Documenting potential side-effects: Covid vs Vaccine

[null]

Yes, it was a valid answer, and makes me even less worried than I was before, which wasn't much. A very low-rate occurance of a mild auto-immune disorder that was potentially even more likely if you caught the disease.

The vaccine was withdrawn because there were even better vaccine options, not because its impact was worse than the disease.

Was that not the worst case? Do you know of a worse case?

You said "worst case SCENARIO" ... now you say actual 'worst case'. You know those are two very different things right?

defn: worst case scenario [collins dictionary]

"The worst-case scenario is the worst possible thing that could happen in a particular situation. The worst-case scenario is an aircraft will crash if a bird destroys an ..."
Worst case definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

The vaccine was withdrawn because it was unsafe was it not? I will come back on this when I get home.

Your "disease impact" vs "vaccine impact" discussion is nothing to do with me, so leave that out.

Your question was "give me an A".

I gave you an "A".

Acknowledge that at least.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The vaccine was withdrawn because it was unsafe was it not? I will come back on this when I get home.

The vaccine was withdrawn because there were other, better options. That, as we've been saying from the beginning, is the largest difference between emergency approval and long-term approval. For emergency approval, you are only assured that the vaccine is safer than the alternative - not taking the vaccine. For long-term approval, you have to ensure that the vaccine is safer than all alternative vaccines and is being administered in the ideal dosage.

 

[null]

The vaccine was withdrawn because there were other, better options. That, as we've been saying from the beginning, is the largest difference between emergency approval and long-term approval. For emergency approval, you are only assured that the vaccine is safer than the alternative - not taking the vaccine. For long-term approval, you have to ensure that the vaccine is safer than all alternative vaccines and is being administered in the ideal dosage.

You keep saying that, yes but I will check what the primaries said.

Also it's worth remembering that this "why" is just your rearguard action adjunct, but just for completeness i will tale a look.

 

[newworldafro]

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 230 studies

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 51 studies

Vitamin D for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 50 studies

Vitamin C for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 4 studies

Zinc for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 6 studies

 

[null]

Yes, it was a valid answer, and makes me even less worried than I was before

Analogous statements:

My seat-belt not working while I was driving at 1 mph doesn't worry me because I was driving slowly.

Viral escape from laboratories doesn't worry me because the ones that have escaped were not calamitous.

Getting stabbed in the stomach doesn't worry me because the last guy didn't stab hard enough.

-

The point is that things can be missed/not included in trials. The fact that such an occasion was "not of concern" does not change that the fact that "things escaping" is of concern.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Analogous statements:

My seat-belt not working while I was driving at 1 mph doesn't worry me because I was driving slowly.

Viral escape from laboratories doesn't worry me because the ones that have escaped were not calamitous.

Getting stabbed in the stomach doesn't worry me because the last guy didn't stab hard enough.

The point is that things can be missed/not included in trials. The fact that such an occasion was "not of concern" does not change that the fact that "things escaping" is of concern.

No, those are not analogous statements. You keep responding over and over without applying your mind to what I am saying.

In a carefully monitored trial, say of 20,000+ treatment subjects (and similar # of control subjects), you are exceedingly likely to catch any side-effect that shows up at a frequency of 0.1% or higher, and have a chance at catching side-effects as rare as 0.02% (1 in 5000) or so. So for a side-effect not to show up in initial testing, it is likely to be either quite rare, or so mild that it wasn't caught.

Once you've vaccinated your first million, then you're probably catching side-effects frequent to the 1 in 20,000 or perhaps even 1 in 100,000 level. So the only occasions when we would have missed side effects at this stage is if they are incredibly rare or too mild to catch our attention.

Your statements are not analogous, because there is no relation between the prior events and future events in your example statements. But in this case, we DO have a trial stage for all the approved Covid vaccines on which we can base our understanding, and in addition we have 50 million or so people vaccinated already. That is why you can know that we haven't missed common side effects, or even moderate side effects of any meaningful severity. If we have missed something, then as in previous cases it will be because it was so rare it slipped through the trials or because it was mild enough not to catch our attention.

 

[null]

No, those are not analogous statements. You keep responding over and over without applying your mind to what I am saying.

