Rushed Covid 19 vaccine

FutureTeashock

The mods have shut down any criticism or raising of any concerns pertaining to the plethora of vaccines being developed at record speed in the main vaccine thread.

I therefore think it's right to establish a space for those who are worried about the pace at which these vaccines are being developed, without fear of being affixed with the tiresome and facile moniker of "anti vaxxer".

It is absolutely right to question not just the "warp speed" at which these vaccinations are being thrown together, but the very nature of the experimental technology, which involves altering the DNA of those who choose to take it.

I also want to preempt attempts to make any vaccine mandatory, something I'm sure the vast majority -- even those willing to take the rushed, experimental vaccine -- will agree on.

Van.Bosch

I don’t think any democratic government has suggested mandatory vaccines though?

FutureTeashock

Van.Bosch wrote: »

I don’t think any democratic government has suggested mandatory vaccines though?

Denmark passes “most extreme” law since WWII, will force vaccinations against Covid-19

https://gript.ie/denmark-law-since-forcing-people-vaccinated-covid-19/

Van.Bosch

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Denmark passes “most extreme” law since WWII, will force vaccinations against Covid-19

https://gript.ie/denmark-law-since-forcing-people-vaccinated-covid-19/

Wow - I’m pro vaccine but don’t think it should be mandatory, although I’m not sure how reliable that article is.

Anyway, while I disagree with most of your views on Covid, I agree you should have a forum to discuss them - enjoy!

4068ac1elhodqr

Aussie PM Scott Morrison sparked a debate when he said a COVID-19 vaccine would be 'as mandatory as possible': “I would expect it to be as mandatory as you can possibly make, under the law". The PM since walked back from the comment, after criticism. He want's 95% uptake, but there is only one way he can acheive that target.

Australia’s deputy chief medical officer, Professor Paul Kelly, earlier said it would not be 'compulsory' (at first) but it was hoped that there would be “strong take-up”.
The word 'compulsary' is actually a step further than just being manditory. 'Compulsory' means you must have it regardless of your views, beliefs or any objections, i.e. you must 'comply'.

jay1988

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Denmark passes “most extreme” law since WWII, will force vaccinations against Covid-19

https://gript.ie/denmark-law-since-forcing-people-vaccinated-covid-19/

Gript? About as laughable a source as the Liberal.

FutureTeashock

jay1988 wrote: »

Gript? About as laughable a source as the Liberal.

Nice try at deflection! No mods to ride to the rescue in this thread.

"As well as enforcing quarantine measures, the law also allows the authorities to force people to be vaccinated"

https://www.thelocal.dk/20200313/denmark-passes-far-reaching-emergency-coronavirus-law

c.p.w.g.w

Pro-Vaccine here...but the idea of the vaccine being rushed is already scary, you have one trial being suspended after someone had an adverse affect...

I understand that there was a base of work already done, with MERs & SARs as that was a head start, but that should still mean the vaccine should take 2-3 years to develop and test...not 9-12 months

I'm developing a theory that the rise of unemployment along with forcing people to stay indoors is breeding more crazies since for a few months there was nothing else to do but go online all day and research comforting conspiracies

B.A._Baracus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm developing a theory that the rise of unemployment along with forcing people to stay indoors is breeding more crazies since for a few months there was nothing else to do but go online all day and research comforting conspiracies

You could be right
My personal theory is that everyone lives in their own bubble. Sure, some see the outside of it and have an open mind but most don't.

That's why we see so many posts about how Corona is fake. It's a government conspiracy and what not.

Atlantic Dawn

What would be the ideal time to avoid taking it where anything dodgy would be revealed? I am thinking 2 years after release?

Arghus

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Denmark passes “most extreme” law since WWII, will force vaccinations against Covid-19

https://gript.ie/denmark-law-since-forcing-people-vaccinated-covid-19/

From what I've read of the source Gript provides and the one you linked to earlier, there's a claim that "the law allows authorities to force people to be vaccinated" - but gives no further detail about how this will be enforced, can it be enforced, under what circumstances etc,etc. I'd want more detail personally before jumping to conclusions. Also the law was being debated in March - what other developments have taken place since? How can you force people to be vaccinated for a vaccine that doesn't exist?

Gript are not a reliable source on just about anything - just because they are spinning it that Denmark is forcing people to get vaccinated, I would really doubt if that's the whole picture.

endacl

FutureTeashock wrote: »

I therefore think it's right to establish a space for those who are worried about the pace at which these vaccines are being developed, without fear of being affixed with the tiresome and facile moniker of "anti vaxxer".

