Health & Fitness Corona is in full swing and its not Joke !

[blr_p]

Serum Institute did contract manufacturing for Covidshield. We did not develop this vaccine.

No argument there

And this is the problem where one feels he has won the war just because everything went fine with him and expects the others too to follow irrespective of the sufferings.
People like you clearly fail to understand that not all 5 fingers are similar and that different bodies react differently. It's like, if you are not having an allergy consuming a particular food item and if the other person suffers you will simply keep defending on your pov because you are not the sufferer here while claiming the others suffering sheer baseless.

I can sense a person with artificial limbs and shoes which never get hurt so no wonder he doesn't feel the pain.

2% are pretty low odds. While exceptions are always there, they don't make the rule

I hope you are right, but I feel that many are assuming that two shot vaccines can not have long term adverse effects, which is good if its just hope, but tricky if its a belief when it comes to objectively looking at the need for more transparency and data, and most importantly learning lessons for future pandemics/vaccine mandates (if necessary).

Let me rephrase.

Why is a booster shot required? Because efficacy of the first two reduces over time.

If you think there are long term adverse effects then hold off on booster shots.

Old vaccine platforms might hopefully have lower risks of long term adverse consequences than MRNA, but now there is emerging evidence that observed risks including in AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 are significantly higher than those estimated in stage 3 trials, so I would not be so sure, especially given the fact that trials were rushed which hurt the quality of the trials across vaccines, and possibly made the trials meaningless.

I'd wait for more research because these trials and papers tend to contradict each other. You want a series of tests conducted in different countries showing a trend. We're not there yet

I still think taking the two shots and then holding off is the sweet spot in terms of risk. Should you contract it after you have better chances of recovering than not.

If you then hold off on boosters you delay any long term effects. Thing is my niece said she wanted to get a booster because she did not like getting covid. So there is a psych element here too.

 

[TEUser2K1]

> 2% are pretty low odds. While exceptions are always there, they don't make the rule
Tyranny of majority. One odd day the same can backfire.

Rest of your comments are mostly ironic / funny / hypocrite considering you didn't take vaccine even till this day (considering by now all research by so called 'modern science' is proved true by now?) very easy to profess sitting comfortably on high horse when you didn't even consider risking any side effects. Oh, for each their, eh ? lol. Anyway, will try to refrain from further comments so as not to irk the majority.

 

[Neotheone]

> 2% are pretty low odds. While exceptions are always there, they don't make the rule
Tyranny of majority. One odd day the same can backfire.

Rest of your comments are mostly ironic / funny / hypocrite considering you didn't take vaccine even till this day(?), very easy to profess comfortably sitting on high horse when you didn't risk any side effects.

I see what makes you angry here but the moment any of us get angry/use labels (like hypocrite or anti-vax), it ceases to be a debate or an exchange of ideas. I guess we have to somehow find a way to stick to reason and hope to either convince or be convinced. Or leave it wherever it ends.

 

[TEUser2K1]

@Neotheone
That is because that mere 2% of vaccinated population is a huge number of human lives.

 

[Neotheone]

@Neotheone
That is because that mere 2% of vaccinated population is a huge number of human lives.

I am on your side here. Yet, there can be a case made, that it was at one point (when risks of covid were not known to be as low as they turned out to be) an imperfect choice between trying to save the majority at the cost of putting minority at risk. I feel that while it is a difficult, even cold argument, but not really cold if we think logically and value each life equally. In fact that's the only place where I'm sympathetic to politicians who jumped the gun but there's no excuse for scientists cutting corners in quality of data or misreporting or not recording adverse events and then deciding to vaccinate based on an unreliable set of statistics.

 

[TEUser2K1]

@Neotheone
> an imperfect choice between trying to save the majority at the cost of putting minority at risk. I feel that while it is a difficult, even cold argument

The reality is that those who didn't 'feel' the side effect may even not understand how they got effected. May be they didn't 'feel' it yet, but what about future possibilities.
That is why it needs a thorough transparent research as per standards of so called 'modern science' which shouldn't be 'cutting corners' as per conveniences of powers to be.