In a carefully monitored trial, say of 20,000+ treatment subjects (and similar # of control subjects), you are exceedingly likely to catch any side-effect that shows up at a frequency of 0.1% or higher, and have a chance at catching side-effects as rare as 0.02% (1 in 5000) or so. So for a side-effect not to show up in initial testing, it is likely to be either quite rare, or so mild that it wasn't caught.

Once you've vaccinated your first million, then you're probably catching side-effects frequent to the 1 in 20,000 or perhaps even 1 in 100,000 level. So the only occasions when we would have missed side effects at this stage is if they are incredibly rare or too mild to catch our attention.

Your statements are not analogous, because there is no relation between the prior events and future events in your example statements. But in this case, we DO have a trial stage for all the approved Covid vaccines on which we can base our understanding, and in addition we have 50 million or so people vaccinated already. That is why you can know that we haven't missed common side effects, or even moderate side effects of any meaningful severity. If we have missed something, then as in previous cases it will be because it was so rare it slipped through the trials or because it was mild enough not to catch our attention.

We are talking about your specific request for a time-based long-term problem.
Long-term is not a problem of numbers but rather a problem of time.
It was your specific request to talk about effects which only show up after a period so why are you ignoring it now?
Swine flu injections were 2009 and wider problems became apparent in 2011 from the PDFs from before.

How can you tell me that I am not "using my mind" when you are ignoring your own qualification?

 

[null]

The vaccine was withdrawn because there were other, better options. That, as we've been saying from the beginning, is the largest difference between emergency approval and long-term approval. For emergency approval, you are only assured that the vaccine is safer than the alternative - not taking the vaccine. For long-term approval, you have to ensure that the vaccine is safer than all alternative vaccines and is being administered in the ideal dosage.

Actually from what I have found (various sources) it was not so straightforward. The EU authorization lapsed in 2015. I would probably have to dig into individual countries - two of the hardest hit countries being Sweden and Finland but to be honest it doesn't matter.

The bottom line is that significant stage 4 problems exist.

I'm not going to stray into anti-vax or even possible anti-vax-interpretable territory but we know it's not in the interest for big pharma to be open about such matters, beyond what they legally have to do.

This from the BMJ looks interesting but it is behind a paywall.

"Eight years after the pandemic influenza outbreak, a lawsuit alleging that GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix vaccine caused narcolepsy has unearthed internal reports suggesting problems with the vaccine’s safety. Peter Doshi asks what this means for the future of transparency during public health emergencies

In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said.

Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated.2 “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement.3

Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury."
Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs?

Spoiler: bmj

The BMJ is a weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, published by the trade union the British Medical Association (BMA). The BMJ has editorial freedom from the BMA.[1] It is one of the world's oldest general medical journals. Originally called the British Medical Journal, the title was officially shortened to BMJ in 1988, and then changed to The BMJ in 2014.[2] The journal is published by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, a subsidiary of the British Medical Association (BMA). The editor-in-chief of The BMJ is Fiona Godlee, who was appointed in February 2005.[3]

In the 2019 Journal Citation Reports, published in 2020, The BMJ's impact factor was 30.223.[19] ranking it fourth among general medical journals.[20] However, The BMJ in 2013 reported that it had become a signatory to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (commonly known as the Dora Agreement), which deprecates the inappropriate use of journal impact factors and urges journal publishers to "greatly reduce the emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, ideally by ceasing to promote the impact factor or by presenting it in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics."[21]

 

[Professor Emeritus]

We are talking about your specific request for a time-based long-term problem.
Long-term is not a problem of numbers but rather a problem of time.
It was your specific request to talk about effects which only show up after a period so why are you ignoring it now?
Swine flu injections were 2009 and wider problems became apparent in 2011 from the PDFs from before.

How can you tell me that I am not "using my mind" when you are ignoring your own qualification?

Real talk cause I don't mean no shade and have good friends who are like this and respect them. Are you on the spectrum or no?

 

[null]

Real talk cause I don't mean no shade and have good friends who are like this and respect them. Are you on the spectrum or no?

real talk, "".

you are on the coli spectrum though. no offence

Can you guys give an example of an american vaccine that was found to have significant common long-term effects that were not apparent in initial trials?

