hakutaku Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 26 minutes ago, fides' Jack said: The FDA was under enormous pressure to fast-track the approval without due diligence. Emergencies like pandemics put everyone under pressure. It would be weirder if there was no pressure in an emergency. 28 minutes ago, fides' Jack said: The whole thing is demonic. You'll see that when you are supposed to. No it isn't. Can you give time bounds on when people will "see?" in the next 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, hakutaku said: Emergencies like pandemics put everyone under pressure. It would be weirder if there was no pressure in an emergency. Agreed. But not enough to justify completely foregoing all animal tests in a brand-spanking-new "vaccine" using a very new technology. 7 minutes ago, hakutaku said: No it isn't. Can you give time bounds on when people will "see?" in the next 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? I'm 99% sure it will happen within 10 years. 99.9% that it'll be within 15 years. Very possibly within 1 year, but the longer time goes on, the more certain it's going to happen. 4 years ago, I had no confidence that it would be within a century. But I'm not absolutely positive with any of these numbers. As Scripture tells us, no one knows the day or the hour. However, the closer we get, the more clearly we will know. I pray that when it does happen, you do not reject His grace. (nor I, for that matter) Edited August 28, 2021 by fides' Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonableFaith Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 11 hours ago, fides' Jack said: But not enough to justify completely foregoing all animal tests in a brand-spanking-new "vaccine" using a very new technology. Huh? Johnson & Johnson: https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-announces-that-janssens-covid-19-investigational-vaccine-candidate-prevents-severe-clinical-disease-in-pre-clinical-studies Pfizer: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-data-preclinical-studies-mrna Moderna: https://www.biospace.com/article/in-challenge-studies-with-monkeys-moderna-s-vaccine-protected-against-covid-19/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted August 28, 2021 Author Share Posted August 28, 2021 Natural immunity provides 13 times more protection against Delta than Pfizer's vaccine does, according to a Large Israeli study. LINK: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 15 minutes ago, little2add said: Natural immunity provides 13 times more protection against Delta than Pfizer's vaccine does, according to a Large Israeli study. LINK: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-no-infection-parties Sure, but that's not much consolation for the people who are infected by the virus and die from it. Whatever benefits there are from natural immunity, they can still be had with people taking the vaccine: The study demonstrates the power of the human immune system, but infectious disease experts emphasized that this vaccine and others for COVID-19 nonetheless remain highly protective against severe disease and death. And they caution that intentional infection among unvaccinated people would be extremely risky. “What we don’t want people to say is: ‘All right, I should go out and get infected, I should have an infection party.’” says Michel Nussenzweig, an immunologist at Rockefeller University who researches the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and was not involved in the study. “Because somebody could die.” The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and then received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated. The new work could inform discussion of whether previously infected people need to receive both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or the similar mRNA vaccine from Moderna. Vaccine mandates don’t necessarily exempt those who had a SARS-CoV-2 infection already and the current U.S. recommendation is that they be fully vaccinated, which means two mRNA doses or one of the J&J adenovirus-based vaccine. Yet one mRNA dose might be enough, some scientists argue. And other countries including Germany, France, Italy, and Israel administer just one vaccine dose to previously infected people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted August 28, 2021 Author Share Posted August 28, 2021 38 minutes ago, Peace said: Sure, but that's not much consolation for the people who are infected by the virus and die from it No it’s not, but if you’ve been vaccinated, I would not get the booster. But that’s just me. Supposedly if you’ve been vaccinated and contract the virus it results in mild flu symptoms lasting only a few days naturally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 4 hours ago, Peace said: Sure, but that's not much consolation for the people who are infected by the virus and die from it. You mean those people who, on average, have at least 3 co-morbidities? 6 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said: Huh? Johnson & Johnson: https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-announces-that-janssens-covid-19-investigational-vaccine-candidate-prevents-severe-clinical-disease-in-pre-clinical-studies Pfizer: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-data-preclinical-studies-mrna Moderna: https://www.biospace.com/article/in-challenge-studies-with-monkeys-moderna-s-vaccine-protected-against-covid-19/ Yes, I realize that they claim to have done some animal testing after they already started human tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 3 minutes ago, fides' Jack said: You mean those people who, on average, have at least 3 co-morbidities? Yes, I realize that they claim to have done some animal testing after they already started human tests. OK well let me rephrase my original statement: Sure, but that's not much