Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

Started by Angelo, October 22, 2020, 10:36:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

Yes
122 (71.8%)
No
48 (28.2%)

Total Members Voted: 170

Last Man

https://youtu.be/4FQUmw5QljM
There is enough rationality on the other side of the debate for it not to be dismissed out of hand.

GetOverTheBar

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!

As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again
, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up

You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.

This.

Lock the thread.

Franko

Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:01:08 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 17, 2020, 09:40:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market

How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.

I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.

You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.

1. Pfizer produce/manufacture the vaccine.  They don't certify the vaccine for use.  So unless you want to call into question the MHRA also, then there will be no vaccine without somebody checking Pfizer's work.
2. Nobody is working on blind faith - everyone is happy to question this if there's even the slightest evidence of wrongdoing.  But if the only thing that you can produce by way of evidence is 'optics', then you belong in the category with Sun readers and the Karens on Facebook - another internet windbag.
3. So what if the guy made money from this?  If I'm the CEO of the company which discovered a vaccine which is worth literally trillions to the worlds economies, I'd be very disappointed if I didn't make some money from doing it.

You are working off blind faith, you seem to be some sort of vaccine fascist that wants everyone to take the vaccine. There are massive question marks over it. Only last week or the week before we have a a Big Pharma company settling over side effects of a Swine Flu vaccine. I'm wary and sceptical of this and would not be willing to take this vaccine on the grounds that it was rushed through in an unprecedented timeline. That should prompt concerns in any rational-minded thinker.

So what if a guy made money from this? Eh, self-interest. He signed a contract DURING the pandemic that would have allowed him to profit heavily from the vaccine hitting the market first and you can't see how it could compromise decision making? Pfizer have a very unscrupulous past. There's an article above from 2009 where they were hit with a record $2bn fine for mispromoting a drug they made and paying kickbacks to doctors so the company in question don't merely have issues in the optics of this, they also have issues in their past transgressions.

Big Pharma is about as seedy an industry as you can find.

Why are people like you, who know absolutley nothing about the vaccine and its potential consequences, so adamant that people risk their health and go and get it.

Lots of words, and yet again, no substance.  You are the definition of an internet windbag.

And of course it's self interest?  Self interest is why any private company exists.  Can't you understand that?  The same 'conflict' exists in any company who manufacture any item.  Do it quicker/cheaper and we make more money.

But because of that, like in countless other regulated industries, someone checks their homework.

And in this one, the cost of getting it wrong would be terminal for the company, given the 2bn fine you have talked about earlier.

With eyes of the entire world on this one, I think they'd struggle to half-ass it.

But I'll say it again.  If you have some sort of evidence of wrong-doing, produce it.  I, and I'm sure many others, would be genuinely keen to hear it.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!

As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up

You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.

I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.

Medical experts at the minute will monitor the results and from the current tests they have carried out decide if its safe to run out! What proof have you that it's not safe?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

trueblue1234

Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market

How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.

I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.

You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.

Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.

Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.

Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.

If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.

You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine

No one can be 100% sure on anything. However people tend to make judgement calls on what is the most likely scenario.
It's been explained that no other vaccine processed has had the resources thrown at it that Covid has. Also it's a Coronavirus which meant stage 2 trials were much quicker. 6 months instead of 2 years due to previous research. Previous work on SARS allowed them to avoid stumbling blocks. The virus itself creates a natural immune reaction in most people who get the virus, therefore was easier to recreate unlike the likes of HIV.  This information is all out there.
You can be skeptical absolutely, but it needs to be based on something more than it's happened too quickly. 
Grammar: the difference between knowing your shit

Angelo

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 10:29:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!

As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up

You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.

I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.

Medical experts at the minute will monitor the results and from the current tests they have carried out decide if its safe to run out! What proof have you that it's not safe?

You seem to confusing what I'm saying.

I'm very sceptical and wary and therefore would be very cautious about the vaccine, go ahead and find out what those words mean if you're confused.

What proof have you that the vaccine is ok?
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

Angelo

Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market

How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.

I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.

You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.

Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.

Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.

Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.

If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.

You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine

No one can be 100% sure on anything. However people tend to make judgement calls on what is the most likely scenario.
It's been explained that no other vaccine processed has had the resources thrown at it that Covid has. Also it's a Coronavirus which meant stage 2 trials were much quicker. 6 months instead of 2 years due to previous research. Previous work on SARS allowed them to avoid stumbling blocks. The virus itself creates a natural immune reaction in most people who get the virus, therefore was easier to recreate unlike the likes of HIV.  This information is all out there.
You can be skeptical absolutely, but it needs to be based on something more than it's happened too quickly.

The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first

Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

trueblue1234

#532
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM

The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first

Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.

There's explanations for the timeline. I've mentioned a few of the bigger ones above.

