Philosophy Now Forum

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:50 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:50 am Vaccines normally takes years to develop and test. I wonder how they managed to do it so quickly this time.

From the Mayo Clinic:

Fact: Because there is an urgent need for COVID-19 vaccines and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) vaccine approval process can take years, the FDA first gave emergency use authorization to COVID-19 vaccines based on less data than is typically required. The data must show that the vaccines are safe and effective before the FDA can give emergency use authorization or approval.

Seems a bit self-contradictory...

They fast-tracked them

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:02 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:48 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:43 am

Tell that to all the people who have small pox...

Why?

Because according to you 'no vaccine is 100%'? A bit thick aren't you?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:07 pm It's not even a real vaccine. It's a 'McVaccine'. How many other vaccines allow you to catch an illness just as easily (perhaps even MORE easily) and only 'reduce POSSIBLE symptoms'?
How vague is that?

Vaccine: a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

That's not how this McVaccine works at all...

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:35 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:07 pm It's not even a real vaccine. It's a 'McVaccine'. How many other vaccines allow you to catch an illness just as easily (perhaps even MORE easily) and only 'reduce POSSIBLE symptoms'?
How vague is that?

Vaccine: a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

That's not how this McVaccine works at all...

Anti-vaxxers, it is now clear to me, only think in binary terms. If it's not perfect, it must be useless.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:36 pm ''They seem to think that is should be all or nothing. If it's not 100% effective (what is?) it must be 0% effective.''

You are certainly implying as much here.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:37 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:35 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:07 pm It's not even a real vaccine. It's a 'McVaccine'. How many other vaccines allow you to catch an illness just as easily (perhaps even MORE easily) and only 'reduce POSSIBLE symptoms'?
How vague is that?

Vaccine: a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

That's not how this McVaccine works at all...

Anti-vaxxers, it is now clear to me, only think in binary terms. If it's not perfect, it must be useless.

I don't know what app you are using to read comments but it's clealy not particularly efficient. What part of 'I'm not an anti-vaxxer' don't you understand?

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:35 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:07 pm It's not even a real vaccine. It's a 'McVaccine'. How many other vaccines allow you to catch an illness just as easily (perhaps even MORE easily) and only 'reduce POSSIBLE symptoms'?
How vague is that?

Vaccine: a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

That's not how this McVaccine works at all...

Anti-vaxxers, it is now clear to me, only think in binary terms. If it's not perfect, it must be useless.

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:40 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:37 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:35 pm

Anti-vaxxers, it is now clear to me, only think in binary terms. If it's not perfect, it must be useless.

I don't know what app you are using to read comments but it's clealy not particularly efficient. What part of 'I'm not an anti-vaxxer' don't you understand?

The part where you promote anti-vaxxer propaganda.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:46 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:35 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:07 pm It's not even a real vaccine. It's a 'McVaccine'. How many other vaccines allow you to catch an illness just as easily (perhaps even MORE easily) and only 'reduce POSSIBLE symptoms'?
How vague is that?

Vaccine: a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

That's not how this McVaccine works at all...

Anti-vaxxers, it is now clear to me, only think in binary terms. If it's not perfect, it must be useless.

That was kind of binary in itself. First there are a lot of people against the new injections that are very different from the previous kind of vaccines BUT are still pro the traditional vaccine types. Two the range of concerns are quite broad in relation to the new RNA tech injections with people thinking they are not useful for young people, or like the country of Denmark that decided no one under 50 should get the covid vaccines from now on unless they are in an especially vulnerable group, precisely because they do not stop transmission to ....all sorts of reactions. Perhaps the people in this thread fit your description, the binary one above...but your description hardly matches the wide range of options out there. And notice how anyone who has serious questions about these new kinds of vaccines is generally told they are irrational, anti-science and so on.

I mean, pretty much like people who are skeptical about Climate Change get told similar things and are binarily categorized and insulted. I would have thought your experience there might make you hesitate to categorize a different kind of skeptic the way you did.

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:30 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:02 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:48 pm

Why?

Because according to you 'no vaccine is 100%'? A bit thick aren't you?

Please provide a quote where I said that no vaccine is 100%.

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:51 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:46 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:35 pm

Anti-vaxxers, it is now clear to me, only think in binary terms. If it's not perfect, it must be useless.

That was kind of binary in itself. First there are a lot of people against the new injections that are very different from the previous kind of vaccines BUT are still pro the traditional vaccine types. Two the range of concerns are quite broad in relation to the new RNA tech injections with people thinking they are not useful for young people, or like the country of Denmark that decided no one under 50 should get the covid vaccines from now on unless they are in an especially vulnerable group, precisely because they do not stop transmission to ....all sorts of reactions. Perhaps the people in this thread fit your description, the binary one above...but your description hardly matches the wide range of options out there. And notice how anyone who has serious questions about these new kinds of vaccines is generally told they are irrational, anti-science and so on.

I mean, pretty much like people who are skeptical about Climate Change get told similar things and are binarily categorized and insulted. I would have thought your experience there might make you hesitate to categorize a different kind of skeptic the way you did.

It's ironic that the same people criticising me for my opinions on climate are promoting the anti-vax agenda. In each case, though, I base my opinions on the evidence as I understand it.

You're right about the various degrees of opinion, many of which I share, but none were in evidence on this thread.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 7:01 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:30 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:02 pm

Because according to you 'no vaccine is 100%'? A bit thick aren't you?

Please provide a quote where I said that no vaccine is 100%.

''Vaccines are not 100% effective.''

Is this one clear enough for you?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 7:06 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:51 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:46 pm That was kind of binary in itself. First there are a lot of people against the new injections that are very different from the previous kind of vaccines BUT are still pro the traditional vaccine types. Two the range of concerns are quite broad in relation to the new RNA tech injections with people thinking they are not useful for young people, or like the country of Denmark that decided no one under 50 should get the covid vaccines from now on unless they are in an especially vulnerable group, precisely because they do not stop transmission to ....all sorts of reactions. Perhaps the people in this thread fit your description, the binary one above...but your description hardly matches the wide range of options out there. And notice how anyone who has serious questions about these new kinds of vaccines is generally told they are irrational, anti-science and so on.

I mean, pretty much like people who are skeptical about Climate Change get told similar things and are binarily categorized and insulted. I would have thought your experience there might make you hesitate to categorize a different kind of skeptic the way you did.

It's ironic that the same people criticising me for my opinions on climate are promoting the anti-vax agenda. In each case, though, I base my opinions on the evidence as I understand it.

You're right about the various degrees of opinion, many of which I share, but none were in evidence on this thread.

You are using the political term 'anti-vaxxer' to describe anyone who points out anomalies and questions or queries ANYTHING to do with this 'vaccine'. I've never even looked at a single 'anti-vaxxer' website. I'm simply thinking critically and pointing out logical inconsistencies--something everyone should do (about everything).