Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zoom_zip wrote

am i in the minority here for thinking that vaccines are good? what the hell resistance are you fighting against vaccination from eradicable diseases? i understand not wanting the tracking from digital vaccine passports, but that’s not the sentiment expressed here. the sentiment is “vaccines bad” which is some boomer facebook level conspiracy shit.

How are you distinguishing yourself from far-right anti-vaxxers?

yeah. how are you?

your bad take isn’t suddenly a good take because you paint a leftwards arrow on your chest.

16

[deleted] wrote (edited )

10

AnarchoDoom wrote

Claiming shit like Fauci knew of a "super secret master plan," because in 2017 he gave a warning about the inevitability of another infectious disease outbreak

Nope. It's related to Event 201.

−2

[deleted] wrote

6

AnarchoDoom wrote

Who "they"? In what text when what where how?

−3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

_caspar_ wrote

I certainly dont consider the covid vax good to put in my body and would rather not have it. I was hesitant for some time, but finally went ahead and got it before the current new wave of what seem to be riskier strains cropped up (u.s. context). they way I see it is a damned if you do or dont situation. I probably would have held off longer if where I lived wasnt a constant hot bed for spread where no one wears masks at all. I took a chance that the vaccine keeps me and those I care for and live with slightly safer, even if theres a chance it could cause chronic problems later, over the potentially more dangerous effects of long-term covid (or now short-term with the newer strains).

Im only anti-vax insofar as I am anti- any unfortunate aspect of living in civilization, but havent been near as hesitant in the past for a shot that already stood the test of time, so to speak. I once read that someone refused to put anything in their body that hadnt existed for at least a decade. that seems reasonable to me, but then again, how many things are either forced into my body (polluted air, microplastics in water), or that I choose to partake in that will fuck me up bit by bit. Id rather be fucked up less if I can help it.

maybe Im taking a wild guess, but it seems a years long race (how many, who knows?) between increasingly dangerous waves of strain mutations and increasingly riskier experimental vaccine designs. a race with no winner. not to mention new diseases surfacing alongside increasing ecocide. Im not confident that covid is eradicable.

8

zoom_zip wrote

I took a chance that the vaccine keeps me and those I care for and live with slightly safer, even if theres a chance it could cause chronic problems later

do you have any info on these chronic problems? the covid vaccine was developed from the SARS and MERS vaccine foundations which are 20 and 10 years old respectively.

the development of vaccines is a pretty benign science that has effectively eradicated a whole bunch of diseases already: polio, diphtheria, pertussis, mumps, measles, etc.

the yearly flu shot that hundreds of millions of people get every year is about as experimental as the covid vaccine in that it is edited and tailored for a new strain every year.

the chances of any severe/chronic problems occurring in any of these vaccines is something like 1 in 1 million (so yes, it does happen, but the risk is so minimal compared to the risk of not having it).

you are right that climate collapse will probably destroy civilisation before we eradicate it though. at least at the rate this antivax mentality is spreading.

4

_caspar_ wrote

"do you have any info on these chronic problems?"

no one does, as the mRNA vaccine has only been authorized at a large scale for general public use starting in 2020. in the coming years/decades studies will clarify more, but I hope youre right in thinking there is little to no chance of chronic problems developing. from a surface level search, it seems while there have been human trials for mRNA since the early 2000s, it was on such a small scale, and with caution as there was no urgent push until covid. this med paper from 2019 puts it in more detail:

"These are exciting times with different biotech companies bringing mRNA therapeutics towards clinical translation. In the near future, mRNA cancer vaccines targeting mutation-derived epitopes (neoantigens) might become an attractive alternative to other clinically-advanced cancer vaccines, such as those composed with synthetic (long) peptides and immune adjuvants [222-224]. Here, it can be expected that the future clinical trials testing the combination of (personalized) mRNA cancer vaccines with checkpoint inhibition will have a better chance for success, however, the safety and optimization of such combination therapies will be another topic of investigation. For prophylactic mRNA vaccines against infectious diseases, (pre-)clinical studies (in non-human primates) show accumulating evidence that mRNA vaccination is feasible, generally well-tolerated, and potentially beneficial over other traditional vaccine approaches. However, it is still waiting for a more extended clinical experience on how patients respond to mRNA vaccines, including more comparative research to select for the best suited mRNA platform and administration route, as well as to show clear therapeutic benefits over other vaccine strategies. Together, it is but a matter of time before we will be able to determine which of these mRNA vaccine candidates/strategies enable effective but safe immune responses in humans, hopefully leading to a new generation of vaccines."

