccines and you will see the same fairly modest stuff over and over - headache, joint ache, injection-site swelling, chills, tiredness etc.

Consider it like drinking alcohol - the difference between the safety of drinking a lot of alcohol in a short period vs over a very long-period. The outcomes here are very different and there's no specific reason to expect that having 20 beers in one week will set you up for life-long outcomes.

Statistically, I think its very very unlikely we are going to see serious unexpected long-term adverse reactions from COVID vaccines. That's not to say we don't continue to do the safety analysis work (for example, the Pfizer study is collecting safety events for 2 years post dose, so it is ongoing), but just to realise it's a precaution and there is not any specific rationale to wait for more data before folks start getting their shots.

 

[mike]

>So many people just dismiss they opposing view , no matter whether the person put a lot of thought into it. You’re a lefty , do gooder from the right , and your a racist bogan from the left . Both wanting the other side silenced . I know it’s not really relevant to this , but I personally worry when I see this stuff .

This polarising binary of speech now removes all nuance from discussions. IMO it is a consequence of the politicisation of everything (particulary in the US), red team v blue team.

COVID vaccines are the perfect example. Its either the VACCINE IS PROVEN TO BE SAFE or the only other response is YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE THE VACCINE ANTIVAX view. Neither side of this binary is correct or tells the whole story. The vaccines are not proven to be safe, there has been no longitudinal studies done on the safety of them, but they have been proven (within acceptable parameters) to be safe in the short term. The choices people make are for their individual and community benefit, but it seems the media and social media narrative regarding it is that the community is incapable of discussing or making decisions as adults.

Im not an antivaxer, if/when my time comes I'll stick my arm out for the Oxford/Astra Zenaca vaccine(only).

Yep . Me too . So will my kids . But the conversation around how safe the vaccines are needs to be had . Especially if some unforeseen side effect rears it’s ugly head in the future .

I am a drug development project manager and I've been in the industry for 17 years. My company does contract work and we managed the Pfizer COVID vaccine study in the US, as well as the Novavax study (I did not work on it personally).

I don't really understand the comments about having a public "conversation" over the safety of vaccines. Your average person is not qualified to assess drug safety, nor does your average person understand the biostatistical analysis of trial data. The people who approve drugs for general consumption ARE the people who have expertise in the matter. So if a regulatory body deems that a drug is proven sufficiently safe, then that's about as good as you are going to get. Involving lay people in the discussion isn't really helpful.

By all means, do your own research on vaccines. The information is freely available. Do your research on everything, not just health. But also, you have to trust that the people who approve vaccines for general consumption are experts at doing so. Same as they approve other types of drugs for the general public, which aren't under scrutiny like vaccines are.

Or - don't trust the process, if you prefer, but understand that the process applies to ALL drugs, not just vaccines. So anti-vaxxers should also be wary of headache tablets, muscle relaxants, laxatives, cancer medications etc.

That's not to accuse anyone here of being an anti-vaxxer, just to give context about the process of developing and approving drugs - all drugs. I'm never quite clear why vaccines specifically have so much public focus. Or more correctly, I know that one guy published an article linking vaccines with autism many years ago, but that has been entirely hosed-down and I'm not sure why folks continue to worry more about vaccines than other medications. We've been giving shots to kids for a long time and the primary outcome has been near total eradication of a wide variety of illnesses that used to cause significant childhood mortality and morbidity.

People have to understand that the COVID vaccines are not being rushed or pushed through irresponsibly, despite political and social pressure to get the work done. In fact, these trials are getting much more medical and safety attention than any average trial would. Part of the reason the trials appear to be occurring quickly is because many of the red-tape hurdles have been removed. It's also proving much easier to get people to sign up for COVID trials than your average trial.

Furthermore, most, if not all, of the vaccines being applied to COVID are based on existing research/technologies. So pharma companies didn't have to wait to ramp up their trial abilities: they had the technology available once COVID was profiled/mapped.

For example the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, they've been fooling around with the technology for years. Once they isolated COVID they were ready to go, and my company has a pre-existing partnership for managing Pfizer clinical trials, so they basically rolled out a protocol for my company to start work on. You basically drop the study into the existing framework and get going.