 

[blr_p]

Rest of your comments are mostly ironic / funny / hypocrite considering you didn't take vaccine even till this day (considering by now all research by so called 'modern science' is proved true by now?) very easy to profess sitting comfortably on high horse when you didn't even consider risking any side effects.

Heh, I did say avoiding it isn't a long term option. Did you miss that part

 

[TEUser2K1]

@blr_p
> Heh, I did say avoiding it isn't a long term option. Did you miss that part

I fully respect your choices and are happy for that.
Just remembered that variety of most trustworthy vaccines are here for years and 'modern science' is in 2024.

 

[rootyme]

talking to a stone wall

Tf is going on in this thread

TechEnclave contributing to OpenAI.

 

[blr_p]

In fact that's the only place where I'm sympathetic to politicians who jumped the gun

This is a very interesting aspect. Imagine what happens to the politicians if a rollout went badly and people got sick. Not talking about a few people here but most of your population. There is time pressure to show results because the economy is tanking due to lock down and at the same time having to take a decision that could lead to career suicide.

One thing about politicians is they are risk averse. No way would they go ahead if there was a hint of something bad happening.

How many bad rollouts have we had? None! So nobody had to resign anywhere in the world.

but there's no excuse for scientists cutting corners in quality of data or misreporting or not recording adverse events and then deciding to vaccinate based on an unreliable set of statistics.

In an ideal world but many times there are no good options and not acting in a timely manner is worse

You think the scientists liked acting in this manner. I doubt it.

 

[Neotheone]

You think the scientists liked acting in this manner. I doubt it.

Over the last decade or so (and its a sort of work in progress, so please be kind and feel free to propose alternatives), I've started to form a view that that all hierarchical institutions tend to start making key decisions, driven largely by their leaders. And leaders even at scientific institutions tend to get picked based on their closeness to power over time. This is because politicians ultimately get to decide who to pick to head CDC/FDA etc. Further, Industry has figured out ways to set up revolving doors at decision making bodies of regulatory institutions and there are entrenched conflicts of interests. This results in amoral individuals being in these bodies. These people are also often focused on short term decision making at the top of most institutions.

These institutions get tested only during times of crisis such as COVID, which allows them to look good for decades at times. And the testing times, like the COVID mess, to my thinking, are better explained by influence of political and economic powers , and conflicts of interest than assuming that these scientists had to make tough decisions and there was no other way except compromising on transparency / quality of data / using shady assumptions and in some cases , half truths - and still effectively mandating these shots. I find it difficult to reasonably support the hypothesis that these elite scientists suddenly forgot basics of ensuring high quality data, study design requirement to include long term effects, use of high quality statistics instead of marketing through relative risk reduction, and transparency in general.

 

[blr_p]

Over the last decade or so (and its a sort of work in progress, so please be kind and feel free to propose alternatives), I've started to form a view that that all hierarchical institutions tend to start making key decisions, driven largely by their leaders. And leaders even at scientific institutions tend to get picked based on their closeness to power over time. This is because politicians ultimately get to decide who to pick to head CDC/FDA etc. Further, Industry has figured out ways to set up revolving doors at decision making bodies of regulatory institutions and there are entrenched conflicts of interests. This results in amoral individuals being in these bodies. These people are also often focused on short term decision making at the top of most institutions.

Agreed. Fauci was a big pharma plant. Not even Trump could get rid of him.

They want 'team players' for the top post. Not mavericks.

These institutions get tested only during times of crisis such as COVID, which allows them to look good for decades at times. And the testing times, like the COVID mess, to my thinking, are better explained by influence of political and economic powers , and conflicts of interest than assuming that these scientists had to make tough decisions and there was no other way except compromising on transparency / quality of data / using shady assumptions and in some cases , half truths - and still effectively mandating these shots. I find it difficult to reasonably support the hypothesis that these elite scientists suddenly forgot basics of ensuring high quality data, study design requirement to include long term effects, use of high quality statistics instead of marketing through relative risk reduction, and transparency in general.

