Or in simpler terms, I have a family. Are they safer if I have and wear guns to protect them, or if I do not have guns. Safer? Not safer? — tim wood

I won't disagree with you about people generally being safer without there being some guy with an AR walking down the street. My point was that I don't see how we can have safe gun laws while also respecting a person's wish (right?) to be able to defend themselves. Technology has made the concept of self-defense practically obsolete. Gun enthusiasts are clinging to a value (a perfectly legitimate value) which is now outdated due to the weapons they claim to love.

Centuries ago, it was not really a big deal to walk around with a sword or a pistol. You could stab or shoot a couple people, maybe, but these weapons aren't obscenely lethal. Nowadays such a weapon is useless against an automatic rifle. The only chance a person has to defend themselves from someone with a gun (and not depend on someone else) is if they also have a gun (and if they know how to use it). But if the threat to the overall community is to deemed to be too great to allow people to bear arms, then the system will disarm the public and convince them that it's for the greater good. This gradually conditions them into being dependent upon a social order (and not themselves) to provide aid in times of crisis. In my opinion, this is a gross violation of human dignity.

I'm not sure why you're addressing that to me. It's precisely the argument I've been making.

The FDA work makes "a real difference" in significant areas such as "real-world data on effectiveness and safety".

So the difference in risk between an EUA approved drug and a fully approved BLA is significant. You are wrong to say that

At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4

Oh, and to be super clear. On...

Joe Biden told CNN's Don Lemon during a CNN Townhall that he expects Covid-19 vaccines could get full approval "quickly.

"I expect there's no tiger in that room" and "I've checked; there's no tiger in that room" are two entirely different statements of safety and two entirely different risk scenarios for any person about to enter that room.

But why? The population will not feel any side effects of the vaccination, but the individual will, therefore it is an individual decision. — Book273

The above replaces the term 'me' with the term population and continues on as if that changes the perspective. It proves my point; that hesitation is a miscalculation that results from point of view.

The "better for the population long term" argument should also support non-intervention for anyone that is suicidal as less individuals would mean more resources for others, less environmental damage, more job availability, etc. And yet, we are not advocating suicide, despite being able to spin the positive effects for society. — Book273

If I produced this paragraph I would question what else I was willing to rationalize. It's not a compelling argument. We aren't discussing suicide.

Only if the resultant group exceeds the inverse of the proportion required for herd immunity. If not, it really doesn't matter at all. If they adopt other strategies to minimize transmission it also doesn't matter one jot. If I'm healthy, live alone, remain masked in my occasional public visits, sanitise my hands regularly and remain a few feet apart from anyone I meet, explain to me how I'm going to have a higher probability of passing on a virus than if I did none of those things but took a vaccine at 70% symptomatic effectiveness... and yes, I will expect you to cite sources, not just make it up. — Isaac

You recognized the populations need and then described an individual strategy. It proves my point better than I could.

Gun enthusiasts are clinging to a value (a perfectly legitimate value) which is now outdated due to the weapons they claim to love.

Centuries ago, it was not really a big deal to walk around with a sword or a pistol. — darthbarracuda

Your argument cogent - almost. But imo not real or realistic enough to be persuasive. More clinging to the illusion of a need, and that in service of their "enthusiasm" for guns - I think most of them would rather have guns than security. And the dismissal of the stunning carnage that domestic guns have caused over the years is to my way of thinking testimony to the ability of vested interests to manipulate people on a topic they're pre-conditioned not to see straight on.

As to dependence on social order, next time you're out and about, try to take in how much social order is in play to make your world work. As I imagine you do not loom your own sheets, I suspect you cannot get out of bed in the morning or into it at night without wrapping yourself in the products of social order.

Just for fun, can you list anything you provide for yourself that is not dependent on social order? Here is a list of the things I can think of that I provide for myself: in season, some tomatoes.

And I would say it was never a big deal for some, a very few, people to travel armed. But a big deal for anyone else.

As to protection, I am going to guess that gun-nuts and anti-Covid vaccination folks share the same demographic, are the same people. Irony?

Safer if you, and they, know how, and are willing, to use said weapons to defend themselves. — Book273

Not part of the original question. Protect from what, and how? And train who, and how? Am I going to send my fourth-grader to school strapped so he can protect himself? Especially to a school that apparently will not protect him nor allow him to protect himself from Covid? From parents who won't either mask or vaccinate themselves or their children, or even understand Covid? This is crazy territory, and the crazy don't - or shouldn't - have guns.

I'm being as careful and responsible as I can be... — 180 Proof

Well, no you aren't, because you could be doing all these things and also be vaccinated.

I think you ought get vaccinated.

I've been vaccinated. Got two doses of Pfizer. No side effects.

The fact that it's starting to be mandated tells you some high powered by lawyers were consulted about the risks. They gave it the thumbs up. Wonder what their calculations were.

As soon as there's an approved (in the US or any other developed nation for that matter) vaccine, I'll get the stick.

As to dependence on social order, next time you're out and about, try to take in how much social order is in play to make your world work. As I imagine you do not loom your own sheets, I suspect you cannot get out of bed in the morning or into it at night without wrapping yourself in the products of social order.

