Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With a 99.9xx percent survival rate? Come on! At least have the vaccine manufacturers be responsible for their work.
Survival rates are stellar for the young, but 500k died. I'd hardly compare my profession nor yours to the importance of scientists. I'd also give manufacturers some protections, as it was worldwide governments urging them to move at Warp speed, and they did. Unlike say, the multi-year work behind a new version oF Windows, which good or bad, is hardly a life-saving mission.
I don't peddle fear and uncertainty. Read the article. If you want to blame someone, then blame the Michigan health care professionals. Don't bother to shoot the messenger.
I simply wanted to point something out about vaccines. I don't have an agenda as many others do here.
The bottom line is that hurried "studies" during the vaccine development cannot be taken as reliable.
And the fact remains that the vaccine manufacturers don't guarantee their product since they don't stand by it and CANNOT BE SUED for any adverse reactions to their vaccines. And many life insurance companies feel that this vaccine is too dangerous and will not cover any deaths linked to the vaccine. That alone is a game-changer despite "studies".
Also note that I don't rely on attempted character assassinations when I write my posts. I stick to the facts and make no assumptions about other posters whom I know nothing about. Posters that have to rely on these character assassinations only show that they are losing the argument and have to resort to these measures to try to save their argument.
You're the one pimping the article so you get the response.
If you want to say the vaccines have unknown reliability in the general population then that's fine. It's when you start equating them to having bombed that you need to back it up with data.
The manufacturers were not going to commit to such an ambitious program without immunity. They were granted the immunity before they began the work. It's not like they did the work, looked at their product, and said "uh oh, we need immunity for this crap".
No one is assassinating your character. You made allusions to the vaccine having failed and I asked you several times to provide such data yet you just respond with more such allusions. Since you're so logical then you know that the presence or absence of a guarantee does not necessarily correlate to quality. Toyota is consistently at the top of the charts in reliability and resale value yet offers only a 36mo/36k mile warranty. Meanwhile, Kia is rather average in reliability and poor in resale value yet offers a 1oyr/100k warranty.
The pharmas were wise to insist on the immunity. Every cough and fever for the next 20 years is going to be linked to covid or the vaccine for it. The covid paranoia of today is going to become the covid litigation of tomorrow and they want no part of it.
Survival rates are stellar for the young, but 500k died. I'd hardly compare my profession nor yours to the importance of scientists. I'd also give manufacturers some protections, as it was worldwide governments urging them to move at Warp speed, and they did. Unlike say, the multi-year work behind a new version oF Windows, which good or bad, is hardly a life-saving mission.
You didn't get it. While software development is different than health care, I was comparing the processes which are similar. Developing software and developing vaccines follows a similar process of research, trial, rework, and so on. That's what I was getting at. Of course, the health care profession is far riskier in terms of lives compared to software development, so more stringency would have been in order for developing the vaccine, which does have the potential to hurt and kill people.
Also, the vaccine manufacturers should be held accountable for their work. Not doing so is an open invitation to not do their best. I'm not saying they didn't, but how about taking some responsibility?
We are all potential consumers of this new vaccine. And as consumers, the vaccine manufacturers have to perform in order to convince us to get their vaccine. The fact that these vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued or that life insurance companies won't pay out for vaccinated people, convinces me not to get the vaccine. It also convinces many others. As for people who do want to get this vaccine, have at it, it's your life and your health.
You didn't get it. While software development is different than health care, I was comparing the processes which are similar. Developing software and developing vaccines follows a similar process of research, trial, rework, and so on. That's what I was getting at.
Processes get modified in unusual times, as in worst pandemic in a century, by a mile, in terms of deaths (2 million worldwide plus).
Just as processes got abandoned when we tested atomic bombs in the US Southwest 76 years ago w/o being sure they would not burn the nation up. (Yes, we were unsure if the chain reaction would stop).
If this were SARS (1st strand around 1+ decades ago), I'd agree with you. Its not. Chemo is no one's first treatment choice, yet why do cancer patients accept it? Unusual circumstances.
And No ONE worldwide will die due to software delays. It is less vital than finding a covid vaccine.
PS: I used to work for a medical equipment manufacturer, whose execs told me of the vast difference between our researchers and admin staff. (I was part of the latter.) The former, like vaccine scientists, do not get as elated over bonuses, as they do over life-improving , let alone life-saving discoveries. So I find any hint of not "best work" amongst vaccine scientists reprehensible. We should be honoring these people, based on immense effort alone. Unlike IT departments, btw, which are trivial in importance relative to them.
You're the one pimping the article so you get the response.
If you want to say the vaccines have unknown reliability in the general population then that's fine. It's when you start equating them to having bombed that you need to back it up with data.
The manufacturers were not going to commit to such an ambitious program without immunity. They were granted the immunity before they began the work. It's not like they did the work, looked at their product, and said "uh oh, we need immunity for this crap".
No one is assassinating your character. You made allusions to the vaccine having failed and I asked you several times to provide such data yet you just respond with more such allusions. Since you're so logical then you know that the presence or absence of a guarantee does not necessarily correlate to quality. Toyota is consistently at the top of the charts in reliability and resale value yet offers only a 36mo/36k mile warranty. Meanwhile, Kia is rather average in reliability and poor in resale value yet offers a 1oyr/100k warranty.
The pharmas were wise to insist on the immunity. Every cough and fever for the next 20 years is going to be linked to covid or the vaccine for it. The covid paranoia of today is going to become the covid litigation of tomorrow and they want no part of it.