Already Self-establishable.

Charles Babbage

FutureTeashock wrote: »

The mods have shut down any criticism or raising of any concerns pertaining to the plethora of vaccines being developed at record speed in the main vaccine thread.

I therefore think it's right to establish a space for those who are worried about the pace at which these vaccines are being developed, without fear of being affixed with the tiresome and facile moniker of "anti vaxxer".

It is absolutely right to question not just the "warp speed" at which these vaccinations are being thrown together, but the very nature of the experimental technology, which involves altering the DNA of those who choose to take it.

I also want to preempt attempts to make any vaccine mandatory, something I'm sure the vast majority -- even those willing to take the rushed, experimental vaccine -- will agree on.

Mandatory, perhaps not. But you should not be allowed into public indoor places without it, if you want your own personal lockdown then fine. However, this would be sometime away after millions will have had it.

MOH

FutureTeashock wrote: »

The mods have shut down any criticism or raising of any concerns pertaining to the plethora of vaccines being developed at record speed in the main vaccine thread.

I therefore think it's right to establish a space for those who are worried about the pace at which these vaccines are being developed, without fear of being affixed with the tiresome and facile moniker of "anti vaxxer".

It is absolutely right to question not just the "warp speed" at which these vaccinations are being thrown together, but the very nature of the experimental technology, which involves altering the DNA of those who choose to take it.

I also want to preempt attempts to make any vaccine mandatory, something I'm sure the vast majority -- even those willing to take the rushed, experimental vaccine -- will agree on.

So "the mods" are part of the conspiracy to shut down any criticism of rushed vaccines, but they'll be OK with you starting another thread about it?

Surely either a) they are part of a conspiracy and will thus shut down this thread too or b) that's all nonsense in which case the thread is pointless. Although it's obviously also pointless if a

Ten of Swords

Thread moved to the Conspiracy Theories forum, please read the local charter

Oxford vaccine was paused after one potential issue...

FutureTeashock

MOH wrote: »

So "the mods" are part of the conspiracy to shut down any criticism of rushed vaccines, but they'll be OK with you starting another thread about it?

Surely either a) they are part of a conspiracy and will thus shut down this thread too or b) that's all nonsense in which case the thread is pointless. Although it's obviously also pointless if a

This post didn't age well.

thelad95

I'm as pro vaccine as they come and even having a quick read of the rigorous testing that vaccines have to go through before being approved, I cannot possibly see how any vaccine could be rushed to the market within 9 or so months.

The one thing quelling my anxiety is that many experts seem to place June-December 2021 as being the earliest possible date a vaccine could realistically enter the market.

I worry that a Russia or China or even USA led government might push a vaccine ahead before time which is a very scary thought indeed.

Dionaibh

thelad95 wrote: »

I'm as pro vaccine as they come and even having a quick read of the rigorous testing that vaccines have to go through before being approved, I cannot possibly see how any vaccine could be rushed to the market within 9 or so months.

The one thing quelling my anxiety is that many experts seem to place June-December 2021 as being the earliest possible date a vaccine could realistically enter the market.

I worry that a Russia or China or even USA led government might push a vaccine ahead before time which is a very scary thought indeed.

I actually think the Russian vaccine is probably the safest of all the vaccines in development and I wouldn't hesitate to take it. I've read a lot about the Russian vaccine. They used proven technology to produce it and tweaked a vaccine they had for Ebola that they worked on for six years. That's why they were able to produce it quickly.

On the question of a mandatory vaccine, I imagine it won't be mandatory, but that a person won't be able to take part in society unless vaccinated. Awful to think when the survival rate of this virus is over 99%, but that's just the way it is.

jay1988

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Nice try at deflection! No mods to ride to the rescue in this thread.

"As well as enforcing quarantine measures, the law also allows the authorities to force people to be vaccinated"

https://www.thelocal.dk/20200313/denmark-passes-far-reaching-emergency-coronavirus-law

No deflection here, just the usual with Gript all bull**** headlines and no substance.

But you knew that anyways.

LessOutragePlz

I won't be taking a vaccine under any circumstances. I don't care if I'm a selfish cvnt because I'm in a low risk group an I don't see the need for me to take one. I'd be more afraid of the potential side effects from taking the vaccine rather than covid itself and that's not some anti-vaxxer nonsense.