Just for fun, can you list anything you provide for yourself that is not dependent on social order? — tim wood

I never said I am a completely self-sufficient individual. I understand the importance of gun control in maintaining the social order that you and I have been conditioned to be helpless without. I'm just pointing out that this is a restriction on something that I consider to be important to the overall dignity of a human being, that being their ability to defend themselves against other people.

The overall idea is: strip everyone of the ability to defend themselves, so this isn't ever used as a means to hurt people. When tragedy strikes, don't let the people defend themselves, let them be rescued. I understand that this desire to be able to protect oneself may not be reasonable to satisfy in the society we live in. I understand that it may be a case of choosing a lesser evil. But to me, this is a sign that something is wrong with society. Being able to defend yourself is a basic human right; but a technological society cannot give this to its citizens, because technological weapons in the hands of individuals would undermine it. Yet it is this technological society that produces these weapons to begin with. Gun nuts want their guns but they don't understand that the society that has produced these guns cannot allow the nuts to have them. If gun nuts got their way, there wouldn't be a society left to make the guns they so love.

To be clear, for the record, I am anti-unapproved vaccines and not "anti-vaccination".

I'm pretty sure all 4 vaccines are approved in Europe:

https://www.pei.de/EN/medicinal-products/vaccines-human/covid-19/covid-19-node.html;jsessionid=2B63E490BE792D9B53A9923FF500FA08.intranet242

"Emergency Authorization" does not mean Fully Approved, and none of the Covid-19 vaccines available in the US are Fully Approved by the FDA.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_COVID-19_vaccine_authorizations

no one takes a vaccine that might have worked. It's a rational strategy for an individual to optimize that is detrimental to a group outcome. — Cheshire

You said that not taking the vaccine was...

a rational strategy for an individual to optimize that is detrimental to a group outcome. — Cheshire

...I'm asking you how it is detrimental to a group outcome in the scenario I outlined. I don't see how me asking the question proves your point.

The fact that it's starting to be mandated tells you some high powered by lawyers were consulted about the risks. They gave it the thumbs up. Wonder what their calculations were. — frank

Their client could have mandated vaccinations, didn't, and someone died - big payout: Their client mandated a fully approved vaccination and someone died from it - FDA's fault, no payout.

I don't think their calculations were that complicated. It why most lawyers are pushing hard for the BLA to be approved, it shifts the legal responsibility for injury.

Ah ok I hadn't seen that useful Wiki page. Nevertheless the same page reveals that Switzerland and Australia have fully approved Pfizer. They're developed countries aren't they?

you could be doing all these things and also be vaccinated. — Banno

So, what level of risk reduction absolves one's social responsibility here? Is there a point where we can reasonably be said to have done enough to reduce the risks to which our lifestyles expose our communities, or must we in all cases do everything that it is within our power to do?

I wonder about the extent to which this metric applies to risks that aren't all over the news.

Switzerland and Australia have fully approved Pfizer — coolazice

The European Medicine Agency doesn't work in the same way as the FDA. Four vaccines have been approved, but their approval rating has a sub-category "Conditional marketing authorisation" which is

The approval of a medicine that addresses unmet medical needs of patients on the basis of less comprehensive data than normally required. The available data must indicate that the medicine’s benefits outweigh its risks and the applicant should be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data in the future.

These are the vaccines currently authorised under those terms.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-authorised

I don't know about Australia's system though.

How many people should take the vaccine. In your opinion?

How many people should take the vaccine. In your opinion? — Cheshire

I don't have an 'opinion' on the matter, I'm not an expert in immunology. David Dowdy, Associate Professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins says...

What we know about coronavirus so far suggests that, if we were really to go back to a pre-pandemic lifestyle, we would need at least 70% of the population to be immune to keep the rate of infection down (“achieve herd immunity”) without restrictions on activities.

So, about 70% of the population should either take the vaccine or be certain of their acquired immunity.

The issue isn't really with how many though so much as who. Some people are massively more at risk from the disease than others and some people are massively more at risk of spreading it than others. If we simply assume that there is a moral obligation not to put your community at too great a risk by your lifestyle choices, then you should take the vaccine if you feel (after listening to expert opinion) that doing so would be necessary to absolve that social responsibility. That's simply not going to be the case for everyone.

Well, you got me, I hadn't realized that those countries (fully approved?) the Pfizer vaccine. Still the overwhelming majority, including my country the US, haven't and that's reason enough for me to continue to hold off from vaccinating. In the context of our sickcare system & predatory Big Pharma industry, you see, there's no "benefit of the doubt" given or "good will" to be had in the US for public health exhortations to take a vaccine that is not fully approved in a nominally scientific fashion by the regulatory authorities. And so long as I maintain very infrequent and minimal exposure to anyone, I'm safe and not potentially speading the virus to others (most of whom in my section of Atlanta are vaccinated or so it seems).