Pimping? Thank you for your decorous language. It is my right to post whatever I want here, subject to the policies of City-Data. I can refer to any decent publication that I wish.
The unknown reliability is the bomb that I was referring to. As well as the people who got the vaccine and got COVID anyway. And the three deaths which may have had to do with COVID, the vaccine itself, or something else. That is what I wanted you to read in that article. A bomb is a computer term where the a program "bombs" or "abends". It can also be described as a failure. The vaccinated people who got COVID anyway certainly cannot be called a success.
Losses in life due to problems with the vaccine are certainly factored in, and in the end, the end may justify the means, if there is less total loss of life with the vaccine rather than without it. But as a potential individual consumer, it is rather disconcerting to know that you may still get and die from COVID even if the aggregate body count is less. With everyone but the very old having a 99.99xx survival rate may lead a lot of potential consumers to forego this well-meaning but hastily pushed through vaccine.
Your dubious face does not address the facts that are presented by certified Michigan health care professionals. Are you going against what they say? Please provide proof that your stance is correct.
No, I'm not going against what THEY'RE saying (that after receiving vaccinations, less than 0.008% of the vaccinated people subsequently became infected by COVID-19)...but I am going against what YOU are saying, specifically that "Vaccines have nothing to do with protection...".
Processes get modified in unusual times, as in worst pandemic in a century, by a mile, in terms of deaths (2 million worldwide plus).
Just as processes got abandoned when we tested atomic bombs in the US Southwest 76 years ago w/o being sure they would not burn the nation up. (Yes, we were unsure if the chain reaction would stop).
If this were SARS (1st strand around 1+ decades ago), I'd agree with you. Its not. Chemo is no one's first treatment choice, yet why do cancer patients accept it? Unusual circumstances.
And No ONE worldwide will die due to software delays. It is less vital than finding a covid vaccine.
PS: I used to work for a medical equipment manufacturer, whose execs told me of the vast difference between our researchers and admin staff. (I was part of the latter.) The former, like vaccine scientists, do not get as elated over bonuses, as they do over life-improving , let alone life-saving discoveries. So I find any hint of not "best work" amongst vaccine scientists reprehensible. We should be honoring these people, based on immense effort alone. Unlike IT departments, btw, which are trivial in importance relative to them.
You still don't get it. I didn't say that software development is equal to or more important than health care. Just reread my last post. Of course in health care lives are saved (and lost). IT departments are indeed more trivial than health care. Nowhere in my posts did I state otherwise.
Again, it is the processes that I am referring to which are similar. And since health care is far more important than IT, then even more care should have been taken. Yes, medical professionals have to figure in more potential deaths from cut corners and speeding through a vaccine, and seeing if doing so will save more lives than kill. It is not an easy solution.
But the bottom line is as a potential consumer, could I justify getting a rushed through vaccine which offers consequences as was presented in the article that I referenced? It is the potential consumer that will decide and must be convinced to get it. There is no easy solution.
No, I'm not going against what THEY'RE saying (that after receiving vaccinations, less than 0.008% of the vaccinated people subsequently became infected by COVID-19)...but I am going against what YOU are saying, specifically that "Vaccines have nothing to do with protection...".
Correct. But the study period is for January through March. Time marches on and there are more and more people getting vaccinated all the time so the COVID-19 infections for vaccinated people will hardly be stable. One has to read the entire set of articles to get a full picture of what is going on. Especially as "THEY'RE" saying (directly quoted from the top article):
"This latest news from the US also highlights one of the fundamental problems which those promoting the idea of mass vaccinations routinely avoid: the fact that the COVID vaccine does not actually prevent infection of the virus, nor does it prevent those who are vaccinated from further spreading the virus.
Even the vaccine manufacturers along with numerous leading science journals – have all admitted that their experimental corporate vaccine product may only reduce or mask severe symptoms in certain cases, and do not prevent vaccine recipients from potentially becoming ‘silent spreaders’ of the virus."
As you can see, this is a serious failure. A failure that the vaccine manufacturers have themselves admitted. So while people can get vaccinated, it can certainly be stated that "vaccines have nothing to do with protection."
Last edited by BusinessManIT; 04-10-2021 at 07:41 PM..
I don't peddle fear and uncertainty. Read the article. If you want to blame someone, then blame the Michigan health care professionals. Don't bother to shoot the messenger.
I simply wanted to point something out about vaccines. I don't have an agenda as many others do here.
The bottom line is that hurried "studies" during the vaccine development cannot be taken as reliable.
And the fact remains that the vaccine manufacturers don't guarantee their product since they don't stand by it and CANNOT BE SUED for any adverse reactions to their vaccines. And many life insurance companies feel that this vaccine is too dangerous and will not cover any deaths linked to the vaccine. That alone is a game-changer despite "studies".
Also note that I don't rely on attempted character assassinations when I write my posts. I stick to the facts and make no assumptions about other posters whom I know nothing about. Posters that have to rely on these character assassinations only show that they are losing the argument and have to resort to these measures to try to save their argument.
Lawsuits are not the only deterrent against misrepresenting data. If they are found to have cooked the books, the authorization will be stripped away, they would face possible criminal penalties, and their reputation would be tarnished for decades.
Your "they can't be sued so it could all be totally made up" argument doesn't go nearly as far as you think it does. A bad argument repeated many times is still a bad argument!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