Pharma companies are lobbying the EU so that the EU will be liable for any potential claims that could arise from litigation as a result of people suffering side effects from taking the vaccine.

https://www.ft.com/content/12f7da5b-92c8-4050-bcea-e726b75eef4d

AstraZeneca have already going be exempt from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN24V2EN

I don't know about you but the fact that the EU and ultimately us EU citizens as EU taxpayers would potentially be liable for any claims that are made as result of people suffering side effects from taking the vaccine doesn't sit well with me and it doesn't inspire confidence in the vaccine producers when they are already trying to cover their asses.

Smee_Again

FutureTeashock wrote: »

but the very nature of the experimental technology, which involves altering the DNA of those who choose to take it.

Source for this claim?

keepalive213

I feel there are limits to how far scientists can go towards a vaccine or breakthrough treatment, as evolved a species as we are, we still have our limits.
I fear a rushed vaccine which might somehow make the situation worse.
Covid-19 is from the same family of diseases as the common cold for which there is no cure.
In the last few generations we have been very successful in keeping the vulnerable in our societies alive and well for longer through various forms of treatment. Covid-19 occurs to me as nature striking back, Darwin style.

Dohnjoe

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Pro-Vaccine here...but the idea of the vaccine being rushed is already scary, you have one trial being suspended after someone had an adverse affect...

Yes but this is a study involving thousands and they don't know yet if that reaction was due to the vaccine

I understand that there was a base of work already done, with MERs & SARs as that was a head start, but that should still mean the vaccine should take 2-3 years to develop and test...not 9-12 months

I don't think lay-people are in a position to judge.

Dohnjoe

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I won't be taking a vaccine under any circumstances. I don't care if I'm a selfish cvnt because I'm in a low risk group an I don't see the need for me to take one. I'd be more afraid of the potential side effects from taking the vaccine rather than covid itself and that's not some anti-vaxxer nonsense.

But you have taken other vaccines correct? and you believe other vaccines work correct?

LessOutragePlz

Dohnjoe wrote: »

But you have taken other vaccines correct? and you believe other vaccines work correct?

Yep but, I'm highly skeptical of this vaccine for the reasons I have mentioned in my previous post as well as not seeing the need for me to take this vaccine.

Dohnjoe

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yep but, I'm highly skeptical of this vaccine for the reasons I have mentioned in my previous post as well as not seeing the need for me to take this vaccine.

To prevent you from a) getting Covid-19 and b) spreading it to others

Personally I'm not too worried about getting the disease myself, but I am worried about spreading it to e.g. my parents or other older relatives

Dionaibh

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I won't be taking a vaccine under any circumstances. I don't care if I'm a selfish cvnt because I'm in a low risk group an I don't see the need for me to take one. I'd be more afraid of the potential side effects from taking the vaccine rather than covid itself and that's not some anti-vaxxer nonsense.

Pharma companies are lobbying the EU so that the EU will be liable for any potential claims that could arise from litigation as a result of people suffering side effects from taking the vaccine.

https://www.ft.com/content/12f7da5b-92c8-4050-bcea-e726b75eef4d

AstraZeneca have already going be exempt from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN24V2EN

I don't know about you but the fact that the EU and ultimately us EU citizens as EU taxpayers would potentially be liable for any claims that are made as result of people suffering side effects from taking the vaccine doesn't sit well with me and it doesn't inspire confidence in the vaccine producers when they are already trying to cover their asses.

I don't want to take a vaccine either, but I fear that we may have to to be able to take part in society (go to events, restaurants, use public transport etc). It's horrible, but I fear that's what we're facing.

But if I had to take a vaccine I'd take the Russian one because I believe it to be safe based on what I've read about it. And I mean read. I didn't just watch a few videos on YouTube and come to the conclusion that it's safe.

LessOutragePlz

Dionaibh wrote: »

I don't want to take a vaccine either, but I fear that we may have to to be able to take part in society (go to events, restaurants, use public transport etc). It's horrible, but I fear that's what we're facing.

But if I had to take a vaccine I'd take the Russian one because I believe it to be safe based on what I've read about it. And I mean read. I didn't just watch a few videos on YouTube and come to the conclusion that it's safe.

Yeah that may be true but I hope it's not as I'd rather keep my freedom of choice to not take the vaccine and protect myself from the potential side effects of the vaccine. If that means that I'm excluded from society then so be it but, I can't see how they'd be able to keep track of who got vaccinated and who didn't unless they implemented some large scale tracking of the population which I think a lot of people would be against but I'm not sure if enough people would be against it for it not to be implemented.