:ok:

In the context of our sickcare system & predatory Big Pharma industry, you see, there's no "benefit of the doubt" given or "good will" to be had in the US for public health exhortations to take a vaccine that is not fully approved in a nominally scientific fashion by the regulatory authorities. — 180 Proof

Yeah. I think this is one of the most interesting things about the progress of this pandemic. It's really highlighted the way in which the Pharmaceutical industry are treated in popular (left-wing) media. They've pulled off a really neat trick. Were they any other industry, the left-wing media would be suspicious as hell of any product, announcement, research or advice given by them (or by agencies directly funded or heavily lobbied by them). You see it with heavy industry, energy companies, agricultural industries, fishery, tobacco, arms... And right they are too to be suspicious. But somehow the pharmaceuticals have pulled off the trick of not only being above suspicion, but of getting the left-wing media to actually work for them.

If you mistrust the safety claims of an agricultural company about their pesticides, you're a wise and savvy environmentalist, if you mistrust the pharmaceutical company's claims about their medicines, you're a lunatic. If you follow the money and raise an eyebrow at the results of an industry funded research institute on thriving fish stock, you're seeing through the PR whitewash to the real motivation, if you follow the money and raise an eyebrow at the results of an industry funded research institute on medicine efficacy, you're a full on foam-flecked conspiracy-theory-wielding nutjob.

I don't know how they managed it.

Now mistrust is not only a sign of idiocy, it becoming flat out evil. The polemicising effect of social media has pushed the pro-pharma side so far in the direction of beatification, that the only alternative slot to put anti-pharma is with the demons. I think even the pharma PR guys are shaking their heads thinking "fuck, we were not expecting it to work that well"

I don't know how they managed it — Isaac

You are right, it is remarkable. My guess is that they managed it by developing good products which provide more benefit and prevent more harm than any alternative. The crowds, in their wisdom, sense this and so trust the products. There is an element of desperation: we would not normally trust a new drug so quickly and if someone suspects that corners have been cut they may also imagine drowning in their own mucus and ask themselves 'what have I got to lose?' If it turns out (I hope it doesn't) that there are severe long-term harms associated with the vaccines or anything else the companies make then we will know that evil big pharma has hoodwinked us again. We won't hear the end of it. The PR people will still be in a job.

Many disagree. They think that in their case the benefit to be gained or harm to be prevented do not outweigh the risks and the invasive process. These people are derided, excoriated and threatened. They may well be wrong. But they are not stupid idiot evil kind of wrong. They are voicing the hesitation that would be normal for most of us in less desperate circumstances. They are reminding us that there are many uncertainties and that we are all anxious. We hate reminders like that and so we lay into the people who provide them.

My guess is that they managed it by developing good products which provide more benefit and prevent more harm than any alternative. — Cuthbert

I don't see that being enough. The measles vaccine alone is responsible for saving millions of lives, but so are fertilisers, it doesn't make us trust the agrochemical industry any more. Heavy industry has lifted millions out of poverty, but we don't now treat their critics as if they were lunatics. Water treatment saves millions from disease, but that doesn't give the water companies an army of bouncers.

I don't see the connection between an industry's product being in a general class of products which actually work and us trusting them to provide accurate data about those products. I mean, most products work. It's pretty much the bare minimum standard required of an industry, to make products that work. The pharmaceuticals are not in any way unique here.

They are reminding us that there are many uncertainties and that we are all anxious. We hate reminders like that and so we lay into the people who provide them. — Cuthbert

Possibly, yes.

Perhaps we have to give big pharma the credit because otherwise we might have to thank the Government - and that is unthinkable. In the UK this conversation happens on talk radio:

Caller: The Government has mishandled the pandemic and killed tens of thousands.
Presenter: What about the vaccination programme?
Caller: Well, that's the scientists and all their great work, not the Government.

I don't know the answer to your question but it is a very good question!

Yeah. As I said, the polemicising effect of social media pushes this kind of narrative. Government evil. Scientists saints. No nuance. No balance. I'm just a little surprised that the worlds largest, most powerful corporations somehow ended up in the 'saints' category.

If the official data can be trusted the pharmaceutical companies and (hopefully) independent research facilities (such as Oxford University) have produced several vaccines which enjoy 90% plus efficacy in preventing symptomatic disease. That they will make a huge profit from this feat is lamentable, and even disgusting, but does nothing to diminish the achievement (if the data are correct, of course). As I see it the salient question is what would be the alternative to trusting the official data and narrative? Where would rejecting that leave the layperson in their need to make a decision?

That they will make a huge profit from this feat is lamentable, and even disgusting, but does nothing to diminish the achievement — Janus

No, absolutely not. But, as I said above, many other industries can also lay claim to outstanding achievements, it doesn't seem to buy them a free pass when it comes to trustworthiness.

As I see it the salient question is what would be the alternative to trusting the official data and narrative? Where would rejecting that leave the layperson in their need to make a decision? — Janus

Yes, I think you're right. But the obvious answer is to pay more attention to critics of the official narrative (expert critics only, of course). Tempting though it might be, I don't think simplifying the decision for the layperson helps any. If working out their individual risk profile is complex, then it's complex. We can't pretend it's simple by just ignoring dissent, I don't think that helps either.