CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

And there are dozens of eminent scientists/doctors expressing concerns.....

Playing a consensus card - is facile.

The only scientists that count in this debate are medical scientists and viral science professionals, having Bert the Seismologist from Texas, or Norbit the Seattle Computer scientist sign an anti-vaccine petition or self report on VAERS is meaningless.

That is why the general social media consensus is facile, because most opinions on the anti-vaccine front do not count, you may as well have a million monkeys on a million computers sign a million petitions.

The only consensus that counts is the experts and they are almost universally supportive of all the vaccine regimes, yet they too are allowed to have a favourite.

[LP]

Its funny how you continue to push the barrow that oversees governments are banning it....citing disinformation and secret agendas...

...at the same swallowing everything you are being fed by ours with an empty bowl asking "please sir, can i have some more".

Hypocrisy.

No because we have global stats that expose the likely truth that can't be dismissed as opinion.

The actions so far of those nations fly in the face of the evidence, it is not supported by evidence.

I can't believe you accept such trivial evidence the vaccines aren't safe, while denying the weight of such overwhelming evidence the vaccines are safe. Hypocrisy?

FYI;
Adenovirus based vaccines have been around and researched since the 1970s.

mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna are being used the very first time, never before has mRNA vaccine made it past approval trials.

I really don't care which I get, but I have to highlight the hypocrisy of the anti-AstraZeneca / J&J claims! ( Assume the Anti-AstraZeneca people are also against J&J seeing they are functionally the same base adenovirus technology.)

Which seems ironic for Sth Africa, given they canned AstraZeneca and bought J&J? Perhaps there is another reason! :o

[ElwoodBlues1]

We talked about this a week or two back, the Pfizer vaccine was the first to roll out weeks ahead of AstraZeneca, and health, quarantine and emergency workers got the first doses so by default they all got Pfizer.

You already know that because I know we have already discussed it.

Wouldnt be because we have the AstraZ being locally produced by CSL @around 50 million doses.....cheaper for ScottyM obviously than buying Pfizer, JJ etc etc.....we have all talked about business/politics playing a part in Europe but you cant tell me its not the same here with CSL. The CSL blood plasma business in the USA has stalled due to Covid and lead time is about 6-9 months to get a return, accordingly the share price has dropped and both Scotty and CSL are doing each other a favor...

[LP]

Wouldnt be because we have the AstraZ being locally produced by CSL @around 50 million doses.....cheaper for ScottyM obviously than buying Pfizer, JJ etc etc.....we have all talked about business/politics playing a part in Europe but you cant tell me its not the same here with CSL. The CSL blood plasma business in the USA has stalled due to Covid and lead time is about 6-9 months to get a return, accordingly the share price has dropped and both Scotty and CSL are doing each other a favor...

You can't ignore the timeline [member=57]ElwoodBlues1[/member].

How could the health workers at MBB's mother's work get AstraZeneca before we actually had any in the country? The first health workers only started getting AstraZeneca last week, the assertion the doctors only get Pfizer is rubbish!

MBB was posing the very same question a couple of weeks back, days before AstraZeneca even arrived in the country. The assertion/conspiracy is all built on social media rumours that are baseless. The irony being if you want to be worried about a new technology, it's the mRNA vaccines you should be more worried about!

I notice you quote a lot of business / corporate investment related COVID-19 facts, I gather this comes from some corporate rag, for example the blood plasma business stalled comments you made above. What is the relevance of this downturn in altering vaccine production decisions? Aren't all those plasma business in the same boat because there are less blood donations, so there is no inherent bias across the board!

My main concern isn't funding CSL, it's why we are preferentially funding CSL for expanding old technologies, as I've mentioned before if mRNA proves safe and efficacious that older adenovirus technology could quickly become redundant. My associate asked this question to a top CSL executive at a recent sporting event, his response was they Feds will fund a second round of upgrades to include the new mRNA technologies anyway, upgrading capacity of the existing technologies was a faster to market situation! However, long term if the adenovirus route offers vaccines in a pill or nasal spray the old technology could win out, so I can understand why they aren't throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[madbluboy]

Clearly wrote she is to receive it.

