"For the greater good."+ 5 more quotes (click to expand)amercer said:
It's astounding and sad. A panel of experts said that the vaccines work so well that people don't need boosters, and some people manage to read that as "the vaccines don't work well"94chem said:
I've read several books on N Korea, several on Rwanda. I'm not a historian, but I never can quite put my finger on the tipping point for these vast episodes of tragic human psychology. These disasters don't happen without compliance from otherwise bright, thinking people. Just...so...bizarre.
FDA Votes Against COVID Booster
5,828 Views |
48 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by traxter
+ 5 more quotes (click to expand)amercer said:
It's astounding and sad. A panel of experts said that the vaccines work so well that people don't need boosters, and some people manage to read that as "the vaccines don't work well"Gordo14 said:
When your FDA is propping up big pharma conspiracy theories fail - ignore all evidence and make up your own bull**** conclusions. Pretty much par for the course for F16 posters.
Just ignore the conspiracy stuff. That's easy to do.
The bigger issue is when people have legitimate dissent, are called (implied to be) unintelligent because they "don't trust the experts", and then their dissent turns out to be validated and actually the recommendation, but then those who were calling them crazy continue to call them crazy or lump them with the conspiracy nuts for pointing out their dissent was founded…well, it makes it very hard to get to the truth.
I said it in another post, how about we focus on questioning things in a healthy way for the purpose of truth seeking, which ultimately benefits the entire community.
Never mind. Not worth it.
Lol. I've had the shot. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and my viewpoint on this has been reasonable the entirety of this event.+ 5 more quotes (click to expand)amercer said:
It's astounding and sad. A panel of experts said that the vaccines work so well that people don't need boosters, and some people manage to read that as "the vaccines don't work well"94chem said:
I've read several books on N Korea, several on Rwanda. I'm not a historian, but I never can quite put my finger on the tipping point for these vast episodes of tragic human psychology. These disasters don't happen without compliance from otherwise bright, thinking people. Just...so...bizarre.
But if you guys can't see how some could look at this as a point against the vaccines then you are blind to your own hubris and flat out ignoring all of the lying and political manipulation by the government on this issue.
The Covid vaccine and boosters are the only product in the world whose failure is blamed on those who haven't taken it.
Theyve asked for more data from Pfizer. My guess is they'll eventually approve and it will be soon.
Theyve asked for more data from Pfizer. My guess is they'll eventually approve and it will be soon.
I agree. But along that same vein, individuals who went along with recommendations were automatically labelled as sheep and it was implied that they have no critical thinking capacity.+ 6 more quotes (click to expand)Gordo14 said:
When your FDA is propping up big pharma conspiracy theories fail - ignore all evidence and make up your own bull**** conclusions. Pretty much par for the course for F16 posters.Beat40 said:
Just ignore the conspiracy stuff. That's easy to do.
The bigger issue is when people have legitimate dissent, are called (implied to be) unintelligent because they "don't trust the experts", and then their dissent turns out to be validated and actually the recommendation, but then those who were calling them crazy continue to call them crazy or lump them with the conspiracy nuts for pointing out their dissent was founded…well, it makes it very hard to get to the truth.
I said it in another post, how about we focus on questioning things in a healthy way for the purpose of truth seeking, which ultimately benefits the entire community.
The problem with the legitimate dissent is that some of it is just by random people throwing out random completely unfounded dissent. If I were to say the COVID vaccine caused people to grow a tail, I'd be called a whack job by most because it has no basis and I have no proof. If by some strange coincidence some kid develops a tail after taking the vaccine, some people would hail me as a genius, when in reality I was just lucky.
Likewise with many out there, you throw out enough baseless claims, and eventually one is correct, then everyone forgets the wrong ones and you're suddenly a genius. In the scientific world you need to come up with a hypothesis and then prove that hypothesis. If you try to prove it, and you're wrong, then that's totally fine and it still advances science because we know now that's not a possibility. If you're right, then now you have to go under peer review and it has to be reproduced.
