Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Um, we have known for a while it is not seasonal. Also, Wuhan is in another outbreak of it right now in China. Are you ignoring that? Because that is literally evidence of a second wave.

>Implying that any official information out of China is reliable enough to be consider 'evidence'

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Um, we have known for a while it is not seasonal. Also, Wuhan is in another outbreak of it right now in China. Are you ignoring that? Because that is literally evidence of a second wave.

>Implying that any official information out of China is reliable enough to be consider 'evidence'

To what end would they put out false information about there being more viral cases in their country than there actually is?

 insaniak wrote:
Unfortunately, people sometimes need to be protected from their own ignorance, both for their own good and for the good of the people who have to share their living space.

So, does this statement come with a Roman salute?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
To what end would they put out false information about there being more viral cases in their country than there actually is?

If you can't figure that out? I... you know what, just stay right where you're at. I'm gonna let you experience this, I won't cheat you out of it.

Yes, protecting society from avoidable illnesses when citizens make poor health choices as a result of being fed false information is exactly what the Nazis were about.

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, protecting society from avoidable illnesses when citizens make poor health choices as a result of being fed false information is exactly what the Nazis were about.

Yeah, I think you're missing the point there, Comrade. Not the idea of dealing with a disease via medicine, but rather being authoritarian and the way you said it? Well, let's just say that kind of mindset sure loads up the trains.

What next for health choices? Wanna take away soda, alcohol? Hamburgers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll help you out a little bit.

I'm a vet. I've been around long enough to have experimental vaccines thrown at me. And long enough to see some of the guys that were around before me, and what some of those 'mandatory medicines' did to them.

Let's just say I'm a little apprehensive.

And I can hide stuff in this weird little pocket near my upper jaw.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, protecting society from avoidable illnesses when citizens make poor health choices as a result of being fed false information is exactly what the Nazis were about.

Yeah, I think you're missing the point there, Comrade. Not the idea of dealing with a disease via medicine, but rather being authoritarian and the way you said it? Well, let's just say that kind of mindset sure loads up the trains.

What next for health choices? Wanna take away soda, alcohol? Hamburgers?

Yeah, if we're jumping straight to the slippery slope argument - (remember when we gave the vote to women? And then we just couldn't help ourselves, and we gave the vote to dogs, and camels, and lawnmowers?) - then there's really nothing to be gained by continuing this line of discourse.


I also don't recall ever calling for compulsory administration of experimental vaccines.

 insaniak wrote:
I also don't recall ever calling for compulsory administration of experimental vaccines.

They didn't use the word 'experimental' in reference to those bitter yellow pills, either.

 The Regulator wrote:

Ins comes from a good place, but I don't think he understands how serious of a thing injections are. Safety wise it's not comparable to many other things. As somebody who has injected myself (steroids) I can tell you anything put directly into your blood stream without being processed through the liver is highly unnatural. That said, I would be dead if it wasn't for an adrenaline shot during anaphylaxis. Powerful powerful method of effecting ones nervous system,l and DNA alteration. Injections are absolutely no joke.

Indeed. If only there were some sort of professional individual, who could have the knowledge and training to safely administer injections, and perhaps some other professional individuals who could scrutinise medications in order to determine their efficacy and safety.

Alas, such things are the realm of science fiction.

 insaniak wrote:
Indeed. If only there were some sort of professional individual, who could have the knowledge and training to safely administer injections, and perhaps some other professional individuals who could scrutinise medications in order to determine their efficacy and safety.

Alas, such things are the realm of science fiction.

You know what's crazy? When you see quite a few of these mythical wizards not reaching a consensus.

Are there any examples of vaccines that people were force-administered and where there is documented research proving and outsized harmful effect? Otherwise all I'm seeing is ominously vague hints without anything anyone can actually reference or research themselves.

General vaccination programs have extremely proven safety track records, and I'm not seeing anyone providing evidence to the contrary.

Yeah medical experts are always to be trusted. Remember the safe birth control that deformed millions of babies in the 80s.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Are there any examples of vaccines that people were force-administered and where there is documented research proving and outsized harmful effect? Otherwise all I'm seeing is ominously vague hints without anything anyone can actually reference or research themselves.

General vaccination programs have extremely proven safety track records, and I'm not seeing anyone providing evidence to the contrary.

Swallow it.

https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/mefloquine-lariam.asp

https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2015/01/27/study-links-genetics-anti-nerve-agent-pills-to-gulf-war-illness/

I get it, it's not something you really see as the same and it's probably 'so much different' from your perspective. But I can tell you, it's very uncomfortable as a thought.