You meant issues that show up "down the line". You could vaccinate 500 million people in one day and those "down the line" issues would not show up until down the line.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

real talk, "".

you are on the coli spectrum though. no offence

I'm serious. If you are I'll make sure to tailor responses accordingly. The fact that you've replied to me 11 times in this thread without once showing that you understood the meaning and context of my initial question is interesting to me. And your repeated insistence that I "acknowledge" that you have answered the question is even more interesting. Either you are overly focused on trying to "win" an internet discussion, you have poor reading comprehension, or you display the sort of focus on blunt meanings without allowances for context that typify someone on the spectrum.

It's okay if you don't know yet, plenty people don't realize until their 30s or later if ever. I don't think it's a bad thing just a different thing. Would have PM'd you but I don't know how to use PM for someone who blocks their profile from view.

 

[null]

I'm serious. If you are I'll make sure to tailor responses accordingly. The fact that you've replied to me 11 times in this thread without once showing that you understood the meaning and context of my initial question is interesting to me. And your repeated insistence that I "acknowledge" that you have answered the question is even more interesting. Either you are overly focused on trying to "win" an internet discussion, you have poor reading comprehension, or you display the sort of focus on blunt meanings without allowances for context that typify someone on the spectrum.

It's okay if you don't know yet, plenty people don't realize until their 30s or later if ever. I don't think it's a bad thing just a different thing. Would have PM'd you but I don't know how to use PM for someone who blocks their profile from view.

Breh maybe you are a faux intellectual wonder, in your own mind.

Who knows?

Maybe you are not understanding.

Who knows?

Your quantum computing waffle babble showed that you are the one that is determined to be right even when you don't know what you are talking about.

Put on the spot rather that say you don't know, you know as "hey, you are an intellectual", albeit whatever the case may be someone with a distinct lack of self-awareness. You need show yourself that you are right while not being aware enough to see that others can see where you are wrong.

Yet totally un-self-aware you wallow in your own self-assigned patina of infallibility.

Projection of your personal limitations on others is normal (dunning kruger). "Spectrums" might be projection too. No idea.

At the end of the day I have no need to psychoanalyse you because i. it's unpleasant, ii. why would I and iii. unlike having fun on here you don't attack people's real problems nor people with real issues.

At the end of the day I am not here to attack people, so going forward stick to the points.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Breh maybe you are a faux intellectual wonder, in your own mind.

Who knows?

Well, I do have plenty of concrete external confirmation on that question, so no need to rely on any self-evaluation there.

Your quantum computing waffle babble showed that you are the one that is determined to be right even when you don't know what you are talking about.

Yeah, that was actually the first time I began to consider that you might be on the spectrum. In a conversation about quantum teleportation you kept constantly diverting over to quantum computing questions that had no relation to the topic and got so focused on your own derailment of the thread that you couldn't even evaluate other posts properly. Then in order to try to prove that your derailment was justified, you attempted to find a technical issue with one of my sentences when my point had been completely correct. And no amount of clarification seemed to get you to realize what you had done.

That sort of derailment, the obsessive focus on the minutia of wording without the ability to take the context of the statement as a whole, is very indicative of Asperger's thinking patterns.

Projection of your personal limitations on others is normal (dunning kruger). "Spectrums" might be projection too. No idea.

That's actually a partial misrepresentation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. DK weren't interested in projection onto others so much as they were interested in the misevaluation of one's own abilities. Interesting....

At the end of the day I have no need to psychoanalyse you because i. it's unpleasant, ii. why would I and iii. unlike having fun on here you don't attack people's real problems nor people with real issues.

I could quote pages of you attacking people in this thread alone.

Even before I stepped into the thread you had mocked another poster's intellectual capabilities at least three times already.

If you're on the spectrum then there's nothing to attack - different is not bad, it's just different. If you simply are refusing to acknowledge what other people are saying because you're so desperate to win an internet argument that you refuse to get outside your own head or admit what you already see, then that's another issue.

 

[23Barrettcity]

I got the first dose of the Moderna vaccine. so far so good

Got mine scheduled for the 28th I’m so ready

 

[Fctftl]

Got mine scheduled for the 28th I’m so ready

my 2nd dose is feb 11. gotta be better than catching the virus right? been over 1 week since my first dose n still no side effect. im 28 tho so maybe older cats might be diff. still, no regrets so far.