Trust the experts

[MajorMitchell]

Whilst the first post from Fluminator did not mention the Bible or God, he got there quite quickly, albeit with euphemisms
Fir example
The purpose (of cv19 pandemic or scientific research is not specified) is for men to reach salvation and everlasting life

Then the submit to God comment

Perfect examples in my opinion of his veiled agenda to proselytise on behalf of his God.
Barbs and insults are my hobby and the acolytes of gods who behave foolishly are such delightful objects for scorn in my opinion
The variable quality of the barbs and insults reflects the lesser importance that I attach to mocking religious authorities and religious prophets.

Plus within that group, when compared to the Jusuits or the Taliban, Fluminator is a dilettante
Of course I confess to being an unimportant and irrelevant old dissident for those who would misrepresent my degree of self awareness

[learnedSloth]

The shocking part is how you came to your decision. I'm not particularly fussed whether you got the shot, unless maybe you're very old.

I haven't even written much about that yet. I saw that people were in panic and knew that vaccine development was rushed, but blogs by a physician enthusiastic of the use of RNA made me optimistic. However, I wasn't in front of the priority queue, and I began to see also stories of averse effects, including death, and that some suppressed experts doubted their efficacy and safety. I decided to wait and see, as I were fairly confident that I could just avoid the virus still, and waiting didn't feel bad at all.

I am curious - have you had COVID?

I managed to avoid it until Omicron had replaced the Delta variant. By then the virus had mutated and was less dangerous than before, so I consider my strategy of just avoiding the virus as long as possible successful.

[Fluminator]

Whilst the first post from Fluminator did not mention the Bible or God, he got there quite quickly, albeit with euphemisms
Fir example
The purpose (of cv19 pandemic or scientific research is not specified) is for men to reach salvation and everlasting life

Then the submit to God comment

Perfect examples in my opinion of his veiled agenda to proselytise on behalf of his God.
Barbs and insults are my hobby and the acolytes of gods who behave foolishly are such delightful objects for scorn in my opinion
The variable quality of the barbs and insults reflects the lesser importance that I attach to mocking religious authorities and religious prophets.

Plus within that group, when compared to the Jusuits or the Taliban, Fluminator is a dilettante
Of course I confess to being an unimportant and irrelevant old dissident for those who would misrepresent my degree of self awareness

If you want to talk about religion so much I can make a religion thread, but it's not super relevant to this convo imo.

[Fluminator]

I think that there is some middle ground to be had here. Being fined for releasing a product that harms people doesn't seem to be just taking away profit incentive... it seems like common sense. Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't just get paid because they exist, they should get paid when they make something that does what they say it's meant to do and helps people. If there are no consequences to mistakes (especially when those mistakes are made recklessly to cut corners and make more money) then the mistakes will never be rectified.

There must be profit incentive, yes. But there surely ought to still be consequences in pharma just like everywhere else, yes? I'm studying engineering. If an engineer designs something new, he probably does it for money. But if that thing hurts people, or fails to do its job and he lies about it, then the failure falls on him and he pays for his mistake. Why shouldn't that apply to healthcare?

I read that the reason pharmaceutical companies can't be sued for bad vaccines anymore is because it's impossible to make a vaccine that works for everyone so there would always be people able to sue and there would never be a financial incentive to make vaccines.
I wonder if the vaccine part specifically just shouldn't be for profit anymore and be publicly funded.

[Fluminator]

I think a big thing is we need to figure out how to change the profit motive. It's clear the only thing that matters to the pharmaceutical industries is making money. And unfortunately I don't think that's ever changing.

I think one possible solution (there are many issues to resolve) is to start penalizing them on mistakes made. If they make a drug they push on society that does a lot of damage to people, they need to be fined a large amount. Remove the profit incentive to release shoddily made drugs.

Currently they have successfully lobbied for much protection from lawsuits for this type of sloppiness and it's had a disastrous effect on their output.

