Ques about vaccines in general

amother

Anemone

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 5:51 pm

amother [ Natural ] wrote:

Um.. you do realize that all that was waived for the Covid response? If you want people to go all out and above and beyond when an emergency situation like this occurs, you have to relax the rules. Otherwise, it would be impossible to come up with an emergency response to tackle the emergency. Emergency situations call for emergency response, and you have to make exceptions.

I do notice that you dont answer the question but keep deflecting. If there was such an emergency then why are hospitals firing nurses for not wanting to take the vaccine? Isnt all protocol waived for covid? Or are only some things waived and other things not? And why do you call it an emergency when the numbers are nowhere near where it was in March and April of 2020 and most people are vaccinated?
But I will ask again, maybe someone will tell me if they think the vaccine companies will take the deal or not-- If the vaccine company and all their stockholders agree to forgo the billions of dollars they are making (and give up the billions they already made) and give all those money to people facing eviction or homelessness AND accept for liability for any adverse reactions to the covid vaccine then will take the covid vaccine. Do you think for one minute that the vaccine companies or their stockholders would agree to such a deal if getting people vaccinated with a safe and effective drug is more important to them than money?

southernbubby

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 5:54 pm

amother [ Anemone ] wrote:

Where is the money supposed to come from to produce and distribute the vaccine?

amother

Natural

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 5:59 pm

amother [ Anemone ] wrote:

Which question have I deflected? And your question has no logic to it. During a pandemic, wouldn't you sideline those who have a higher probability of furthering the pandemic.? Especially those who are more likely to be exposed and hence be carriers? And yes, you take stock of what you waive. You waive the things that hinder progress and treatment, and you add restrictions to the stuff that can counteract any progress. These things aren't done blindly. There is a reason behind everything. We are all human though, and sometimes things aren't done correctly. But there is thought and reason into these decisions and we can only work with the information available at that particular time.

We aren't in desperate straits as we were in March and April, and the restrictions aren't in that desperate straits either. We have reopened, school, camp and life is going on. But the danger isn't over, and it's important to recognize that. We have moved on from the early madness, but we still need to take steps to prevent that madness from reoccurring.

Your last question has been answered. The answer won't change just because you don't like it.

amother

Anemone

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 6:09 pm

amother [ Natural ] wrote:

You are sidelining people who have been exposed to covid from day one, you know the ones you called a "hero" and are not a danger to it as they either had it and recovered or are somehow immune since they didnt get it yet and it doesnt look like everyone gets it. But they do wear protective gear regardless yet are still considered a problem and are fired despite claims of an "emergency" and "hospitals filling up with covid patients" etc. If thats true then why do you fire nurses that are badly needed to help take care of the patients (who mind you are typically already sick when they enter the hospital so the nurses are not the ones transmitting them to anyone).

And I am not sure where you are located but there is no waiver for liability where I am located since there are almost no cases and certainly not an emergency situation that would prevent them from being liable for malpractice. And most people are vaccinated or recovered with antibodies (which is somehow disregarded and they are still called "antivaxxers" even though there is no evidence that they need a vaccine on top of their natural antibodies and t-cells). So you can still act in a preventative measure but everyone else has pretty much moved on with their lives and not concerning themselves too much with covid.

As to what question wasnt answered, it was the deal I am asking about-- If the vaccine company and all their stockholders agree to forgo the billions of dollars they are making (and give up the billions they already made) and give all those money to people facing eviction or homelessness AND accept for liability for any adverse reactions to the covid vaccine then will take the covid vaccine. Do you think for one minute that the vaccine companies or their stockholders would agree to such a deal if getting people vaccinated with a safe and effective drug is more important to them than money?
A simple yes or no answer would suffice.

amother

Natural

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 6:18 pm

amother [ Anemone ] wrote:

They are sidelining people who have a higher risk of contracting the virus. Despite their hero status, society outweighs the individual.

The waiver of liability was instituted when it was needed, and was removed when it was no longer needed. I was just pointing out to you that the situations evolve and the responses evolve accordingly. When the medical world needed waivers to respond to the emergency situation, it was given in a heartbeat. Similarly, when the pharmaceutical world needed waivers to respond to the emergency situation, it was given accordingly. Even our Torah has 'waivers', depending on the situation.

You can't isolate a situation in a vacuum, and remove all related information, and demand a yes or no answer. That is a very black and white way of operating. Actually, all your questions follow a black and white mindset. These situations are very very grey, and that's why I think you have difficulty in accepting it. These emergency situations are very difficult to navigate, and that's why waivers are instituted and responses change frequently. In order to answer your last question, I first need to understand your black and white mindset. Do you think people who work for the good of society should be working for free. And I'll throw your last line back at you - A simple yes or no answer would suffice.

NotInNJMommy

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 6:21 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Basically nobody wants it to get to the point that it was last winter or in March of 2020. That's why it needs to be nipped in the bud and some really high level upper echelon Republican leaders are pushing or encouraging vaccination. These are men and women who value science and understand what needs to be done.
Those are my type of Republicans and they make me proud.

If you or anyone else is interested in hearing a piece on some republicans trying to encourage vaccination, This American Life (an NPR show and podcast) aired a piece in an episode this past April.

One can listen online. It's "Act 2" of the episode linked below. One can also look for Episode 736 The Herd. (FYI Act 1 is a piece on what local health commissioners have gone through in various parts of the country during COVID.)

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/736/the-herd

amother

Natural

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 6:25 pm

amother [ Anemone ] wrote:

Can you explain why they or their stockholders are making billions of dollars but have no liability for a drug that has no long term studies?

]

Stockholder aren't making billions. For example, Pfizer stock price hasn't jumped that much at all. In December 2019, their stock was around $37. Now its around $45. That is in line with the growth of so many other companies. The stockholders are making the same billions as stockholders in other industries.

If you want any company to develop an emergency treatment to respond to a pandemic, you have to give them leeway. Otherwise, no company would even attempt to put their foot in the water. The gov't didn't give them any leeway with safety and necessary precautions. Those rules weren't touched. The only rules that were touched was the liability - that if something unforeseen does happen, they cannot be liable if all safety protocols and precautions were maintained.

It seems like not only do you expect the companies to work for free, you expect them to accept risks that could destroy the whole company too. What else should they do to satisfy you?

amother

Anemone

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 6:26 pm

amother [ Natural ] wrote:

And now that you have attacked me again and deflected instead of answering the question, there is clearly no need for us to continue this conversation. I will go get ready for shabbos. And will end with saying that people should be aware that vaccine companies have zero liability for this vaccine, there are no real studies on it long term especially, and there are many people reporting severe adverse reactions which are being ignored and shoved under the rug. Oh and Israel is already giving a third dose so clearly the first two doses are not effective and who knows how long the third dose will last when there are no studies for any of this either. So everyone is free to go out and get the vaccine and be a guinea pig if they want or not take the vaccine and be part of the control group until we know more about the safety and effectiveness of the covid vaccine.

amother

Anemone

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 6:27 pm

NotInNJMommy wrote:

I never claimed to be a republican and dont care about what republicans say. I consult with my own doctor to see whats best for me medically, no one else has a say in what kind of drugs I should or shoudnt be putting into my body.

amother

Natural

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 6:29 pm

amother [ Anemone ] wrote:

I have answered every one of your questions. Yet, you haven't answered mine. Who is actually deflecting?