Covid-19, Part XIII

[BernieCarbo]

I'll be good with making the vaccine required, in the same way other vaccines are required to go to school, etc...

...As soon as the FDA opens themselves up to litigation by removing the "emergency" clause they have in place for it currently.

Because as it stands now, when you get the shot, the literature they give you very clearly states that this is not an FDA approved vaccine and you are taking it at your own risk. I'm not down with making anything framed like that 'mandatory'.

Has FDA approval ever meant that it was safe? It approves cigarettes, junk food, and drugs like aspirin too, but people are hurt by them all the time. Or are you only concerned about litigation?

[757690]

I'll be good with making the vaccine required, in the same way other vaccines are required to go to school, etc...

...As soon as the FDA opens themselves up to litigation by removing the "emergency" clause they have in place for it currently.

Because as it stands now, when you get the shot, the literature they give you very clearly states that this is not an FDA approved vaccine and you are taking it at your own risk. I'm not down with making anything framed like that 'mandatory'.

The FDA, like all Federal agencies, has sovereign immunity. They can not be sued if an approved drug later leads to any harm.

https://www.lawyerlocator.com/mass-t...efective-drugs

[Bob Sheed]

The FDA, like all Federal agencies, has sovereign immunity. They can not be sued if an approved drug later leads to any harm.

https://www.lawyerlocator.com/mass-t...efective-drugs

Well that stinks.

But full approval does give me more confidence than emergency approval.

Not much more though, I guess.

[757690]

Well that stinks.

But full approval does give me more confidence than emergency approval.

Not much more though, I guess.

I do think this is an issue for a sizeable part of the unvaccinated. The FDA has said that they likely won’t have the data necessary to give full approval until around January of next year, so it will be awhile.

[Sea Ray]

My position was that your "personal risk" argument is asinine. I'll just copy/paste what I posted earlier, since you have not responded to it but instead retreated to your "I can't make them take it" take:

That's your opinion. It's so noted. I stand by opinion that if unvaccinated folks succumb to this disease, it's a chance they took whereas vaccinated folks who succumb can at least say they did what they could to avoid that fate

[Sea Ray]

Vioxx is one of the more famous drugs once approved by the FDA that didn't work out too well. It was only out for about 4 yrs but after it was linked to 100K+ heart attacks and 60K deaths they pulled it.

[Bob Sheed]

Vioxx is one of the more famous drugs once approved by the FDA that didn't work out too well. It was only out for about 4 yrs but after it was linked to 100K+ heart attacks and 60K deaths they pulled it.

I think the ones who have full faith in the FDA are just as nutty as the anti-vaxxers.

But we do live in a time where even questioning something can get you banned from social media if it is the wrong question, so...

[757690]

But we do live in a time where even questioning something can get you banned from social media if it is the wrong question, so...

What are examples of this?

[Bob Sheed]

What are examples of this?

Recenly as a month or so ago, you would get warned and then banned for questioning the Wuhan Wet Market theory. Straight up banned if you said it originated in a lab. Then those emails leaked and all the sudden...

[757690]

Recenly as a month or so ago, you would get warned and then banned for questioning the Wuhan Wet Market theory. Straight up banned if you said it originated in a lab. Then those emails leaked and all the sudden...

At the time, they were just going with what the scientific community was saying. When the scientific community changed, they changed.

It wasn’t “the wrong question” it was going against what was considered to be true at the time. When that shifted, the social media companies shifted too.

[Sea Ray]

At the time, they were just going with what the scientific community was saying. When the scientific community changed, they changed.

It wasn’t “the wrong question” it was going against what was considered to be true at the time. When that shifted, the social media companies shifted too.

The scientific community should not control social media. Furthermore all ideas should be entertained until definitively ruled out.

[Larry Schuler]

Hey everyone. So, I just finished my 8 week ban. Yes. I got banned. That’s why I’ve been missing. I was banned for 8 weeks for saying the lab leak theory was true. I didn’t even call it the Chinese flu more than 5 times. I just said the lab leak happened. And I got banned.

[Boston Red]

At the time, they were just going with what the scientific community was saying. When the scientific community changed, they changed.

It wasn’t “the wrong question” it was going against what was considered to be true at the time. When that shifted, the social media companies shifted too.

Yikes

[NachoMan]

I stand by opinion that if unvaccinated folks succumb to this disease, it's a chance they took whereas vaccinated folks who succumb can at least say they did what they could to avoid that fate

It's not just "a chance they took" -- they are actively endangering a lot of people, and hugely inconveniencing the rest. Your stupid "personal risk" mantra is trying to equate not getting vaxxed to something like not wearing your seatbelt, when it's more like not obeying stoplights.

[Bob Sheed]

Yikes

Exactly.

Don't let em catch you "going against what is considered to be true at the time"...