Totally agree, the pharmaceutical industry does need a rework. Idt the covid vaccine has enough evidence to establish harm (haven’t read the house article, but a quick check online yields nothing substantial for or against the vaccine having disastrous side effects), and however harmful we must also consider the good these drugs/vaccines have done (cus generally the harm of vaccines or popular drugs is a small minority compared to the large chunk of people who benefitted from it). Both sides are important!

The last question btw was also more general than a “what do we do to fix this”; it’s also a “what will YOU do” (trust the experts? Do your own research? A combo of both?)

It's hard to know off stats since they're so easily manipulatable. The very first person I knew who got the vaccine got an autoimmune disorder from it. I know a few other vaccine damaged people. I also know many people who got it who didn't have any side effects.
I know one person who didn't get vaccinated who got long COVID (although after a couple years he's back to normal). I know quite a few people who got vaccinated get long COVID and are still struggling with it.

At the moment I do my own research to find new experts I can trust who were right about COVID since the beginning.

[flash2015]

I think a big thing is we need to figure out how to change the profit motive. It's clear the only thing that matters to the pharmaceutical industries is making money. And unfortunately I don't think that's ever changing.

I think one possible solution (there are many issues to resolve) is to start penalizing them on mistakes made. If they make a drug they push on society that does a lot of damage to people, they need to be fined a large amount. Remove the profit incentive to release shoddily made drugs.

Currently they have successfully lobbied for much protection from lawsuits for this type of sloppiness and it's had a disastrous effect on their output.

I don't think this was an issue with profit motive. How else do you get pharmaceutical companies to invest in new drugs? The vaccines were a medical marvel and in times of crisis some judgement calls have to be made. I don't believe it would have been good if we had held them back another year or more. Millions of people more would have died.

I am going to rant again...

I believe the issues largely come down to politics and institutional capture. In the summer of 2021 we were still acting as if we only had the information of March 2020. In March 2020, we had made some initial estimates about the dangers of COVID and we made some educated guesses about the best ways to combat the pandemic (masking, social distancing, shutting down schools etc.)...but with politics this all turned into the Gospel of COVID and you were an evil heretic if you criticized this in any way.

There were of course a bunch of crazies that were claiming that this was a biological weapon or that COVID was a myth. But according to the adherence to the Gospel of COVID, even questioning the response in the slightest of ways made you the same as the absolute nutters. A heretic is a heretic. A heretic on anything was the same as a heretic on everything.

For the vaccine, anecdotes and some initial data did suggest it may actually stop transmission. As well so many people wanted this to be true. What may have initially been based on hope became part of the Gospel of COVID. Initial testing didn't show the side effects so it also became part of the Gospel of COVID that there were no meaningful side effects that needed to be worried about. It didn't take that long to show that there were actually some side effects (they saw them in the initial Israel rollout) and it did become clear by latest the summer that it wasn't stopping transmission...but the adherents to the Gospel of COVID played down this info and if you disagreed in any way you were equivalent to the crazies (like the one that said the vaccine made them magnetic).

All these religious beliefs led to the incredibly unethical broad based vaccine mandates. The vaccine mandates very quickly became the new dogma in the Gospel of COVID. Vaccine mandates == GOOD and if you questioned them in any way you were equivalent to the most crazy of the other side. When it became impossible to ignore that the vaccine wasn't seriously slowing down transmission, the adherence to the Gospel of COVID couldn't give up their dogma that Vaccine mandates == GOOD. So they changed their claim to be that vaccine mandates were needed to reduce hospitalizations. That has never been a justification for a vaccine mandate and this justification was nonsense for anyone under like 50 or those younger without serious health issues.

People are blaming "anti vaxxers" for the loss of trust in vaccines...but it came pretty clear to most people that the claims being made about the dangers of COVID and the efficacies of the vaccines weren't true. You can see this now in how many people actually get the vaccine boosters...even though they are still recommended for everyone down to 6 months of age in the US which is absolutely f***ing insane.

Understandably during the pandemic we had to take some short cuts but we should have plenty of time now to go back and do the proper research. Unfortunately that isn't being done. Each new booster to test efficacy is now just tested on a bunch of mice and if it makes the mice produce the right antibodies for the right variants it is good to go. No real checks on whether it actually is still reducing hospitalizations/deaths on people that have likely have had COVID, the original set of vaccines or both perhaps having COVID multiple times.

