General / Off-Topic mRNA future?

I'm fully vaccinated and intend to remain so, taking boosters as often as required to maintain . Given best currently available information, the balance of risks is for me getting a second booster (fourth dose) in about two months. Perhaps that will change if there are better vaccines available soon, this wave of Omicron burns out soon, or some other variant supplants Omicron.



Being fully vaccinated can only protect me from the virus. It can't protect me from the effects of two years of mass recklessness that has precipitated a slew of inconveniences, some of which are even capable of reaching me. It can't get me into completely booked schedules for surgery to fix this deviated septum, torn ligament in my elbow, or carpal boss on my wrist. Mandates that tell me to do what I'd already be doing anyway may only be offensive as a matter of principle, but the requirements for proof--because there are people absurd enough to willfully avoid vaccination--can still be annoying impingments on my privacy, even if I'm capable of providing it.

Even if this was only about the direct effects of the virus, the significant protection provided by up to date vaccination is still far from perfect. I could get infected, which can have long term negative consequences, even if the infection completely asymptomatic. I also have to be careful that my mother--who is about seventy and recovering from throat cancer treatments that have left her quite frail--doesn't get infected, because she is at much greater risk.



Vaccinated or not, I've never been worried that this pandemic was going to kill me.

The idea that dying is the only bad thing that can happen, or that those reluctant to take measures to protect themselves aren't the cause of the erosion of privacy and liberties associated with the pandemic response, is disingenuous. Every attack on freedom you've mentioned or intimated, you've contributed to with your own behavior and misinformation. That's part and parcel of the "fallout" mentioned in the line you quoted. It's a collection of annoyances I don't need or want that people, who prefer farce over fact and who can't take take anything seriously enough to see beyond their own noses, have inflicted upon us all.
Good now Denmark, Norway and Sweden is removing all restrictions, and we're still alive, and the Truckers in CA are on the move FREEDOM!! My State never had a lock down and we don't need to pick up dead bodies on the streets, and I'm still a pure blood human being.
 
Good now Denmark, Norway and Sweden is removing all restrictions, and we're still alive, and the Truckers in CA are on the move FREEDOM!! My State never had a lock down and we don't need to pick up dead bodies on the streets, and I'm still a pure blood human being.

I was never advocating legal restrictions. I was talking about personal responsibility and personal freedom limited by nothing beyond the equal rights of others...common decency, golden rule type stuff.

I'm not sure what this 'pure blood human being' crap is either. If you've been infected with SARS-CoV-2 recently, you likely have vaguely similar (though probably weaker and shorter lived, if your symptoms were mild) antibodies, you just got them in more risky and more damaging way.
 
or that those reluctant to take measures to protect themselves aren't the cause of the erosion of privacy and liberties associated with the pandemic response, is disingenuous.
Well there would be no need to erode privacy or liberty if everyone just did exactly as you told them to would there? "Well they wouldn't do it willingly so we had to force them, so it's their fault" isn't really the best argument.
 
Well there would be no need to erode privacy or liberty if everyone just did exactly as you told them to would there? "Well they wouldn't do it willingly so we had to force them, so it's their fault" isn't really the best argument.

It's not an argument at all. It's an observation. There is only so much willful idiocy any system, any society, can bear. The cost of allowing a few people to do dangerously dumb stuff, that has implications far beyond themselves, is a price I'm happily willing to pay to enjoy liberties most people can handle responsibly.

However, when huge swaths of the population insist on screwing everyone over, I'm not going to go out of my way to enable them. I may resent the erosion of privacy and liberty that are an inevitable fallout of enough people abusing them, but I'm not going to go out of my way to protect those ultimately responsible while their actions are a threat to me.

There is only so much poison one can dump in a river before those downstream can taste it. Expecting one's victims to defend one's right to screw them over is pure insanity. And that's exactly what every ostensibly freedom loving anti-mask, anti-vaxx, anti-isolation, get-back-to-normal, it's-only-the-flu, piece-of-scum ignoramus hypocrite is doing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not an argument at all. It's an observation. There is only so much willful idiocy any system, any society, can bear. The cost of allowing a few people to do dangerously dumb stuff, that has implications far beyond themselves, is a price I'm happily willing to pay to enjoy liberties most people can handle responsibly.
Hmm okay, but if the case is "we must force people to do things because they haven't chosen to do them willingly" then I would say the observation that the cause of that is entirely on the people doing the choosing (or not choosing), rather than the people doing the forcing, is incorrect. Obviously the desires of the former group to do the enforcing are at least as much to blame for the... well... the enforcing.
However, when huge swaths of the population insist on screwing everyone over, I'm not going to go out of my way to enable them. I may resent the erosion of privacy and liberty that are an inevitable fallout of enough people abusing them, but I'm not going to go out of my way to protect those ultimately responsible while their actions are a threat to me.
If you think that making a free choice, when presented with an ostensibly free choice, is an abuse of liberty then I guess you must have a very different interpretation of what "liberty" means. Remember this isn't a choice like the "choice" to go out and murder someone, or to even not wear a seatbelt. You know, choices that are actually restricted in law. This is an actual free choice (for now).
There is only so much poison one can dump in a river before those downstream can taste it. Expecting one's victims to defend one's right to gently caress them over is pure insanity. And that's exactly what every ostensibly freedom loving anti-mask, anti-vaxx, anti-isolation, get-back-to-normal, it's-only-the-flu, piece-of-scum ignoramus hypocrite is doing.
Be the victim you want to be I guess.
 
If you think that making a free choice, when presented with an ostensibly free choice, is an abuse of liberty then I guess you must have a very different interpretation of what "liberty" means.

