Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Ocean1]

If you want to deny it it is pointless rubbing your nose in it. I ain't wasting time on you.

Rub away mate, I'm interested to see where you think I directly abused you. As in singular personal abuse. Such as you just demonstrated.

[Ocean1]

And each of those several times you were wrong. You never learn... but I guess that's what is being pointed out elsewhere. Hey ho.

Just in case you forget.

So, you're not bleating on about the lack of unlimited healthcare?

[mashman]

So, you're not bleating on about the lack of unlimited healthcare?

Of course I was. It should be a right. Not conditional.

[idb]

I reckon people in the US would see it somewhat differently... but you wouldn't know fuck all about that.

Well, this is a comment apropos of nothing in this thread as far as I can see.
Can you please expand?

[Ocean1]

Of course I was. It should be a right. Not conditional.

Man you must have a fucking big money printer.

Infinitely large would almost do it.

[mashman]

Well, this is a comment apropos of nothing in this thread as far as I can see.
Can you please expand?

Just having a private dance with Ocean.

[mashman]

Man you must have a fucking big money printer.

Infinitely large would almost do it.

Money being infinite n all I leave that to those with the printers and the principles to not print enough money that would allow pharma to tailor many vaccinations towards the physiology of the individual instead of the 1 cap fits all cheap arsed solution that may well cause side effects.

[Ocean1]

Just having a private dance with Ocean.

Who has also got no idea what Americans are doing in here.

[Ocean1]

Money being infinite n all I leave that to those with the printers and the principles to not print enough money that would allow pharma to tailor many vaccinations towards the physiology of the individual instead of the 1 cap fits all cheap arsed solution that may well cause side effects.

It's a trap, innit? Nobody's that thick, shirly.

[mashman]

It's a trap, innit? Nobody's that thick, shirly.

So the economists are liars then? Money isn't infinite? Banks don't just pluck it out of thin air, add interest and multiply it's creation exponentially after tucking the reserve requirement away? You'd rather limit vaccines to what can be afforded instead of developing them truly safely, including pre-testing individuals that may have adverse reactions? Coz that's what your system promotes.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Rub away mate, I'm interested to see where you think I directly abused you. As in singular personal abuse. Such as you just demonstrated.

There ya go again. You don't seem to be able to simply read what is written without translating it into something else. Pointless when you are shifting goal posts and platforms with your every post.

[Ocean1]

So the economists are liars then? Money isn't infinite? Banks don't just pluck it out of thin air, add interest and multiply it's creation exponentially after tucking the reserve requirement away? You'd rather limit vaccines to what can be afforded instead of developing them truly safely, including pre-testing individuals that may have adverse reactions? Coz that's what your system promotes.

Firstly, I don't have a system. Various countries have vaccination policies, is that what you mean?

Secondly, vaccine development isn't a static discipline, new ones hit the market all the time, and every one of them is tested to fuck long before it's finally released. Each one of those variations costs at least tens of millions to develop, there isn't a money machine big enough to tailor make one for everyone, for every contagion. Many, many individuals, however are tested for adverse reactions.

Thirdly, yes, you along with everyone else has to live within your means, and that means you don't get to spend whatever you want on whatever you want. Deal with it like an adult.

[Ocean1]

There ya go again. You don't seem to be able to simply read what is written without translating it into something else. Pointless when you are shifting goal posts and platforms with your every post.

I'm trying, dude. Here's what I got:

S'funny, I thought I just suggested the very same thing.

By which I meant the observation that people seek proof of what they already "know".

You attributed a motivation to me which I have not promoted.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't...

Show me where I've addressed something other than the subject in hand without obvious provocation.

Can enlighten me?

[mashman]

Secondly, vaccine development isn't a static discipline, new ones hit the market all the time, and every one of them is tested to fuck long before it's finally released. Each one of those variations costs at least tens of millions to develop, there isn't a money machine big enough to tailor make one for everyone, for every contagion. Many, many individuals, however are tested for adverse reactions.

That being the case you're only ever going to get substandard solutions and you'll never get the eradication of the viruses you seem to want. We are technically able to provide vaccines that don't damage us, yet we don't, because it costs too much thin air. So what's the goal? Living to our means or taking a giant leap forwards in regards to vaccination development? which could would reassure those who won't take the risk of vaccination to take it.

[Ocean1]

That being the case you're only ever going to get substandard solutions and you'll never get the eradication of the viruses you seem to want.

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.

We are technically able to provide vaccines that don't damage us, yet we don't, because it costs too much thin air.

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.

So what's the goal? Living to our means or taking a giant leap forwards in regards to vaccination development? which could would reassure those who won't take the risk of vaccination to take it.

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.