This is partially an outcome of the Gospel of COVID (the vaccine works - don't question it!) but also institutional capture. It is a revolving door between the FDA and Big Pharma (e.g. former FDA commissioner Gottlieb that went to Pfizer - he became a staple on the news circuit). While RFK Jr has some crazy ideas he has been sending out the right messages on this. While Marty Makary, who is teed up to lead the FDA, also has industry ties, he doesn't appear to a strict adherent to the Gospel of COVID so I am a little hopeful there will be some change here.

I think one of my biggest disappointments out of the pandemic is that I realized that just because you may be an expert didn't stop you from playing political games...or having quazi-religious beliefs. People I thought should have been above these religious beliefs (many atheists/skeptics) could become just as religiously fanatical as those they were supposedly against. Not believing in the supernatural doesn't seem to automatically make people any more rational.

[Jamiet99uk]

I think that there is some middle ground to be had here. Being fined for releasing a product that harms people doesn't seem to be just taking away profit incentive... it seems like common sense. Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't just get paid because they exist, they should get paid when they make something that does what they say it's meant to do and helps people. If there are no consequences to mistakes (especially when those mistakes are made recklessly to cut corners and make more money) then the mistakes will never be rectified.

There must be profit incentive, yes. But there surely ought to still be consequences in pharma just like everywhere else, yes? I'm studying engineering. If an engineer designs something new, he probably does it for money. But if that thing hurts people, or fails to do its job and he lies about it, then the failure falls on him and he pays for his mistake. Why shouldn't that apply to healthcare?

I read that the reason pharmaceutical companies can't be sued for bad vaccines anymore is because it's impossible to make a vaccine that works for everyone so there would always be people able to sue and there would never be a financial incentive to make vaccines.
I wonder if the vaccine part specifically just shouldn't be for profit anymore and be publicly funded.

All core healthcare should be publicly funded and controlled.

[Jamiet99uk]

I think a big thing is we need to figure out how to change the profit motive. It's clear the only thing that matters to the pharmaceutical industries is making money. And unfortunately I don't think that's ever changing.

I think one possible solution (there are many issues to resolve) is to start penalizing them on mistakes made. If they make a drug they push on society that does a lot of damage to people, they need to be fined a large amount. Remove the profit incentive to release shoddily made drugs.

Currently they have successfully lobbied for much protection from lawsuits for this type of sloppiness and it's had a disastrous effect on their output.

Totally agree, the pharmaceutical industry does need a rework. Idt the covid vaccine has enough evidence to establish harm (haven’t read the house article, but a quick check online yields nothing substantial for or against the vaccine having disastrous side effects), and however harmful we must also consider the good these drugs/vaccines have done (cus generally the harm of vaccines or popular drugs is a small minority compared to the large chunk of people who benefitted from it). Both sides are important!

The last question btw was also more general than a “what do we do to fix this”; it’s also a “what will YOU do” (trust the experts? Do your own research? A combo of both?)

It's hard to know off stats since they're so easily manipulatable. The very first person I knew who got the vaccine got an autoimmune disorder from it. I know a few other vaccine damaged people. I also know many people who got it who didn't have any side effects.
I know one person who didn't get vaccinated who got long COVID (although after a couple years he's back to normal). I know quite a few people who got vaccinated get long COVID and are still struggling with it.

At the moment I do my own research to find new experts I can trust who were right about COVID since the beginning.

If we're doing personal anecdotes, for the record:

I have had the vaccine and two boosters. I have had no side effects. I have had Covid twice to my knowledge. Once before the vaccine, once after. The second time my symptoms were less severe and I recovered more quickly.

I know several people who died of Covid-19 including a work colleague who was unvaccinated.

