• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Covid-19 Who's planning on getting a COVID-19 vaccine? (Poll)

cduggles said:
I believe string theory is a distinct possibility. I know more about viruses.

I don’t listen to talks unless it’s a researcher. I read research. Unfortunately Montaigner can’t publish anymore because no one will fund his batshit ideas, which I’m guessing you believe is because they don’t want THE TRUTH known.
Scientists start out skeptical. Any other scientist knows that.
Click to expand...
You're skeptical? Do you have doubts about the origin or not?
because I clearly stated that I cannot prove anything but I'm sure at a 80-90% due to my investigation.
 
Neuroborean said:
Ok let's start with this SHIT of article that was one of the first ones "implying" that "probably" the sars-cov-2 was natural,
they were so outrageously unscientific that in the same article they said is "probable", "is very likely" and they even claim that is natural without not an real evidence but just based on preassumptions, is just... amazing that is published and it appeared everywhere as a big evidence, so outrageous and shameless:
www.nature.com

The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 - Nature Medicine

www.nature.com www.nature.com

And then read this, and tell me which of them do you think it is really scientific in the most basic sense: following a premise properly and correct logic when trying to follow the steps of scientific discussion:

China owns Nature magazine's ass: Debunking "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" claiming COVID-19 definitely wasn't from a lab - Harvard to the Big House

An accessible YouTube summary of much of the report below below by a Professor of Neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh’s Medical School is available here. Read the peer reviewed research paper published by BioEssays that this paper seeded, as well as its addendum which conclusively...
harvardtothebighouse.com harvardtothebighouse.com
Here you have some BRAVE scientists, who don't copy others words just cause is easier to paraphrase or copy variations of methods that go to the same place, as if it were the same riff of a rock band played with a couple of notes more by the band of imitators, to make a resume (anyone who has gone to college knows that this is true in a large number of cases).

An open debate on SARS-CoV-2's proximal origin is long overdue

There is a near consensus view that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin; however, several characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 taken together are not easily explained by a natural zoonotic origin hypothesis. These include: a low rate of evolution in the early phase of transmission; the lack of...
arxiv.org arxiv.org
Click to expand...
I can’t even.
 
Neuroborean said:
Ok let's start with this SHIT of article that was one of the first ones "implying" that "probably" the sars-cov-2 was natural,
they were so outrageously unscientific that in the same article they said is "probable", "is very likely" and they even claim that is natural without not an real evidence but just based on preassumptions, is just... amazing that is published and it appeared everywhere as a big evidence, so outrageous and shameless:
Click to expand...
Since @cduggles tapped out in frustration, I'll try and take this one.

Let's start with the word "natural", which is used precisely 10 times in the article, 9 of which as a part of the (unless there have been some significant developments since I last did a biology class) very much empirically supported term "natural-selection". The other instance of its use is in the term "natural evolutionary process" - hardly as particularly contentious claim to make given all the references to natural selection.

The term "very likely" occurs exactly zero times in the article. The term "probable" occurs a similar number of times, zero (unless of course you want to deconstruct the word improbable, but really that's pushing it).

On the pre-assumptions part. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but all science is based on assumptions. Identifying and stating those assumptions is an essential part of the research process. For example, let's say I wanted to research the theory that 1 + 1 = 2. What I'm going to do is get a set of 100 1's and another set of 100 1's, randomise them and run the following equation on it for (i=0;i<100;i++) Set A(i) + Set B(i) = datapoint. On the face of that, it looks sound. I add 1 + 1 100 times and check how many times that the answer is 2. There are assumptions here. In this case, I am assuming that all of set A and all of set B are the value 1. What if they aren't? What if there is a 2 in there? These things happen. These things happen ALL the time.

To deal with this issue we use two main methods - first, we clearly state our methodology, including our assumptions, so that someone else can repeat the work and check their results against ours. Secondly, we don't ever (as in big science no-no, as in stop reading if you see a purportedly qualified scientist do it) state things with certainty. We state things in terms of probability, statistical probability in our results. In our discussion we use terms like "The evidence suggests..." "The evidence strongly points to..." "The overwhelming result...". We don't ever say "We have proven...". You see, it's the media (largely influenced by procedural courtroom drama) that goes out asking for and frequently misquoting scientists as saying they have proof, or that things are proven.

Scientists, like @cduggles so valiantly tried to explain to you are skeptical. Even when everyone else is out there triumphing over the solving of the great mystery, scientists hedge, because they aren't police detectives. They aren't in the business of closing cases. They are in the business of leaving them open so that they can be questioned, challenged, expanded upon and debunked as new information dictates they should be.

