Hacker Read

antibuddy · 2021-01-15 15:17:00

Using a vaccine which is tested exclusively on young men (which is the normal procedure) on elderly first is yet another inconsistency in the "holy vaccine"-narrative.

amibang | karma 7 | avg karma 0.47 · | 2019-03-18 15:51:45

How is the common man supposed to know that there isn't anything strange in the vaccine? Governments have forcibly sterilised segments of their population before.

Moru | karma 3002 | avg karma 1.74 · | 2020-12-03 06:09:32+00:00

Isn't this standard practice with any vaccine?

fred_is_fred | karma 1232 | avg karma 1.2 · | 2017-01-20 15:54:02

A fair point but keep in mind that for a long time the vaccine was considered to be only for girls/women, at least in the US.

iamtheworstdev | karma 422 | avg karma 2.4 · | 2024-03-17 00:15:56

the vaccine is still beneficial to men.

purpleblue | karma 1109 | avg karma 2.91 · | 2022-09-15 09:22:11

You are 100% wrong. This is the same article I myself pointed to. It says they are offering vaccination only to 50 and older or below 50 with health issues.

detaro | karma 40664 | avg karma 1.79 · | 2020-03-09 01:28:09+00:00

It's far from clear that having it actually provides reliable immunization.

WrtCdEvrydy | karma 5479 | avg karma 2.32 · | 2020-11-10 14:57:23+00:00

Incorrect, existing coronavirus vaccines were used as an example.

sjg007 | karma 6164 | avg karma 0.98 · | 2021-10-29 20:34:12

It’s not odd at all. And the vaccine is safe. Your only plausible argument would be that it’s useless, which we know is not true generally.

bigyellow | karma -11 | avg karma -0.08 · | 2022-01-07 10:22:40

I guess that's why they changed the definition of "vaccine", huh?

Sammi | karma 1364 | avg karma 1.86 · | 2024-05-02 16:47:13

The article isn't about that vaccine.

TrevorJ | karma 5283 | avg karma 2.18 · | 2021-04-15 15:09:48+00:00

Not if the vaccine isn't safe.

For the record, I'm not coming down on one side or the other of this argument, just pointing out what the calculus they seem to be operating under is.

reply

tengbretson | karma 2820 | avg karma 2.72 · | 2021-01-21 14:46:49+00:00

It's especially odd considering that the vaccines don't make any claims about their effectiveness at reducing transmission of the disease.

ghoward | karma 1 | avg karma 0.0 · | 2021-09-11 15:34:28

There is no way that we could know whether that's a myth simply because the vaccines have not existed long enough to know for sure.

nommm-nommm | karma 4083 | avg karma 2.09 · | 2016-09-07 03:36:07+00:00

That's not what a vaccine is.

s1artibartfast | karma 14516 | avg karma 1.44 · | 2023-12-14 17:52:57

Different vaccine

AshamedCaptain | karma 6226 | avg karma 3.11 · | 2021-11-05 10:28:01

Actually, the vaccines they used decades ago are definitely not the same ones they use today. For starters, vaccines from centuries ago tended to have actual non-zero mortality rates.

Vaccines are never tested "for decades" either, because people kind of assume that it is highly unlikely that there are super-long-term side effects from small acute doses. I would tend to agree.

The argument is therefore not garbage at all.

reply

Wowfunhappy | karma 27196 | avg karma 3.43 · | 2021-07-23 14:28:24

Some vaccines (including those) are basically perfect, but they're a minority. It also doesn't logically follow that anything which isn't perfect isn't a vaccine.

TrevorJ | karma 5283 | avg karma 2.18 · | 2021-09-08 11:27:43

It seems as if the single-shot viral vector is not universally considered adequate to be considered 'vaccinated'.

gus_massa | karma 17133 | avg karma 1.44 · | 2021-02-05 23:00:17+00:00

I prefer to use "vaccine candidate", so it's clear that is not a well tested vaccine that passed all the usual clinical trials.