Covid vaccine. Who took it, who didn't?

[ratiocinator]

Yeah. I mentioned in other threads about fear. It didn't really hit me until people started going in the streets and way into the grass to avoid me for couple of seconds walking or running by them. This is outside.

That is an overreaction and, as you say, probably due to fear - or maybe simply not paying a lot of attention to exactly what is risky and what isn't. You are very, very unlikely to catch the virus while briefly passing somebody outside.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There's nothing wrong with wearing socks with sandals either, it's just in bad taste and makes the wearer look like kind of the doofus.

I'm sure you get my point, though, right?

There are many threads that down people who they feel are "against" masks and trump and so forth but when someone posts another point of view (whether they agree with it or playing devil's advocate), they get attacked.

Wouldn't it be a double standard to hold us accountable for our complaints but not the same for those who complain about us?

Unvaccinated people have been called dogs, idiots, COVIdiots, ignorant, uncaring about people, and so forth that I can't even count.

So, saying someone is disrespectful for calling us ignorant is very appropriate given the situation.

I'm sure you can see this objectively and on both sides to get my point, right?

 

[Trailblazer]

You know, you two sitting in here and passive aggressively gossiping about everybody else in this thread doesn't exactly enhance your credibility.

We are not gossiping about anyone on this forum, did you see us mentioning any names?
We are just standing up for what we believe, in between having to defend ourselves from pro-vaxxers.

We are not passive aggressive, we are assertive. The passive aggressiveness in on the part of the pro-vaxxers who are trying to tell us what we should do, then indirectly implying that we are selfish and even saying it.

I might not be qualified to know about vaccines but I am qualified to know about human behavior because I have an MA in Psychology.

 

[Quagmire]

In do not care who is right and who is wrong and I am not qualified to say. All I can have is a personal opinion. I never went back and watched the video again because it is on a need to know basis and I do not need to know about the vaccine right now because whether I take the vaccine or not is not relevant to my life right now.

The way I look at it, if what he is saying is true, we will find out eventually because what he is saying will happen will happen. Then we'll know.

Do you want to know what I really object to? I object to people calling people intentionally dishonest or calling them liars. You have a right to their own opinion but we can never know another person's motives and we cannot know that they are lying unless that are caught in a lie.

First off, yeah actually, a lot of the time we can know another person's motives.

Second, I acknowledged that he may well just be making mistakes rather than intentionally lying, but I'm also going to say I find it pretty unlikely that someone in his field could make mistakes like those unwittingly.

I'm satisfied that I'm not being too unfair by assuming that he's being dishonest, or at least really irresponsible.

I also look at possible motives and what would be his motive to lie and put his career and his reputation on the line?

There are any number of possibilities. Like I said earlier maybe he's just making a grab for his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe he's trying to sell the all-in-one, universal vaccine he's supposed to have come up with years ago (that absolutely no one has been paying any attention to until now).

Maybe his doctor has him on the wrong meds.

No way to know.

My impression was that he was sincere even if he was wrong. I am not saying I think he is wrong, I don't know, but it would take a lot of time for me to have an informed opinion on that and I don't have that kind of time.

That's okay. That's one of the purposes of posting on a forum like this: if you're wrong about something, inevitably somebody who has the time will show up to show you that you're wrong.

Happens to me all the time.

 

[Trailblazer]

negativity breads hate (and lack of respect, yes), and emotions distort the point(s) people make in their posts... which makes it hard to converse.

And extreme bias makes it impossible to converse.
"I am right and you are wrong." I think that is called ego.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm sure you get my point, though, right?

Not really it just sounded like whining to me.

There are many threads that down people who they feel are "against" masks and trump and so forth but when someone posts another point of view (whether they agree with it or playing devil's advocate), they get attacked.

Wouldn't it be a double standard to hold us accountable for our complaints but not the same for those who complain about us?

Talking about people in the third person while they're standing there watching is rude. It doesn't matter who's doing it or what they believe or why.

Unvaccinated people have been called dogs, idiots, COVIdiots, ignorant, uncaring about people, and so forth that I can't even count.

So, saying someone is disrespectful for calling us ignorant is very appropriate given the situation.

Talking about people in the third person while they're standing there watching is rude. It doesn't matter who's doing it or what they believe or why.

I'm sure you can see this objectively and on both sides to get my point, right?

I think you missed mine.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

First off, yeah actually, a lot of the time we can know another person's motives.

