I'm anti-capitalist-vax. Back in the 80s and 90s, my generation got free vaccination from Cuba. The nurses went house by house and vaccinated every baby. It was free, convenient, reliable and high quality.
Now vaccines are expensive, ineffective, with high risk of complications (quite a few deaths) and a complicated, inconvenient process of administration. The belief that privatization improves the quality of product/service is just delusional.
This is Vietnam by the way.
I get this sentiment, but do you personally know how long it takes to make a vaccine, or how that process can be expedited versus other vaccines that were in the pipe works? Or are you just going to ballpark a length of time that feels right?
Most sources cite that It usually takes 2-5 years to develop a vaccine, some say 10-15. No sources state that it takes less than a year, and a vaccine for a virus that everyone wants magically being ready with less then a year of development time is risky at best.
If you can find a reliable source that gives less then a year development time for a virus similar to COVID, be my guest
a vaccine for a virus that everyone wants magically being ready with less then a year of development time is risky at best.
I think this is the key here. Trump kept blathering about having a vaccine ready to go by the end of this year, but as far as I'm concerned the experts are saying that it won't be ready until Summer at the earliest, if even that. At that point it will have been nearly 1.5 years of R&D, not that far off of that 2 year mark, especially considering that this has been a global all hands on deck effort. And that's at the earliest, it may not even be until late next year. The 10-15 year development cycle is for things that are a lot more complex than just a coronavirus, in terms of virology.
I think what's just rubbing my goat wrong here is that yelling about how skeptical you are of the vaccine well before said vaccine is anywhere even near market is basically just counting your chickens before they hatch. I'm skeptical of a rushed vaccine as well, but I'm going to wait until they actually decide "okay, here is the vaccine we are going to push" before I start looking into the development process it faced.
I know lol. My point was the time it takes varies depending on the type of virus. 2-5 years is another time period thats commonly cited. I think 2 years is fine, it's less then 12 months that makes me go "uuh".
"I don't trust this vaccine which will hypothetically come out sometime in the future because it will be rushed[citation needed]" is covert antivax bullshit
Not gonna look for articles if you call me a dipshit, dipshit.
There was talk from the FDA that they were going to effectively cancel third stage testing, to get vaccines out on time. That didn't happen. If one of the promising vaccines didn't have patients with unexplained illnesses, they might have.
I haven't been keeping track of the vaccines lately, as in, in the last month. If it goes through the trials, I'll take it. But if it looks like they removed some important steps to get it to market faster, I won't.
Knowing we're probably not engaging in good faith is enough for me to not want to put in the effort to engage in good faith. Looking up articles and research studies takes times.
This also creates an unspoken assumption that the vaccine is safe unless proven otherwise. Onus is on me to prove they're, maybe not even skipping steps, I never even said they were, as I won't know until a vaccine hits the market, but considering skipping steps.
Onus isn't on you to prove that an emergency authorization of vaccine use isn't removing any important steps regarding health and safety.
Therefore I get to do the effort and you get to shoot holes in it.
I don't like those terms.
The FDA already floated the idea of bringing vaccines to the market without completing third phase trials. Then, shortly after, patients in two studies, Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson, started developing unexplained symptoms. That's enough for me to be uncomfortable.
This also creates an unspoken assumption that the vaccine is safe unless proven otherwise.
Pretty much, yeah, as it should be. I trust those who develop and research and test vaccines to do it properly because there are already quite extreme rules and regulations surrounding that entire process intended to make the outcomes safe. If you want to start sowing distrust in the process which makes vaccines safe, you'll need to show some goddamn evidence.
I mean you won't actually, because I'm already being downvoted here for taking a pro-vaccine stance, so you antivax weirdos are apparently taking over. We're fucked.
Yep, the same rigorous process that all vaccines go through before they are released. The same rigorous process the covid19 vaccines are going through. That's why when the vaccine is released, we can be reasonably sure it will be safe. Thank you for agreeing with me and giving up your antivax bullshit.
Wow scary, i guess the case is closed, covid vaccines are untrustworthy form here on out
A substance isn’t automatically safe because it calls itself a vaccine.
Right. A vaccine is safe when it is proven to be safe through testing. Which is what's going on right now. Or are you just going to pretend they're not doing any testing?
Are your lobes mirror smooth or are you intentionally trying to misunderstand me?
So, you're saying that there's no way whatsoever, that either market pressures, the federal gov't, or both, can even potentially rush through a vaccine? Like, it's physically impossible? Can't ever happen, ever?
So, you’re saying that there’s no way whatsoever, that either market pressures, the federal gov’t, or both, can even potentially rush through a vaccine? Like, it’s physically impossible? Can’t ever happen, ever?