Secondary to the trial design, part of taking any medication is being reliably informed of the risk-benefit profile by a medical professional. But that's not a public debate, that's a discussion you have with your doctor. That's also the reason they stick the little paper pamphlets in every single prescription medication, with warnings all over the box. That IS the safety discussion.

If you are in doubt, like with anything, do your own research and discuss with a professional. There's plenty of easily-accessible and transparent information available online regarding COVID vaccines and their clinical trials:

Lastly in terms of long-term safety studies, I don't know how realistic that is. I don't mean from the POV of time elapsed, I simply mean due to the nature of vaccine delivery. Most drugs with long-term safety profiles are subscription products - i.e. you take them continuously for long periods. With vaccines, you treatment is normally over after a few weeks max, and typically side-effects present within a few days (e.g. injection-site reactions, allergies etc.). Vaccines have been well-studied over a very long period of time, so pharma companies have become pretty good at anticipating and managing side-effects, most of which tend to be quite benign.

Vaccines work to elicit an immune response, so they are typically quite weak products and it's your body that does the heavy lifting. Seriously, do the research on known and predicted adverse reactions to any/all vaccines and you will see the same fairly modest stuff over and over - headache, joint ache, injection-site swelling, chills, tiredness etc.

Consider it like drinking alcohol - the difference between the safety of drinking a lot of alcohol in a short period vs over a very long-period. The outcomes here are very different and there's no specific reason to expect that having 20 beers in one week will set you up for life-long outcomes.

Statistically, I think its very very unlikely we are going to see serious unexpected long-term adverse reactions from COVID vaccines. That's not to say we don't continue to do the safety analysis work (for example, the Pfizer study is collecting safety events for 2 years post dose, so it is ongoing), but just to realist it's a precaution and there is not any specific rationale to wait for more data before folks start getting their shots.

Thank you for your rational comments and insight, it’s like a breath of fresh air.

 

[jadtiger]

>So many people just dismiss they opposing view , no matter whether the person put a lot of thought into it. You’re a lefty , do gooder from the right , and your a racist bogan from the left . Both wanting the other side silenced . I know it’s not really relevant to this , but I personally worry when I see this stuff .

This polarising binary of speech now removes all nuance from discussions. IMO it is a consequence of the politicisation of everything (particulary in the US), red team v blue team.

COVID vaccines are the perfect example. Its either the VACCINE IS PROVEN TO BE SAFE or the only other response is YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE THE VACCINE ANTIVAX view. Neither side of this binary is correct or tells the whole story. The vaccines are not proven to be safe, there has been no longitudinal studies done on the safety of them, but they have been proven (within acceptable parameters) to be safe in the short term. The choices people make are for their individual and community benefit, but it seems the media and social media narrative regarding it is that the community is incapable of discussing or making decisions as adults.

Im not an antivaxer, if/when my time comes I'll stick my arm out for the Oxford/Astra Zenaca vaccine(only).

Yep . Me too . So will my kids . But the conversation around how safe the vaccines are needs to be had . Especially if some unforeseen side effect rears it’s ugly head in the future .

I am a drug development project manager and I've been in the industry for 17 years. My company does contract work and we managed the Pfizer COVID vaccine study in the US, as well as the Novavax study (I did not work on it personally).

I don't really understand the comments about having a public "conversation" over the safety of vaccines. Your average person is not qualified to assess drug safety, nor does your average person understand the biostatistical analysis of trial data. The people who approve drugs for general consumption ARE the people who have expertise in the matter. So if a regulatory body deems that a drug is proven sufficiently safe, then that's about as good as you are going to get. Involving lay people in the discussion isn't really helpful.

By all means, do your own research on vaccines. The information is freely available. Do your research on everything, not just health. But also, you have to trust that the people who approve vaccines for general consumption are experts at doing so. Same as they approve other types of drugs for the general public, which aren't under scrutiny like vaccines are.

Or - don't trust the process, if you prefer, but understand that the process applies to ALL drugs, not just vaccines. So anti-vaxxers should also be wary of headache tablets, muscle relaxants, laxatives, cancer medications etc.

That's not to accuse anyone here of being an anti-vaxxer, just to give context about the process of developing and approving drugs - all drugs. I'm never quite clear why vaccines specifically have so much public focus. Or more correctly, I know that one guy published an article linking vaccines with autism many years ago, but that has been entirely hosed-down and I'm not sure why folks continue to worry more about vaccines than other medications. We've been giving shots to kids for a long time and the primary outcome has been near total eradication of a wide variety of illnesses that used to cause significant childhood mortality and morbidity.