The paper you've posted there doesn't appear particularly outrageous or shameless to me. It seems to be appropriately written, and given its context as an early investigation into the origins of this particular coronavirus is well considered and reaches reasonable conclusions, while clearly stating in its limitations section that further research is required. The counterpoint to this article that you've posted is a youtube video with the word ass in the title, and in my previous research on such videos the evidence supporting the assertions made in such videos has been weak (n=toomany, CI = 99%).
 
aemetha said:
Since @cduggles tapped out in frustration, I'll try and take this one.

Let's start with the word "natural", which is used precisely 10 times in the article, 9 of which as a part of the (unless there have been some significant developments since I last did a biology class) very much empirically supported term "natural-selection". The other instance of its use is in the term "natural evolutionary process" - hardly as particularly contentious claim to make given all the references to natural selection.

The term "very likely" occurs exactly zero times in the article. The term "probable" occurs a similar number of times, zero (unless of course you want to deconstruct the word improbable, but really that's pushing it).

On the pre-assumptions part. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but all science is based on assumptions. Identifying and stating those assumptions is an essential part of the research process. For example, let's say I wanted to research the theory that 1 + 1 = 2. What I'm going to do is get a set of 100 1's and another set of 100 1's, randomise them and run the following equation on it for (i=0;i<100;i++) Set A(i) + Set B(i) = datapoint. On the face of that, it looks sound. I add 1 + 1 100 times and check how many times that the answer is 2. There are assumptions here. In this case, I am assuming that all of set A and all of set B are the value 1. What if they aren't? What if there is a 2 in there? These things happen. These things happen ALL the time.

To deal with this issue we use two main methods - first, we clearly state our methodology, including our assumptions, so that someone else can repeat the work and check their results against ours. Secondly, we don't ever (as in big science no-no, as in stop reading if you see a purportedly qualified scientist do it) state things with certainty. We state things in terms of probability, statistical probability in our results. In our discussion we use terms like "The evidence suggests..." "The evidence strongly points to..." "The overwhelming result...". We don't ever say "We have proven...". You see, it's the media (largely influenced by procedural courtroom drama) that goes out asking for and frequently misquoting scientists as saying they have proof, or that things are proven.

Scientists, like @cduggles so valiantly tried to explain to you are skeptical. Even when everyone else is out there triumphing over the solving of the great mystery, scientists hedge, because they aren't police detectives. They aren't in the business of closing cases. They are in the business of leaving them open so that they can be questioned, challenged, expanded upon and debunked as new information dictates they should be.

The paper you've posted there doesn't appear particularly outrageous or shameless to me. It seems to be appropriately written, and given its context as an early investigation into the origins of this particular coronavirus is well considered and reaches reasonable conclusions, while clearly stating in its limitations section that further research is required. The counterpoint to this article that you've posted is a youtube video with the word ass in the title, and in my previous research on such videos the evidence supporting the assertions made in such videos has been weak (n=toomany, CI = 99%).
Click to expand...
Thank you for such an eloquent explanation.
 
Vastness said:
Oh, Christ. Yes, those sheeple, dumb humans other than you, oh enlightened person.
Click to expand...

I'm not enlightened. Most people wallow in their own ignorance though, it's true.

Vastness said:
I'm gonna abstain from wading into the COVID vaccine argument after this for the sake of my own wellbeing, but what almost no-one critical of the vaccines available seems to get is that the actual science behind how they were developed is not new - the only difference is that governments worldwide spent unprecedented amounts of largely holographic money to speed up the usually glacial pace of pharma research and approval. Sure there are financial incentives. There always are. We live in a capitalistic world. It doesn't mean that governments globally have somehow conspired to create a mirage of fake science where these vaccines are just a ludicrously complicated conspiracy. Most actual scientists understand the reasons for concern. The ones who aren't or are vaccine sceptics generally have no understanding of the science.
Click to expand...

I'm aware the science isn't new. Again, you're assuming what I don't know. The zika virus vaccine uses mRNA tech.

I know the science better than you do, trust me. That's why I have valid concerns. People who are stuck on pro-vax/anti-vax tribalism are too stupid to discuss nuances because their opinions are socially informed and not scientifically informed.

Vastness said:
No, and no! This is factually untrue! mRNA research has been going on for decades, with fairly extensive research on animals, and mRNA vaccines have been researched for multiple other diseases in the past several years. It might be true that a human mRNA vaccine is new - but there is no reason, by which I mean, no believable hypothesis supported by scientific evidence - to think that there is anything magically bad about an mRNA vaccine. Quite the opposite in fact, an mRNA molecule is, biologically speaking, far less dangerous than the traditional method of using a carefully neutered variation of the actual pathogen.

COVID vaccines are not going to mutate into the T-virus.
Click to expand...

