Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[mashman]

But they're not sub-standard. In fact they meet and/or exceed a vast number of standards before they're even released. Again, without wanting to put words in your mouth I assume you mean they don't fail to cause zero harm to 100.000% of the population. Which almost certainly isn't possible.

As for eradication of viruses, that's a long term possibility for some viruses, I understand, but the other obvious benefit is the protection they offer each individual.

No, we're not. Both because an inoculation is designed to elicit a specific reaction from our immune system. That's almost a good definition of harm in itself. The effects are supposed to be minor, though, as the wee beastie's been neutered. Which brings us to the other reason they can't not damage us. We're all different, and in spite of your money machine it's simply not possible to do anything at all to most of the population without hurting some small percentage.

The goal's immediately the protection of the individual from a specific threat. Every threat evaluation I've ever read relating to inoculations has the reduction in that threat of far, far greater benefit than the possibility that the inoculating agent might harm someone. In short, reassurance comes from the numbers, make sure the numbers are real ones that haven't been fukt with and then decide.

I do mean 100%. Yet you say it isn't possible? Why not? Surely each year when someone dies from a drug lessons are learned and physiology's are checked for clues as to why? Surely similar happens for those a drug fucks up? Acceptable losses without even trying by the sounds of things... or to be fair, without it being financially viable to bother.

I get the idea behind why we inoculate and how it is supposed to work, but I also understand why some people will refuse to because there are risks. We are all different and that's why we should be tailoring vaccines or at least being pre-tested for suitability as I would say that that would do more for uptake than the numbers. Tis all about the $ and that $ either slows us down or makes us cut corners. If we're smart enough to create a general vaccine, then we must be smart enough to identify people who aren't suitable for a certain strain of vaccine?

[noobi]

I do mean 100%. Yet you say it isn't possible? Why not? Surely each year when someone dies from a drug lessons are learned and physiology's are checked for clues as to why? Surely similar happens for those a drug fucks up? Acceptable losses without even trying by the sounds of things... or to be fair, without it being financially viable to bother.

There is no such thing as the 100% percentile.

If you were tailoring vaccines for different classes of people, then they are different vaccines aren't they. They are just designed to have the same effect. The same reason there are more than one types of pain killer, contraception and hair loss treatment.

If you ignore sensationalist media for a second. Finding cases where a person died, and the death is beyond refute caused by the vaccine, is actually really difficult.

Maybe, in the future, it might be possible to have some sort of 'active' vaccine, which takes into account different physiologies, but surely the money developing such a thing is better spent on eradicating current heath problems, instead of looking for that extra 1%.

[idb]

This thread has moved from conspiracy theory to philosophy.
Unfortunately, I've been vaccinated against both...

[idb]

Dude. You need to develop some reading skills that don't involve the insertion of your fear and personal prejudices in the form of invented content into the content of what you are reading. Until then your observations and conclusions are always going to be tainted by pre selected and incomplete logical. With that approach you ain't going to learn fuck all more than you already know. Likely you are content with that.

Weak fucks play the man while pretending they are playing the ball. Play the ball fella! Or I'll make it messy.

I'm pretty sure that's what he said;

The problem is, dude, that every fuckwit with the web at his fingertips thinks he's informed, possibly even an expert. The web isn't the place to find science, it's a festering pot of random opinion, often politically spun so fast you can smell the reek from the screen.

So you end up with a whole bunch of fuckwits who think they know the truth, and they're gunna stick it to the man. And all they do is prevent a massively resourced scheme to make some of humankinds most dangerous parasites extinct from succeeding.

Write your great grandchildren a wee explanatory note, eh? Tell 'em your sorry they're sick.

[F5 Dave]

This thread has moved from conspiracy theory to philosophy.
Unfortunately, I've been vaccinated against both...

yeah I'm, with you. Sure is a lot of hate being dispensed in this thread. Time to unsubscribe [again]. There's a lot of you I hope I don't meet in real life.

[mashman]

There is no such thing as the 100% percentile.

If you were tailoring vaccines for different classes of people, then they are different vaccines aren't they. They are just designed to have the same effect. The same reason there are more than one types of pain killer, contraception and hair loss treatment.

If you ignore sensationalist media for a second. Finding cases where a person died, and the death is beyond refute caused by the vaccine, is actually really difficult.

Maybe, in the future, it might be possible to have some sort of 'active' vaccine, which takes into account different physiologies, but surely the money developing such a thing is better spent on eradicating current heath problems, instead of looking for that extra 1%.