[CaptainFritz28]

Whilst the first post from Fluminator did not mention the Bible or God, he got there quite quickly, albeit with euphemisms
Fir example
The purpose (of cv19 pandemic or scientific research is not specified) is for men to reach salvation and everlasting life

Then the submit to God comment

Perfect examples in my opinion of his veiled agenda to proselytise on behalf of his God.
Barbs and insults are my hobby and the acolytes of gods who behave foolishly are such delightful objects for scorn in my opinion
The variable quality of the barbs and insults reflects the lesser importance that I attach to mocking religious authorities and religious prophets.

Plus within that group, when compared to the Jusuits or the Taliban, Fluminator is a dilettante
Of course I confess to being an unimportant and irrelevant old dissident for those who would misrepresent my degree of self awareness

Pretty sure you're confusing Fluminator's comments here with LearnedSloth's. Unless I just totally missed something.

[CaptainFritz28]

I think that there is some middle ground to be had here. Being fined for releasing a product that harms people doesn't seem to be just taking away profit incentive... it seems like common sense. Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't just get paid because they exist, they should get paid when they make something that does what they say it's meant to do and helps people. If there are no consequences to mistakes (especially when those mistakes are made recklessly to cut corners and make more money) then the mistakes will never be rectified.

There must be profit incentive, yes. But there surely ought to still be consequences in pharma just like everywhere else, yes? I'm studying engineering. If an engineer designs something new, he probably does it for money. But if that thing hurts people, or fails to do its job and he lies about it, then the failure falls on him and he pays for his mistake. Why shouldn't that apply to healthcare?

I read that the reason pharmaceutical companies can't be sued for bad vaccines anymore is because it's impossible to make a vaccine that works for everyone so there would always be people able to sue and there would never be a financial incentive to make vaccines.
I wonder if the vaccine part specifically just shouldn't be for profit anymore and be publicly funded.

Then you run into the issues that Esquire Bert mentioned, just localized to vaccines. If I were in charge, I suppose I'd just make it so that companies can be sued, but only for when they lie egregiously or their product actively harms people and that information is suppressed. Essentially, make it so that they can get sued for ethics violations.

[CaptainFritz28]

I think that there is some middle ground to be had here. Being fined for releasing a product that harms people doesn't seem to be just taking away profit incentive... it seems like common sense. Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't just get paid because they exist, they should get paid when they make something that does what they say it's meant to do and helps people. If there are no consequences to mistakes (especially when those mistakes are made recklessly to cut corners and make more money) then the mistakes will never be rectified.

There must be profit incentive, yes. But there surely ought to still be consequences in pharma just like everywhere else, yes? I'm studying engineering. If an engineer designs something new, he probably does it for money. But if that thing hurts people, or fails to do its job and he lies about it, then the failure falls on him and he pays for his mistake. Why shouldn't that apply to healthcare?

I read that the reason pharmaceutical companies can't be sued for bad vaccines anymore is because it's impossible to make a vaccine that works for everyone so there would always be people able to sue and there would never be a financial incentive to make vaccines.
I wonder if the vaccine part specifically just shouldn't be for profit anymore and be publicly funded.

All core healthcare should be publicly funded and controlled.

Because that never went wrong for anyone or caused any unintended massive problems every time it was implemented in reality.

[CaptainFritz28]

Totally agree, the pharmaceutical industry does need a rework. Idt the covid vaccine has enough evidence to establish harm (haven’t read the house article, but a quick check online yields nothing substantial for or against the vaccine having disastrous side effects), and however harmful we must also consider the good these drugs/vaccines have done (cus generally the harm of vaccines or popular drugs is a small minority compared to the large chunk of people who benefitted from it). Both sides are important!

The last question btw was also more general than a “what do we do to fix this”; it’s also a “what will YOU do” (trust the experts? Do your own research? A combo of both?)

It's hard to know off stats since they're so easily manipulatable. The very first person I knew who got the vaccine got an autoimmune disorder from it. I know a few other vaccine damaged people. I also know many people who got it who didn't have any side effects.
I know one person who didn't get vaccinated who got long COVID (although after a couple years he's back to normal). I know quite a few people who got vaccinated get long COVID and are still struggling with it.