With regards to the rest, are you saying you would never take another new vaccine again because Pharma is a dirty industry? Therefore any vaccine could be as a result of a self serving pharma company?
Grammar: the difference between knowing your shit

Rossfan

Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

LCohen

Quote from: larryin89 on November 16, 2020, 10:11:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 08:32:51 PM
Quote from: Gmac on November 16, 2020, 07:27:55 PM
What will happen to people who don't take the vaccine or don't have access to it ,Will they be ostracized from the community .
Will people who have taken the vaccine have a card or some sort of certification to say they are vaccinated. The administration of the vaccine and the problems it going to raise should be examined closely before its rolled out , there will be huge problems especially at the start .

As pointed out elsewhere there may be a role for cards internationally. Also commercially. But I don't think you will need one to walk the streets.

Important that vaccines, even when approved and rolled out, are a long way from a relaxation of social distancing measures.

I'm nearly sure that the roll out of the vaccine will be examined. What makes you think it might not?

Are problems not avoidable with the right planning and buy in?

Buy in is critical. We are all reliant on people not being dicks

So how long do you believe social distancing will be here for ?

The easy bit of that to answer is the next 5-6 months. Given the winter pressures and absence of a vaccine social distancing will definitely be here. Beyond that there is more guesswork.

You would have to speculate on the sign off of the vaccines, the time it will take to roll them out and the order in which they will be rolled out. The west will buy up a lot and will also be pressurised to allow a proportion to go to the developing world. Within the West we will have to decide on the relative priority of those most likely to suffer from the virus and those most likely to spread it. That will likely depend on the further tests on the vaccine.

Social distancing is there to plug the gap in our defence against this. The longer a gap exists the longer social distancing rules are maintained. Treatments and Test, track and trace can also help close the gap

JimStynes

It's actually getting to be quite impressive how Angelo can be bothered with all these rows on different threads on an internet forum. He is going to need to give a man a start or employ a secretary to keep up with it all. Serious effort.

LCohen

Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:12:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM


Optics are for Sun readers.

Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.

Maybe this is the problem.

Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.

So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.

Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.

Lol at that first sentence.

Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid.  Big headline but no substance.  Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence.  Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.

The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this.  You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.

The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.

If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.

Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.

Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?

Solicitors and Accountants

Post a link

Here's an example.

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception
that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised

As someone who worked in finance that has no correlation or comparison with the Pfizer CEO. For your example to work the CEO, in house broker and investment company would have all had to have worked together to fix the share price to get it to the level they wanted so the chairman could sell his shares and the investment company get paid their fee and commission

Your obsession with "optics" as you put it only shows how close minded you are. If you looked past the lazy headlines of the sale of the shares you'd see the company and CEO did nothing illegal or wrong.

You occasionally see park rangers killing deer in the phoenix park and the "optics" of that are very bad. However if you look into why they do it you'll see it's to protect other species in the park and ensure the deer population doesn't get out of control.

To be fair to Angelo he has at least tried to answer the question. Which is a significant improvement.

The example covers the situation where an audit firm needs to take steps to ensure providing non audit services to a entity couldn't be done in a way in which would compromise its ability to conduct audit activity for the same entity. But Angelo would be wrong to conclude that it amounts to a ban on providing non audit services. If the position came be explained it can be done. As the Pfizer guy has done

LCohen

Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 11:19:09 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on November 16, 2020, 10:39:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM


Optics are for Sun readers.

Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.

Maybe this is the problem.

Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.

So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.

Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.

Lol at that first sentence.

Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid.  Big headline but no substance.  Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence.  Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.

The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this.  You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.

The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.

If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.

Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.

Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?

Solicitors and Accountants

Post a link

Here's an example.

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception
that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised

Reaching there

If you have a tenuous grasp of the English language I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion. Otherwise you wouldn't be debating it.

Professional bodies have ethical guidelines that actively try to stop their members actions being open to scrutiny.


Optics
(typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception
that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised


A CEO of a billion dollar pharma company signing a contract that allows him to sell his shares once they reach a certain price in the middle of a pandemic when they are developing a vaccine gives a serious conflict of interest and the optics of it are utterly terrible.

As far as industries go as well, few are as dirty as big pharma.

For those reasons I'd be very wary.

Do you think big Pharma have done anything good?

Did you or your kids ever get immunised?

LCohen

Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market

How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.

I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.

You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.

Is it in any way possible that the search for this vaccine is more resources or better coordinated?

Milltown Row2

#539
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:53:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 10:29:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!

As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up

You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.

I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.

Medical experts at the minute will monitor the results and from the current tests they have carried out decide if its safe to run out! What proof have you that it's not safe?

You seem to confusing what I'm saying.

I'm very sceptical and wary and therefore would be very cautious about the vaccine, go ahead and find out what those words mean if you're confused.

What proof have you that the vaccine is ok?

I've no proof that it'll work 100%, there is studies currently that show that its 90%

So I've answered you.

Have you proof that the vaccine is not ok?

Please just answer the last bit in bold and don't confuse yourself and others with a daft answer
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea