YABenGarrisonisofftherailsComicThe Bill Gates vaccine? Will you take it, or will you stand up for your RIGHTS!
View attachment 22575
Serious question.
If Bill Gates does come out with a vaccine for COVID-19, can the government make it mandatory that you must take it? TBh, that would be a very scary thing.
They could probably make it mandatory to send your kid back to school, yes. There are usually religious exemptions to things like that, though. I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but then I don't really want to be the first person to try a new vaccine that was rushed through clinical trials to market.
Mandatory injections of rushed compounds isn't a good look either. Let it bake for 5-10y before mandating imo.Ah, good point. But, I wonder if you couldn't use religion as a way to escape the vaccine. We've all seen what happens to kids when their religious parents are anti-vaxxers. It usually doesn't end well. I'd think that with COVID-19 it could be mandatory no matter if you try to stand on your religious beliefs or not.
Mandatory injections of rushed compounds isn't a good look either. Let it bake for 5-10y before mandating imo.
Why is that?Your statement makes me think you don't really understand biostatistics.
What most lay folks think is that "reliability" is a property of the test itself, it's not, and that's only part of it. Prevalence of disease in the tested population matters A LOT.
The exact same test which performs excellently, will likely be entirely valid in NYC but complete garbage (more likely wrong than right) in a rural area not hit hard by Coronavirus.
Hence, my sentence.
Prevalence matters.Why is that?
Birth defects are a big one, need to know if it's going to screw over offspring.Nah shouldn't take more than a year to get the "bugs" out. Remember, there's multiple vaccine efforts competing with one another. It isn't just one product.
Serious question.
If Bill Gates does come out with a vaccine for COVID-19, can the government make it mandatory that you must take it? TBh, that would be a very scary thing.
Windows has been a target for viruses for years and Billy couldn't stop em then.The Bill Gates vaccine? Will you take it, or will you stand up for your RIGHTS!
View attachment 22575
It's a once anually shot. Most vaccine tech follows a few established practices and are considered low-risk for side effects.Mandatory injections of rushed compounds isn't a good look either. Let it bake for 5-10y before mandating imo.
Birth defects are a big one, need to know if it's going to screw over offspring.
Not a vaccine, but I always think of Thalinomide whenever I think of drugs being rushed to market.Honest question: when was the last time a vaccine caused birth defects? And wouldn't it be possible to vaccinate in between pregnancies? The current fatality rate on Covid-19 is low enough that waiting a few months shouldn't be that big of an issue.
Probably true.It's a once anually shot. Most vaccine tech follows a few established practices and are considered low-risk for side effects.
The biggest risk, I would think, is taking a vaccine that doesn't work and then going to a Phish concert and catching covid from a stranger you don't even know.
I saw that article yesterday, but all it does is raise new questions:Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare,’ WHO says:
Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is 'very rare,' WHO says
Government responses should focus on detecting and isolating infected people with symptoms, said the WHO's Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove.www.cnbc.com
I would make it mandatory, and anyone refusing denied healthcare relating to the refuser's COVID19 infection. But this plays into my cynicism about spiking the curve.Serious question.
If Bill Gates does come out with a vaccine for COVID-19, can the government make it mandatory that you must take it? TBh, that would be a very scary thing.
I would make it mandatory, and anyone refusing denied healthcare relating to the refuser's COVID19 infection. But this plays into my cynicism about spiking the curve.
On top of this, it appears that WHO is walking back their statement on "asymptomatic" transmissionI saw that article yesterday, but all it does is raise new questions:
1) what are they basing this on
2) What do they mean by asymptomatic? After all, in a technical sense, asymptomatic doesn't really mean "not currently exhibiting symptoms." Rather, it is better described as "never exhibiting symptoms". Do they really mean presymptomatic? (Presymptomatic is when symptoms are not yet exhibited but will be)
There have even been a few reports of so-called "asymptomatic" cases where the still had lung defects by CT scan. So is that really asymptomatic?
Many states are starting to show an uptick in new cases. I don't know if this is due to better testing or if these are the first signs of the second wave?