People have to understand that the COVID vaccines are not being rushed or pushed through irresponsibly, despite political and social pressure to get the work done. In fact, these trials are getting much more medical and safety attention than any average trial would. Part of the reason the trials appear to be occurring quickly is because many of the red-tape hurdles have been removed. It's also proving much easier to get people to sign up for COVID trials than your average trial.

Furthermore, most, if not all, of the vaccines being applied to COVID are based on existing research/technologies. So pharma companies didn't have to wait to ramp up their trial abilities: they had the technology available once COVID was profiled/mapped.

For example the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, they've been fooling around with the technology for years. Once they isolated COVID they were ready to go, and my company has a pre-existing partnership for managing Pfizer clinical trials, so they rolled out a protocol for my company to start work on. The protocol designs are usually very similar; you basically drop the study into the existing framework and get going.

Secondary to the trial design, part of taking any medication is being reliably informed of the risk-benefit profile by a medical professional. But that's not a public debate, that's a discussion you have with your doctor. That's also the reason they stick the little paper pamphlets in every single prescription medication, with warnings all over the box. That IS the safety discussion.

If you are in doubt, like with anything, do your own research and discuss with a professional. There's plenty of easily-accessible and transparent information available online regarding COVID vaccines and their clinical trials:

Lastly in terms of long-term safety studies, I don't know how realistic that is. I don't mean from the POV of time elapsed, I simply mean due to the nature of vaccine delivery. Most drugs with long-term safety profiles are subscription products - i.e. you take them continuously for long periods. With vaccines, you treatment is normally over after a few weeks max, and typically side-effects present within a few days (e.g. injection-site reactions, allergies etc.). Vaccines have been well-studied over a very long period of time, so pharma companies have become pretty good at anticipating and managing side-effects, most of which tend to be quite benign.

Vaccines work to elicit an immune response, so they are typically quite weak products and it's your body that does the heavy lifting. Seriously, do the research on known and predicted adverse reactions to any/all vaccines and you will see the same fairly modest stuff over and over - headache, joint ache, injection-site swelling, chills, tiredness etc.

Consider it like drinking alcohol - the difference between the safety of drinking a lot of alcohol in a short period vs over a very long-period. The outcomes here are very different and there's no specific reason to expect that having 20 beers in one week will set you up for life-long outcomes.

Statistically, I think its very very unlikely we are going to see serious unexpected long-term adverse reactions from COVID vaccines. That's not to say we don't continue to do the safety analysis work (for example, the Pfizer study is collecting safety events for 2 years post dose, so it is ongoing), but just to realise it's a precaution and there is not any specific rationale to wait for more data before folks start getting their shots.

That is a far more reasoned arguement than some of the misinformation that has been promoted on here.

 

[Aesopian]

I was at work yesterday and had a conversation with a young mother,in her late 30s,we were saying will this virus ever end,we seem to get on top of it and next thing there is a mutant strain rearing its head ready to cause havoc...I said that when a vaccine becomes available I will get the jab,not only because of my age,but because I work in hospitality amongst many people from all walks of life...
The mother said,"I wont get the vaccine,but can understand your point to getting it "...
So my main point is that although the people are working on getting a suitable vaccine ready to roll out,there are many in the community that are shunning getting the jab,obviously their choice,but in the broader sense of developing a vaccine to protect the whole community at large,I suppose that their thought process is "if I get it Im young enough to get over it"...But if they do wont they become a spreader if they dont isolate and we end up back at square one with people who havent vaccinated also contracting it and becoming infectious?..just looking from outside the square,I could be totally wrong,but then again Im no expert in the field...
I do suppose its an individual choice,I just would like to see the virus completely eradicated as soon as possible...

IMO eradication is not possible until society in general develop an immunity to the virus. The vaccine is great for reducing infections and also symptoms if caught, but the virus will exist in one form or another for quite some time.

The younger generations with strong immune systems will naturally eliminate the virus as their body's adapt and generate the required antibodies. But this can take a decade or 2 or 3...

All we can do now is delicately balance protecting the AT risk people who have low immunity VS allowing the rest of society to get back to some sense of normality...