Quote:
Originally Posted by zilo
Measles vaccine as you mentioned is not mandated and is highly contagious as is tuberculosis...in fact no vaccine in my living memory was ever mandated.
|
Not totally correct. The measles and whooping cough vaccine, among others, is essentially mandated. I'm sure you've heard of the "No Jab, No play" policy in effect at both federal and stricter state levels. A mandate by another name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilo
So why is the Covid vaccine mandated again ?
|
Because both the feds and states decided it should be. I didn't say it was right, nor do I agree with it. Never have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zilo
seeing as how you attacked the youtuber politician complaining about it I am curious at your answer...(apart from a personalized attack on him)
|
I'm not complaining about him, I just think he's a d*ck. For every video he releases like that, yes informed and eloquent, he has a half dozen FB posts that play fast and loose with the truth, facts and statistics that seem to play to his out there supporter base. If you'd spent anytime following his moves you'd see what I mean.
It's hard to respect someone like this and what they say when it seems they are playing games to maintain a personal relevance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KobiXR6T
Safe and effective. Somewhat and kind of...
|
I'm talking about overall statistically, not personally or anecdotally. I know yours and T3rminators personal experience differs greatly to mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KobiXR6T
The disclaimer you signed as part of your surgery, you were made very aware of the risks and the dangers, some options, and then made the choice to proceed.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3rminator
Correct. At the dentist, you had all the relevant information given to you to make a choice. The point here is, if you are not given all the information, you can't make a credible risk calculation.
|
The difference here is I feel like I was. I did my research and watched what was coming out of places like the US and countries who were getting the vaccine first. I actually learnt of the Bells Palsy and heavy menstruation side effect before I learnt of things like Myocarditis.
But it turned out that while Bell's Palsy was observed during trials in people given the vaccine, it was also observed in people given the placebo. And the rate observed was within the otherwise standard national rate. Which is why it wasn't considered an actual adverse reaction. And I've since read of explanations to reactions such as Myocarditis.
When I booked Dad and I in for our jabs I had to go through an electronic form confirming family and personal history and confirming i understood the risks and side effects. When I fronted for my jab I went through the same thing again on paper, which had the prevailing major and minor side effects listed at the time, and had to sign off on it.
I also recognise and accept that there were potentially side effects not listed or expected. And that can happen with any medication.
Maybe my experience was different to yours.
When I broke out in hives that time I wasn't even warned it could happen because no one had ever seen it happen and it wasn't listed as a typical side effect. But regardless the minute risky unknowns wouldn't have stopped me anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KobiXR6T
I think the point T3 is making is that somewhere between the drug companies and the regulative authorities, these risks were well known and not to all be mild, but were very poorly communicated and rarely weighed up against the individual risk of not using them.
|
I completely understand and accept what he is saying.
All I am saying is there is zero regard given to the time that is normally required to adequately collect and report on the tests, trials and results to give provide a person clarity with the desired informed opinion. And would that person have been happy to wait that time, given government controls, until these adequate results became available.
The other thing that is not considered is the scale of the operation. It's speculation to say that the risks were well known but not communicated. For all we know the risks were considered acceptable and inline with any other medication.
If vaccination X has a 1 in 1,000,000 major adverse reaction rate, but only 500,000 doses are delivered in a year, then it will never be heard of. But in this case we were attempting to vaccinate the entire country, and the world for that matter, in a matter of months. Of course that reaction rate would quickly pile up to noticeable and staggering numbers that would be immediately communicated and scrutinised in our age of instant media and information sharing.
But in reality it could be within the bounds of acceptable for the regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3rminator
The suggestion is either one or the other. Its not. I've given one possible scenario. I'm sure plenty of smarter people can think of others.
|
Sounds like you're trying to say I'm dumb.
But, yes and no. In reality there are 3 answers. Yes I am happy to take to take the risk, yes I'm happy to wait the extended development time or no I refuse to take it because I haven't been offered enough information, which then circles back to the former.
Given what the states did to their residents the options and answers are quite limited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3rminator
So you didn't really trust what was being presented in the first place. "Initial adopters" were just a larger trial in your eyes?
|
I trusted what was being presented. But I also wanted to see what came out of the mix once it was being used in Australia given our guidelines and reporting are by my understanding stricter.
Plus I'm never an early adopter of anything. The person who buys the new model of a car is crazy to me. And I suppose I was personally lucky that I could leave it till later. Which in the end became moot because it wasn't available to me until much later than I planned.
Anyways... Enough from me. I'm out!