LessOutragePlz

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To prevent you from a) getting Covid-19 and b) spreading it to others

Personally I'm not too worried about getting the disease myself, but I am worried about spreading it to e.g. my parents or other older relatives

I don't have any older relatives to spread it to tbh so that isn't a concern for me and as I've said already I'd be more worried about the side effects from taking the vaccine rather than getting covid itself.

Dohnjoe

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I don't have any older relatives to spread it to tbh so that isn't a concern for me and as I've said already I'd be more worried about the side effects from taking the vaccine rather than getting covid itself.

So you are not worried about the side affects of vaccines, just this particular one, correct? If yes, why exactly?

PCeeeee

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I don't have any older relatives to spread it to tbh

Awash with kindness and compassion.

Which you believe to be the greatest gift in life. Correct?

LessOutragePlz

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So you are not worried about the side affects of vaccines, just this particular one, correct? If yes, why exactly?

Yes this one in particular because it will be a rushed vaccine in comparison to previous ones.

LessOutragePlz

PCeeeee wrote: »

Awash with kindness and compassion.

Which you believe to be the greatest gift in life. Correct?

Yes indeed. Does taking not taking a vaccine automatically make you unkind and uncompassionate? If it does then that's news to me. One action or inaction shouldn't determine how you or society should view you for the rest of your life.

4068ac1elhodqr

These rushed vaccines are only currently being tested on 'thousands', but the delivery will be for 'billions', not millions.
Also, it won't be a once in a lifetime thing, will very likely be multi-dose (inc experimental early types), and multi-duration (perhaps yearly) due to natural mutations.

E.g. Australia (that hinted at manditory enforcement) has already bought something in the region of 80m early vaccines, it's population of course is no where near this.
The Aussies in Melbo are already protesting today in the streets over simple issues such as face masks, so there is not a chance the desired 95% penetration will ever occur there. Berlin and London also had tens of thousands (but still less than the BLM folks) protesting out on streets, within the last month.

Record keeping (digital identifiers of persons, and digital immunity certifications) of who has, or hasn't, taken a vaccine will be a default.

Dionaibh

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yeah that may be true but I hope it's not as I'd rather keep my freedom of choice to not take the vaccine and protect myself from the potential side effects of the vaccine. If that means that I'm excluded from society then so be it but, I can't see how they'd be able to keep track of who got vaccinated and who didn't unless they implemented some large scale tracking of the population which I think a lot of people would be against but I'm not sure if enough people would be against it for it not to be implemented.

I hope so too, but I imagine proof of vaccination will be required. Gates said a few months ago that some form of digital proof could be required. I imagine that's the road they'll go down. In Australia a few weeks ago Dr Nick Coatsworth said they'd look at "no jab no play" in terms of a Covid-19 vaccine. By that he meant that there would be restrictions imposed on unvaccinated people.

I'm not sure either. In fact, I fear that most people would be in favour of tracking. The daily hysteria over positive tests of a virus with a 99.9% survival rate points to a populace that is terrified in every respect. So I can't imagine they'll suddenly be comfortable being around unvaccinated people.

Dohnjoe

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes this one in particular because it will be a rushed vaccine in comparison to previous ones.

So you believe that normal vaccine processes are as tight as they can possibly be, any faster and they automatically become more unsafe? therefore, according to you personally, this vaccine will be "unsafe"?

I don't work as a medical researcher, or a medical professional - but I do know, for a fact, that under certain circumstances, processes can be sped up and streamlined, in some cases significantly so, with no increase of risk, or reduction of accuracy - typically though the cost increases.

Given the current crisis, cost is not the key issue, time is. And I do trust people who are regulating/testing/researching/creating something that they, their families, friends, colleagues, populace will use, that indeed they will adhere to the same strict criteria of safety - they will just streamline the process where needed, e.g. run 3 shifts in a 24 hour basis instead of 1, and so on

Dohnjoe

Jose Substantial Armada wrote: »

These rushed vaccines are only currently being tested on 'thousands', but the delivery will be for 'billions', not millions.
Also, it won't be a once in a lifetime thing, will very likely be multi-dose (inc experimental early types), and multi-duration (perhaps yearly) due to natural mutations.