Second, I acknowledged that he may well just be making mistakes rather than intentionally lying, but I'm also going to say I find it pretty unlikely that someone in his field could make mistakes like those unwittingly.

I'm satisfied that I'm not being too unfair by assuming that he's being dishonest, or at least really irresponsible.



There are any number of possibilities. Like I said earlier maybe he's just making a grab for his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe he's trying to sell the all-in-one, universal vaccine he's supposed to have come up with years ago (that absolutely no one has been paying any attention to until now).

Maybe his doctor has him on the wrong meds.

No way to know.



That's okay. That's one of the purposes of posting on a forum like this: if you're wrong about something, inevitably somebody who has the time will show up to show you that you're wrong.

Happens to me all the time.

I think you misquoted me the last two lines? Was that for Trailblazer?

 

[Quagmire]

I think you misquoted me the last two lines? Was that for Trailblazer?

Sorry, yeah.

I fixed it.

 

[Trailblazer]

First off, yeah actually, a lot of the time we can know another person's motives.

I disagree. Unless someone tells you their motive all you can do is have an opinion.
You cannot know because you cannot read minds.

Second, I acknowledged that he may well just be making mistakes rather than intentionally lying, but I'm also going to say I find it pretty unlikely that someone in his field could make mistakes like those unwittingly.

How do you know they are mistakes? Are you a virologist?

I'm satisfied that I'm not being too unfair by assuming that he's being dishonest, or at least really irresponsible.

That is a personal opinion to which you are entitled.

There are any number of possibilities. Like I said earlier maybe he's just making a grab for his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe he's trying to sell the all-in-one, universal vaccine he's supposed to have come up with years ago (that absolutely no one has been paying any attention to until now).

Maybe his doctor has him on the wrong meds.

No way to know.

That's right, there is no way to know, so why surmise?

That's okay. That's one of the purposes of posting on a forum like this: if you're wrong about something, inevitably somebody who has the time will show up to show you that you're wrong.

Happens to me all the time.

Sometimes they will show you, but sometimes they just believe they showed you.
Happens to me all the time.

 

[Revoltingest]

I cancelled my appointment for tomorrow.
Hoping to get the 1-shot J&J one locally.

 

[Quagmire]

I disagree. Unless someone tells you their motive all you can do is have an opinion.
You cannot know because you cannot read minds.

If someone puts a gun to my head and says "give me your money", I think it's safe to surmise that his motives are that he wants my money.

How do you know they are mistakes? Are you a virologist?

Don't have to be. If the studies coming out now are suggesting that the virus can't be spread after inoculation, and this guy is ignoring all that or suggesting that we should assume the exact opposite, you don't have to be a virologist in order to understand that he's, at best, mistaken

You also don't have to be a virologist in order to study up on the history of a previous pandemic.

That is a personal opinion to which you are entitled.

Considering I actually put some time, thought, and effort into reaching that opinion, I would say yes, I'm entitled to it.

That's right, there is no way to know, so why surmise?

Because you asked?

Sometimes they will show you, but sometimes they just believe they showed you.
Happens to me all the time.

You're right: proving someone's wrong and actually being able to show them that you've proven them wrong can be two different things.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your comment about "reprogramming cells" suggests otherwise. Regardless, knowing the basic principles of how vaccines work is not anywhere near enough to evaluate the risks in this situation.

What risks? Nobody except God really knows what the risks are.
Trying to use statistics to predict risks does not work. All it does is instill fear.

And the best evidence non-experts have, is what the experts say. It would be different if there was huge disagreement between them but there isn't.

I am not arguing with the experts and saying they are wrong about the vaccines.

Which means that is the best well informed conclusion, the majority of the experts have somehow made the same mistake, or there is some sort of worldwide conspiracy. This really isn't difficult.

I am not arguing with the experts and saying they are wrong about the vaccines.

Firstly, that's circular - it's like saying all flat-earthers agree that the earth is flat.

No, it is not like that because there are very few flat-earthers whereas 93% of people in the world believe in God.

Secondly, even believers don't agree with each other about the supposed god.

That's irrelevant to the point. The point is that 93% of people in the world believe there is a God.

Thirdly, there are no experts in the existence or otherwise of god(s).

That depends upon what you consider experts. Religious people are experts about their own religions.

Yet again: it's not about everyone, it's about those people who are qualified to asses the evidence.