At the moment I do my own research to find new experts I can trust who were right about COVID since the beginning.

If we're doing personal anecdotes, for the record:

I have had the vaccine and two boosters. I have had no side effects. I have had Covid twice to my knowledge. Once before the vaccine, once after. The second time my symptoms were less severe and I recovered more quickly.

I know several people who died of Covid-19 including a work colleague who was unvaccinated.

Tbh I think anecdotal "evidence" is going to be a waste of time for everyone involved. I know people that got the shot and then got covid like the vaccine did nothing, I know a couple of folks that got the vaccine and had serious (life threatening) adverse effects to it. I also know people that got the vaccine and haven't had covid since... and people that didn't get the vaccine and haven't had covid since the first time they got it before the vaccine even existed.

I think I got covid right at the beginning (March 2020), then once or twice after, none of which were serious. I stayed away from people like you would with any virus and got over it within a few days. Never got the shot because no evidence I saw pointed to the fact that it actually did anything except maybe suppress symptoms without lowering contagiousness (at least for my age group).

Lol now I'm a hypocrite. I said anecdotes were useless and then gave mine. Idk, I think I added it to prove my point that everyone knows people that the vaccine helped and that the vaccine hurt, and by confirmation bias we forget the things that don't fit our opinion of things.

Ultimately, my complaint with the covid vaccines is similar to Flash's. There became a narrative that the vaccines were perfect and made everything better, when that was far from being the case on either count. There was no reliable evidence to support them as good for everyone, yet they were mandated so heavily.

[Octavious]

, I think I added it to prove my point that everyone knows people that the vaccine helped and that the vaccine hurt, and by confirmation bias we forget the things that don't fit our opinion of things.

I largely agree with the spirit of your post, but on this particular bit I have some disagreement. Pretty much everyone knows people the vaccine hurt, but hardly anyone can be sure they know people the vaccine helped. They can assume, probably correctly, that it provided a degree of help to a great many people... but there's no way of knowing for sure what their experience would have been if they hadn't had the vaccine. By contrast it is very easy to see a lot of the harm caused by the vaccine as it tends to be immediate and obvious. The contrast between the clear and obvious evidence of harm and the largely statistics based evidence of benefit probably goes a long way to explaining some of the skepticism.

One of the greatest benefits of the vaccine was to the economy as it gave people of a more cautious disposition (cowards, wimps, and softies, to use the traditional terms) confidence to go out and take an active part in society again.

[CaptainFritz28]

I stand corrected. Good points.

[learnedSloth]

I think one of my biggest disappointments out of the pandemic is that I realized that just because you may be an expert didn't stop you from playing political games...or having quazi-religious beliefs.

Expertise doesn't make invulnerable to panic. The virus broke the illusion of control, and they tried to regain it by all means they hoped could bring the virus under control.

People I thought should have been above these religious beliefs (many atheists/skeptics) could become just as religiously fanatical as those they were supposedly against.

This life is all they possess. That can only make them more susceptible to panic when it is at risk.

Not believing in the supernatural doesn't seem to automatically make people any more rational.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(Romans 1)

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Ultimately, my complaint with the covid vaccines is similar to Flash's. There became a narrative that the vaccines were perfect and made everything better, when that was far from being the case on either count. There was no reliable evidence to support them as good for everyone, yet they were mandated so heavily.

This isn't right. The COVID vaccine demonstrably lowered the chance of death and severe illness across all age cohorts, including the young. This is among the most widely studied things in all of modern medicine at this point. Just because you choose not to read or believe the very robust evidence on this doesn't mean there is none.

Of course, just because the vaccines are effective doesn't mean you have to support their mandated usage. You may think, like I do, that obliging someone to take a medical intervention is wrong even if it's provably good for them. This principle seems particularly poignant for the young and healthy, for whom the real and measurable benefits of vaccination were very small considering the low risk they faced from a COVID infection in the first place.

[Fluminator]

With regard to the mandates, It's a slippery slope mandating vaccinations and covid boosters.

