If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so certain that this is absolutely , positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO the riddle me this....

You have at least four vaccines that have been manufactured. How can all four vaccines be EXACTLY EQUAL?

Good science would know which one is the best and then force every vaccine administered to be THE BEST ONE.

Or, they would know the beneifts and drawbacks of each on and then steer people into a particular vaccine......BUT No can do

Funny how we have four different vaccines. Oh you men of science.....Do you really believe that everyone of these vaccines are completely equal and that looking back on this in 3 to five years that they will all be judged to be the same?

Now think hard folks, If they are not all the same then are we not conducting a big experiment?

Yup, we are. And again, since this is one humongous experiment, then as scientists we REALLy REALLY need a group of unvaccinated folks. You should all be shaking the hands of those who are not getting vaccinated , it is the best path forward to science.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Brent Locher
<blocher@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so certain that this is absolutely , positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO

No, just a good bet.

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Brent Locher
> <blo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so certain that this is absolutely , positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO
> No, just a good bet.

Correct, just a good bet is a valid answer. But others feel that the odds favor not taking the experimental treatment. Time will tell, but having a large group of people who voluntarily choose not to take the experimental treatment will lead to a better scientific conclusion.

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

As ironically stated by the John Doe <always.look@message.header> troll
in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me> who has posted yet another
incorectly formatted USENET posting on Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:33:04 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sdseu0$3jp$1@dont-email.me>.

Brent Locher <blocher@columbus.rr.com> wrote in
news:9ecbfd5c-5e07-4231-b175-2b33495fe75cn@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-4, John Larkin
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Brent Locher
>> <blo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so
>> >certain that t
> his is absolutely , positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO
>> No, just a good bet.
>
> Correct, just a good bet is a valid answer. But others feel that
> the odds favor not taking the experimental treatment. Time will
> tell, but having a large group of people who voluntarily choose
> not to take the experimental treatment will lead to a better
> scientific conclusion.
>

You are mumbling, boy. Easy conclusion there.

You jumped onto the wrong hayride, dipshit.

Your fucktarded father putting his jiz up your whore mother's ass was
an experiment that led to her failing to flush the result. And now we
have to endure the stupidity of that result.

In article <cc668842-e20d-40af-8bd3-81f43f8ae39en@googlegroups.com>,
Brent Locher <blocher@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so certain that this is absolutely ,
>positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO the riddle me this....
>
>You have at least four vaccines that have been manufactured. How can all four vaccines be
>EXACTLY EQUAL?

They aren't.

I have not heard anyone claim that they are.

Pretty much every bit of press I've seen so far has cited the results
for individual vaccines. It's pretty clear that some vaccines are
proving to be more effective than others.

>Good science would know which one is the best and then force every vaccine administered to
>be THE BEST ONE.

"Good science" can't force that. Forbidding one or more vaccines
because they're not as effective as another one isn't a scientific
question. It's a political question.

Also, "best" isn't a single-dimension axis. The mRNA vaccines seem to
be more effective, dose-for-dose, than some of the others. They're
harder to transport and administer successfully ("cold chain" storage,
etc.). So, which vaccine is "best" - one which is 99% effective but
expensive and tricky to distribute, or one which is 95% effective and
can be shipped and stored at room temperature?

At this point, it would be an approach which would kill people. The
ability to produce _any_ given vaccine is limited (materials, process,
equipment, skilled staff). You can make more vaccine available to the
world if you make half-a-dozen different vaccines of different types,
than if you concentrate all of your efforts on one type.

>Or, they would know the beneifts and drawbacks of each on and then steer people into a
>particular vaccine......BUT No can do

In many areas of the world (and this country) there's only one vaccine
available. At that point, "steering" is irrelevant, because
_whatever_ vaccine is available locally is more effective than no vaccine.

>Funny how we have four different vaccines. Oh you men of science.....Do you really believe
>that everyone of these vaccines are completely equal and that looking back on this in 3 to
>five years that they will all be judged to be the same?

I don't know anybody (of knowledge) that believes that today.

I haven't seen anybody claiming that they are.

You're throwing up a "straw man" here.

I do hear people saying "Any of these vaccines is better than no
vaccine. If you're only offered one type, say 'yes' and take it,
rather than delaying to try to find another."

That's not the same thing at all.

>Now think hard folks, If they are not all the same then are we not conducting a big experiment?

>Yup, we are. And again, since this is one humongous experiment, then as scientists we
>REALLy REALLY need a group of unvaccinated folks. You should all be shaking the hands of
>those who are not getting vaccinated , it is the best path forward to science.

If you want to be in a control group, for the sake of human knowledge,
that's up to you. "For Science!"