It could happen, sure, but there would be plenty of evidence that it had happened because there would be steps in the testing process which they would have to skip. As a result, during the vaccine's release, doctors everywhere would basically be shouting from the rooftops "DONT TAKE THAT FUCKING VACCINE"
Doesn't seem like rushing something through like that would work very well to me.
doctors everywhere would basically be shouting from the rooftops “DONT TAKE THAT FUCKING VACCINE”
It's not like there hasn't ever been incidents of money influencing research. Even outside of pharmaceuticals there's been:
Fracking, the effects of sugar on heart disease, greenhouse gasses, secondhand smoke, I know there's more.
With opioids, the science was technically never on the companies' side, yet they still managed to make it appear as if it was, even creating a fictitious label of "opiophobe" to pressure doctors into using them. They didn't have to influence the actual studies. They just had to influence the medical profession, and they did.
In all these instances, there wasn't any screaming from the rooftops. There were a smattering of professionals in their respective fields showing caution or concern, then getting shut down, usually through vicious personal attacks. And it took years for the sunshine to work its way in.
Unsafe medication isn't ahistoric, but a shouting from the rooftops is.
People are concerned that the three companies in a trenchcoat we call the US will put out a rushed, ineffective vaccine to get all us working pigs back into the pens faster. A pretty reasonable concern for anyone who's read a history book. You decided to take that and twist it into "anti-vax".
Do you get into a lot of arguments everywhere you go?
That's not evidence anything changed, that's just Trump yelling at the sky demanding that a vaccine rains down. unless you can show any evidence this has actually compromised the process of developing a vaccine, it's just a bullshit excuse to raise distrust about vaccines
there is a reason that no one is trying to give you any fucking vaccines yet. because they're not ready. because as the scientists say, developing a vaccine is tricky and takes time.
you're trying to tell me that the vaccine being ready right now means that it's untrustworthy ... while the vaccine isn't ready yet. what the fuck kind of logic is that?
What specific amount of time needs to pass before you, almighty sage of infinite wisdom, deem the vaccine ready? And why do you know better than the people actually working on and testing the vaccine? If you don't trust the people developing the vaccine to test it properly before releasing it, what would another year do? I highly doubt that your stance would be any different if we were currently in November 2021 rather than 2020.
But the problem is that you fundamentally lack trust in the people developing and researching and testing vaccines. Why does an extra year among untrustworthy people who don't do their jobs properly make it any safer?
I don't buy it. Either you're not thinking through your own logic or you're intentionally lying to advance antivax bullshit.
An antivax agenda. What you're doing is normalizing the idea that vaccines are unsafe, that we should be skeptical of them even after they have undergone trials and been shown to be safe, and that the people developing them are untrustworthy and will release anything under the slightest political pressure. To support all of this you have offered nothing but, "idk I feel like its not safe"
Yes but you keep arguing as if there is going to be a vaccine out imminently. I just looked up a few news articles and they said that at earliest a vaccine would be ready for market by mid to late next year, at which point it will have been nearly 18-24 months.
If a vaccine comes out before that time then yes, I will be right there with you making O Rly faces at it, but until then this back forth argument is pointless.
I'm just trying to break up this dumb circular argument lol
You are arguing that a vaccine that comes out before 18-24 months is untrustworthy, Amorphous is trying to argue that a vaccine won't come out before it is safe, which by all estimates won't be until that 18-24 month mark. You are both arguing different sides of the same coin.
They haven’t even acknowledged my 18-24 months point.
True, they keep saying that they "trust the scientists," but by all accounts the scientists aren't saying that a vaccine will be ready any time soon. Faucci keeps saying later next year, which again, would be within that 18-24 month mark.
And in response to every single comment of mine asking for any evidence that the people in charge are having any detrimental effect on the process of developing and testing vaccines for covid19, I have received nothing but a solid pppphpphpppppphhhhblllllltt
I'm not anti-vax. I'm anti rushed vax. Vaccines take time to get right for a reason.
I'm anti-capitalist-vax. Back in the 80s and 90s, my generation got free vaccination from Cuba. The nurses went house by house and vaccinated every baby. It was free, convenient, reliable and high quality.
Now vaccines are expensive, ineffective, with high risk of complications (quite a few deaths) and a complicated, inconvenient process of administration. The belief that privatization improves the quality of product/service is just delusional.
This is Vietnam by the way.
I get this sentiment, but do you personally know how long it takes to make a vaccine, or how that process can be expedited versus other vaccines that were in the pipe works? Or are you just going to ballpark a length of time that feels right?