I should point out I'm Canadian and not American. We recently had a woman arrested for accidentally missing a government-mandated medication. Canada is already a lost cause, but I have hope for America lol.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/tuberculosis-treatment-jail-winnipeg-1.7397568

[flash2015]

Ultimately, my complaint with the covid vaccines is similar to Flash's. There became a narrative that the vaccines were perfect and made everything better, when that was far from being the case on either count. There was no reliable evidence to support them as good for everyone, yet they were mandated so heavily.

This isn't right. The COVID vaccine demonstrably lowered the chance of death and severe illness across all age cohorts, including the young. This is among the most widely studied things in all of modern medicine at this point. Just because you choose not to read or believe the very robust evidence on this doesn't mean there is none.

The thing you are leaving out here is that the chance of death or severe illness varied wildly by age. This for example is a study from 2022:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9613797/

The median IFR for those 0 to 19 was 3 in a million, for those 20-29 was 2 in 100K going up to 5 in 1000 for those 60-69. And those numbers are going to be skewed those towards those with health complications so for the average healthy young person the risk of death is pretty much close to zero (the economist had an interesting IFR calculator including pre-existing conditions but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working anymore).

For the young at best the benefit from the vaccine was marginal...and the younger you were (especially young men) the risks of myocarditis increased. which This was worse for the Moderna vaccine which had a higher mRNA dose than the Pfizer vaccine. Vinay Prasad explained some of these risks here:

https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/uk-now-reports-myocarditis-stratified

It is unfortunate that there were so many crazy conspiracy theories about the vaccine (e.g. the "Died Suddenly" nonsense)...but it is also unfortunate that the media whipped everyone into such a frenzy into believing that there was a serious risk of death from COVID for young people.

[flash2015]

Of course, just because the vaccines are effective doesn't mean you have to support their mandated usage. You may think, like I do, that obliging someone to take a medical intervention is wrong even if it's provably good for them. This principle seems particularly poignant for the young and healthy, for whom the real and measurable benefits of vaccination were very small considering the low risk they faced from a COVID infection in the first place.

My apologies. I responded before reading your clarification in the second paragraph :).

[CaptainFritz28]

Ultimately, my complaint with the covid vaccines is similar to Flash's. There became a narrative that the vaccines were perfect and made everything better, when that was far from being the case on either count. There was no reliable evidence to support them as good for everyone, yet they were mandated so heavily.

This isn't right. The COVID vaccine demonstrably lowered the chance of death and severe illness across all age cohorts, including the young. This is among the most widely studied things in all of modern medicine at this point. Just because you choose not to read or believe the very robust evidence on this doesn't mean there is none.

Of course, just because the vaccines are effective doesn't mean you have to support their mandated usage. You may think, like I do, that obliging someone to take a medical intervention is wrong even if it's provably good for them. This principle seems particularly poignant for the young and healthy, for whom the real and measurable benefits of vaccination were very small considering the low risk they faced from a COVID infection in the first place.

Regarding your first paragraph, I suppose I don't mean that they had no effect, but that on a cost benefit analysis, they haven't been proven the best option evidentially. Studies kept coming out revealing that the vaccines had a lower prevention rate than previously claimed, and later, research revealed that other medicinal solutions that were initially shunned in favor of the vaccine and lockdown mandates actually work quite effectively. Meanwhile, reported adverse effects of the vaccines, including death, were sky high, thousands of times higher than any other vaccine. I get that those numbers can't be taken at face value, but you don't need to do that to see a huge noticeable difference between the harm caused by other vaccines and the covid vaccines.

So yes, you're right, and I worded my previous point poorly. The covid vaccines had an effect and saved many lives. But they also destroyed lives, were much less effective than the public was initially told, and had alternatives that were entirely disregarded that later were discovered to be just as effective and far safer.

And even if everything I've said just now is false, although from what I've researched it is true (and I'm just an individual with limited research capabilities, so obviously take that with a grain of salt), I strongly agree with your second paragraph, which, when the mandates came along, was worrying for me because it set the precedent that the government must force you to be healthy, whatever they deem healthy to be, at any cost to your liberty.