It's new in the way that it's being implemented at this time, with nanotech cholesterols, and in this particular fashion. We are seeing ADRs that do not conform to standard ADR templates, like some people having strokes and neurological failure. It's possible that the nanotech versions are causing auto-immune reactions because of their synthetic cholesterols, we don't know yet. There's simply not enough data. No new drug has ever been implemented en mass like this in our history without going through the full 4 year trial process. Even with regulatory truncation, it's too quick, leaving many unanswered questions. The public is essentially phase IV. It's why you have to sign a liability waver to get the vaccine, so that you can't sue them!

This isn't about mRNA vaccines being "magically bad". The way you reduce your opponent's arguments to that of school children really says a lot about your own arrogance. People who have serious, valid concerns about the vaccines, based on scientific information, are not quacks. We used to be able to have these conversations without people pointing fingers. Now suddenly vaccines are the sacred cow of modern medicine and we aren't allowed to say anything about it without being called anti-vaxers or hacks. This kind of anti-intellectualism and anti-science mindset really benefits the big corporations, who are raking it in right now with no legal repercussions whatsoever. They have foisted products on our society under emergency powers that under any other circumstance would be rejected.

Look at what happened during the H1N1 scare. The pharmaceutical-media-industrial complex terrified the public about a new form of flu that could cause cytokine storm. People believed them, even though now we know their data was insignificant from the mean of most flu viruses. TamiFlu got pushed through and hurt a lot of people, and the ADR reports were measly during the peak hype of the "pandemic" because doctors were told to do the right thing and make sure everyone got vaccinated. It's only now that we know the truth.

PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS. They don't study history and they don't see how it repeats itself over and over. These big pharma shills are taking the public for a ride and making hundreds of billions of dollars, scott free. I'm not saying SARS-CoV-2 isn't a threat, I am saying that the reaction - taking away civil liberties, locking down society, and pushing improperly trialed vaccines - is insane. They are taking us for a ride! How do I know? Because they aren't listening to most of the scientific concerns about the long-term safety of these vaccines. Scientists are muzzled -- they don't even get a voice in the media or in the hearings. It's fucking BS.
 
@Foreigner - I concede that my reduction of certain arguments to a schoolchildren's strawman or however you put it is indeed arrogant, in bad form and just plainly rude. I preach often about the problems of tribalism and acting divisively but often fail to practice it myself, so I apologise for that.

As far as the science - have you studied or practiced bioscience in anything other than an armchair capacity?

I'll make no assumptions here - and for the record, I haven't, although I have studied a physical science. It's just that when no-one in a discussion about some quite specific scientific nuances actually has any real education or experience in that field, claims about who knows the science better seem to be just dumb, pointless pissing contests that are destined to go nowhere. I'll admit to, probably, being guilty of the same though, I'm not a paragon of reason and goodwill to all at all times, so I forgive you for the same, not that you want it or need it, I'm sure. I would appreciate an answer to my above question though.

I happen to know a few practicing research scientists personally, one a specialist in viral respiratory diseases, the other a neuroscientist, and both of them assure me there is nothing to be concerned about. They are both very close to me and - one of them at least - heavily involved in COVID-related research, so I trust that they are not lying, ignorant, or less informed than the average random vaccine skeptic - or let's be specific - the average random mRNA COVID vaccine skeptic we see popping up so often nowadays.

I'm aware that me saying that I know someone who says this is roughly as good evidence for anything as someone who says their cousin knows someone who actually saw Obama metamorphosise into a Reptilian alien once and therefore it must be true, but whatever, I'm not really trying to convince anyone, just expressing frustration at perspectives that I believe to be just somewhat nonsensical.

Not referring to absolutely everything you said by the way, I could maybe agree with some of it - just not the vaccine skepticism bits. But maybe I'll pass on your elabourations to one of my friends out of interest and see if she has a solid rebuttal, or if maybe you're right! All the best anyway.
 
Foreigner said:
People who are stuck on pro-vax/anti-vax tribalism are too stupid to discuss nuances because their opinions are socially informed and not scientifically informed.
Click to expand...
First of all, I want to say I respect your determination to argue the merits of this without going down the anti-vax route. I agree with you about nuance. I have a favourite saying - "Nothing in life is binary except the numbers 1 and 0, and one of them is debunked". You're right that there should be room to discuss these issues.