 The Regulator wrote:
Yeah medical experts are always to be trusted. Remember the safe birth control that deformed millions of babies in the 80s.

The point is more that the knowledge of medical experts is a better bet than that of some blogger on the internet.

Sure, they get it wrong sometimes. And when that happens, the appropriate people should absolutely be held to account. But when a treatment to a potentially deadly disease has been subjected to appropriate rigor, refusing to accept that it might be safe, unless you yourself have sufficient medical knowledge to actually make that call with some sort of authority is more than a little crazy.

 insaniak wrote:
Sure, they get it wrong sometimes. And when that happens, the appropriate people should absolutely be held to account. But when a treatment to a potentially deadly disease has been subjected to appropriate rigor, refusing to accept that it might be safe, unless you yourself have sufficient medical knowledge to actually make that call with some sort of authority is more than a little crazy.

Notice I've never said 'refuse to take it'. But I have a problem just accepting someone's word on it. "Sometimes they get it wrong" isn't very assuring.

"Sometimes" the chick you had unprotected sex with has HIV even though she claimed she was clean. Maybe should have been a bit more cautious is all.

I like to do a little research. And unlike some, I don't take the word of just any blog on the internet. I can assure you that when it comes to verifying sources, and scanning over an article or something of the like, I might be able to spot deceptive language that a shocking number of people just miss. So you can stow the condescending tone.

All I can say is that I've seen people forced to take medicine. It is an unpleasant experience. And the day someone tells me I'm required to for my own good, if I'm not getting a warm and fuzzy- they're welcome to come to my door and try to do the Wu Flu's dirty work if they feel froggy.

There was no condescending tone. Apologies if you read it that way.

My point right back at the start of this tangent was that most people are not equipped to actually perform that sort of research. If you are, then that's great for you. It doesn't change the fact that most aren't. They'll do a google search, and settle on the first article that confirms their worldview.

People with no medical training are, for the most part, simply not in a position to make meaningful decisions as to whether or not a vaccine is safe. That's precisely why other people do this for a living.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Are there any examples of vaccines that people were force-administered and where there is documented research proving and outsized harmful effect? Otherwise all I'm seeing is ominously vague hints without anything anyone can actually reference or research themselves.

General vaccination programs have extremely proven safety track records, and I'm not seeing anyone providing evidence to the contrary.

Swallow it.

https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/mefloquine-lariam.asp

https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2015/01/27/study-links-genetics-anti-nerve-agent-pills-to-gulf-war-illness/

I get it, it's not something you really see as the same and it's probably 'so much different' from your perspective. But I can tell you, it's very uncomfortable as a thought.

While I can understand the feeling, at the same time, neither of these items in question are vaccines, mefloquine is a medication (very different from a vaccine) with well known and documented side effects and warnings that certain people should not take it, while pyridostigmine bromide has been given to people in doses exceeding an order of magnitude more than US soldiers were given without seeing Gulf War Syndrome-esque side effects, and even the article you linked notes that there are likely other causes and the link was established only by a single preliminary study. I get the idea you're driving at regarding being forced to take stuff and how that can cause heebie-jeebies, but with regards to vaccines the track record appears to be rather solid and to do the job they need to do, part of that fundamentally involves researching those who do have legitimate medical reasons not to take the vaccine (such as being too young or having a severe allergic reaction or compromised immune system) and in order to provide herd immunity to protect such people there needs to be a near universal adoption among the rest of the population for such programs to be successful.

 insaniak wrote:
There was no condescending tone. Apologies if you read it that way.

Okay, I'm gonna call B.S. on you right here. You and I both know otherwise. Come on, now. I might say a few things you dislike but don't ever get the idea that I'm an idiot, because only an idiot would genuinely believe this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I can understand the feeling, at the same time, neither of these items in question are vaccines, mefloquine is a medication (very different from a vaccine) with well known and documented side effects and warnings that certain people should not take it, while pyridostigmine bromide has been given to people in doses exceeding an order of magnitude more than US soldiers were given without seeing Gulf War Syndrome-esque side effects, and even the article you linked notes that there are likely other causes and the link was established only by a single preliminary study. I get the idea you're driving at regarding being forced to take stuff and how that can cause heebie-jeebies, but with regards to vaccines the track record appears to be rather solid and to do the job they need to do, part of that fundamentally involves researching those who do have legitimate medical reasons not to take the vaccine (such as being too young or having a severe allergic reaction or compromised immune system) and in order to provide herd immunity to protect such people there needs to be a near universal adoption among the rest of the population for such programs to be successful.

