I'm getting a bit concerned by the number of people I know that will take one of the covid vaccines, not so much because they'll have it, but because they appear to do it either out of mindless compliance (they have no idea what it is nor what it's supposed to do or not, let alone the trade-offs), either because they're being blackmailed (they want to travel abroad this summer for example), they know it but just think they can't do anything about it.

Sometimes a bit of the mix of the two.

I know that's not nice to say that, but a society where young, healthy people are so gullible as to be ready to abdicate their free will and maybe their health without even trying to resist will disappear soon, and it will be well-deserved.

That process/change has been going on for a long time already and is essentially what I meant with

People are getting tracked continuously (mostly via their mobile phone) and even when they get confronted with the consequences directly, they (seem to) shrug and continue on with their live and don't change anything about their life or the tracking, even when that's (relatively) simple.

@Sosthene and what about the people who take it as protection against a disease? Thats what I do.

That's fine, you did your research, weight the trade-offs and did what seemed the best for your situation.

I'm talking about people that have no idea about why they're doing this, and just take it either out of compliance ("everybody's doing it"), or for misplaced reasons because they didn't think much about it ("to protect my parents", ignoring that vaccines are not made to prevent you from getting the disease and propagating it).

@Sosthene @berkes
> vaccines are not made to prevent you from getting the disease and propagating it

Wait, what?
Can you educate me as I have always believed that is *exactly* the purpose of vaccines.
(any vaccine for that matter afaik)

Yes, actually I think that it shouldn't be called vaccine, that's a bit misleading. Afaik the makers of each vaccines only claimed that it will make you less likely to get sick, and that if you got sick you will be less likely to get *seriously* sick. Actually it seems we don't know if vaccinated people are more or less susceptible to be contagious.

@FreePietje @berkes

In France this has been officially acknowledged many times, esp. when some guy that got vaccinated sued the state because he still had to lockdown, and the court basically said vaccinated people are still susceptible to get contaminated and contaminate others, so he must keep up doing as before getting the jab.

@Sosthene @berkes
This is also perfectly reasonable and explainable.
When *you* are vaccinated, you are less likely to get serious ill, but you can still spread it. Which is also the case for other viruses for which people are (already) vaccinated.
The major difference with the other viruses is that a large part of the *other* people are not (yet) vaccinated, so when they get infected by you, they will get (seriously) sick and are more likely to spread it further and faster.

@Sosthene @FreePietje one important convincing argument came from two seperate polio-patients that I know.

"If I had been vaccinated in my youth, I'd been spared a life of struggle, pain, wheelchairs, and, operations" one said. We cured polio by getting worldwide vaccination ratio's near to 100%.

We can overcome COVID, and lift the restrictions by getting ratio's above 70%. The more people resisting, the longer my freedom is restricted, and the more people will suffer from COVID.

... In all seriousness I don't think it's fair to compare a deadly, incurable disease that can affect children like polio with covid, and I'm not a doctor, but it seems that making a covid vaccine is *a lot* more challenging than polio's.

As I said it's all about trade-offs, you would be a fool not to take the vaccine polio because sometimes 1 children out of millions will get sick, but we just don't know the odds for covid vaccines right now.

@Sosthene @berkes
Which is what the other vaccines do too.
A vaccine is a (very) 'diminished' instance of the real virus, which trains the body how to respond/fight that virus, so it doesn't have to learn (from scratch) what to do when it encounters the real thing. With the consequence that you get not/less sick, which in turn helps preventing the spread, especially if others around you are also vaccinated.

AFAIK, the only difference is the amount of testing it has gotten *at this stage*.

2 things:
- "A vaccine is a (very) 'diminished' instance of the real virus": no, not those that we use in the west.
- asymptomatic spreading has been a major point to talk people into buying the lockdowns and all those shits, so either vaccines will make more asymptomatic spreaders and actually make the contamination *worse*, or this threat has been greatly exaggerated from the beginning but do we need the vaccines then?

@Sosthene @berkes
> no, not those that we use in the west.

I'm aware that we *also* use a 'blueprint' technique now (Moderna/Phizer iirc).
If that's what you meant, what do you mean?
Apart from the technique used, afaik, the goal remains the same: train the body how to respond to the real thing.
Or am I wrong on that (too)?

