No, we're not going to forget

[TornadoHawk93]

It is what YOU posted.

"Steps were skipped."

WOW, even on Super Bowl Sunday you could not log off. You are a sad person.

And one more time, YOU were the first in this conversation to put down the phrase "Steps were skipped.", not me. You tried, and failed, to deflect from the ACTUAL premise of my first post which was that MANY of the population were worried about the vaccine because of the change in the NORMAL time frame for developing and test Vaccines. Very, very simple to understand. Again, why you defelct and will not simply acknowledge that people can and did have those worries is on you.

 

[Joes Place]

And one more time, YOU were the first in this conversation to put down the phrase "Steps were skipped.", not me.

Yet that's been your premise, throughout.

And I stated that steps were NOT skipped, they were run in parallel. Something you STILL seem to have trouble with.

 

[Finance85]

Yet that's been your premise, throughout.

And I stated that steps were NOT skipped, they were run in parallel. Something you STILL seem to have trouble with.

Question - did Pfizer do any trials on effectiveness of their COVID vaccine against virus transmission?

 

[Joes Place]

Question - did Pfizer do any trials on effectiveness of their COVID vaccine against virus transmission?

In the initial phases? Of course not.
They did not have the time to evaluate that specifically.

 

[TornadoHawk93]

Yet that's been your premise, throughout.

And I stated that steps were NOT skipped, they were run in parallel. Something you STILL seem to have trouble with.

LOL! You are making ZERO sense. You agree that YOU brought the statement "Steps were skipped" into the conversation...and NOT me, but then don't acknowledge the original point of mine, which was that the time frame used was altered for the norm, which caused some of the population to be fearful.

Look, admit this statement is FACT and move on to your other 40+ arguments on here.
"Because, they had to alter the time frame in which the vaccine was developed, in an effort to get it to the populous quicker, it is understandable where some people might have been concerned. BUT, they didn't need to be if they had known the process that was used better.".

Just unreal (but not surprising) that you are unable to grasp this.

 

[Joes Place]

LOL! You are making ZERO sense.

Looks to me like you're the one who cannot understand the PARALLEL development steps taken

 

[Joes Place]

"Because, they had to alter the time frame in which the vaccine was developed

Parallel vs sequential

Again: A Concept a 3rd Grader Would Understand.

 

[TornadoHawk93]

Looks to me like you're the one who cannot understand the PARALLEL development steps taken

LOL!!! I understand you can't admit you are wrong.

 

[TornadoHawk93]

Parallel vs sequential

Again: A Concept a 3rd Grader Would Understand.

WOW. Post #148,717 from you is as bad as the others before it. 😂

Nice deflection again Grandpa - To my point - From the National Geographic - "a national survey conducted in March by the Pew Research Center revealed that “a sense that vaccines were developed and tested too quickly” was a top concern for 67 percent of the respondents..."

Amazing, a First grader would understand this.....but you can't.

 

[Finance85]

Question - did Pfizer do any trials on effectiveness of their COVID vaccine against virus transmission?

That being so, why would the narrative about taking the vaccine emphasize getting it to protect others? Why would the medical community and POTUS tell us being vaccinated would prevent transmission?

 

[TornadoHawk93]

That being so, why would the narrative about taking the vaccine emphasize getting it to protect others? Why would the medical community and POTUS tell us being vaccinated would prevent transmission?

Agree. Now, in our family's case, we knew that claim was utter bullcrap. We have multiple doctors in our family and they laughed when that was said at the time. We all took it to help us, knowing full well that it didn't "Protect" anyone around us from transmission. It is unreal some of the things that were said back then.

 

[Joes Place]

LOL!!! I understand you can't admit you are wrong.

What am I "wrong" about WRT parallel step development here?
That IS what they did.

 

[Joes Place]

That being so, why would the narrative about taking the vaccine emphasize getting it to protect others?

The latest vaccine available DOES reduce transmission risks.

You ASKED About the ORIGINAL one, and whether Pfizer had conducted studies on it. At the time it was released, there were little data on that. Scientists PRESUMED that those not becoming infected, or becoming less sick WOULD have lower risk profiles for re-infection. WHICH IS NOW UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE CASE.

 

[Joes Place]

Why would the medical community and POTUS tell us being vaccinated would prevent transmission?

Because THAT IS the common understanding with respect to OTHER respiratory viruses, like flu.

And WAS the case for Covid vaccines. I believe the number associated with early vaccines was 30% likelihood of preventing you from transmitting to someone else.

You are (allegedly) a "finance" guy. Do you understand the concept of "compounding interest"?
The math with vaccine effectiveness works the same way.

 

[Joes Place]

“a sense that vaccines were developed and tested too quickly”

A "sense"

Which, as I've illustrated for you, was an inaccurate "sense".
Not documentation.
Not evidence.

A "sense".

Get it, now?