It's medicine, one way or another, that I'm putting in my body that's supposed to do things to make me not get sick, that might make things worse.

Call it a vaccine, a medication, and immunization, my dude- I don't give a damn if you call it a Tootsie Pop. The idea is still the same.

 insaniak wrote:
There was no condescending tone. Apologies if you read it that way.

I forgive you for making me read dripping sarcasm and condescension in your posts.

If you would stop making me do things in the future that would be appreciated.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
There was no condescending tone. Apologies if you read it that way.

Okay, I'm gonna call B.S. on you right here. You and I both know otherwise. Come on, now. I might say a few things you dislike but don't ever get the idea that I'm an idiot, because only an idiot would genuinely believe this.

Nope, you're confusing sarcasm, and my continuing incredulity that so many people think they know better than doctors, for condescension. Chalk it up to the written word not adequately conveying tone.

Adeptus you're overreacting a tad he wasn't being condescending hes just putting his argument across.
Whether you believe the vaccine is safe or not, it should still be ones right to deny it.

Edit - removed. Bowing out of this one for the sake of my blood pressure...

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Wow. That's a dangerous route to go down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:


Probably because winter brings less sunlight and colder weather. In general it debilitates people a bit more than summer. So any infection has a higher chance of taking hold.

Plus it gets cold so people want to spend more time indoors, which means if you've relaxed lockdowns there's going to be a higher percentage of people wanting to be indoors with the option to be indoors. So the infection gets even more chance to spread around.

Is that not what seasonal is? If it isn't then what are the characteristics of a seasonal disease?

That is not what seasonal is. When referring to something like this, seasonal means a season will kill off or impede the the virus in some way. Turns out, Summer is going to be GREAT for the virus because people are going to be outside in close quarters.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Um, we have known for a while it is not seasonal. Also, Wuhan is in another outbreak of it right now in China. Are you ignoring that? Because that is literally evidence of a second wave.

>Implying that any official information out of China is reliable enough to be consider 'evidence'

Yeah, I am not listening to China on this one. This was information that came out very early from many different countries. US, Italy, Germany, and UK. Swing and a miss there.

 The Regulator wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Yes, protecting society from avoidable illnesses when citizens make poor health choices as a result of being fed false information is exactly what the Nazis were about.

Yeah, I think you're missing the point there, Comrade. Not the idea of dealing with a disease via medicine, but rather being authoritarian and the way you said it? Well, let's just say that kind of mindset sure loads up the trains.

What next for health choices? Wanna take away soda, alcohol? Hamburgers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll help you out a little bit.

I'm a vet. I've been around long enough to have experimental vaccines thrown at me. And long enough to see some of the guys that were around before me, and what some of those 'mandatory medicines' did to them.

Let's just say I'm a little apprehensive.

And I can hide stuff in this weird little pocket near my upper jaw.

Good man.

Ins comes from a good place, but I don't think he understands how serious of a thing injections are. Safety wise it's not comparable to many other things. As somebody who has injected myself (steroids) I can tell you anything put directly into your blood stream without being processed through the liver is highly unnatural. That said, I would be dead if it wasn't for an adrenaline shot during anaphylaxis. Powerful powerful method of effecting ones nervous system, and DNA alteration. Injections are absolutely no joke. Anyone with a relaxed attitude towards them need to think twice.

So, because you injected recreationaly steroids against all medical advice on the planet(Things that are not safe, you are told are not safe, and it is HIGHLY SUGGESTED that you do not take from almost every single medical expert on the planet), you are now an expert on all things injecting? This would be like a heroin addict telling me that vaccines are bad because look what the heroin did to their body. That is literally the same thing right now. The same level of intelligence. If I need to hit a vein, I'll hit you or the heroin addict up. When I need medical advice, I will go to people who know what they are talking about.

I dunno how strict the firebans are outside of Australia but I think the comparison is there. Yes to an extent the idea of your body, your choice can be upheld. But if you make a reckless choice and burn down half a state or infect a dozen people (who then infect a dozen people) shouldn't you be held accountable? And if it's damn near impossible to hold someone accountable (such as in infections or large reaching incidents) shouldn't restrictions be put in place to force people to act in ways that protect groups they could effect?

Yes an element of scepticism is healthy, and pretty much everything put forward should be peer reviewed and the results made available. But putting forward the idea that anything imposed upon you is purely for a groups direct benefit or another groups detriment is a little unhealthy.