Ok 3 things actually: we are not sure that vaccines will work against other strains of the coronavirus, probably not, so should we vaccinate everyone again everytime we spot a new strain? That's a nightmare.
And yes obviously, I think it's wildy prematurated to give 100% of the population a medicine before it has completed clinical trials, especially to prevent a disease that is so deadly that most people... Even don't notice they're sick.

@Sosthene @berkes
The longer Covid-19 'runs wild', the more strains there'll likely be.
That's why just vaccinating 'the west' is so dumb.

Every virologist's nightmare has always been a (highly infectious) *air borne* virus. A sexually transmitted virus (f.e.) is rather easy to contain. Don't have sex with other (infected) people.
OTOH, you can't ask people to stop breathing.

A vaccination is always a risk/reward balance and that has now resulted in 'unusual' choices.
Doesn't make them wrong.

@Sosthene @berkes
I'm not happy with the latest CDC guidelines.
I'm reasonably sure they're technically correct, it shifts the decision making to individuals and HOPING they'll make the right call.

I think that's a horrible mistake.
An enormous amount of people are dumb. Informed consent wrt medical issues is (pretty much) an oxymoron.

And there's a lot of misinformation, ppl are selfish and everyone is sick and tired of the *consequences* of Covid-19.

"What could possibly go wrong?"

People are terrible at making decision for their own health, but the only thing that's even worse is letting unaccountable bureaucrats make the decision and force it upon them at gunpoint.
I agree that the public debate is so overheated and extreme in both directions that it became almost impossible to make a reasonable decision for oneself, let alone the others, but tell me, whose fault is this?

@Sosthene @berkes
From a medical/virological POV the response to Covid-19 was pretty simple. Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand) was one of the few who took the appropriate measures. (She did have a geological advantage).

The problems started when politics and trying to score political points were thrown into the mix. The Orange Buffoon likely caused the biggest damage bc of the size of his megaphone.

We in the West didn't care what happened especially in Africa wrt Ebola, bc that was far away.

@Sosthene @berkes
If 'we' did, we would've known what was coming. 'DiseaseX' (project) shows that people that *did* pay attention were preparing for the inevitable pandemic.

I've recently started watching 'House' again. Talk about truth-bombs :-O "Who needs 12 years of medical training when you got WiFi?" S07E07 is about small pox; it shows the appropriate medical response.

We in the West are too entitled/spoiled and like to choose our own facts, which matches what we *want* to believe. 🤷

Obviously we disagree on the risk/reward ratio, to me covid is *not* so serious as to justify such extreme and reckless measures, not by a long shot. I hope I'm wrong ofc but we would be very lucky if this mass vaccination doesn't end up creating problems worse than covid, I mean health problems because it's already a political disaster.
Forced vaccination is where I drew the line, I coped with a lot of shit recently, but this I will not compromise.

Actually I'm not against experimentation with those vaccines, I only criticize the narrative that is being built around it to make it the only way out of this crisis and ignore alternatives like ivermectin that seems to achieve comparable efficiency with a lot less uncertainty.
This has not much to do with health now, it became the political deus ex machina that all leaders want because any other ending wouldn't fit the narrative they built from a year on, and that's not ok

@FreePietje @berkes I was answering to a post of yours but it seems it disappeared 😉
Anyway you're right about Ivermectin: some studies hint that it works, but you're never 100% sure. But it has been widely used for decades and is provenly harmless, so my point was that there's a double standard from the beginning, there are some cure that must first prove to be 100% effective and the vaccines which have barely been tested but are already de facto mandatory. That's *very* dangerous.

@FreePietje @berkes Besides I know from my chinese friends that nobody dies of covid there anymore, they didn't vaccinate much but they seem to "cure" it using traditional medicine.
This might be local propaganda idk, but the fact is that covid is not a public health issue anymore there, they couldn't hide massive outbreaks with tens of thousand of deaths, and I don't think that's thanks to their dystopian tracing technique.

@Sosthene @berkes
The other thing I don't like about the opposition to the Covid-19 vaccine, is that the effects are being downplayed, bc people don't like the consequences that we all have to bear. Which is in turn tied to selfishness.
AFAIK, China took extreme (and the right) measures by hermetically 'sealing off' large infected cities, till the virus was eradicated (again).
Tracking and tracing the source of the infection and acting on it, is also the standard response, which .nl did not do.