Can you expand on the bolded bit?

There was pressure to find a fix. They threw a lot of money at it. Operation warp speed had billions in its budget managed by Pence.

So you have an incentive to get products out the door at no risk or even cost because govt would underwrite it.

At worst the vaccines aren't as effective as touted. I seem to remember Sinovac and it's ilk getting a lot of negative coverage. Not so with Pfizer, Moderna or Astra zeneca etc which took longer to get out the door.

 

[ibose]

TechEnclave contributing to OpenAI.

Mods, please ban this troll bot

 

[Mr.J]

TechEnclave contributing to OpenAI.

Or OpenAI chatbots posting in TE?

(when risks of covid were not known to be as low as they turned out to be)

Like what the actual f?

More than 7 million (ie 70 lakh) recorded deaths, plus who knows how many people with lifelong disabilities, and this guy is saying risks turned out to be low.

Which bizzaroland these people are from where vaccine is more dangerous than the disease it is preventing?

 

[kiran6680]

Because we did not have eight years luxury to wait. In fact this was the dominant narrative soon after lock down began. A vaccine would takes years and years they said. One woman called Gagandeep gave me hope. She's knows a thing or two and she was right. The vaccines came out sooner than expected.

Yes, absolutely. People don't understand the concept of vaccines : it is pretty much a herd immunity philosophy. That the vaccines got developed so quickly, and yet contained the pandemic so effectively, is nothing short of a miracle of science.

If we had 8 years, we would have developed a safer, cheaper, more effective vaccine. But a billion would be dead by then.

In India fortunately there was very little confusion on this topic. The govt let the pros run the show and the result is instead of over 20 million dead as models were predicting we ended up with a small fraction of that.

This is absolutely false. No "pros" supported insanities like the "kumbh mela". And the pro Punawalla asked for manufacturing funds in October which were rejected/forgotten, so Indian vaccine production ramped up way too late. No "pros" supported the "gomutra parties" that were happening by elected legislators until 3 days before lockdown.

The lower numbers in India need to be seen in the context of :

1. Indian people being closely genetically related to Pakistan, Bangladesh and somewhat closely to those of Nepal and Sri Lanka.

2. In 2020, covid case rates and death rates in India was 3-4 times that of all those countries.

3. In 2021, after kumbh mela, covid case rates and death rates in India and Nepal were 50 times the other 2 countries mentioned. Nepal's "King", and many others, came to India for bath and carrying covid home.

4. The effect is reflected in GDP growth as well. India -7% , Bangladesh 0%, Pakistan -0.7%. So these are not simply badly recorded covid cases. All GDP numbers were later adjusted slightly to the higher side of course, but these were initial estimates.

4. People of recent Indian origin in western countries were far far less affected by covid than the natives. This is the only "fact" I am giving that is not available as data, because it is "racist" to conduct such research

 

[Neotheone]

Or OpenAI chatbots posting in TE?



Like what the actual f?

More than 7 million (ie 70 lakh) recorded deaths, plus who knows how many people with lifelong disabilities, and this guy is saying risks turned out to be low.

Which bizzaroland these people are from where vaccine is more dangerous than the disease it is preventing?

Leaving space for nuanced statements is usually helpful and such knee jerk use of expletives does not help. I get it that is easy to do, yet seems a bit over the top.

It should be easy for you to think and understand the context and what I meant to say before concluding.

My point is that looking at an absolute deaths number is hardly rational. If you reflect and think, the overall mortality and long term disability is not as bad as was feared at the beginning of the pandemic. I am off course not blind to the fact that the pandemic had a vast human toll.

Do note that the real risk of pandemics is the tail risk that it disrupts social order and civilization itself through mass deaths and disability. And the mortality at this point is not anything close to that level. It is also possible to scientifically test whether it is all due to vaccine but retrospective studies to support that are scarce at this point. Albeit, there is also some data to suggest that unvaccinated cohorts aren't necessarily doing much worse.

