Reason.com contradicting it's self

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Pro vaccine and Pro scientist: Remy: Affluenflammation (Red Hot Chili Peppers Californication Parody) (youtube.com).  This video is pre COVID.

So why the parties largely switched on vaccines I don't know.

Even libertarian sites aren't consistent.  It's one thing if they change their minds and admit it; but if the green party endorsed smallpox vaccienes, then reason.com would treat that vacciene like how they treated the COVID vacciene.

I think it's a mistake to not get vaccinated, but it's your right to make that mistake.  The size of the mistake depends on the deadliness of the disease.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
It just seems incongruity sometimes. Calling somebody an antivaxxer doesn't tell you anything about them .

Are they pro Vax and anti mandate?

Does it just mean they oppose the hundreds of vaccines rejected by the FDA each year?

Are they pro covid vaccine but anti MMR?

I am however judgemental of anyone claiming to be pro vaccine as technically that would mean they even support the thousands of harmful vaccines rejected by the FDA every year. 

WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Reason is libertarian they actually agree with the green party on a lot so I don't think they would reflexively just oppose what the green party is for. I also think the green party would not reflexively do that either. I think both the green and libertarian party are far more true to their principles than Republicans or democrats who do reflexively oppose stuff based on what the other party does. For example we saw that Trumps policies were at least half stolen from the democratic party platform and democrats reflexively opposed the policies they supported a year prior and only half of Republicans reflexively supported trumps policies that they opposed the prior year in 2015. 

For example trump was looking to replace Obama care with basically the exact same thing but implement the 3 or 4 biggest gripes that democrats had and he would have probably called it trump care, but it got shut down by every single liberal and half of conservatives. Now I thought Obama care was bad whether it was trump just renaming it or when Obama named it, but those who too closely identify s democrat or republican literally just flipped their stance on obamacare the second trump planned on literally just passing a bill to abolish Obama care but really was just a renaming of it and fixing the 3 or 4 biggest gripes that democrats themselves had with it. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
 I am however judgemental of anyone claiming to be pro vaccine as technically that would mean they even support the thousands of harmful vaccines rejected by the FDA every year. 
What about pro approved vacciene?


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,051
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
You can't approve anything with any rigor within one year.

5-10 years is the typical timeframe to study the safety of a vaccine.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The vacciene was rushed, but it was approved.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,051
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
but it was approved.


What’s the difference between emergency authorization and full approval?

Way back in January 2020, not knowing the full extent of the threat posed by Covid-19, the Health and Human Services Secretary declared a U.S. public health emergency. This action gave special power to the FDA to authorize medicines, vaccines and tests for use by the American public to fight the virus in an expedited fashion without going through the lengthy full approval process. The amount of data required for what’s known as an emergency use authorization, or an EUA, is at the discretion of the FDA.

The main thing the FDA considers with emergency authorization is, based on the scientific evidence available, that “it’s reasonable to believe that the product may be effective and that the known and potential benefit outweigh the known and potential risks,” explains Nicholson Price, a professor of health law at the University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor. The medicine or vaccine also needs to be unique, there can’t be an existing alternative that’s already been approved. For vaccines, manufacturers were required to provide safety data that was “much closer to what a company would need for full approval for the vaccine,” he says. For emergency authorization, the FDA required two months of safety data versus six months for full approval, he explains.

Pfizer/BioNTech received emergency use authorization for its vaccine in December 2020, followed by Moderna a week later and Johnson & Jonson in February 2021. “It's close to incontestable that the EUA process made a huge positive difference in combating COVID-19 at least with respect to vaccines,” says Price. It meant that people could start getting shots in December rather than waiting much longer for full approval. “Those months made a huge difference.”

2 major points to consider,
1) The Coronavirus was way overhyped as a danger to young and skinny people and we now know the FDA and CDC were very wrong in their evaluation.

2) The effectiveness of the vaccine was also way overhyped even going so far as a claim that it prevented the spread of the virus. After millions of vaccinated Americans contracted Covid and every mutated strain, it became very clear the extent of that overhyping.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Skinny people suffered hardcore with COVID, being very likely to have chronic fatigue syndrome after it, still ongoing now.

COVID has serious permanent damage to skinnier people in general, didn't tend to kill them unless super skinny though.

It made them lose appetite, to breaking point at times. It makes everyone lose appetite but that's worse if you're skinny.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,051
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I would be interested to read that data.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Data? Search to yourself. Being underweight put you at major risk of suffering some fo the worst COVID symptoms and being so weak if you'd get another disease too, you'd die.