@Sosthene @berkes
While I can very well be wrong about China, I'm more confident that I have the right info about New Zealand.
When they had *3* infections, they went (back) into complete lockdown for a month, thereby eradicating it (again). And then they could get back to 'normal' again.

In .nl/.eu we consistently took half-assed measures, so the virus kept lingering on all the time, so there couldn't/shouldn't be relaxations, which often still happened for political reasons, not medical ones

@FreePietje @berkes there are a lot of misconceptions about what China did. Except Wuhan, there was no "blanket lockdowns" in China as we saw in the West. My friends in Beijing where *never* locked in their home, shops were *never* closed everywhere.
Their response is mostly tracking, area control (districts closed when a case is detected, the time to test everyone), and early treatment (in France people are left alone at home until they need oxygenation)

@FreePietje @berkes I remember a friend in another big city that had to carry a pass to go from his home to his workplace, but it was only at the very beginning, I think by may of last year it was gone, even if some restrictions were still enforced for people that came from other provinces.
My hypothesis is that China has a *lot* more cases than they officially admit, but since young people have little or no symptoms, they just ignore it, and they focus on people at risk. Ofc I have no proof.

@FreePietje @berkes The French Government asked some of the best specialists to write a plan for this kind of pandemics c. 2005, afaiu this plan stressed early detection, isolating sick people to cure them, not *healthy* people (afaik nobody advocated for lockdowns before 2020). It also relied heavily on family doctors to detect cases and monitor the epidemy on the field.
Last March, this plan flew out of the window without explanations, and we did the *exact* opposite.

@Sosthene @berkes
Yeah, I deleted the last two as I felt it was needlessly combative/personal and even though I explicitly said (and meaning) twice ~ "*you* are not a moron", it still felt wrong.
Without those 2 last toots, I still made my point while being general (which seems more useful anyway).

But I really don't understand the (huge?) opposition to *this* vaccine as to me it's the same as the others, except for the amount of testing that has taken place. They're new, so that's normal.

@FreePietje @berkes it was not that combative, at least by internet standard 🙂
I'm ok with people disagreeing with my view on this issue, as I said my problem is not with those therapies and the fact that some people are willing to take it, but on what I see as generalized lack of critical thinking and public debate on what is a very important issue.

@FreePietje @berkes Just to illustrate what I mean, I'm challenging a good friend of mine that want to take the vaccine (he's 30 or so and perfectly healthy), and his answer boils down to "I trust the authority, anyway if there's a problem we'll all die together, we can't keep living like this for another couple of years to make more tests", does it sound normal? That's creepy as fuck.

@Sosthene @berkes
"I trust the authority" does sound normal and is also my position.
And by 'authority' I mean virologist/etc, aka subject matter experts.
IIUC, you called them 'unaccountable bureaucrats'.

But the heart of the matter is, that I consider/view this from a medical perspective, while your opposition seems to be political.

I'd fail as I am NOT a subject matter expert, but if I made a perfect *medical* case for the vaccine, you'd still oppose it for *political* reasons.

@Sosthene @berkes
I removed some earlier replies because 'invalidating' *your* argument, would 'force' you to respond. You/me could continue discussing viewpoints, likely on mostly imo unrelated issues, but would any of us change position?
In itself it may be interesting, but likely just a waste of time, which I chose to spend elsewhere.

I think 'informed consent' in a medical context is an oxymoron, so I('d) follow what the subject matter experts would say I should do.
Thus: vaccinate.

That's unfortunate because that's basically how all my attempts at discussing this issue have been ending until now, but I won't bother you further then.
Just one last thing: I think that considering this issue as "medical" (ie technical) rather than "political" is a big, big mistake. But indeed it makes discussing it futile, so let's leave it here for now.

@Sosthene @berkes
I probably agree with many of your political concerns.

I've see a/this pandemic coming for a long time as it's the natural consequence of 'us' destroying this world.
Not as part of some big conspiracy.

These extreme measures are (mostly) appropriate, imo even often too mild, from a public health perspective. When I think a measure is not appropriate or proportional, I'll resist against that specific measure.

Vaccines are good imo and I can't think why this one is different.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Bitcoin Mastodon

Bitcoin Maston Instance