I trust medical professionals far more than I trust random people's opinions on the internet, especially those who believe in biblical prophecies

Dionaibh

Jose Substantial Armada wrote: »

These rushed vaccines are only currently being tested on 'thousands', but the delivery will be for 'billions', not millions.
Also, it won't be a once in a lifetime thing, will very likely be multi-dose (inc experimental early types), and multi-duration (perhaps yearly) due to natural mutations.

E.g. Australia (that hinted at manditory enforcement) has already bought something in the region of 80m early vaccines, it's population of course is no where near this.
The Aussies in Melbo are already protesting today in the streets over simple issues such as face masks, so there is not a chance the desired 95% penetration will ever occur there. Berlin and London also had tens of thousands (but still less than the BLM folks) protesting out on streets, within the last month.

Record keeping (digital identifiers of persons, and digital immunity certifications) of who has, or hasn't, taken a vaccine will be a default.

That's why I'd take the Russian one if I had to take one. The Russian scientists think people will be protected for two years after taking the vaccine.

I agree that it wouldn't be 95%, but I think most people in Australia would get a Covid vaccine. I read that they have very high vaccination rates in Australia.

firemansam4

c.p.w.g.w wrote:

Pro-Vaccine here...but the idea of the vaccine being rushed is already scary, you have one trial being suspended after someone had an adverse affect...

I understand that there was a base of work already done, with MERs & SARs as that was a head start, but that should still mean the vaccine should take 2-3 years to develop and test...not 9-12 months

But this is just showing that they are taking the same precautions as they normally would with other vaccines, the fact they have paused the vaccine until the incident is investigated gives me more confidence about the testing of it.

ExMachina1000

I'm also low risk. I won't be taking any rushed vaccine.

Watch for laws being introduced which shield pharma companies from lawsuits if their vaccine has unforeseen side effects.
That should set your alarm bells ringing

LessOutragePlz

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So you believe that normal vaccine processes are as tight as they can possibly be, any faster and they automatically become more unsafe? therefore, according to you personally, this vaccine will be "unsafe"?

I don't work as a medical researcher, or a medical professional - but I do know, for a fact, that under certain circumstances, processes can be sped up and streamlined, in some cases significantly so, with no increase of risk, or reduction of accuracy - typically though the cost increases.

Given the current crisis, cost is not the key issue, time is. And I do trust people who are regulating/testing/researching/creating something that they, their families, friends, colleagues, populace will use, that indeed they will adhere to the same strict criteria of safety - they will just streamline the process where needed, e.g. run 3 shifts in a 24 hour basis instead of 1, and so on

Yes I believe there is more room for errors to occur due to the fact that vaccine producers are under pressure to produce a vaccine that will facilitate a return to some sense of normality to our normal everyday life.

I'm not saying it's "unsafe" I never have, as I've stated previously I'd be more worried about the side effects from taking the vaccine rather than the effects of getting covid itself.

I'm not a medical expert either nor do I claim to be, these are simply my opinions and my rational for not wanting to take a vaccine. Sure they can probably speed up the process but as I've previously said in doing so I believe their is more room for error.

We've already seen that one person has suffered an adverse reaction that resulted in a severe and unexplained illness from taking the vaccine and the vaccines that are being produced are going to be administered to millions potentially billions of people so the risk of people developing side effects due to the vaccine is higher than other vaccines due to these vaccines being administered to more people than any other vaccine in history but I'm open to correction on that if it's incorrect.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/covid-19-vaccine-trial-pauses-after-adverse-reaction-67917

"Joe Walters, one of the participants in the University of Oxford trial in the UK, spoke this week to The Guardian about his experiences, sharing that he developed a persistent fever after receiving his initial injection (although it’s unknown whether he received the vaccine candidate or a control). He was briefly hospitalized and tested for COVID-19, and after his test came back negative, he learned that other participants had experienced similar side effects."

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I trust medical professionals far more than I trust random people's opinions on the internet

Would you trust an increased risk of narcolepsy, found following (the less rushed) vaccination (with GSK's Pandemrix), a monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine, used in several European countries during the H1N1 influenza pandemic.

This risk was initially found in Finland, and then other European countries also detected an association. The uk had one of the lowest rates in Europe, but it still affected (narcolepsy), one person in every 55k people.

Many claims for damages are still ongoing, very difficult, expensive, and very few have been fully resolved to satisfaction of the victim due to denials and appeals of awards for damages. https://www.narcolepsy.org.uk/resources/pandemrix-narcolepsy

ExMachina1000

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I trust medical professionals far more than I trust random people's opinions on the internet, especially those who believe in biblical prophecies

Do you trust board members and shareholders of bio pharmaceutical companies?