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation
Most sources cite that It usually takes 2-5 years to develop a vaccine, some say 10-15. No sources state that it takes less than a year, and a vaccine for a virus that everyone wants magically being ready with less then a year of development time is risky at best.
If you can find a reliable source that gives less then a year development time for a virus similar to COVID, be my guest
I think this is the key here. Trump kept blathering about having a vaccine ready to go by the end of this year, but as far as I'm concerned the experts are saying that it won't be ready until Summer at the earliest, if even that. At that point it will have been nearly 1.5 years of R&D, not that far off of that 2 year mark, especially considering that this has been a global all hands on deck effort. And that's at the earliest, it may not even be until late next year. The 10-15 year development cycle is for things that are a lot more complex than just a coronavirus, in terms of virology.
I think what's just rubbing my goat wrong here is that yelling about how skeptical you are of the vaccine well before said vaccine is anywhere even near market is basically just counting your chickens before they hatch. I'm skeptical of a rushed vaccine as well, but I'm going to wait until they actually decide "okay, here is the vaccine we are going to push" before I start looking into the development process it faced.
deleted by creator
I know lol. My point was the time it takes varies depending on the type of virus. 2-5 years is another time period thats commonly cited. I think 2 years is fine, it's less then 12 months that makes me go "uuh".
"I don't trust this vaccine which will hypothetically come out sometime in the future because it will be rushed[citation needed]" is covert antivax bullshit
Vaccines aren't safe because they're vaccines.
They're safe because the process they went though was rigorous.
If there's evidence that the process has been changed to be less rigorous, it's fair to be uncomfortable about them.
He obviously wasn't, but if Trump was able to get the vaccines out before election day, like he claimed, I wouldn't have taken them.
alright dipshit show the evidence
Not gonna look for articles if you call me a dipshit, dipshit.
There was talk from the FDA that they were going to effectively cancel third stage testing, to get vaccines out on time. That didn't happen. If one of the promising vaccines didn't have patients with unexplained illnesses, they might have.
I haven't been keeping track of the vaccines lately, as in, in the last month. If it goes through the trials, I'll take it. But if it looks like they removed some important steps to get it to market faster, I won't.
Simple as that.
thats a cop-out
Knowing we're probably not engaging in good faith is enough for me to not want to put in the effort to engage in good faith. Looking up articles and research studies takes times.
This also creates an unspoken assumption that the vaccine is safe unless proven otherwise. Onus is on me to prove they're, maybe not even skipping steps, I never even said they were, as I won't know until a vaccine hits the market, but considering skipping steps.
Onus isn't on you to prove that an emergency authorization of vaccine use isn't removing any important steps regarding health and safety.
Therefore I get to do the effort and you get to shoot holes in it.
I don't like those terms.
The FDA already floated the idea of bringing vaccines to the market without completing third phase trials. Then, shortly after, patients in two studies, Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson, started developing unexplained symptoms. That's enough for me to be uncomfortable.
But you do you.
Pretty much, yeah, as it should be. I trust those who develop and research and test vaccines to do it properly because there are already quite extreme rules and regulations surrounding that entire process intended to make the outcomes safe. If you want to start sowing distrust in the process which makes vaccines safe, you'll need to show some goddamn evidence.
I mean you won't actually, because I'm already being downvoted here for taking a pro-vaccine stance, so you antivax weirdos are apparently taking over. We're fucked.
AGAIN, A VACCINE ISN'T SAFE BECAUSE IT'S A VACCINE.
IT'S SAFE BECAUSE IT WENT THROUGH A RIGOROUS PROCESS.
Yep, the same rigorous process that all vaccines go through before they are released. The same rigorous process the covid19 vaccines are going through. That's why when the vaccine is released, we can be reasonably sure it will be safe. Thank you for agreeing with me and giving up your antivax bullshit.
FDA head considered ending phase three trials early and rolling out vaccines ahead of time under emergency use authorization.
This was before two studies were halted due to unexplained illness.
Of one of the studies that was halted, AZD1222, there's still controversy amongst scientists that it restarted prematurely.
A substance isn't automatically safe because it calls itself a vaccine.
Wow scary, i guess the case is closed, covid vaccines are untrustworthy form here on out
Right. A vaccine is safe when it is proven to be safe through testing. Which is what's going on right now. Or are you just going to pretend they're not doing any testing?
Are your lobes mirror smooth or are you intentionally trying to misunderstand me?
So, you're saying that there's no way whatsoever, that either market pressures, the federal gov't, or both, can even potentially rush through a vaccine? Like, it's physically impossible? Can't ever happen, ever?
