It's free. — James Riley

So's syphilis. Without taking a position on the covid vaccine, what kind of reason is that to do anything?

(ps -- Yes I know you were responding to someone who complained that they didn't have insurance to pay for the shot. Just drive-by posting tonight.)

What about the notion that the vaccine is a tool for extracting money from the population? How suspicious are you? — frank

Not the least, not the slightest. It’s an unbearably sinister view, that there’s this cabal of evil millionaire pharmaceutical companies scheming to get rich by pulling the wool over the citizen’s eyes.

Yes, I can acknowledge genuine concerns about vaccine safety in light of the thrombosis issue. But I’d trust the boards and management and scientists at these pharma companies a long while before I trusted conspiracy-mongering internet posters or their lunatic fringe antivaxer cheer squad.

I live in the US and I won't take any Covid-19 vaccine until there is a version which receives APPROVAL from the FDA. — 180 Proof

They haven’t yet? One thing to consider is that the disease is a lot worse than the prevention, even if the purported adverse reaction statistics are true, i.e. a far higher proportion of total COVID infected persons die from the disease that the proportion of those having adverse reactions to the vaccine. In Europe, when the thrombosis complication was announced, there were something like 15 cases out of tens of millions of doses, whereas there would be thousands of deaths from an equal number of COVID cases.

They haven’t yet? — Wayfarer

Correct.

Currently, the COVID-19 vaccines are not U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved, but authorized only for emergency use. As an investigational product, the statute governing emergency use authorizations provides that the recipient be advised of his or her option to accept or refuse administration of the vaccine, something a DC District court considered in a 2003 case that ruled against forcing soldiers to take the then-experimental anthrax vaccine ...

This is from an article arguing against vaccine passports on civil liberties grounds. Worth your time to read, slightly (but not completely) off-topic from the specific focus of this thread. Interesting in light of the fact that numerous colleges and universities are requiring vaccines to return to school. There will be litigation no doubt.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/02/vaccine-passports-are-a-serious-threat-to-american-civil-liberties/

Cornell announced today that they're requiring vaccination of all students returning in the fall.

https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2021/04/cornell-university-will-require-students-returning-in-fall-to-have-covid-19-vaccinations.html

Well I agree vaccines ought not to be made mandatory (but on the other hand I think that antivax amounts to anti science in a lot of ways.)

The vaccines have not been Approved by the US FDA; they are merely (politically) Authorized For Emergency Use. I'm not terminal/end-stage anything and have a proven alternative (masks, etc) – which mostly prevents the spread (re: none of the available vaccines have been shown to do this effectively) – to volunteering to be a guinea pig for Pfizer, Moderna, etc in mass-experiment public trials. I'm in no way anti-vaxx and not anti-science either; the public health exigencies are obvious, but I'll take my chances until 6-9 months more data comes in.

I'm in no way anti-vaxx and not anti-science either; the public health exigencies are obvious, but I'll take my chances until 6-9 months more data comes in. — 180 Proof

:up: Fair enough. I understand that.

What about the notion that the vaccine is a tool for extracting money from the population? How suspicious are you?
— frank

Not the least, not the slightest. It’s an unbearably sinister view, that there’s this cabal of evil millionaire pharmaceutical companies scheming to get rich by pulling the wool over the citizen’s eyes.

Yes, I can acknowledge genuine concerns about vaccine safety in light of the thrombosis issue. But I’d trust the boards and management and scientists at these pharma companies a long while before I trusted conspiracy-mongering internet posters or their lunatic fringe antivaxer cheer squad. — Wayfarer

This is my position too. But I understand how fear works and there is no doubt that most people would like more time to see how the vaccines pan out.

I'll line up as soon as it's offered, and if it has adverse consequences I'll let everyone know. (Here in Oz it was originally going to be end April for people in my demographic, although I think it's running late. My American family and in-laws have all been vaccinated, so far, so good.)

So's syphilis. Without taking a position on the covid vaccine, what kind of reason is that to do anything?

(ps -- Yes I know you were responding to someone who complained that they didn't have insurance to pay for the shot. Just drive-by posting tonight.) — fishfry

Where a question is a gift, I feel I should at least acknowledge it, so I say this: When one answers their own question, as you did, a response is not needed.

That leaves me with my own question: Why did a feel I should acknowledge the gift? Perhaps a fellow human, driving around at night, is reaching out?

I don't know, but it is funny that I was just thinking about gifts before I got on and read your drive-by this morning. I was figuring that something need not be given to be perceived as a gift. I had a whole pile of arguments in support of that proposition but since it is a major digression from the OP, I will check myself now and save that for later. Peace.