On the other hand, if you contact the delta strain (and there seems to
be good odds at this point that you will) and end up in the ICU for a
couple of weeks' gentle vacation on a ventilator, and run up a
$100,000 hospital bill... do you personally have the funds to pay it?
Will you burden your insurance company with your care costs (or,
perhaps, the public health system?). Is that really a "win" for the
world as a whole? If you manage to infect two or three other people
before you know you're ill, how will you personally deal with this
particular consequence of your decision and (in)action?

I firmly believe it's your privilege to commit suicide (fast or slow)
as long as you don't harm other people in the process.

Just remember that if you contract COVID, it will be too late for
vaccination to help you. If you ask for a vaccine then, then, they'll
sadly tell you that it would do no good, and that you've missed your
chance. Some mistakes, you can't take back.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), Brent Locher
<blocher@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Brent Locher
>> <blo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so certain that this is absolutely , positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO
>> No, just a good bet.
>
>Correct, just a good bet is a valid answer. But others feel that the odds favor not taking the experimental treatment. Time will tell, but having a large group of people who voluntarily choose not to take the experimental treatment will lead to a better scientific conclusion.

We are probably past herd immunity in the US, and the vaccines helped
us get there. Vaccines saved a lot of other people from lots of other
diseases too. Refusal to vaccinate kids has caused clusters of what
used to be rare diseases.

The new delta thing may burn itself out before vaccines have time to
do much against it.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/netherlands/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/portugal/

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 7:06:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), Brent Locher
> <blo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Brent Locher
> >> <blo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so certain that this is absolutely , positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO
> >> No, just a good bet.
> >
> >Correct, just a good bet is a valid answer. But others feel that the odds favor not taking the experimental treatment. Time will tell, but having a large group of people who voluntarily choose not to take the experimental treatment will lead to a better scientific conclusion.
> We are probably past herd immunity in the US, and the vaccines helped
> us get there. Vaccines saved a lot of other people from lots of other
> diseases too. Refusal to vaccinate kids has caused clusters of what
> used to be rare diseases.

refusal to "vaccinate" children with Covid-19 has caused rare diseases? hmm......that is news to me. Or are you conflating the idea that holding children back from the covid-19 experimental treatment is the same as not vaccinating for say, tetanus.

There is a differernce, a tetanus vaccine is an approved vaccine and the Covid -19 is not FDA approved. Plus, the death rate for children is miniscule for Covid-19 whereas, the experimental treatment is taking out quite a few people under the age of 30 with heart blowouts.
>
> The new delta thing may burn itself out before vaccines have time to
> do much against it.
>
> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/netherlands/
>
> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
>
> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/portugal/

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 16:50:55 -0700 (PDT), Brent Locher
<blocher@columbus.rr.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 7:06:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:43:26 -0700 (PDT), Brent Locher
>> <blo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Brent Locher
>> >> <blo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so certain that this is absolutely , positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO
>> >> No, just a good bet.
>> >
>> >Correct, just a good bet is a valid answer. But others feel that the odds favor not taking the experimental treatment. Time will tell, but having a large group of people who voluntarily choose not to take the experimental treatment will lead to a better scientific conclusion.
>> We are probably past herd immunity in the US, and the vaccines helped
>> us get there. Vaccines saved a lot of other people from lots of other
>> diseases too. Refusal to vaccinate kids has caused clusters of what
>> used to be rare diseases.
>
>refusal to "vaccinate" children with Covid-19 has caused rare diseases?

What a weird concept. I'd never say anything that silly.

But "vaccinate" is the term usually used when giving people vaccines.

I think you are here to be a PITA. This ain't Facebook.

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 4:31:54 PM UTC-4, Brent Locher wrote:
> If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so certain that this is absolutely , positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO the riddle me this....
>
> You have at least four vaccines that have been manufactured. How can all four vaccines be EXACTLY EQUAL?

Who cares?
>
> Good science would know which one is the best and then force every vaccine administered to be THE BEST ONE.
>
> Or, they would know the beneifts and drawbacks of each on and then steer people into a particular vaccine......BUT No can do
>
> Funny how we have four different vaccines. Oh you men of science.....Do you really believe that everyone of these vaccines are completely equal and that looking back on this in 3 to five years that they will all be judged to be the same?
>
> Now think hard folks, If they are not all the same then are we not conducting a big experiment?

We are not conducting an experiment. And only care that the vaccines are good enough. Why quibble about which is best.

>
> Yup, we are. And again, since this is one humongous experiment, then as scientists we REALLy REALLY need a group of unvaccinated folks. You should all be shaking the hands of those who are not getting vaccinated , it is the best path forward to science.

What we really need is every one vaccinated.

Dan

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 6:31:54 AM UTC+10, Brent Locher wrote:
> If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so certain that this is absolutely , positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO the riddle me this....
>
> You have at least four vaccines that have been manufactured. How can all four vaccines be EXACTLY EQUAL?

They aren't and the Pfizer and Astra-Zeneca vaccines have different rare side effects.