Here's where I think you're on the wrong side of this debate though. It isn't the place of scientists to determine what level of risk the public is willing to accept, nor is it their place to present worst-case scenarios to influence that decision. That's why we have a system in which scientists advise politicians, but ultimately politicians, as the elected representatives of the public, make the final decisions. Basically, it isn't up to scientists to decide what population is used for the phase 4 trials. The ADR's you note are of concern, should be discussed, should be brought to the attention of politicians. They should also be apprised of the best and worst case and best estimates of prevalence until the data is available. An absence of data is not a justification for not proceeding in a circumstance where not proceeding will probably lead to greater harm.
 
negrogesic said:
It's simple. Who is planning on getting a COVID-19 vaccine?

You must vote to view the results. Your answer is private.

If no (or yes) feel free to reply why, or which vaccine you prefer. I like the moderna vaccine.

What most people don't know is that the vaccines (except for the chinese one) also get you high for weeks so I'd recommend everyone get one.
Click to expand...
What do you mean vaccines get people high? This has never happened to me, ever from any vaccine.

I will probably get the COVID vaccine but I am last on the tier.

I would prefer the J&J vaccine as I dislike needles and it is a single shot.
 
aemetha said:
No, not with the new messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines. The older vaccine technologies work like you described, but these newer vaccines work a bit differently, I'll explain in steps.
  • You are injected with the mRNA vaccine. This is basically a set of biological blueprints for your immune system to build a small, on its own harmless, protein which is a part of the COVID-19 virus called a spike protein.
Click to expand...
Perhaps supply a link to any scientific evidence showing spike protein is harmless. Maybe something showing in vitro or in vivo toxicology for it.
I will accept evidence for either prefusion or postfusion natural spike or 2p prefusion stabilized spike protein and it can be animal not human data.

Spike has integrin binding motifs, it clearly can bind rather strongly to ACE-2 as well as other targets, so it has active pharmacology. Doesn't bode well for it being a benign harmless protein as you claim.
 
Last edited:
@novaveritas

I'm glad to see you're still alive. I was concerned you might have died from a blood clot.

In all seriousness, I actually know one of the few people in this country that got blood clots after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine. He is in his 40s. Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of it. I haven't done the maths yet, but it seems like this is genuinely a side effect of the vaccine.

It's unfortunate because it's going to turn people off getting the other vaccines and contribute to this whole anti-vax movement... even though it's like one in a million.
 
@novaveritas

I edited my post. You might like what I added to it.

I'm actually conflicted about AstraZeneca now. If the blood clots are caused by the vaccine and young people are getting them more than old people, I'm not entirely convinced that it is safer for people in Australia to get this particular vaccine. I haven't done the math yet, because I don't have the time. (Working 6 days a week now.) I live in a country with basically no COVID-19. I work with people who are seriously ill. I'd hate to see one of them die from blood clots because they took a vaccine against a virus that is extremely unlikely to affect them... but (at the same time) selfishly I want the country to open back up and Australia invested heavily in the only fucking vaccine that (maybe) has serious side-effects.

I'm nearly 40 myself. My friend got the blood clots one week after receiving his first jab. He was perfectly healthy. Not sure if he's going to die now... Honestly, I'm a little apprehensive about getting the second jab. I'd much rather have any of the other mainstream vaccines.
 
novaveritas said:
Perhaps supply a link to any scientific evidence showing spike protein is harmless. Maybe something showing in vitro or in vivo toxicology for it.
Click to expand...
What, like the one submitted with both Pfizer and Moderna's EUA's? Come on, if you can ask the question you can clearly look up the answer yourself. Just be honest, you're pushing your ideological agenda. That's politics, not science. Thank you, not today.
 
birdup.snaildown said:
Can someone (with more understanding of science) help me out here?
Click to expand...
Okay, so statistically, you're more likely to die of covid by choosing not to have the vaccine than you are of blood clots, which are, based on the available information, extremely rare. Keep in mind though, nothing happens in a bubble. My advice is get vaccinated. My advice is also that Astra-Zenica is a company that has a history of releasing very sloppy data on its vaccine, failing to meet its commitments to its customers, and going back to before this of deliberately falsifying research on the risk of side effects from its medications (See their settlement to the tune of $5b+ over their marketing of seroquel off label and without warning about its potential for metabolic side effects). In my view, they are a company that should have received the Purdue treatment long ago. No pharmaceutical companies are angels, but once you get caught hiding research that makes your product look bad, that's a line that can't be uncrossed in my view.

Read into that what you will. Personally, I will be getting the Pfizer.
 
aemetha said:
statistically, you're more likely to die of covid by choosing not to have the vaccine than you are of blood clots
Click to expand...

As Fox Mulder says, I want to believe... but is this true for Australian 40 year olds with AZ?

Should young people (or even old people) in Australia get AstraZeneca?
Convince me. Please. Show me the numbers.
 
Last edited:
The UK and Australia are in very different situations, both in terms of numbers infected and available vaccines... I'm not sure that link answers my question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top