U.S. to close..

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Since the vaccines are looking like about 95% effective, society can afford a fairly large number of anti-vaxxers and still eradicate the virus, so it's best to just leave them alone. In the U.S., the law allows states to force people to get vaccinated (Jacobson v Massachussets), but I doubt we will resort to that.



I'll be first in line, personally, although I'm apparently immune at the moment. I travel a lot and have a great deal of social contact, so wouldn't want to take a chance on spreading the virus around.

So you are happy to be a Guinea Pig then? They have not even studied the long term effects of normal vaccines and this is basically an experimental vaccine with minimal testing - You are obviously happy to take that chance, but if I was you I'd at least get another anti-body test before taking it, as you may be able to avoid it a while longer.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UFO

So you are happy to be a Guinea Pig then? They have not even studied the long term effects of normal vaccines and this is basically an experimental vaccine with minimal testing - You are obviously happy to take that chance, but if I was you I'd at least get another anti-body test before taking it, as you may be able to avoid it a while longer.

I don't mind. I take risks every day. This is a very small risk for a very good cause -- protecting the large number of people I interact with, and doing my part to break the back of this awful pandemic.


The testing of these vaccines is not "minimal". The full battery of tests has been gone through. Corners have not actually been cut. This testing is not a 100% guarantee against problems but I'm fine with 99.999% or whatever it is.


We have been vaccinating people for 100 years by now. There have been some problems and some side effects but the magnitude of these problems is miniscule compared to the benefit to mankind in eradicating a whole host of diseases.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by UFO

so why would anyone who is not at risk form the Virus want to take the vaccine? It should be a tool for those at risk and not a blanket for the whole planet, for if the proverbial hits the fan, then it will take everyone down.

I'm with you on that one.
Happy enough to spend a year or more out here cruising my several thousand miles of coastline waiting to see how it all pans out.
Annoyed that I can't realistically, safely, comfortably check out and go overseas but sure as $hite ain't going to cry about it.

We go ashore for a quick vege shop as shops open in quiet coastal areas once every 4 weeks
Major grocery shop bought online and delivery once every 3 months
Fuel and water once every 8 mths or longer.
Pretty much zero contact

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by UFO

I think a Million years of evolution and building up a genetic tolerance to the bacteria and viruses of this planet goes a long way and should not be brushed off so lightly - Past civilisations that did not fare so well, still passed down their genetic code - Survival of the strongest weeding out the weak ...

The following article, from ‘The Conversation’*, April 29, 2020, provides an excellent (understandable) overview of how our immune systems, and vaccines work. It's an easy read.

“What does ‘survival of the fittest’ mean in the coronavirus pandemic? Look to the immune system” ~ by Prakash Nagarkatti & Mitzi Nagarkatti

“... An effective immune response against an infectious agent rests in the delicate balance of two phases of action. When an infectious agent attacks, the body begins phase 1, which promotes inflammation – a state in which a variety of immune cells gather at the site of infection to destroy the pathogen.

This is followed by phase 2, during which immune cells called regulatory T cells suppress inflammation so that the infected tissues can completely heal. A deficiency in the first phase can allow uncontrolled growth of the infectious agent, such as a virus or bacteria. A defect in the second phase can trigger massive inflammation, tissue damage and death.

The coronavirus infects cells by attaching to a receptor called the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is present in many tissues throughout the body, including the respiratory tract and cardiovascular system. This infection triggers a phase 1 immune response, in which the antibody-producing B-cells pump out neutralizing antibodies that can bind to the virus and prevent it from attaching to ACE2. This inhibits the virus from infecting more cells.

During phase 1, the immune cells also produce cytokines, a group of proteins that recruit other immune cells as well as fight infection. Also joining the fight are killer T cells that destroy the virus-infected cells, preventing the virus from replicating.

If the immune system is compromised and works poorly during phase 1, the virus can replicate rapidly. People with compromised immune systems include the elderly, organ transplant recipients, patients with autoimmune diseases, cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and individuals who are born with immunodeficiency diseases. Many of these individuals may not produce enough antibodies or killer T cells to counter the virus, which allows the virus to multiply unchecked and cause a severe infection ...”

Article ➥ https://theconversation.com/what-doe...-system-137355


* About ‘The Conversation’ ➥ https://theconversation.com/us/who-we-are


FWIW: The phrase is “survival of the fittest“ (describing 'natural selection'), not 'strongest'. Anyone, who equates (Darwin/Spencer) 'fittest', with 'best or strongest', doesn't have a very strong grasp of biological evolution.
The phrase was coined, not by Charles Darwin, but by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, is widely misunderstood for inspiring the ideology known as “social Darwinism”: roughly, the idea that the successful deserve their success while those who fail deserve their failure.
Natural selection is the process by which some members of a population reproduce more than others in a given environment.
In the first edition of "The Origin of Species", Darwin left it undecided, as to whether those individuals that reproduced more, could be viewed as winners, as being ‘fitter’. However, in later editions, Darwin’s associates, Herbert Spencer and Alfred Russel Wallace, persuaded him to substitute the term ‘natural selection’ with the term ‘survival of the fittest’.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UFO

. . . why would anyone who is not at risk form the Virus want to take the vaccine? It should be a tool for those at risk and not a blanket for the whole planet, for if the proverbial hits the fan, then it will take everyone down.

The main purpose of vaccination is to stop the pandemic. For that to happen, a certain percentage of the population needs to be immune, either from vaccine or previous infection. Have you never heard of herd immunity?

That is why in the U.S. it is legal for the states to actually force people to get vaccinated.