When data exists, we should make decisions based on best available data. When data doesn't exist, we need to make decisions based on foundational principles from what we know before. Another problem is that from the very beginning there were antiestabllishment groups that have essentially vowed to be obstructionist and go against everything Fauci or others said. Time and time again they continually downplayed the evolution of this pandemic and its severity. If they somehow got lucky, and this proved to be a nothingburger, they would have been lauded for their foresight. Yet few people are being called out for the damage they likely did in leading anti-vaccine, or conspiracy theory movements, that have hindered our ability to fight this.
Is there ongoing development to produce a vaccine booster that specifically targets the Delta variant, or are they just hoping that a re-up of the original vaccine is effective at knocking down breakthrough cases and transmission?
It's dumb, but I feel like I have to add that I got the vaccine when it was available to me. I'm just really curious how this is developing.
It's dumb, but I feel like I have to add that I got the vaccine when it was available to me. I'm just really curious how this is developing.
I think I remember Moderna saying they were going to start testing a newer version of the vaccine. But I'm not sure what the status is. I'm not sure how effective it would be, but I think a combo vaccine of 2-3 variants would be idea. Kinda like what they do with the flu shot.
The biggest problem is Fauci and others (usually academics) are completely insulated by their own decisions. They are only looking at COVID-19 through a singular lens and will be paid by taxpayers regardless.+ 7 more quotes (click to expand)Beat40 said:
Just ignore the conspiracy stuff. That's easy to do.
The bigger issue is when people have legitimate dissent, are called (implied to be) unintelligent because they "don't trust the experts", and then their dissent turns out to be validated and actually the recommendation, but then those who were calling them crazy continue to call them crazy or lump them with the conspiracy nuts for pointing out their dissent was founded…well, it makes it very hard to get to the truth.
I said it in another post, how about we focus on questioning things in a healthy way for the purpose of truth seeking, which ultimately benefits the entire community.traxter said:I agree. But along that same vein, individuals who went along with recommendations were automatically labelled as sheep and it was implied that they have no critical thinking capacity.
The problem with the legitimate dissent is that some of it is just by random people throwing out random completely unfounded dissent. If I were to say the COVID vaccine caused people to grow a tail, I'd be called a whack job by most because it has no basis and I have no proof. If by some strange coincidence some kid develops a tail after taking the vaccine, some people would hail me as a genius, when in reality I was just lucky.
Likewise with many out there, you throw out enough baseless claims, and eventually one is correct, then everyone forgets the wrong ones and you're suddenly a genius. In the scientific world you need to come up with a hypothesis and then prove that hypothesis. If you try to prove it, and you're wrong, then that's totally fine and it still advances science because we know now that's not a possibility. If you're right, then now you have to go under peer review and it has to be reproduced.
When data exists, we should make decisions based on best available data. When data doesn't exist, we need to make decisions based on foundational principles from what we know before. Another problem is that from the very beginning there were antiestabllishment groups that have essentially vowed to be obstructionist and go against everything Fauci or others said. Time and time again they continually downplayed the evolution of this pandemic and its severity. If they somehow got lucky, and this proved to be a nothingburger, they would have been lauded for their foresight. Yet few people are being called out for the damage they likely did in leading anti-vaccine, or conspiracy theory movements, that have hindered our ability to fight this.
They have no skin in the game and are deeply rooted and protected by a bloated bureaucracy with no tools to be made accountable very well. All of that should be considered when judging their recommendations.
So is the plan here to spam the board with a bunch of tweets and youtube videos as a cautionary tale of how the internet is filled with dumb ****, or what?
That's fine if you believe that. I don't think I said anything to the contrary. Academic or not, produce data to back up your claim. If data doesn't exist, come up with a reasonable hypothesis based on past data. Don't start throwing out random claims in the hopes one sticks and you're seen as a savant.+ 8 more quotes (click to expand)traxter said:I agree. But along that same vein, individuals who went along with recommendations were automatically labelled as sheep and it was implied that they have no critical thinking capacity.
The problem with the legitimate dissent is that some of it is just by random people throwing out random completely unfounded dissent. If I were to say the COVID vaccine caused people to grow a tail, I'd be called a whack job by most because it has no basis and I have no proof. If by some strange coincidence some kid develops a tail after taking the vaccine, some people would hail me as a genius, when in reality I was just lucky.