They are only qualified in the field of virology. Clearly, the evidence as to what is going to happen with the vaccines is not in yet.

I'm not telling you you must get the vaccine, I'm telling you that it is irrational not to (unless you fall into one of the categories I indicated before). You are, of course, perfectly free to be as irrational as you want.

Calling people irrational is against forum rules because it is a personal insult. I do fall into one of the categories listed and that is one reason I don't need the vaccine.

Utter nonsense. I'm not afraid of death - I'm taking the vaccine because I don't like being sick and it also shows care for my fellow human beings and wider society. It is the only rational option.

It is the rational option for you given your particular set of life circumstances, but it is not rational for me given mine.

We have strong evidence from similar medications and we know the risks from covid - at least the short term ones, the long-term risks of covid are just as unknown as the vaccine but we have no direct comparison.

The long-term risks of the Covid vaccines are not known because the long term has not occurred yet. That is called logic. Moreover, there is no way one can know what the vaccine did to their body because such things cannot be diagnosed by any medical tests.

Yet again: there is no such thing as a risk-free option but the evidence we have today is unequivocal.

The only evidence we have is that the vaccines work to prevent illness, hospitalization and death. If people are worried about that they should take the vaccine.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's not a debate. I'm just saying that there is disrespect both ways and RF tends to bread such respect one way but, by popular opinion, tends to brush aside or challenge the other side. Regardless how it is done and who does it, the constructive critique is valuable nonetheless.

Not really it just sounded like whining to me.

Sounds like is not facts. I don't expect 100% respect on RF, but at least to respect my opinions.

Talking about people in the third person while they're standing there watching is rude. It doesn't matter who's doing it or what they believe or why.

It would help that you can warn both sides, though. Its overlooked on one side but not on the other. Indirectness is common on RF. "Some people... many people..." are sometimes indirect statements and used a lot. Yes, it is rude but I don't do it often. I just don't appreciate it if I'm singled out (rather than addressing the whole), obviously, I'd address criticism. Whether it is received or not (being indirect to be polite/taking out you statements) by RFers is a different story.

I think you missed mine.

I don't think so. However, I'm just giving constructive criticism for you and hopefully other readers too.

--

How to ask this. Do you think it's okay to call unvaccinated people names but not okay to complain about it?

 

[Trailblazer]

If someone puts a gun to my head and says "give me your money", I think it's safe to surmise that his motives are that he wants my money.

You know he wants your money but you do not know what he wants it for.
Maybe he wants it to buy drugs or maybe he needs it to help his sick grandmother.

Don't have to be. If the studies coming out now are suggesting that the virus can't be spread after inoculation, and this guy is ignoring all that or suggesting that we should assume the exact opposite, you don't have to be a virologist in order to understand that he's, at best, mistaken.

Can someone who has been vaccinated for COVID spread the disease?

The vaccine is designed to stop the virus from making you sick. We don’t know yet if the vaccine will stop you from spreading the virus. We should continue to wear masks, social distance, and wash hands after we’ve been vaccinated. (source – Vanderbilt University Medical Center) (1.19.20)

What We Know and What We’re Still Learning

• We know that COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing COVID-19 disease, especially severe illness and death.
  • We’re still learning how effective the vaccines are against variants of the virus that causes COVID-19. Early data show the vaccines may work against some variants but could be less effective against others.
• We know that other prevention steps help stop the spread of COVID-19, and that these steps are still important, even as vaccines are being distributed.
  • We’re still learning how well COVID-19 vaccines keep people from spreading the disease.
  • Early data show that the vaccines may help keep people from spreading COVID-19, but we are learning more as more people get vaccinated.
• We’re still learning how long COVID-19 vaccines can protect people.
• As we know more, CDC will continue to update our recommendations for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

Until we know more about those questions, everyone — even people who’ve had their vaccines — should continue taking steps to protect themselves and others when recommended.

COVID-19 Vaccination

You also don't have to be a virologist in order to study up on the history of a previous pandemic.

How is that relevant as to whether his science is right or not? He is not pretending to be a historian.

Considering I actually put some time, thought, and effort into reaching that opinion, I would say yes, I'm entitled to it.

Fair enough.

 

[Trailblazer]

How to ask this. Do you think it's okay to call unvaccinated people names but not okay to complain about it?