consolation for the people who are infected by the virus and die from it (excluding people having co-morbidities since their lives apparently don't matter to some people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 43 minutes ago, Peace said: OK well let me rephrase my original statement: Sure, but that's not much consolation for the people who are infected by the virus and die from it (excluding people having co-morbidities since their lives apparently don't matter to some people). Their lives absolutely matter to me. That's why I desire that the truth be told. If they died of cancer, or from a car accident, it is dishonorable and disrespectful to them to say they died of covid. If you do exclude those with, say, 2 or more co-morbidities, then covid-19 becomes one of the least deadly viruses that we know about. Certainly less deadly than a common cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 1 minute ago, fides' Jack said: Their lives absolutely matter to me. That's why I desire that the truth be told. If they died of cancer, or from a car accident, it is dishonorable and disrespectful to them to say they died of covid. I agree, but your problem is that they did not die from cancer or a car accident. What does the word "co" in "co-morbidity" mean friend? It means that COVID was one of the factors that caused the person's death, along with the other factors (cancer, obesity, etc.) You are trying to make the situation seem as if COVID had nothing to do with these deaths at all. 1 minute ago, fides' Jack said: If you do exclude those with, say, 2 or more co-morbidities, then covid-19 becomes one of the least deadly viruses that we know about. Certainly less deadly than a common cold. Oh please man, now you are saying that Covid is less lethal than the common cold? Have you been getting your talking points from Trump rallies? I can't even take this discussion seriously anymore when you write stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted August 28, 2021 Share Posted August 28, 2021 Just now, Peace said: I agree, but your problem is that they did not die from cancer or a car accident. Actually, some did die in car accidents, and their deaths were attributed to covid. That's not fake news. Their numbers are part of the 650,000. 1 minute ago, Peace said: What does the word "co" in "co-morbidity" mean friend? It means that COVID was one of the factors that caused the person's death, along with the other factors (cancer, obesity, etc.) You are trying to make the situation seem as if COVID had nothing to do with these deaths at all. There have always been rules regarding how they count the primary cause of death. And they changed that rule for covid. They came out and said they changed that rule for covid early on in 2020 (April timeframe), in that anyone diagnosed with covid within a certain timeframe before they died would be listed as a covid death. And that makes the official number absolutely meaningless. Not to mention the problem with the covid tests, themselves... sigh. 4 minutes ago, Peace said: Oh please man, now you are saying that Covid is less lethal than the common cold? Have you been getting your talking points from Trump rallies? You know, I overstated my case, I'll be honest. But the general sense of what I was trying to convey stands. A year ago they did a study and found that they could only claim death was directly due to covid in 6% of covid-attributed deaths. Back in June (or July?) they did the same study with the latest numbers and found it was down to 5%. Even with the official numbers there aren't many deaths - for most of the population it's a little higher than seasonal flu deaths. For much of the population it's around or a little lower than seasonal flu deaths. If the number is exaggerated 20 times (not saying it is), it's much, much lower than the flu. Not as low as the common cold - sorry for misspeaking on that. My point is that since they changed the rules, we can't know for sure. The real number is somewhere between 0 and 650,000 in the US. They shouldn't have changed the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonableFaith Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 On 8/28/2021 at 5:48 PM, fides' Jack said: Actually, some did die in car accidents, and their deaths were attributed to covid. That's not fake news. Their numbers are part of the 650,000. How many? Where are the ‘not fake news’ accounts? Are the names, dates of death, or obituaries available for these persons who died in a car totally unrelated to COVID-19? It seems quite possible some would die from COVID-19 after sustaining injuries in a car accident. Maybe somebody had COVID, was driving themselves to the hospital, and died in a car wreck because of it? But this seems far less probable… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fides' Jack Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 On 8/30/2021 at 12:53 PM, ReasonableFaith said: How many? Where are the ‘not fake news’ accounts? We'll never know. Those accounts are always censored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercedes Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 3 hours ago, fides' Jack said: We'll never know. Those accounts are always censored. Censored by who? The conservative outlets must have surely launched an investigation about this censorship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonableFaith Posted September 1, 2021 Share Posted September 1, 2021 11 hours ago, fides' Jack said: We'll never know. Those accounts are always censored. So a claim made without any actual evidence and an assertion the ‘evidence’ likely exists, but you couldn’t possibly share such ‘evidence’ because it is super secret? It seems more reasonable to proceed as if deaths from automobile accidents were not included among the COVID-19 death count. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now