The bitterly cynical anti-authoritarian in me believes people should be allowed to refuse vaccines if they want.

The practical side of me also believes anyone refusing a proven major illness/pandemic vaccine without a medically valid reason should assume full, unsubsidized cost of any medical care related to that refusal, as well as prima facie liability for transmission to others.

 insaniak wrote:
Edit - removed. Bowing out of this one for the sake of my blood pressure...

Too late buddy muahaha, you asked why its ones right to deny an injection deemed compulsory by an authority in whatever field, whether one believes it to be safe or not.

As QArevenge touched on, its very intrusive a method. It crosses a line for a lot of people. Matter if opinion. You might as well ban smoking and alcohol and junk food if you care about saving lives enough to force injections. You feel me? Some people don't want a nanny state, some do. It's not an argument either of us can win or lose, so I don't blame you for bowing out. In fact, I'll join you!

 The Regulator wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Edit - removed. Bowing out of this one for the sake of my blood pressure...

Too late buddy muahaha, you asked why its ones right to deny an injection deemed compulsory by an authority in whatever field, whether one believes it to be safe or not.

As QArevenge touched on, its very intrusive a method. It crosses a line for a lot of people. Matter if opinion. You might as well ban smoking and alcohol and junk food if you care about saving lives enough to force injections. You feel me? Some people don't want a nanny state, some do. It's not an argument either of us can win or lose, so I don't blame you for bowing out. In fact, I'll join you!

False Equivalency. Those things do not pose an immediate risk to the entire population, only the ones partaking in them. So no, I do not feel you. Your nanny state argument is absurd at best.

Bye.

 insaniak wrote:
Nope, you're confusing sarcasm, and my continuing incredulity that so many people think they know better than doctors, for condescension. Chalk it up to the written word not adequately conveying tone.

Then I'll chalk it up to "I had a few words to describe it but I'm pretty sure that they're not gonna make it through the filter and might get some interesting red text behind it."

And to say they think they know better than a doctor, in many cases, is being disingenuous. A lot of times, there's doctors with a different opinion on the matter- and yes, those doctors can be professionals and not some weird crystal-waving doctor.

People say 'listen to the professionals'- okay, when the professionals disagree- which ones do I listen to? The one that the television news man says? The one with the most Youtube videos? The one that looks more like Colonel Sanders (my bet's always on this guy)

 Dreadwinter wrote:
False Equivalency. Those things do not pose an immediate risk to the entire population, only the ones partaking in them. So no, I do not feel you. Your nanny state argument is absurd at best.

Bye.

Quite a few lawmakers have felt otherwise, and attempted to regulate them to a draconian level. Not sure if you've noticed.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Nope, you're confusing sarcasm, and my continuing incredulity that so many people think they know better than doctors, for condescension. Chalk it up to the written word not adequately conveying tone.

Then I'll chalk it up to "I had a few words to describe it but I'm pretty sure that they're not gonna make it through the filter and might get some interesting red text behind it."

And to say they think they know better than a doctor, in many cases, is being disingenuous. A lot of times, there's doctors with a different opinion on the matter- and yes, those doctors can be professionals and not some weird crystal-waving doctor.

People say 'listen to the professionals'- okay, when the professionals disagree- which ones do I listen to? The one that the television news man says? The one with the most Youtube videos? The one that looks more like Colonel Sanders (my bet's always on this guy)

Probably not the ones trying to make a quick buck like the two doctors in California who owned their clinic and had a vested interest in getting more patients or the disgraced epidemiologist whose research was disproven and then stole a bunch of government files and got sent to prison.

I would start by avoiding those two groups or anybody who is clearly getting paid by a third party agency to push an agenda of "REOPEN TO SAVE THE ECONOMY" because that whole line is pretty much crap.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I would start by avoiding those two groups or anybody who is clearly getting paid by a third party agency to push an agenda of "REOPEN TO SAVE THE ECONOMY" because that whole line is pretty much crap.

\

>Implying that people without jobs are full of crap

Okay, you've fully demonstrated that any discussion with you would be about as productive and thought-provoking as watching my neighbor's pug curl off a deuce.

 The Regulator wrote:

WHO have already suspended hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine trails for Covid-19 amid safety concerns as well. Not surprised people are anti-vax

To be fair, use of that drug appears to have been primarily politically driven and was never seriously proposed for widespread application, with extensive warnings about its use and likely ineffectiveness from the moment it was mentioned. Nobody should be linking Hydroxychloroquine use and vaccine efficacy.