[Lake-Effect]

I personally would have no problem getting the vaccine. If there was a late-stage trial in my area, I would have tried to get on it. From our extensive knowledge about vaccination, my own trouble-free experience with them, and from what I understand about the current COVID vaccine candidates, I have little fear that they'll harm me.

And when they become widely available and proof of vaccination is required for most travel or similar activities, for at least the next couple of years... all our CF vaccine fearmongers will quickly get into line for vaccination too.

[Chotu]

A VERY smart idea:

Paying people to take the vaccine.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/03/...ould-work.html

Ends the pandemic, gives a stimulus boost and returns everything to where it was pre Covid.

Costs less than all the other stimulus stuff too since no pandemic means no more stimulus needed.

[TeddyDiver]

The real problem with Covid vaccines is the coverage of vaccinations world wide. If let the virus to survive in some parts of the world it will mutate eventually to a new form unaffected by these new vaccines. Of course there's a big chance the disease becoming less leathal doing so but that's not sure.

The better part of this whole thing is the development of new techniques in vaccine development and manufacturing which can give the edge considering future threads.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

Obama, Bush and Clinton will take the Covid vaccine publicly.

42% of Americans don’t trust the vaccine.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ine/index.html

The problem with the 42% is what is the definition of "trust".

While I'm hopeful, I also have some reservations about a vaccine developed in less than 1/10th the typical time. Is that considered not "trusting" the vaccine?

Now if we get 2-3 months in and no major issues are cropping up, I expect that percentage to drop drastically.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

So we come back to the question of why so many perfectly well meaning but ignorant men rise to "positions of power". What aspects of our society is it that militates against the attainment of what — since we were slipping into German courtesy of Arent — the Germans so aptly call Allgemeinbildung?

While there are studies, it's really hard to look into someone's heart and know what their intent was. So, the theory of banality, is just that an unproven theory.

I think the truth lies in the middle (as usual).

There probably isn't some overarching secret cabal running the world.

But to think everyone is out to do good but just sometimes become misguided is equally false.

When you look at individuals, there are people who will do good for the sake of good no matter how it hurts them and there are people who will do evil if it gains them the slightest advantage. Most are a mixture and most know when they are trying to do good and when they are trying to do bad.

Example: Stories are rife with princes killing fathers and brothers to gain the throne...In most cases it's really hard to show they were doing it for some altruistic purpose.

And then you can have people change when their position changes (getting old and worried about their position in the next life is a common theme). Look at Carnegie, Rockefeller....As younger men, they would do near anything to get an edge. They would happily drive a competitor into bankruptcy in order to buy them out on the cheap. In several cases, they sanctioned beatings and killings. These were not stupid men who didn't realize what they were doing but they were willing to do anything to get ahead. Yet, later in life when they were rich beyond any reasonable need, they tried to make amends by doing good. This hasn't changed. Gates used microsofts power to drive out competition but now is lauded as a great philanthropist when he no long has any concerns about wealth and is essentially trying to buy good will.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Gates used microsofts power to drive out competition but now is lauded as a great philanthropist when he no long has any concerns about wealth and is essentially trying to buy good will.

I don't know that Bill Gates has any concerns about his mortal soul. He's a retired guy with billions at his disposal, time on his hands, and he likes solving problems. So, geez - let the guy do his thing. He and his wife are doing intelligent philanthropy - trying to solve some pretty serious problems, not just building stuff he can stick his name onto.

If that bugs you, pay more tax, so that private philanthropy is less needed.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

The real problem with Covid vaccines is the coverage of vaccinations world wide. If let the virus to survive in some parts of the world it will mutate eventually to a new form unaffected by these new vaccines. Of course there's a big chance the disease becoming less leathal doing so but that's not sure.

Yes, the wealthy countries will get it first but there's no pretense that the vaccines wouldn't be distributed worldwide and no country is going to turn them down.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Chotu

A VERY smart idea:

Paying people to take the vaccine.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/03/...ould-work.html

Ends the pandemic, gives a stimulus boost and returns everything to where it was pre Covid.

Costs less than all the other stimulus stuff too since no pandemic means no more stimulus needed.

I like it.

I don't "trust" the vaccine implicitly but that lack of trust is relatively small.

If I walk out with 15 Mr. Franklins in my pocket, I would get over it real quick.

And as a bonus, the stimulus money isn't just being thrown around randomly. It's being used to accomplish a goal.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't know that Bill Gates has any concerns about his mortal soul. He's a retired guy with billions at his disposal, time on his hands, and he likes solving problems. So, geez - let the guy do his thing. He and his wife are doing pretty intelligent philanthropy - trying to solve some pretty serious problems, not just building stuff he can stick his name onto.

If that bugs you, pay more tax, so that private philanthropy is less needed.

I have no idea what his motivation is...as I said, it's really hard to look into someone's heart and see what's in there.

Of course, you missed the point. As with Carnegie and Rockefeller, they both did a lot of good towards the end of their lives but that was built on a foundation of anything it took to get to the top. Or are you trying to claim, purposely running a competitor into bankruptcy so you could buy cheap had a "good" intention behind it?

PS: Why would I dump money into an inefficient govt system that more often than not does the opposite of philanthropy? It's funny how a lot of these older philanthropists suggest taxes should be higher, yet, they still maintain a bevy of accountants to minimize their tax bill.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't know that Bill Gates has any concerns about his mortal soul. He's a retired guy with billions at his disposal, time on his hands, and he likes solving problems. So, geez - let the guy do his thing. He and his wife are doing intelligent philanthropy - trying to solve some pretty serious problems, not just building stuff he can stick his name onto.

If that bugs you, pay more tax, so that private philanthropy is less needed.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...es-it-targets/