It is approved (authorized) for emergency use. We are in emergency.I’m really surprised by how many are pushing for an unapproved vaccine.
It is approved (authorized) for emergency use. We are in emergency.I’m really surprised by how many are pushing for an unapproved vaccine.
You obviously have no clue. To say that 90+% efficacy is "may or may not protect you" is pure ignorance from a scientific perspective. There is hardly anything 100% proof. Does it mean that we have just to give up and die? I'll take my 90٪ against your 10٪. You seemingly is content to be a looser.Always amazing to see the push for a yet-to-be-approved vaccine that may or may not protect you from contracting or transmitting a disease, that may may or may not cause infertility in women, that may or may not need more than three doses, that may or may not be safe, and that may or may not cause other disease, for a virus who’s testing may or may not be accurate, where a person has a 99.996% chance of survival if contracted, and if they do, carries antibodies for a still unknown period of time, to which most still have them after over a year.
SCIENCE!
MR won't moderate posts that contain disinformation and misformation as they don't want to be the truth police. (threads in S&FF discuss this.) Not to mention, what is disinformation yesterday, can turn into information today.This thread and others like it are an interesting test of MR to see the extent to which they’ll allow pseudo-science and — in some cases — downright treasonous views to be sprayed around on their site.
I’m thinking it may be time for me to find a new place to discuss tech, although sadly few places want to do that without opening a door to insanity.
It's my house my rules. From websites, newspapers to tech giants.Want to talk tech ? Pass 232.. to limit tech giants from censoring. I agree, a new place is needed to discuss tech in general.
Medical journals have reputations. Some have better reputations than others. A good peer reviewed journal isn’t immune to bad science. However, they will publish retractions when this turns out to be the case. One way you can tell a “good” source from a “bad” one is whether or not and how often they publish corrections and retractions. This is an important addition to peer review. Conspiracy theorists, youtubers, false Facebook info — none of these ever post retractions, and none are peer reviewed. That’s how you know they’re not good places to get information.I think your faith in medical journals is perhaps a tad naive: https://www.theguardian.com/science...usiness-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
Don't you have empathy for older people? Do you care about your country and community? If everyone had your attitude this country would suck in a major way.I'd reject it because I'm young and healthy and can easily beat it off. The average age of death is 83, which is higher than life expectancy.
LOL. “You seemingly is content.” “Looser.” Implying questioning government-sponsored data is unscientific when that is the basis of the scientific process.You obviously have no clue. To say that 90+% efficacy is "may or may not protect you" is pure ignorance from a scientific perspective. There is hardly anything 100% proof. Does it mean that we have just to give up and die? I'll take my 90٪ against your 10٪. You seemingly is content to be a looser.
You keep on repeating the same mistake. CDC has nothing to do with regulation vaccines and drugs. The FDA does. Please read up on this.The FDA and the CDC would prevent the use of the vaccine if it wasn't effective or dangerous. Like the crack pot suggestions of the previous president.
If you get vaccinated, Jewish space lasers will shoot you from a pizza parlor basement and the world will be taken over by black pedophiles as written by the Founding Fathers hidden on the five dollar bill.
Where were you in 2019 with flu?Don't you have empathy for older people? Do you care about your country and community? If everyone had your attitude this country would suck in a major way.
Why? Is there a comparison to be made?Where were you in 2019 with flu?
Cause it kills more young people than Covid and it's a massive killer of the elderly. You catch it and spread, but you're trying to guilt people about Covid, it's the exact same thing.Why? Is there a comparison to be made?
Flu suffers usually recovers in a week. Flu doesn’t cause blood clots, intubation, etc, or bring out latent health issues in young people that may cause long term health effects.Cause it kills more young people than Covid and it's a massive killer of the elderly. You catch it and spread, but you're trying to guilt people about Covid, it's the exact same thing.
This wacko?Many doctors have spoken out but videos get deleted.. those who take the vaccine have few years to live ..
All debunked. Extensively. Also, she’s loony tunes.Many doctors have spoken out but videos get deleted.. those who take the vaccine have few years to live ..
The contagiousness (R0) for flu is between 1 and 2. The swine flu pandemic of 1918 had R0 between 1.4 and 2.8.Cause it kills more young people than Covid and it's a massive killer of the elderly. You catch it and spread, but you're trying to guilt people about Covid, it's the exact same thing.
This lady is nobody (medically speaking). She is the chair of the Eurosceptic Irish Freedom Party. She used to teach a first-year medicine class, called Science, Medicine and Society in UCD’s school of medicine. Why would anyone trust her with a medical advice (especially on immunology)? She is a politician not a doctor. Her medical advice is as good as Trump's. (Source)Many doctors have spoken out but videos get deleted.. those who take the vaccine have few years to live ..
And there goes any point you had. Still using trump as a excuse.Like it or not, that is not true at all in the USA.
Which isn’t a big deal since most are willing to vaccinate anyways. A small minority of anti vaxxers only pose a danger to themselves.
Personally I'm not anti vax but I’m hesitant to accept the Trump vacccine that Trump rushed through. And I’m disappointed that others are not more skeptical of Drumph’s vaccine. I’ll get it eventually.....but you guys go ahead and take my place in line.
Personally I'm not anti vax but I’m hesitant to accept the Trump vacccine that Trump rushed through. And I’m disappointed that others are not more skeptical of Drumph’s vaccine. I’ll get it eventually.....but you guys go ahead and take my place in line.
That would be all of them. If title wasn’t for T***p, we would be working on a vaccine rationally, and safely, and not rushing the, through so he could announce them before November.If you don't want to use "the Trump vaccine that Trump rushed through" (which one is that supposed to be?), use a different one.
Dude, there are fourteen different vaccines across four different techniques, from different countries. Like, make the case that there are quality issues with Moderna or whatever, but "all of them" is not a valid answer here. Trump didn't have influence over even half of them.That would be all of them. If title wasn’t for T***p, we would be working on a vaccine rationally, and safely, and not rushing the, through so he could announce them before November.
If the vaccines were created while taking safe amounts of time, without political interference, I’d get all of them.