If it's the monetary aspects of vaccines - the profit motive - that's disconcerting to you, I suggest you follow the money so to speak and you might be in for a surpise as I suspect that the huge amounts of gains made by drug companies eventually land up, much diminished of course but pro rata, at your doorstep.

Too, why stop your accusations/allegations of deplorable conduct at drug companies? What about the economic system that enables profiteering big time? Isn't that the very economic system that you're part of and that facilitates your livelihood? You can't eat your cake and have it too is the most appropriate adage here.

Depends on your life experience. I would rather have a gun, or knife, and not need than need and not have. I am not allowed to carry a gun in Canada so I pack a knife. I am able, and willing, to use it as needed, when needed. Most people would not believe how often I have needed it. They have had a sheltered, soft life, and good for them. I only have a problem when those who have lived that life attempt to dictate the terms I live mine by.

I don't care if pharma makes money on the vaccine. Good for them; people need jobs, pharma creates jobs. I get that. I simply want the right to decline the vaccine. I have done the research and there are tons of red flags popping up. Likely the vaccine won't cause much nasty long term effects, I admit that. However, since we don't know, I can't recommend it to any of my patients. I won't take it myself. The sales pitch math doesn't add up, and the efficacy of the vaccine is highly questionable, again due to methodology of testing and the premise used to determine said efficacy. Lastly, it has been a professional expectation and requirement that I do my own information and research gathering with respect to medication administration prior to administering said medication, for any and all medications I am expected to administer. Know what, know why, know how, know what can go wrong, from sources other than the manufacturer. Peer reviewed articles, etc. Standard operating practice really, and it makes sense; my patient expects me to know something about whatever treatment, medication or otherwise, that I recommend.
Enter the Coronavirus vaccine: Never before has the registering college made it a registration requirement to promote a public health policy. I used to be required to advocate for my patient, each patient, based on their individual needs. Now apparently my patient is...the public health agency. And their position is so weak that it cannot bear scrutiny, and so must mandate the support of registered healthcare workers, rather than simply be robust and allow us to determine that supporting the policy is sound. I have said to my superiors, "rather than tell me how to tell my patients this is a good idea, convince ME that it is a good idea. I will have no difficulty speaking with my patients after that." The collective response amounted to "because". That is a full stop in my book.

Too, why stop your accusations/allegations of deplorable conduct at drug companies? What about the economic system that enables profiteering big time? Isn't that the very economic system that you're part of and that facilitates your livelihood? You can't eat your cake and have it too is the most appropriate adage here. — TheMadFool

This is a fatalistic attitude that neoliberals across the world invested heavily in: the notion that it's just inevitable, it's nature, no other system works, anyone who questions it is a "loony leftist."

I'm not a leftist. Leftists irritate the crap out of me because they're usually stupid, belligerent assholes who don't realize they're exactly like the people they criticize.

Still, I'm questioning this so-called inevitability.

I'm not a leftist. Leftists irritate the crap out of me because they're usually stupid, belligerent assholes who don't realize they're exactly like the people they criticize. — frank

Damn. Thought we was homies, comrade. :mask:

Damn. Thought we was homies, comrade. :mask: — 180 Proof

I meant except for you.

do you feel the same about the johnson vaccine which is a more traditional one and I'll admit freaks me out less?

It’s an unbearably sinister view, that there’s this cabal of evil millionaire pharmaceutical companies scheming to get rich by pulling the wool over the citizen’s eyes. — Wayfarer

It's not a 'view', it's in black and white in the articles of association for the company. They are incorporated to make money for their shareholders. It's not some tinfoilhat-wearing conspiracy theory that pharmaceutical companies try, above all else, to make as large a profit as they can. What exactly do you suppose would prevent them, should the opportunity arise, from lobbying to have their particular 'solution' be the government approved one? Do you suppose the quarter of a billion dollars the pharmaceuticals spent on government lobbying at the outset of this crisis was just spare cash that they thought they might as well spend despite it being unlikely to work?

As the author of the above paper said "The return on investment on a dollar of lobbying appears much higher than a dollar of R&D". Basically, lobbying hard to get a drug supported by the government yields a higher return than producing a drug that is actually more effective than its rivals.

Do you decide therefore to go unvaccinated?

I'm not a leftist. Leftists irritate the crap out of me because they're usually stupid, belligerent assholes who don't realize they're exactly like the people they criticize. — frank

Ordinarily I wouldn't ask the ironist if he's being ironic. For you, however, an exception must be made. Are you being ironic?