 

[TornadoHawk93]

What am I "wrong" about WRT parallel step development here?
That IS what they did.

Again, show me where I ever said they DIDN'T do that? LOL!!

 

[TornadoHawk93]

A "sense"

Which, as I've illustrated for you, was an inaccurate "sense".
Not documentation.
Not evidence.

A "sense".

Get it, now?

It does not matter that they were inaccurate for feeling that "sense" of fear. My statement has ALWAYS been that they DID indeed feel that way due to the speed in which it was developed and delivered. Again, I and my family NEVER had that sense of fear as we understood what was going on. I simply made a TRUE statement about some of the population and you went off on your own tirade. Do YOU finally get it now?

 

[Finance85]

The latest vaccine available DOES reduce transmission risks.

You ASKED About the ORIGINAL one, and whether Pfizer had conducted studies on it. At the time it was released, there were little data on that. Scientists PRESUMED that those not becoming infected, or becoming less sick WOULD have lower risk profiles for re-infection. WHICH IS NOW UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE CASE.

So Presumed or Assumed being operative, and they were abjectly wrong, isn't it possible they are also wrong about other things? Heck, even the trial results about efficacy of infection turned out to be dismally wrong, after all the trials.

You desperately cling to the hope that liars, having a motive to lie, will tell the truth at some point. Perhaps they will, and you live for that because it crushes you to make hundreds of posts supporting the liars, and you have to admit you were wrong, or make hundreds more posts moving the goalpost or rationalizing.

I got 2 Moderna jabs as soon as they were available to me. I believed the liars once. The difference is that when someone lies to me, I have a higher standard before I believe them again. You don't have that mindset, you simply keep doubling down. I sincerely hope you don't play blackjack in a casino.

 

[TornadoHawk93]

Because THAT IS the common understanding with respect to OTHER respiratory viruses, like flu.

And WAS the case for Covid vaccines. I believe the number associated with early vaccines was 30% likelihood of preventing you from transmitting to someone else.

You are (allegedly) a "finance" guy. Do you understand the concept of "compounding interest"?
The math with vaccine effectiveness works the same way.

So Presumed or Assumed being operative, and they were abjectly wrong, isn't it possible they are also wrong about other things? Heck, even the trial results about efficacy of infection turned out to be dismally wrong, after all the trials.

You desperately cling to the hope that liars, having a motive to lie, will tell the truth at some point. Perhaps they will, and you live for that because it crushes you to make hundreds of posts supporting the liars, and you have to admit you were wrong, or make hundreds more posts moving the goalpost or rationalizing.

I got 2 Moderna jabs as soon as they were available to me. I believed the liars once. The difference is that when someone lies to me, I have a higher standard before I believe them again. You don't have that mindset, you simply keep doubling down. I sincerely hope you don't play blackjack in a casino.

In no way, shape or form should ANYONE believe that just getting, even the most recent COVID shot, would prevents transmission to others. "vaccination significantly reduces the risk of transmission, it does not completely eliminate it."

So, anything said to the contrary is an out and out lie. Just as it was the first time they said it. And, with variants continuing to popping up all the time, I doubt this will ever be the case....although I hope it does come to pass.

 

[Finance85]

In no way, shape or form should ANYONE believe that just getting, even the most recent COVID shot, would prevents transmission to others. "vaccination significantly reduces the risk of transmission, it does not completely eliminate it."

So, anything said to the contrary is an out and out lie. Just as it was the first time they said it. And, with variants continuing to popping up all the time, I doubt this will ever be the case....although I hope it does come to pass.

I have a new and firm belief that vaccines do little to even prevent severe illness or death, except for the limited time they are actually showing clinical efficacy, which seems to start at 2 weeks and extend to 8 weeks before waning.

How people can say the vaccines prevent replication enough to keep someone from dying, but don't prevent replication enough to keep someone from getting infected, just doesn't seem entirely logical. What does seem logical is the government and mRNA vaccine producers having a need to save whatever credibility they have left. They are losing that battle with overall vaccine hesitancy, which is unfortunate because traditional vaccines work.

 

[Joes Place]

Again, show me where I ever said they DIDN'T

Every place you claimed they skipped steps and DIDN'T run them in parallel, Cletus.

 

[Joes Place]

I have a new and firm belief that vaccines do little to even prevent severe illness or death

That's because you don't read medical journals, spud.

 

[Joes Place]

In no way, shape or form should ANYONE believe that just getting, even the most recent COVID shot, would prevents transmission to others. "vaccination significantly reduces the risk of transmission,

Uh...that's "preventing" it, in many cases.
Publisehd data suggest at least 30% reduction in transmission, Cletus.

 

[Joes Place]

It does not matter that they were inaccurate for feeling that "sense" of fear.

Yet, here you are, asserting their claims are "justified"...

 

[Joes Place]

So Presumed or Assumed being operative, and they were abjectly wrong, isn't it possible they are also wrong about other things?