 

[kiran6680]

Albeit, there is also some data to suggest that unvaccinated cohorts aren't necessarily doing much worse.

This shows extraordinarily poor understanding of vaccines. If a huge majority is vaccinated, it indeed helps the unvaccinated minority.

The Relationship Between Vaccines and Herd Immunity

Discover the definition of herd immunity and how it works hand-in-hand with vaccines to ensure public protection from infectious diseases.

www.publichealth.columbia.edu

 

[Neotheone]

This shows extraordinarily poor understanding of vaccines. If a huge majority is vaccinated, it indeed helps the unvaccinated minority.

The Relationship Between Vaccines and Herd Immunity

Discover the definition of herd immunity and how it works hand-in-hand with vaccines to ensure public protection from infectious diseases.

www.publichealth.columbia.edu

Why do I see everyone assuming that anyone with a view different from the majority opinion, is necessarily driven by poor understanding?

You continue to presume that I dont know that "herd immunity" is a thing and can explain lower unvaccinated mortality. Yet my point is that studies can adjust for it and assess efficacy of a vaccine intervention. Also, all vaccines are not certain to be effective, so it is important to do rigorous assessment, especially given the gaps during the trial stage of COVID vaccines and in the context that it has been known prior to the pandemic that vaccines have been less effective on MRNA viruses due to high rates of mutations in such viruses.

The fact that there is some data to suggest that unvaccinated cohorts aren't necessarily doing much worse only makes such studies important. And I will form my final opinion based on the data as it presents itself, not based on faith that anything with the label of vaccine is necessarily effective.

This shows extraordinarily poor understanding of vaccines

BTW this seems to suggest unwillingness to reflect over what exactly was said. Maybe you were in a hurry - but I meant exactly what I said. There is some data to suggest that unvaccinated folks aren't doing much worse - which does not necessarily talk about causality. And to go into assessment of causality is a difficult task, and often debatable even with good quality studies. Unfortunately you concluded for some reason that I could not think of the simple possibility that herd immunity helped. That despite the term being known to almost everyone now. This is similar to another gentleman/woman presuming that I have no sensitivity to the suffering of millions due to the pandemic.

Makes me wonder if there's much room to explore or debate ideas or opinions different from the conventional view - because any nuanced arguments get dismissed under the presumption is that it is based in ignorance or insensitivity.

I am unfollowing this thread because I suppose everyone has their opinions and are entitled to them and this debate is too heated for no reason, and it isn't going to change the policy direction anyway. As a parting statement, I just want to say that I hope that everyone's trust in vaccines is never broken for good reasons, although I hope that that trust is increasingly based on quality data from reliable trials instead of statements from authorities and media PR initiatives by big pharma. Cheers.

 

[kiran6680]

Why do I see everyone assuming that anyone with a view different from the majority opinion, is necessarily driven by poor understanding?

Why do I see someone assuming that their wrong opinion should be given a wide berth just because it is in minority?

Yet my point is that studies can adjust for it and assess efficacy of a vaccine intervention

Easy to say now, that I have pointed out your mistake. People who already know would be extremely likely to cover this disclaimer in their original statement.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. Anyone claiming the biggest disaster in living memory turned out to be "low risk" needs to justify themselves up the wazoo to stop people from laughing. Instead, I see such lazy thinking and writing, in not only the sentence I quoted but many others.

Also, leaving out clause for the adjustment for herd immunity effects makes your claim much less Google-able.

 

[Kilroyquasar]

I still think taking the two shots and then holding off is the sweet spot in terms of risk. Should you contract it after you have better chances of recovering than not.

that's the approach i also took. wasn't too keen to get vaccinated in the first place [even though i had fallen to a rather bad & longish bout of covid-sickness back during the onset of the 2nd wave when i let my guard (though not my mask) down during a travel], but had to because i travel frequently out-and-in so it was required to get it done. however i was/am not at all inclined to get any booster shots, nor is there much talk now about them as it was earlier (thankfully).