Seems that on a philosophy site at least folks would make explicit their understanding of the difference between not getting/being vaccinated and being anti-vaccination. Explicit because there seems to be both confusion and conflation on this.

Do you decide therefore to go unvaccinated? — frank

As yet, yes, but I live deep in a rural backwater, the decision is a different one for me than for others. I'm not particularly concerned about short-term side effects though, I'm fairly healthy with no allergies, I think the chances of me sustaining an adverse reaction are very small indeed. Most vaccines have side-effects so this one is not exceptional in that respect. I should like to have had more information about the effects on vulnerable groups ,but now it would be considered unethical to have large control groups so that's not going to happen.

For me it's more a political position. There are many ways to tackle this crisis. Each with their risks and benefits. For example, whilst I'm not concerned about side-effects myself, I'm not sure that now (with our hospitals at breaking point) is such a good time to give a new medicine to billions of people. Even with normal safety precautions that would likely lead to thousands of adverse reactions, all of which will need hospital treatment, and this particular treatment has not had normal safety precautions.

Regardless of the repective cons, only one of the possible solutions makes a small amount of people an enormous amount of money, I'm not going to stand in line to cheer that fact that our collective governments chose that one above all others.

Are we likely to see investment in ICU capacity after the enormous expense of vaccination? I don't think so. Community healthcare, emerging threat surveillance programs, nursing home staffing, critical care... are any likely to now see the investment they need to protect us against the next covid? Again, I don't think so. But no doubt after only a few million unnecessary deaths the great pharmaceutical companies will come to our rescue again with another short-term get rich quick scheme solution.

Seems that on a philosophy site at least folks would make explicit their understanding of the difference between not getting/being vaccinated and being anti-vaccination. Explicit because there seems to be both confusion and conflation on this. — tim wood

Absolutely. Being anti-vax is a position that vaccination is never the solution in any circumstances . That's not the same as saying that vaccination is not the best solution is some specific given circumstance.

I find, however, that there are no fewer blind pro-vaxers (vaccination is always the solution in all circumstances), as there are blind anti-vaxers (vaccination is never the solution in any circumstances). Reality is, as usual, more complicated than can be captured in polemics.

Even with normal safety precautions that would likely lead to thousands of adverse reactions, all of which will need hospital treatment, and this particular treatment has not had normal safety precautions. — Isaac

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines didn't take any short cuts in testing. Three phases, same statistical approach they always use. What more did you want to see? Testing on children? I think they're doing that now.

Are we likely to see investment in ICU capacity after the enormous expense of vaccination? I don't think so. — Isaac

Hospital CEOs will probably see increased pay.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines didn't take any short cuts in testing. Three phases, same statistical approach they always use. — frank

What statistical approach would that be, and what trail data are you comparing it to?

I find, however, that there are no fewer blind pro-vaxers (vaccination is always the solution in all circumstances), as there are blind anti-vaxers (vaccination is never the solution in any circumstances). — Isaac

False equivalence.

This the best I can do here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

I feel basically the same about it. I am not supported in doing my own research on it, I am advised to promote it based only on propaganda. Makes me nervous.

so what do you think is going on here? Why are you being pressured to do so?

I'll admit I find the conspiracy theories that covid is being manipulated as part of some plot by global elites to enslave us all, as pretty much irrational.

On the other hand, when there is a broad policy approach that curtails liberties and promotes the adoption of a drug only approved on an emergency basis by the FDA, it makes you wonder, if the science is so clear that the virus is not a threat to 99.9% of the population under 50, what exactly is going on here?

If more targeted balanced approaches, like that taken in Sweden, clearly don't seem to obviously result in more adverse virus outcomes then why are all these medical professionals in support of the dominant narrative and dismissive of more balanced approaches?

is it big pharma with such amazing world influence?

I am not supported in doing my own research on it, — Book273

As if you could! Do you need to do your own trials?

What information are you missing? A quick search of the net will bring up the relevant data. Perhaps the problem is not the available information but your knife-carrying paranoia.

I'm booked in to receive the Astrazeneca vaccine later today.

I've had a look around the research and can see no reason not to, and plenty of reason in favour.

Indeed, there's something timorous about the attitudes demonstrated in this thread. One would have expected more from a group who spend so much time discussing morality. Get it together and take some responsibility for the common good.

Or is it all just talk?

What statistical approach would that be, and what trail data are you comparing it to? — Isaac

What's trail data? They tested it the same way the always test vaccines. You said it was lacking normal safety precautions.