How do you know that there isn't a 100% if you don't try tailoring solutions towards the physiology of an individual?

Absolutely.

I generally do ignore sensationalist media as I'm more than capable of sensationalising what I read ... people die, people get sick and some suffer life long side effects. Other than chucking on the conspiracy hat to say that I doubt all cases are reported as well as some that are "misdiagnosed" as something different, I don't care if it's 10 or 20 people that suffer the mix of death, illness and other, people deserve the consideration in my book... even the bad ones.

I lolly every time I hear it can't be done because it costs too much. The deaths of others obviously much less important than the cost. The sort of healthcare we need will never be able to be afforded, but would yield amazing results if it were implemented i.e. you give a blood sample every 3 months and compare it to all prior samples when an illness strikes. That will likely lead us to a point where we can see the illness happening in the body before it happens. That will likely lead to more gentle vaccines being created with less chance of a fuck up etc... but no, irrespective of the fact that it is entirely doable, it costs too much

[noobi]

How do you know that there isn't a 100% if you don't try tailoring solutions towards the physiology of an individual?

Absolutely.

I generally do ignore sensationalist media as I'm more than capable of sensationalising what I read ... people die, people get sick and some suffer life long side effects. Other than chucking on the conspiracy hat to say that I doubt all cases are reported as well as some that are "misdiagnosed" as something different, I don't care if it's 10 or 20 people that suffer the mix of death, illness and other, people deserve the consideration in my book... even the bad ones.

I lolly every time I hear it can't be done because it costs too much. The deaths of others obviously much less important than the cost. The sort of healthcare we need will never be able to be afforded, but would yield amazing results if it were implemented i.e. you give a blood sample every 3 months and compare it to all prior samples when an illness strikes. That will likely lead us to a point where we can see the illness happening in the body before it happens. That will likely lead to more gentle vaccines being created with less chance of a fuck up etc... but no, irrespective of the fact that it is entirely doable, it costs too much

Its more a statistics thing, there is no such thing as 0th and 100th percentile as they represent an infinite. It doesn't really have a physical representation.


If you have unlimited funds, you can pretty much do whatever you want with enough time. Then again, why spend millions of man hours of that extra '1%' instead of doing something else.
Without getting into the politics of why the current money scheme is the way it is. Currently you can't just print more money as it devalues the dollar and causes inflation, see Zimbawean 100 trillion dollar bill. I'm sure you know that though.

[Ocean1]

Without getting into the politics of why the current money scheme is the way it is.

Don't do it...

Currently you can't just print more money as it devalues the dollar

Don't...

see Zimbawean 100 trillion dollar bill.

Nooooo...

I'm sure you know that though.

[noobi]

see Zimbawean 100 trillion dollar bill

[mashman]

Its more a statistics thing, there is no such thing as 0th and 100th percentile as they represent an infinite. It doesn't really have a physical representation.

If you have unlimited funds, you can pretty much do whatever you want with enough time. Then again, why spend millions of man hours of that extra '1%' instead of doing something else.
Without getting into the politics of why the current money scheme is the way it is. Currently you can't just print more money as it devalues the dollar and causes inflation, see Zimbawean 100 trillion dollar bill. I'm sure you know that though.

Fair enough. Although if there are 7 billion people on the planet and everyone is inoculated, isn't that 100% .

Why bother with unlimited money. Why not go in the opposite direction and have none (same thing given 0 and 100% are both infinitesimal ). No inflation, no fluctuating interest rates, no need to cut tasks here in order to be able to afford tasks there etc... and those bright folk who are pre-occupied with banking/finance/accountancy etc... may well top up the number of scientists available for developing vaccines. So why spend millions of hours on something that not only takes brains away from meaningful pursuits but limits what can be done because of what it is?

[mashman]

IF you had the choice between your child being autistic or having the measles, which would you choose?

[Crasherfromwayback]

IF you had the choice between your child being autistic or having the measles, which would you choose?

What about whooping cough or polio?

[skippa1]

IF you had the choice between your child being autistic or having the measles, which would you choose?

Hmmm those not vaccinated against measles risk deafness, eye disorders, brain damage or possibly death....

just sayin...

[Akzle]

you get over diseasue. Or die. Apparently you dont get your over autism.
Or let anyone else get over your autism.

[skippa1]

you get over diseasue. Or die. Apparently you dont get your over autism.
Or let anyone else get over your autism.

You don't get over death either. Bit early for the home brew innit?