Ive yet to read anywhere that the mRNA covid vaccines are not distinctly different than the traditional vaccines you mention. regardless of whether or not they are more dangerous in the long term, they are just not the same thing. even if the scientific consensus estimates they are likely safe in the long run, they admit they cannot know with certainty. or at least from everything Ive read on the topic.

far more concerning to me is the effect of loading up on multiple iterations of these vaccines year by year, each one likely being rushed through to catch up with the strain development, similar to the flu shot as you say. I dont think its a stretch to say there will be multiple novel endemics/pandemics and subsequent novel vax tech over the next few decades as well. but then again, just another set of problems on the long list of living in this world.

to sum it up, I just think there is way more to all this than shitting on anti-vaxxers because Science says "we got this", which seems not to get anywhere really.

6

zoom_zip wrote

i’m not deluded enough to think that i could say anything to change an anti-vaxxers mind. but i will still call them selfish assholes the same way i would to anyone who was walking around spraying plague out of their mouth holes without any concern or consideration for the people around them under the excuse of “my autonomy!” your autonomy isn’t carte blanche to fuck up anyone you want without being called out

2

Fool wrote

chances of any severe/chronic problems occurring in any of these vaccines is something like 1 in 1 million (so yes, it does happen, but the risk is so minimal compared to the risk of not having it).


With an average eight blood-clot cases per million in the UK, the risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is much lower than the risks of blood clot from an oral contraceptive pill (400 per million in Australia), pregnancy (2000 per million) or severe COVID-19 itself (about 31% of people admitted to the ICU, or 310,000 per million ).

From https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/medicine/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clots-statistics-percentage/

5

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

i understand not wanting the tracking from digital vaccine passports, but that’s not the sentiment expressed here.

The part you did not understand, apparently, ain't about the tracking of the vaccinated, but rather to be having a two-class system where the non-vaccinated increasingly become the scapegoats of society, and are restricted from important things like traveling, or lesser-important yet beneficial socio-cultural events and activity.

There's far-reaching social outcomes for the non-vaxxed, under such conditions, and this does not seem to be only temporary conditions... which is the other major grievance against these measures.

2

zoom_zip wrote

The part you did not understand, apparently,

thanks for the condescension, you prick, but i got that just fine from the text and my opinion stays the same.

the reason people don’t want to interact with unvaccinated people is not because they are classist, but because they don’t want to die of fucking plague. it’s the same reason they don’t stand in front of oncoming trains. sure, we all die eventually, but some deaths are more easily avoided.

there are critiques of the way vaccines are handled, definitely. corporations monopolising the pattern for capital gain. that’s a critique. countries monopolising access to vaccines so they are distributed unequally on a global scale. that’s a critique. but these aren’t attacks on the very concept of vaccines; they are attacks on the greed that restricts access to them. funnily enough, both of these critiques are often a class issue, unlike your idea that “vaccines bad”.

if you have the option to get vaccinated but you choose not to because of some conspiracy shit you read on facebook, that’s not even nearly a class issue. it’s a “you’re an asshole” issue, choosing to spread a preventable disease to others.

3

_caspar_ wrote

"choosing to spread a preventable disease to others."

arent many if not most vaccinated spreading covid just as well by not masking up and living as if they no longer contribute to the spread? I was under the impression that you can still catch, carry a viral load, and have it mutate all the while being vaccinated.

7

zoom_zip wrote

A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others. However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus.

COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States have been shown to be effective against SARS-CoV-2 infections, including asymptomatic and symptomatic infection, severe disease, and death. These findings, along with the early evidence for reduced viral load in vaccinated people who develop COVID-19, suggest that any associated transmission risk is likely to be substantially reduced in vaccinated people.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

i can only speak anecdotally, but myself and everyone i know are still wearing masks despite being vaccinated. if you’re running into people who are like “welp i’m jabbed, fuck the rest of you,” then they are assholes too. it’s possible for two types of people to be assholes.

6

_caspar_ wrote

a lower viral load reducing spread makes sense, but I was mostly thinking of the new strains currently throwing a wrench into this plan, given the vaccines limited efficacy over time and how many vaxxed are thinking just that: that they did what they were supposed to, dropped masks altogether, and going back to business as usual.

I also think of how much the vaccine campaign was emphasized way more than masking. you would think if the medical/political consensus of pro-vax were truly interested in reducing if not eliminating spread, masking would have been just as emphasized (if not more) than getting the shot, but that didnt seem to be the case.

5

zoom_zip wrote

it probably depends where you are, but i guess theoretically the vaccine is more important because if 100% of people were vaccinated then the disease could be eradicated. masks are only a temporary measure as long as that is the goal. if the goal isn’t to eradicate the disease, then what are masks doing? people aren’t going to wear them forever.

but you’re right. as long as the goal is to get like 95% of people vaccinated, we need to keep wearing masks until that is done. otherwise we are encouraging spread and mutation that threatens to unravel the whole effort.

4

[deleted] wrote

7

existential1 wrote

I think in this particular situation, it ends when one of you die because of this disease. Hypotheticaly speaking.

4

[deleted] wrote

3

existential1 wrote

I'm not arguing in favor of coercion. I'm calling a suicide pact a suicide pact. I don't have enough faith in civ or humanity to expect this situation to get "better" any other way than a critical mass of people dying and being infected and the virus not continuously mutating in such a way to require mass social distancing. Frankly, people are too individualistic to believe they aren't exceptional in terms of their likelihood to be one of the strongly affected, either in death or bad sickness. We, as a species, are going to "I'll take my chances" all the way to darwin award equilibrium.

6

[deleted] wrote

6

existential1 wrote

I mean, i think it kind of suggests that. But it empathizes with coercive actions like taking the availability to get vaccinated away from others by attacking critical infrastructure. So, idk, taken as a whole it is at best contradictory.

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

_caspar_ wrote

but there also exists a literal life cult I think is just as widespread as the position you describe (at least where scientific materialism has left its mark). but its not a life cult for deeply questioning why life is worth living and how to live qualitatively better, but instead takes a quantitative approach to the prolongation of life no matter the cost.

to me, both the idealist neglect of the body in favor of spirit and the materialist neglect of what it means to live over living longer, faster, stronger etc. are both dead-end outlooks.

6

another_i wrote (edited )

but there also exists a literal life cult I think is just as widespread as the position you describe (at least where scientific materialism has left its mark). but its not a life cult for deeply questioning why life is worth living and how to live qualitatively better, but instead takes a quantitative approach to the prolongation of life no matter the cost.

Thank you for making this point - I often make this point, and when I do, I point to chapter 50 in the dao de ching. I find the life-cult especially present in ancoms through to socalists - and somehow they get caught in a web of disassociating one from their own agency. (not to say that I haven't crossed paths w/ self identified egoists or nihilists that do the same, but generally they seem less susceptible).

to me, both the idealist neglect of the body in favor of spirit and the materialist neglect of what it means to live over living longer, faster, stronger etc. are both dead-end outlooks.

I feel like chapter 50 points to that, and that knowing who you are (I, not ego) actually is liberation from either dead-end.

3

existential1 wrote

Yep, i have a close friend who is an ER doctor and he's been just angry for months because he gets these people every day who invariably ask for the vaccine on their death beds and apologize but at that point, its too late hombre.

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

5

existential1 wrote

Yeah, its definitely a do a., b., and c. situation as opposed to an either/or.

