There are so many rules and restrictions that do not make much sense.
The examples you gave do not make sense to me either but I'd say they're not very universal. In some places the restrictions are a little saner.
Yet there's this common trend of "you can do it if it's something you pay for doing, because... the economy".I do also have the impression
that incoherencies tend to be solved with time. Authorities correct themselves partially...
All I do is to bring up some arguments for what I think is right.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but it's no problem at all that you express it, of course.
What I see is a lot of people being fundamentally supporters of anti Corona rules and suppressing opposite opinions.
DIsagreeing is not suppression. Governments routinely don't heed my opinion either.
Like most of the time my opinion is: Protect those that want to be protected, do not force everyone to be protected.
But how do you achieve that in this situation ? Those that don't want protection will eventually interact with those that want protection.
There's nothing sure enough that you can do to stop people being in contagious situations with others, they'll meet in supermarkets,
in healthcare centers, in workplaces, in polling stations, in the pharmacy, etc.
Just like you don't want restrictions forced on you because you have your own risk assesment, we don't want virus forced on us because we have our own risk assesment.
In situations like these it's when government mandates are useful. It'd be great if we had independent democratic governments (I mean answerable to all people equally, not just the rich and so on)
because then their mandates would have more legitimation, but we haven't achieved that (yet?) so we just make do with the government we have.
I often want more restrictions that my government imposes. But I'm forced to accept more risk of virus because my government tries to strike a balance with those that don't want restrictions.
I can live with that so you maybe can also live with that, I don't know.
It's pretty cold outside...
The family does not need to wait outside the supermarket, they should stay at home if it's so cold outside.
Going for a walk is OK, but a supermarket is a closed place where everybody should have the necessary access to get the things they need to survive,
so you can't close them, but you should treat them as a place where people go by necessity, not leisure, and therefore make everything to try to
keep those people that had to go there safe. That includes not entering it more often than needed, not for a longer time than needed and no more people than needed entering it.
That isn't law, it's just common sense.
If cafes are open and the family wants to go into one that's maybe not ideal, but it is a little more their option, normally nobody else needs to go to a cafe.
If the situation is bad one would expect cafes to be closed. But supermarkets will stay open whatever the situation, so we should use prudence there.
If I understand the presentation in that link, and assuming that's something approved, not a proposal (I didn't check context), I interpret this as a watch out list for anything serious that could happen,
not any list of problems that someone has seen or someone suspects that will occur after taking some of the vaccines (it also [EDIT: sorry] doesn't [ / EDIT] specify which of the COVID-10 vaccines). It's a new vaccine, so
they don't want it to cause any of these things. It doesn't[EDIT: sorry] mean that one of the vaccines causes all that, or some of that. The page before reads:
15“Near real-time surveillance” or rapid-cycle analyses (RCA)
FDA plans on monitoring 10 -20 safety outcomes of interest to be determined based on:
–Pre-market review of sponsor safety data submitted to FDA
–In coordination with federal partners, international regulatory partners and organizations, academic experts, others
–Literature and regulatory experience with similar vaccines, novel vaccine platforms, and using other relevant data
–FDA plans on using CMS datafor COVID-19 vaccine RCA – near real time with efforts
So only the first reason to put items on the list would be that they know, suspect or have any hint of evidence that a vaccine could cause that.
There're also items there based on expert concerns, experience with other vaccines etc.
It kind of confirms we're having a weird phase 4 (watching what it does to the population) that is somehow adapted to a too limited phase 3 (watching what it does to many volunteers),
so they rush it onto the population and have to keep watching for what it does.
They do something like this with all new vaccines, but usually they have more data on the phase 3, so they're not so uncertain in phase 4. I'm not sure how responsible it is to rush phase 3,
but assuming that, then it is somewhat encouraging that they try to reinforce phase 4.
It does not change my impression that we have too little data, but also that we don't seem to have data indicating that the vaccines are unsafe. We just don't know. They
seem to be safe.
Two nurses that took one of the drugs as part of testing immediately suffered that thing where all of the airways swell up like in an allergic reaction to shellfish or peanuts and nearly died.
They were lucky because they were in the hospital when they took the shots and were able to get epipens (epinephrine?) administered to treat the adverse reaction, so they were saved. They would have been dead within minutes if they weren't in the hospital.
What I read is that those two nurses had had anaphylaptic shocks before, and that's why they carried their epipens with them. [sorry if I'm not getting my lexicon right]
So it just shows it can cause anaphilaptyc shocks to people who have anaphilaptyc shocks. That might happen with other vaccines too.
And 2 cases is just too few (yet). But you will believe what you want to, Robert. Sometimes you look like a selective exceptic, more than a genuine exceptic that would also doubt of his own sources.
I swear to god, you don't even have to look for this stuff. Just browser normally and the links just pop up:
The University of Queensland-CSL coronavirus vaccine will be abandoned after participants returned false positive HIV tests.
www.smh.com.au
Unbelievable.
Well, they at least tested the vaccine well enough to discover this and won't use that vaccine. It looks like it wouldn't have caused AIDS to anyone,
but if you vaccinate for COVID-19 everybody and then you find out you can no longer test people for AIDS, you have a big problem.
From the article it doesn't seem this is something that should happen to the other vaccines. The Queensland one used a part of HIV to carry the COVID spike protein[EDIT[,
so it could generate HIV antibodies. It'd be great if that would immunize you to both COVID-19 and AIDS, but I don't think it's that easier.
Just looked up 'myocardial infarction'. That's a heart attack. 'Acute' means just a little one though, right? Nothing to be scared of.
I'm no authority, but I've always thought "acute" means something that happens once, as opposed to "chronical", something that keeps repeating or never goes away.
I don't think "acute" means "light", to me it sounds like "sharp", "strong", "serious", but not long lasting.
But use a medical dictionary, ask a doctor, or listen to someone more knowledgeable than me.
I will take the vaccine, but man, does the marketing suck.
I'd also like to have more clear data in the open. I don't know. Do what your doctors tell you, I guess.
I know Twitter isn't representative of the whole population, but I would put vaccine support on Twitter at maybe 10%. Like, really, seriously low.
Twitter is just marketing, and bots, and some proportion of people with too much time, too little inclination for reading texts long enough to say something, and too little attention span who are the fuel the marketers and bots use.
It has the cunning, balance and sophistication of a mob with forks and torches.
Still, little support now is understandable given the little data and the opacity. We'll see how it goes when there's more data. Most people I know and the surveys I read say people aren't completely against the vaccines,
but many don't want to be the first ones, just because they're not conviced there's enough data yet. No problem, they can't all be the first ones. Eventually they may accept it. There's also not much need to convince everyone at once.
I find it reasonable and heathwarming that people doubt about it now.