They were not "abjectly wrong".

The original virus no longer circulates.
The existing data indicate the latest vaccine version reduces transmission by 30%, which is actually very good.

That will protect A LOT of people who cannot get vaccine protection, by limiting how many people become infected. IF people get the vaccines.

 

[TornadoHawk93]

Every place you claimed they skipped steps and DIDN'T run them in parallel, Cletus.

Come on you moronic chode and post the proof you speak of.

 

[TornadoHawk93]

Uh...that's "preventing" it, in many cases.
Publisehd data suggest at least 30% reduction in transmission, Cletus.

Learn the actual point and understand definitions.

Reduce - to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number
Preventing - to keep from ever happening or existing.

You are an idiot

 

[Finance85]

They were not "abjectly wrong".

The original virus no longer circulates.
The existing data indicate the latest vaccine version reduces transmission by 30%, which is actually very good.

That will protect A LOT of people who cannot get vaccine protection, by limiting how many people become infected. IF people get the vaccines.

They were wrong. The vaccines neither prevented infection or spread. Efficacy went from being stated a ~ 95% to 18%.

30% efficacy is good in your mind? Really? What is the chance of dying for someone under 50 and in good health? How many products would you buy that only work 30% of the time?

 

[TornadoHawk93]

Yet, here you are, asserting their claims are "justified"...

Again, and for the last time.....try and follow this. With the lack of info that was coming out at the time of the pandemic, most of those people would not have understood the "Fast Track" process. So yes, I can ABSOLUTELY understand how they might have been worried at that time....especially when they would hear reports saying the normal process for Vaccine Development took years, not months. But, you are chode......so you don't have that level of comprehension. Enjoy your basement today grandpa.

 

[TornadoHawk93]

They were wrong. The vaccines neither prevented infection or spread. Efficacy went from being stated a ~ 95% to 18%.

30% efficacy is good in your mind? Really? What is the chance of dying for someone under 50 and in good health? How many products would you buy that only work 30% of the time?

Dude, this person in a moron who clearly never leaves his basement. I have been told to put him on ignor, but it is jus too facinating to see him spin himself into a hole after being triggered for no reason. I like a good laugh ever couple of days. 😂

 

[Joes Place]

Learn the actual point and understand definitions.

Read a journal article.

 

[Joes Place]

They were wrong. The vaccines neither prevented infection or spread.

Yes. They did.

That's what the data indicated.
You seem to want doctors and scientists to be seers, who can predict the future.

 

[Joes Place]

most of those people would not have understood the "Fast Track" process.

You, apparently, do not, either.

 

[Joes Place]

30% efficacy is good in your mind?

30% will absolutely reduce infections rates and spread substantially during cold/flu/Covid season.

Supposedly, you are a "finance" guy. Do you understand how "compounding interest" works? Because the math here is basically identical.

Would you like this explained to you in further detail?

HINT: Which rate of return on an investment would you rather have, over a 20 yr period? 50% annual, or 35% annual?

 

[Joes Place]

Preventing - to keep from ever happening or existing.

....and the vaccines PREVENT infections.

They REDUCE the overall spread BY preventing infections and infectiousness.

 

[TornadoHawk93]

Read a journal article.

I have...why don't you?

 

[TornadoHawk93]

You, apparently, do not, either.

Then why did I and my entire family race to get vaccine Clee-Tus?

 

[TornadoHawk93]

....and the vaccines PREVENT infections.

They REDUCE the overall spread BY preventing infections and infectiousness.

They do not PREVENT all infections.....they "possibly" REDUCED the spread by 30%.

 

[TornadoHawk93]

30% will absolutely reduce infections rates and spread substantially during cold/flu/Covid season.

Supposedly, you are a "finance" guy. Do you understand how "compounding interest" works? Because the math here is basically identical.

Would you like this explained to you in further detail?

HINT: Which rate of return on an investment would you rather have, over a 20 yr period? 50% annual, or 35% annual?

Hey moron, you argument is based on the virus never mutating. Good grief....Just stop for pete sake.

 

[Finance85]

Because THAT IS the common understanding with respect to OTHER respiratory viruses, like flu.

And WAS the case for Covid vaccines. I believe the number associated with early vaccines was 30% likelihood of preventing you from transmitting to someone else.

You are (allegedly) a "finance" guy. Do you understand the concept of "compounding interest"?
The math with vaccine effectiveness works the same way.

Now you are comparing apples to oranges, and you know it. mRNA vaccines aren't constructed anything like live or dead virus vaccines. You can't assume they will work the same as flue vaccines. You are lying if you say the hope was 30% efficacy for Pfizer and Moderna.

Vaccines can't compound. What a moronic thing to say. Each vaccine has it's own efficacy. Me getting a vaccine isn't going to increase the efficacy of you getting a vaccine, and we now know me getting a vaccine won't prevent me from spreading the virus to you.