Mandated?

Under whose authority?

What would be the means of enforcement?

Maybe they can mandate birth control to reduce abortions?

Or mandate a vegan diet to reduce red meat diet related health problems?

Or brushing your teeth 4 times a day to prevent tooth and gum problems?

How about mandating breast feeding because it's better for the baby?

Or 1 hour daily of exercise for everyone over the age of 3?

Ban every sugary soda, ice cream, cake, pie, cookie, candy bar and dessert, too.

Why stop at just weight?  If you really want everyone to be safe and healthy, take away ALL CHOICE and mandate everyone live as you deem healthy.

If you read my post.  You would know I wouldn't support that. Only mandates for things that a person can do that would effect others.  Much like the laws we have now against most crimes etc.  I support euthanasia.... so obviously it's not about safety for one's self but that your actions effect others.   You are not allowed to rob me of my freedom.  Nor am I allowed to rob others of theirs. 

Wants to dictate forcing folks to conform to something they believe in. But against robbing folks of their freedom. :facepalm:

If you read my post.  You would know I wouldn't support that. Only mandates for things that a person can do that would effect others.  Much like the laws we have now against most crimes etc.  I support euthanasia.... so obviously it's not about safety for one's self but that your actions effect others.   You are not allowed to rob me of my freedom.  Nor am I allowed to rob others of theirs.

Well the vast majority of hospitalizations are overweight people. Using your logic if the ICUs beds are being taken up buy those with abnormal or high BMIs they are taking hospital beds away from others. Being fat is mostly a choice so shouldn’t the government get involved?

So if someone raises a child poorly and they rob, steal a car and try to ram officers and they also threatened a friend of mine - can said friend sue the parents for such a reckless job of parenting?

Well the vast majority of hospitalizations are overweight people. Using your logic if the ICUs beds are being taken up buy those with abnormal or high BMIs they are taking hospital beds away from others. Being fat is mostly a choice so shouldn’t the government get involved?

As with everything we need some sanity.   There needs to be a red line and for me it requires immediately effecting someone else.   For your scenario it would require two things to happen.  Going to the ER and it being full.   Immediate things include directly smoking and getting me to breath second hand smoke.   Drunk driving and hitting me.  Directly infecting me with a virus.   Etc

Could be larger sample size needed as stages are reached. I did tell omni that i wont hold him to his estimate, which he said was 40,000.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

40,000 sounds about right for the covid tests. I can't recall which vaccine that was for or if it was cumulative off the top of me head. But as I recall 40,000 is actually a very big sample size for a drug trial with many drugs being tested and approved on much smaller groups.

So I don't think larger sample sizes are necessarily the answer but samples from different group types are. So children, for example, people with certain conditions, etc.

On paper looks safe. But time is the true test. Downs, autism, ADD, etc...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

From what I have read the vast majority of vaccine side effects are discovered within the first 6 months. (Can't remember exact time frame but it is pretty short). Complications from vaccines past that window are quite rare so once we hit a certain timeline the scientists can say with pretty good reliability that they know the full side effects of the vaccine.

I think we must be cautious not to fall prey to the moving goal fallacy though, where someone says what about effects after 6 months, then what about effects after 1 year, then 2 years, then 4 years, etc etc. At that point it becomes less of seeking the truth and more of struggling to hold onto an objection. Plus if we did that for everything vaccines and drugs would take 60 years to approve.

40,000 sounds about right for the covid tests. I can't recall which vaccine that was for or if it was cumulative off the top of me head. But as I recall 40,000 is actually a very big sample size for a drug trial with many drugs being tested and approved on much smaller groups.

So I don't think larger sample sizes are necessarily the answer but samples from different group types are. So children, for example, people with certain conditions, etc.

I dont remember, but read on, i stated what the acutal # was. That number was way off (too high).

Edit
Oops, read b4 that post. I just discovered that arrow to bring up what u quoted.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

From what I have read the vast majority of vaccine side effects are discovered within the first 6 months. (Can't remember exact time frame but it is pretty short). Complications from vaccines past that window are quite rare so once we hit a certain timeline the scientists can say with pretty good reliability that they know the full side effects of the vaccine.

I think we must be cautious not to fall prey to the moving goal fallacy though, where someone says what about effects after 6 months, then what about effects after 1 year, then 2 years, then 4 years, etc etc. At that point it becomes less of seeking the truth and more of struggling to hold onto an objection. Plus if we did that for everything vaccines and drugs would take 60 years to approve.

The fact that the trials are not complete yet should be cause for questioning. The already pregnant women isnt complete until 2023. Pfizer began with women 2-3 months preggers in feb 2021. Moderna began in july 2021. 4k women for pfiz and 2k for moderna. Just incase 40k is mentioned again. This info is direct from each companies website.

Im sure it will end up fine. But once something is injected, there is no undoing of it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

What data and what unbiased sources are you looking at?

A wide variety of sources both inside and outside of the USA, data from studies, data from government databases, explanations from medical professionals, etc.

There is never a perfect way to eliminate bias, best you can do is work to find sources that are reliable. I have found a doctor on youtube to seem to fit this bill pretty well and I seek a lot of explanation/interpretation of data from his videos. He is called Dr. Z Dogg MD, I recommend him because he really doesn't take sides consistently and presents both angles.

 What I hate though is when people call into question the bias and reliability only of sources that tell them something different than what their tribe believes. People who hate Trump so they find sources that don't side with Trump or people who hate the vaccine so they find some expert who speaks against the vaccine while on the side selling vaccine alternative products.

The fact that the trials are not complete yet should be cause for questioning. The already pregnant women isnt complete until 2023. Pfizer began with women 2-3 months preggers in feb 2021. Moderna began in july 2021. 4k women for pfiz and 2k for moderna. Just incase 40k is mentioned again. This info is direct from each companies website.