It could happen, sure, but there would be plenty of evidence that it had happened because there would be steps in the testing process which they would have to skip. As a result, during the vaccine's release, doctors everywhere would basically be shouting from the rooftops "DONT TAKE THAT FUCKING VACCINE"
Doesn't seem like rushing something through like that would work very well to me.
If it gets released by an emergency use authorization, it, by definition, is skipping steps.
good thing that hasnt happened then, eh?
Yeah, because we don't have a vaccine yet.
But if it's an EUA one, whenever it does land, you take it first and I'll wait a few months.
It's not like there hasn't ever been incidents of money influencing research. Even outside of pharmaceuticals there's been: Fracking, the effects of sugar on heart disease, greenhouse gasses, secondhand smoke, I know there's more.
With opioids, the science was technically never on the companies' side, yet they still managed to make it appear as if it was, even creating a fictitious label of "opiophobe" to pressure doctors into using them. They didn't have to influence the actual studies. They just had to influence the medical profession, and they did.
In all these instances, there wasn't any screaming from the rooftops. There were a smattering of professionals in their respective fields showing caution or concern, then getting shut down, usually through vicious personal attacks. And it took years for the sunshine to work its way in.
Unsafe medication isn't ahistoric, but a shouting from the rooftops is.
deleted by creator
and then you jump in and act like im being unreasonable
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nice strawman, dumbfuck.
deleted by creator
At no point in your whining redditor posts did you mention the proletariat or bourgeoisie. Yes, we are indeed fucked thanks to liberalism!
You're being downvoted for being a rude cunt.
calling out antivax bullshit as antivax bullshit is not rude
People are concerned that the three companies in a trenchcoat we call the US will put out a rushed, ineffective vaccine to get all us working pigs back into the pens faster. A pretty reasonable concern for anyone who's read a history book. You decided to take that and twist it into "anti-vax".
Do you get into a lot of arguments everywhere you go?
deleted by creator
That's not evidence anything changed, that's just Trump yelling at the sky demanding that a vaccine rains down. unless you can show any evidence this has actually compromised the process of developing a vaccine, it's just a bullshit excuse to raise distrust about vaccines
deleted by creator
there is a reason that no one is trying to give you any fucking vaccines yet. because they're not ready. because as the scientists say, developing a vaccine is tricky and takes time.
you're trying to tell me that the vaccine being ready right now means that it's untrustworthy ... while the vaccine isn't ready yet. what the fuck kind of logic is that?
deleted by creator
What specific amount of time needs to pass before you, almighty sage of infinite wisdom, deem the vaccine ready? And why do you know better than the people actually working on and testing the vaccine? If you don't trust the people developing the vaccine to test it properly before releasing it, what would another year do? I highly doubt that your stance would be any different if we were currently in November 2021 rather than 2020.
deleted by creator
But the problem is that you fundamentally lack trust in the people developing and researching and testing vaccines. Why does an extra year among untrustworthy people who don't do their jobs properly make it any safer?
I don't buy it. Either you're not thinking through your own logic or you're intentionally lying to advance antivax bullshit.
deleted by creator
An antivax agenda. What you're doing is normalizing the idea that vaccines are unsafe, that we should be skeptical of them even after they have undergone trials and been shown to be safe, and that the people developing them are untrustworthy and will release anything under the slightest political pressure. To support all of this you have offered nothing but, "idk I feel like its not safe"
deleted by creator
Yes but you keep arguing as if there is going to be a vaccine out imminently. I just looked up a few news articles and they said that at earliest a vaccine would be ready for market by mid to late next year, at which point it will have been nearly 18-24 months.
If a vaccine comes out before that time then yes, I will be right there with you making O Rly faces at it, but until then this back forth argument is pointless.
deleted by creator
I'm just trying to break up this dumb circular argument lol
You are arguing that a vaccine that comes out before 18-24 months is untrustworthy, Amorphous is trying to argue that a vaccine won't come out before it is safe, which by all estimates won't be until that 18-24 month mark. You are both arguing different sides of the same coin.
deleted by creator
True, they keep saying that they "trust the scientists," but by all accounts the scientists aren't saying that a vaccine will be ready any time soon. Faucci keeps saying later next year, which again, would be within that 18-24 month mark.
deleted by creator
And in response to every single comment of mine asking for any evidence that the people in charge are having any detrimental effect on the process of developing and testing vaccines for covid19, I have received nothing but a solid pppphpphpppppphhhhblllllltt
deleted by creator
"haha capitalists are untrustworthy, therefore vaccines are untrustworthy"
you're really going mask off now
deleted by creator
I'm not anti-vax, lol I've many in my lifetime. Just none that were rushed for political and economic reasons.