5

zoom_zip wrote

i doubt any vaccine has 100% coverage yet many have still succeeded in eradicating a bunch of diseases just by blocking off pathways to transmission.

When does someone else's autonomy end and mine begin? And what is its end in service of?

i do have an answer to this but tbh i don’t have the mental energy to be the sole person holding the bastion of vaccination on this online forum right now.

3

LeninsBestCat wrote

It's not a class when the vaccines are freely available to everyone, don't be ridiculous.

−1

kinshavo wrote

freely available to everyone

So the Global South is not everyone? The countries asking for break of vaccines patent are a joke to you?

If we're indeed a proud Communist you would start demanding planetary commons and an International front against the Capitalist intrumentalization of Life and Pandemics.

Stop spreading the Petite bourgeoisie propaganda

4

AnarchoDoom wrote

Vaccines aren't good or bad in themselves. That depends on what's in it, what they do (something that can really be know through extensive testing) and their level of urgency.

In the case of Covid, a virus that ain't anywhere near as deadly as, say, the Polio or Ebola, their urgency to treat such a vast portion of the population within months following early testing, is way problematic.

0

zoom_zip wrote

4,429,426 deaths so far. many of which were preventable? what does that number have to be for that to become the thing that is problematic to you?

2

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

In 2017...

  • 17,79M died globally of cardiovascular diseases, like the ischemic heart disease...

  • 9,56M from cancer

With better health conditions, these deaths would have been prevented. Even if humans gotta eventually die of something.

So back to Covid... out of the 209,876,613 confirmed cases globally, 4,400,284 deaths (as of August 20th) means 2.1% overall death rate. That's the figure I always guessed. Or deaths being 47.7 times smaller than the number of confirmed cases.

But that's just the case-fatality ratio. The number of confirmed cases is significant, out of 7,8 B people... Death rate, tho, out of the entire world population, has been 0.056%. As it's been said about the virus by scientific authorities from the start, the virus is a lot more contagious than it is deadly.

many of which were preventable

That's a matter entirely decided through crisis (mis-)management.

Like the governments of most countries totally failed to shutdown the international airports, for months, as the virus was spreading worldwide. Or few governments imposed actual quarantines, that were consistent with the imperative of stopping the spread of the virus. Most of what we had was a bunch of bullshit lockdowns where the WalMarts were still operating at full capacity and without masks.

On the other hand I've heard and seen many instances of Covid spreading like a wildfire in nursery homes where the residents got infected by Covid cases moved in those places due to "being overwhelmed" hospitals. Ergo, the fatality and contagion of this virus has been vastly amplified by mismanagement from several state authorities.

1

zoom_zip wrote (edited )

ohhhh. so the solution was state control and border authority! 🤦‍♀️

why didn’t i think of that

if the world governments were better authoritarian overlords then all those people would still be alive.

1

AnarchoDoom wrote (edited )

so the solution was state control and border authority!

Yeaaaah no. Borders have been shutdown anyways and they still are in many places.

But unless you found a way to block the airports and cause a massive systemic shutdown... something the radicals have been pretty ineffective at, despite all their badass fronting about "blocking/shutting down the empire", governments got the upper hand on these matters by design.

Governments can do some of this stuff legally (as far as their constitutions and judicial bodies allow), and if quarantines were implemented with CLEAR set timelines -with a beginning and end- this wouldn't have been nearly as "problematic" as fucking up with people's daily lives for almost two years by now.

And the plus side would be a significant stopping of the spread, and yes, saving lives. Like, say, in NZ.

2

ILLA_Europe wrote

I don't see how you can be a leftist while casting doubt on the science of vaccines. An understanding of science should be a prerequisite of joining leftism.

−4

AnarchoDoom wrote

joining leftism.

Haha... WAT

Two worlds that are repulsive to me. Especially the first one.

1

ILLA_Europe wrote

I certainly hope you're not a minority or this site would be fascist. Any leftist who is anti science is no leftist at all.

−3