That kind of says it all doesn't it? -- They call us irresponsible, irrational, uncaring, selfish.
Are we calling vaccinated people any names?

 

[McBell]

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry, yeah.

I fixed it.

I was reading back on my posts... I was attacking their behavior not the person.

I was saying that the name calling, negativity, and things like that are not called for. I focus on the behavior and speech, but if people (and I do mean people) take offense by indirectness it is not something I can help. It would be easier to address statements I've made directly.

For many reasons in person and online, I do value directness. I try to be direct but tend to write long posts (and working on it). But if RFers said "you said this" it would be easier than "it sounds like she meant that".

Do you understand from an objective point of view?

 

[We Never Know]

Child vaccine trial paused over possible clot link


A trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine on children has been paused while the UK's medicines regulator investigates a possible link with rare blood clots in adults

 

[Quagmire]

It's not a debate. I'm just saying that there is disrespect both ways and RF tends to bread such respect one way but, by popular opinion, tends to brush aside or challenge the other side. Regardless how it is done and who does it, the constructive critique is valuable nonetheless.



Sounds like is not facts. I don't expect 100% respect on RF, but at least to respect my opinions.



It would help that you can warn both sides, though. Its overlooked on one side but not on the other.

I've only been reading this thread from the point that I posted in it.

So if something like passive aggressive gossiping happened earlier I missed it.

And unless it's an actual rule violation, I don't care. I'm not "warning" anybody in any sort of official sense here. I just happened to run across you doing what you were doing and said what I said.

If that makes you feel singled out, oh well, sorry.

Indirectness is common on RF. "Some people... many people..." are sometimes indirect statements and used a lot. Yes, it is rude but I don't do it often. I just don't appreciate it if I'm singled out (rather than addressing the whole), obviously, I'd address criticism. Whether it is received or not (being indirect to be polite/taking out you statements) by RFers is a different story.

Oh okay: HEY EVERYBODY IN THE WHOLE WORLD!!! QUIT GOSSIPING!!!!

Better?

I don't think so. However, I'm just giving constructive criticism for you and hopefully other readers too.

Still just sounds like whining.

How to ask this. Do you think it's okay to call unvaccinated people names but not okay to complain about it?

I think you're still missing the point.

 

[Quagmire]

You know he wants your money but you do not know what he wants it for.
Maybe he wants it to buy drugs or maybe he needs it to help his sick grandmother.

What difference does it make? Are you saying it's okay for somebody to rob you if they're doing it for a good reason.

To put it in the context of what we're talking about, are you saying it would be okay for the guy in the video to be playing fast and loose with the facts if he's doing it for a worthy cause?

And if that's not what you're saying, how in the world is any of this relevant to what we're talking about?

Can someone who has been vaccinated for COVID spread the disease?

The vaccine is designed to stop the virus from making you sick. We don’t know yet if the vaccine will stop you from spreading the virus. We should continue to wear masks, social distance, and wash hands after we’ve been vaccinated. (source – Vanderbilt University Medical Center) (1.19.20)

What We Know and What We’re Still Learning

• We know that COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing COVID-19 disease, especially severe illness and death.
  • We’re still learning how effective the vaccines are against variants of the virus that causes COVID-19. Early data show the vaccines may work against some variants but could be less effective against others.
• We know that other prevention steps help stop the spread of COVID-19, and that these steps are still important, even as vaccines are being distributed.
  • We’re still learning how well COVID-19 vaccines keep people from spreading the disease.
  • Early data show that the vaccines may help keep people from spreading COVID-19, but we are learning more as more people get vaccinated.
• We’re still learning how long COVID-19 vaccines can protect people.
• As we know more, CDC will continue to update our recommendations for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

Until we know more about those questions, everyone — even people who’ve had their vaccines — should continue taking steps to protect themselves and others when recommended.

COVID-19 Vaccination

That's right, WE DONT KNOW YET!

That's the point: we don't know yet, so anybody acting like they know, one way or the other, is being dishonest.

How is that relevant as to whether his science is right or not? He is not pretending to be a historian.

Hmmm.

Okay, if he's saying "Look what happened last time! Boy oh boy! We don't want that to happen again".

And what he's saying happened last time didn't actually happen last time, it's a pretty noticeable smudge on his credibility wouldn't you say?

And if this guy has an advanced degree in virology, I think it's reasonable to assume that somewhere along the line in his education he would have been obliged to study past pandemics.