Any legitimate concerns are being tainted and overshadowed by the claims by people like Accumulator who believe in rather insane conspiracies that involve the supernatural and anti scientific.

It's hard to take anyone seriously when in one breath they say that "there's concerns about the vaccine being rushed out" and in the next breath say "because Bill Gates is a secret satanist who is trying to make the mark of the beast."

4068ac1elhodqr

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Do you trust board members and shareholders of bio pharmaceutical companies?

Indeed, and based on pure scientific facts and evidence (from CDC), and on the topic of 'big Pharma', it's now established that they are directly responsible for reducing (year on year) the life expectancy rates in the world's leading free, and richest economy.
This is directly due to the (prescribed) opiod epedemic.

2/3 overdose deaths are linked to prescribed opiods (not to mention directly related suicides). Their favourite brand to di$h out to patients even when not required is 'fentanyl', which itself is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine.

From the CDC:

• From 1999 to 2018, over 750,000* people died from a drug overdose.
• In 2018, almost 70,000 people died from drug overdoses.
• It was a leading cause of injury-related death in the United States.
• *Two out of three overdose deaths involved an opioid like prescription opioids, heroin, or synthetic opioids (like FDA approved: fentanyl).

LessOutragePlz

King Mob wrote: »

Any legitimate concerns are being tainted and overshadowed by the claims by people like Accumulator who believe in rather insane conspiracies that involve the supernatural and anti scientific.

It's hard to take anyone seriously when in one breath they say that "there's concerns about the vaccine being rushed out" and in the next breath say "because Bill Gates is a secret satanist who is trying to make the mark of the beast."

I think this will be used as a way to dismiss the claims of everyone that has a potential issue or valid reason for not wanting to take a vaccine.

They will dismiss all the viewpoints of people that don't want to take a vaccine and lump all us into the crazy anti-vaxxer group and there will be no room for a legitimate discussion in relation to why people will or won't want to take a vaccine.

Dionaibh

King Mob wrote: »

Any legitimate concerns are being tainted and overshadowed by the claims by people like Accumulator who believe in rather insane conspiracies that involve the supernatural and anti scientific.

It's hard to take anyone seriously when in one breath they say that "there's concerns about the vaccine being rushed out" and in the next breath say "because Bill Gates is a secret satanist who is trying to make the mark of the beast."

What's so outlandish about considering not being able to buy or sell, or do very much else, unless vaccinated to be the Mark of the Beast? Isn't that exactly the Mark of the Beast as described in the Bible? Is it because it is a biblical prophecy that you are against the possibility of its being true?

Dohnjoe

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

We've already seen that one person has suffered an adverse reaction that resulted in a severe and unexplained illness from taking the vaccine and the vaccines that are being produced are going to be administered to millions potentially billions of people

And this happens with normal vaccine research. They have halted the process while they investigate, which shows normal vaccine research precautions are being followed. It could turn out that this one person's reactions are unrelated (there are up to 10's of thousands of participants enrolled)

The fact that you've highlighted this as an issue, which is quite routine, shows that you already apparently have preconceived notions. The fact that you've stated you aren't going to take it further demonstrates that bias.

With no medical knowledge, some people seem to be picking lines in the sand e.g. less than 3 years = Not OK, more than 3 years research = OK. As if they have some professional handle on the processes involved and how much they can be streamlined without impacting the safety.

That's your opinion, fine, but I don't see any sound logic behind it any more than a vague lay-person's view of "its being fast-tracked so I don't trust it"

Dionaibh

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I think this will be used as a way to dismiss the claims of everyone that has a potential issue or valid reason for not wanting to take a vaccine.

They will dismiss all the viewpoints of people that don't want to take a vaccine and lump all us into the crazy anti-vaxxer group and there will be no room for a legitimate discussion in relation to why people will or won't want to take a vaccine.

I agree. That's why I would suggest emigrating. The worst countries for Covid hysteria are Ireland, the UK, the US, and possibly Australia. What do Ireland and the UK in particular have in common? A public broadcaster that has been instrumental in the destruction of both countries. I would suggest Eastern Europe. Muzzles are despised in Russia, for example, and some bars have gone as far as to ban them. There was an interesting article in the New York Times a couple of months ago about how young Russians are trying to get on with life. They're going to bars and don't wear muzzles. Only problem would be the language barrier, but that could be overcome.