Im sure it will end up fine. But once something is injected, there is no undoing of it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I think the 40,000 I was referring to were initial trials, not pregnant women or specialty groups. When you say the trials are not yet complete are you referring to general covid vaccine trials or specifically ones for preganant women?

I think I must point out that for all of our complaining about the virus, not knowing some hypothetical risk that could theoretically happen years from now, there are tens of thousands of people who are participating in these trials so the rest of us can benefit. Imagine if we all had such attitudes of fear and hesitancy, no drugs would ever make it past trials.

The warp speed process took a bad system and made it worse. It is reckless to assume the process has been unbiased and reliable when you have pharma companies throwing billions of dollars around and a revolving door policy for the regulators. The agencies who are in charge of keeping the foxes out of the hen house collect paychecks from the foxes, and that does not even go into the authoritarian wave of censorship that has swept across the country where medical professionals are having their careers destroyed and others are too terrified to speak up.

If you are not allowed to point out inconsistencies that is not science. If scientists and medical personnel are being threatened into staying quiet that is not science. And pinning all our hopes on experimental drugs while neglecting promising preventions and treatments (sorry no can help, come back when you are almost dead) is definitely not science.

I would say yes and no. While I don't have great trust in big pharma companies I think it is also fair to point out that this was all on the world stage with intense scrutiny. We aren't talking about some pain killed drug that they could try to back door through the process without anyone noticing. We are talking about developing a vaccine while the whole world was watching. I think there was much more incentive to make a good product and do it the right way than the average drug, I listened to a doctor explain how normally something like the blood clot issue with the J&J vaccine would have never been caught during your average trial but the intense scrutiny made them catch it and address it heavily.

I listened to a doctor explain how normally something like the blood clot issue with the J&J vaccine would have never been caught during your average trial but the intense scrutiny made them catch it and address it heavily.

This is the part where your critical thinking skills should have kicked in.

If the scrutiny was so intense then why the EUA?

More importantly if the drug companies and the government are so confident why do they demand immunity from legal action due to side effects?

They say it is safe, but clearly they do not believe it.

I'll say it again.... thalidomide.

This is the part where your critical thinking skills should have kicked in.

If the scrutiny was so intense then why the EUA?

More importantly if the drug companies and the government are so confident why do they demand immunity from legal action due to side effects?

They say it is safe, but clearly they do not believe it.

I don't understand your question. People noticing and reporting the blood clot issue surrounding the J&J had nothing to do with the EUA, just that the clotting issue was likely caught because of the extra scrutiny. The clotting issue is so rare that even if this vaccine had been in trials for 4 years the side effect may not have even popped up. Once it got in widespread use with more numbers the likelihood that the complication would show greatly increased whether it was under an EUA or not.

I don't fully understand the legal immunity side of it but instinct tells me it isn't that simple as to assume that just because they want immunity means they don't think it is safe. Case in point: A lot of stores throw away their food rather than donate it to homeless shelters because they are affraid of getting sued if someone gets sick. Does this mean Dunkin Donuts (for example) doesn't think their donuts are safe? No, they just weigh the risk and figure its safer to just not be open to a lawsuit.

I did hear a short explanation about the legal protections the pharma companies wanted though. If pharma companies have no protection from lawsuits at all there is a potential that they could face mountains of suits everytime someone claims a serious side effect. The effect of trying to defend too many lawsuits would raise the cost of doing business significantly and one of two things would happen; either the vaccines become much more expensive or companies just avoid producing the vaccines. Either way that would cause serious problems so protections are built in. Also, when I looked at the fine print of the protection provided for the covid vaccine manufacturers it was not unlimited. There was a period of time where they had immunity but it expired in 4 years IIRC. So it is a myth that the pharma companies have complete immunity though they do have some immunity.

So what was the solution to the clots? Did they change the formula? Or just add that to the list of sides, making it all G now.



Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I don't understand your question. People noticing and reporting the blood clot issue surrounding the J&J had nothing to do with the EUA, just that the clotting issue was likely caught because of the extra scrutiny. The clotting issue is so rare that even if this vaccine had been in trials for 4 years the side effect may not have even popped up. Once it got in widespread use with more numbers the likelihood that the complication would show greatly increased whether it was under an EUA or not.

I don't fully understand the legal immunity side of it but instinct tells me it isn't that simple as to assume that just because they want immunity means they don't think it is safe. Case in point: A lot of stores throw away their food rather than donate it to homeless shelters because they are affraid of getting sued if someone gets sick. Does this mean Dunkin Donuts (for example) doesn't think their donuts are safe? No, they just weigh the risk and figure its safer to just not be open to a lawsuit.

I did hear a short explanation about the legal protections the pharma companies wanted though. If pharma companies have no protection from lawsuits at all there is a potential that they could face mountains of suits everytime someone claims a serious side effect. The effect of trying to defend too many lawsuits would raise the cost of doing business significantly and one of two things would happen; either the vaccines become much more expensive or companies just avoid producing the vaccines. Either way that would cause serious problems so protections are built in. Also, when I looked at the fine print of the protection provided for the covid vaccine manufacturers it was not unlimited. There was a period of time where they had immunity but it expired in 4 years IIRC. So it is a myth that the pharma companies have complete immunity though they do have some immunity.

You obviously believe that you live in a world run by trustworthy leaders who consistently make competent decisions based on their overwhelming sense of responsibility for our well being.

Good luck with that.

You obviously believe that you live in a world run by trustworthy leaders who consistently make competent decisions based on their overwhelming sense of responsibility for our well being.

Good luck with that.

Half of what you see and none of what your hear.

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real
Meek and obedient, you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes
Now things are really what they seem
No, this is no bad dream