Oddly enough, the Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca and the Moderna vaccines all are engineered to get the body top produce exactly the same version of the Covid-19 spike protein, so in terms of the intended effect on your immune system they are exactly identical

> Good science would know which one is the best and then force every vaccine administered to be THE BEST ONE.

Human reactions to the vaccine are idiosyncratic, so knowing which one was best for a particular individual would probably involve getting that individual's genome sequence - mine has been done - and knowing which bit of their genome is responsible for the rare side effects, which hasn't been worked out yet.

> Or, they would know the benefits and drawbacks of each on and then steer people into a particular vaccine......BUT No can do.

It is theoretically possible, but would take a lot of research. It may get done eventually, but the problem at the moment is stopping people catching and spreading Covid-19. Since all four vaccines seem to be pretty effective at that, and there isn't enough of any one of them to vaccinate everybody, the current strategy is to get any vacccine available in to any arm that will take it. Your arm doesn't seem to be one of them, which is unfortunate - if the disease was more frequently fatal this might get resolved by you winning a Darwin award, but it doesn't kill enough people to make much of a difference to the gene pool.

> Funny how we have four different vaccines. Oh you men of science.....Do you really believe that everyone of these vaccines are completely equal and that looking back on this in 3 to five years that they will all be judged to be the same?

Probably. There's nothing funny about there being four different vaccines - back in January 2020 when the Covid-19 genome was first published, a lot of people had the idea of creating a vaccine that persuaded the human body to synthesise a version of the spike protein, and they came up up something like a hundred different ways of doing it. The four you know about are the survivors who got something that worked. The University of Queensland in Australia came up with a fifth approach which also worked fine, but had the unfortunate side effect that you'd give a false positive to a test for HIV after you'd been vaccinated. I'm sure that there are other near misses around.
> Now think hard folks, If they are not all the same then are we not conducting a big experiment?

Brent Locher inviting other people to "think hard" has a certain ironic content. He doesn't know enough to think usefully, or to realise quite how useless his ignorant speculations are.
> Yup, we are.

Perhaps. But not the one that Brent Locher thinks is going on.

> And again, since this is one humongous experiment,

It isn't - or a least not the one that Brent Locher imagines to be in progress.

> then as scientists we REALLy REALLY need a group of unvaccinated folks.

Brent Locher isn't a scientist, and his ideas about what we might need are misleading nonsense.

> You should all be shaking the hands of those who are not getting vaccinated , it is the best path forward to science.

You should avoid close contact with people who aren't vaccinated. They are susceptible to the Covid-19 virus, and might be in the pre-symptomatic infectious phase. Even if you are vaccinated, you could get a low level Covid-19 infection and shed enough viral particles to pass it on to somebody who wasn't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 4:06:18 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> We are probably past herd immunity in the US, and the vaccines helped
> us get there.

That won't apply in all communities for some months to
come; vaccination proceeds apace. Youngsters will have to be considered before 'we'
can talk about herd immunity without keeping our fingers crossed.

Specifically, the cases-reported number is (late July 2021) obviously on the rise, which
argues against 'herd immunity' at this time.
<https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailytrendscases>

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 4:31:54 PM UTC-4, Brent Locher wrote:
> If this vaccine has been so vetted out and everyone is so certain that this is absolutely , positively -the RIGHT THING TO DO the riddle me this....
>
> You have at least four vaccines that have been manufactured. How can all four vaccines be EXACTLY EQUAL?
>
> Good science would know which one is the best and then force every vaccine administered to be THE BEST ONE.
>
> Or, they would know the beneifts and drawbacks of each on and then steer people into a particular vaccine......BUT No can do
>
> Funny how we have four different vaccines. Oh you men of science.....Do you really believe that everyone of these vaccines are completely equal and that looking back on this in 3 to five years that they will all be judged to be the same?
>
> Now think hard folks, If they are not all the same then are we not conducting a big experiment?
>
> Yup, we are. And again, since this is one humongous experiment, then as scientists we REALLy REALLY need a group of unvaccinated folks. You should all be shaking the hands of those who are not getting vaccinated , it is the best path forward to science.

Better to let the unvaccinated shake one another's hands to help the experiment gather more statistics on how being infected impacts quality of life and also to achieve herd immunity the hard way.

Here's to letting the unwashed masses be part of the herd through self selection!

I think I mentioned a colleague who was not vaccinated and caught the disease. She dropped off the map for some weeks to reappear working only the days she could manage to answer the phone. She is one of the lucky ones who did not have to visit the hospital.

This is NOT your grandfather's flu!

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 7:06:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>
> The new delta thing may burn itself out before vaccines have time to
> do much against it.

Immunology is not electronics. Viruses don't burn unless you put them in a fire. The delta variant is not going to "burn itself out" other than infecting so many people there are not enough left to continue the infection chain.

If the virus could be burned out we should have connected everyone to a high amperage power supply and let 'er rip!

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209