Likewise with many out there, you throw out enough baseless claims, and eventually one is correct, then everyone forgets the wrong ones and you're suddenly a genius. In the scientific world you need to come up with a hypothesis and then prove that hypothesis. If you try to prove it, and you're wrong, then that's totally fine and it still advances science because we know now that's not a possibility. If you're right, then now you have to go under peer review and it has to be reproduced.
When data exists, we should make decisions based on best available data. When data doesn't exist, we need to make decisions based on foundational principles from what we know before. Another problem is that from the very beginning there were antiestabllishment groups that have essentially vowed to be obstructionist and go against everything Fauci or others said. Time and time again they continually downplayed the evolution of this pandemic and its severity. If they somehow got lucky, and this proved to be a nothingburger, they would have been lauded for their foresight. Yet few people are being called out for the damage they likely did in leading anti-vaccine, or conspiracy theory movements, that have hindered our ability to fight this.TheMasterplan said:The biggest problem is Fauci and others (usually academics) are completely insulated by their own decisions. They are only looking at COVID-19 through a singular lens and will be paid by taxpayers regardless.
They have no skin in the game and are deeply rooted and protected by a bloated bureaucracy with no tools to be made accountable very well. All of that should be considered when judging their recommendations.
In other words, if injecting bleach somehow actually treated COVID, should the person who suggested it be treated as a genius, or as a lucky guy?
I agree with all that. If data comes later that proves you wrong, you should own it and admit you were wrong instead of doubling down as well - like masks.+ 9 more quotes (click to expand)TheMasterplan said:The biggest problem is Fauci and others (usually academics) are completely insulated by their own decisions. They are only looking at COVID-19 through a singular lens and will be paid by taxpayers regardless.
They have no skin in the game and are deeply rooted and protected by a bloated bureaucracy with no tools to be made accountable very well. All of that should be considered when judging their recommendations.traxter said:That's fine if you believe that. I don't think I said anything to the contrary. Academic or not, produce data to back up your claim. If data doesn't exist, come up with a reasonable hypothesis based on past data. Don't start throwing out random claims in the hopes one sticks and you're seen as a savant.
In other words, if injecting bleach somehow actually treated COVID, should the person who suggested it be treated as a genius, or as a lucky guy?
As for this comment, I don't know how you can believe this as the government, twitter, facebook, instagram and the MSM has done all it can to drown out any dissenting voices to the main narrative. They've done their own kind of misinformation as well.Quote:
Yet few people are being called out for the damage they likely did in leading anti-vaccine, or conspiracy theory movements, that have hindered our ability to fight this.
Got a booster about a month ago, no side effects, was my 3rd pfizer. I am exposed every day at work to unvaccinated patients needed to be admitted for acute hypoxia. Not saying everyone needs it, but high risk groups will be a consideration IMO.
I think my point was essentially selection bias. I'd expect the scientific community to call out the anti-vaxers when they get stuff wrong. But there are people that aren't anti-vaxers that have fallen in on that position, and look for reasons to validate their choice, but ignore reasons to call out anti-vax leaders. If that makes sense. And when I say anti-vax, I also mean pro-HCQ, or pro-ivermectin, etc. Instead of calling out the people that say don't get the vaccine, just take ivermectin, which is making things worse and likely killing people, they're grasping at any evidence they can to suggest ivermectin works so they validate their choice and prop up the people proposing ivermectin.Quote:
Yet few people are being called out for the damage they likely did in leading anti-vaccine, or conspiracy theory movements, that have hindered our ability to fight this.TheMasterplan said:As for this comment, I don't know how you can believe this as the government, twitter, facebook, instagram and the MSM has done all it can to drown out any dissenting voices to the main narrative. They've done their own kind of misinformation as well.
I mean, there are people out there that are now falling in behind the idea that getting a mild/asymptomatic COVID case after vaccination is worse than actually getting COVD while unvaccinated because of the possibility you could spread the disease without realizing it.
Featured Stories
See All
11:56
1h ago
1.5k
TexAgs is Hiring: Full-Charge Bookkeeper
by Brandon Jones
19:04
3h ago
1.5k
7:47
54m ago
696
Two-way player Nico Partida calls Texas A&M his 'dream' school
by Ryan Brauninger
27:25
18h ago
1.8k
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 1
by Matthew Dawson