[LP]

Clearly wrote she is to receive it.

As will ten of thousands of other health and allied health industry workers starting from last week, because now it is available when before it wasn't.

[ElwoodBlues1]

You can't ignore the timeline [member=57]ElwoodBlues1[/member].

How could the health workers at MBB's mother's work get AstraZeneca before we actually had any in the country? The first health workers only started getting AstraZeneca last week, the assertion the doctors only get Pfizer is rubbish!

MBB was posing the very same question a couple of weeks back, days before AstraZeneca even arrived in the country. The assertion/conspiracy is all built on social media rumours that are baseless. The irony being if you want to be worried about a new technology, it's the mRNA vaccines you should be more worried about!

I notice you quote a lot of business / corporate investment related COVID-19 facts, I gather this comes from some corporate rag, for example the blood plasma business stalled comments you made above. What is the relevance of this downturn in altering vaccine production decisions? Aren't all those plasma business in the same boat because there are less blood donations, so there is no inherent bias across the board!

My main concern isn't funding CSL, it's why we are preferentially funding CSL for expanding old technologies, as I've mentioned before if mRNA proves safe and efficacious that older adenovirus technology could quickly become redundant. My associate asked this question to a top CSL executive at a recent sporting event, his response was they Feds will fund a second round of upgrades to include the new mRNA technologies anyway, upgrading capacity of the existing technologies was a faster to market situation! However, long term if the adenovirus route offers vaccines in a pill or nasal spray the old technology could win out, so I can understand why they aren't throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Relevance is CSL need the business and Scotty needs a cheap vaccine to give to the plebs. The CSL share price has dropped about $50 and you got to keep the shareholders happy...
CSL also had a failed union with the Uni of Queensland to create their own vaccine and were/are very keen to stay in vaccine market.
Of course the locally produced variety hasn't been approved by the TGA yet..

[LP]

Relevance is CSL need the business and Scotty needs a cheap vaccine to give to the plebs. The CSL share price has dropped about $50 and you got to keep the shareholders happy...
CSL also had a failed union with the Uni of Queensland to create their own vaccine and were/are very keen to stay in vaccine market.
Of course the locally produced variety hasn't been approved by the TGA yet..

[member=57]ElwoodBlues1[/member] Who else produces mass vaccines locally?

[kruddler]

No because we have global stats that expose the likely truth that can't be dismissed as opinion.

The actions so far of those nations fly in the face of the evidence, it is not supported by evidence.

I can't believe you accept such trivial evidence the vaccines aren't safe, while denying the weight of such overwhelming evidence the vaccines are safe. Hypocrisy?

See that is what you are missing in this debate, with you its all black and white. It's not.

These vaccines are are all safe, nobody should stop them.
Or
You are anti vaccine who want them stopped.

How about, double checking a few things. Look at why large countries around the world are getting cold feet and reevaluating before we walk right off the cliff.

I'm just suggesting a cautious response. I'm suggesting there are things we might not know about side effects.... specifically long term that we cannot possibly know right now.
I'm suggesting that just because a government says it safe, doesn't mean it can't be safer.

These issues might have nothing to do with the vaccine specifically, maybe its the syringes, swabs or whatever else. Maybe it's nothing.
But..... there is no harm in checking, double checking and triple checking before we proceed.... and then checking one more time to be sure.

[LP]

See that is what you are missing in this debate, with you its all black and white. It's not.

These vaccines are are all safe, nobody should stop them.
Or
You are anti vaccine who want them stopped.

I've already stated caution and scepticism are a critical part of the process when based on valid scientific evidence. I've mentioned that multiple times.

So the root assumption of your post is wrong.

[member=20]kruddler[/member]  Why do you think the checking, double checking and triple checking haven't already been if not being done at the moment?

We then get back to Sir Karl Popper's question, "What evidence do you need to prove to yourself a vaccine is safe?" You don't have to answer that, but you should think about it as should any other interested readers!