I think that imposing one's choices upon others is an abuse of liberty. If you don't, you're wrong.

Remember this isn't a choice like the "choice" to go out and murder someone, or to even not wear a seatbelt. You know, choices that are actually restricted in law. This is an actual free choice (for now).

Choosing not to take rational precautions to keep from spreading one's pathogens is a direct assault upon anyone you expose without consent.

It is very much a choice like 'to go out and murder someone', but not at all like wearing a seat belt. The former is something you can inflict upon others. The latter is something phenomenally unlikely to have direct implications upon anyone else (there are certainly indirect ones, but I don't consider them serious enough to have a problem with those who refuse to wear seat belts, even if I think they are morons), except those in your own vehicle, who, unless they are minors incapable of giving informed consent, have consented, to possibly being hit and injured or killed by your flailing body in the event of a collision, by their willingness to share your vehicle.

I still think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

That equal rights of other part is pretty important. No one on this Earth has the right to infect me with anything, therefore I have no right to infect them, therefore I do what it in my power to make sure I don't.

The law is beyond irrelevant to this discussion. Laws only define what's legal. Actions are what they are. If one knows there is a highly contagious pathogen being spread around, that it can cause serious illness, and then doesn't do what is rationally within their power to do to not be a transmission vector, they are being a willful and direct threat to those around them. The excuse that it's legal to be a disease spreader doesn't carry any weight with me; I never believed in, and was never going to appeal to, any higher authority.

Be the victim you want to be I guess.

Speak for yourself.
 

Ian Phillips

Volunteer Moderator
I will not repeat this again - keep comments to the premise of the OP, not about your view of the morals you percieve to be involved.
 
The idea that dying is the only bad thing that can happen, or that those reluctant to take measures to protect themselves aren't the cause of the erosion of privacy and liberties associated with the pandemic response, is disingenuous
2% of the entire UK population is currently experiencing long-term disability as a consequence of having had it.

One can only hope that down the line, we can identify the aetiology of this and similar postviral syndromes, and figure out treatments. It's entirely feasible even that mRNA tech could prove to deliver an additional benefit to tackling this virus even after the pandemic is eventually considered "over", by allowing the body to produce the necessary treatments to alleviate the long-term consequences.
 
BTW the new term for us is "transhumanoids" in the QAnon lexicon.
Oh nice, sounds like an 80s toyline and multimedia franchise!
585099.jpg

Transhumanoids! Fighting the dastardly forces of C.O.V.I.D. with mRNA-powered action features!
 
Since his antivax podcast, Joe Rogan has been consistently in the news. Basically, all bad. He's apologizing on a semiregular basis, including for the subsequent debacle he hosted with Jordan Peterson. Medical professionals signed a petition vs him, and it seemed at first that might have been the end of it.

Spotify has lost 20% in share value, and there has been an exodus of content providers from the service. #deleteSpotify is trending. They are going to put "disclaimers" on some hosted materials because of this evolving trouble. What causes the trouble?

Rogan cannot tell when he is being told bullcrap. He's nice to everybody on the show.

I've posted before about the neurological basis for false tag failure and racism.
One predicts the other.
So it comes as simple confirmation that the latest scandal contains exactly what you would expect.


Can I just go on record as liking Joe Rogan, despite all this? We both have similar elements in our backgrounds- I fought in rings for 10 years, lifted heavy, used enhancing substances, and find him interesting and funny. He's able to talk with people I would not be able to tolerate for long. Let's hope he survives this, because it is not his fault that he has a vmPFC lesion, probably occasioned in that same ring.
 
I like Joe too but "with great audience reach comes great responsibility". And Spotify. Is there anything about what it's done that just doesn't highlight the problem with modern economics. They gave a guy a platform to distribute rubbish just for profit, then they double downed on it when challenged. It's the nadir of what's wrong with capitalism. Now apparently economics is coming back to bite it in the butt. We'll see if it's just a nip or a fatal wound i guess. The cynic in me says faux outrage about "cancelling" will save them.
 
One of the few positive effects of this pandemic is in bringing mRNA vaccines and treatments into the mainstream.
Well, lets talk when all the side effects has been mapped and it's no longer an experimental drug, until then no thank you, however I just added 15 acers to my homestead so now it's 30 acers in total, that's freedom!
 
Well, lets talk when all the side effects has been mapped and it's no longer an experimental drug, until then no thank you, however I just added 15 acers to my homestead so now it's 30 acers in total, that's freedom!
Discovered in the early 1960s.

Research into how mRNA could be delivered into cells was developed in the 1970s.

The first mRNA flu vaccine was tested in mice in the 90s.

 
Discovered in the early 1960s.

Research into how mRNA could be delivered into cells was developed in the 1970s.

The first mRNA flu vaccine was tested in mice in the 90s.

Still not approved, and the main inventor of the tech is strongly advising not to use it.

in other news what is going on in Israel? one of the most vaccinated countries?
FKsiZ0WaUAE5RpE
 
Dead ender Herman Cain Awardees that perish 97 times more than normal in hospitals.
(CDC figures this week)

Good news for the rest of us mudbloods, though. 🥂

BTW the new term for us is "transhumanoids" in the QAnon lexicon.
Typical, no arguments then turn to QAanon and trying to make fun of the other side, just so you know, it ain't working. The freedom trucker movement is a clear sign your side is losing BIGLY!!
 
Well, lets talk when all the side effects has been mapped and it's no longer an experimental drug

Still not approved

Neither of the major mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are experimental anymore. The Pfizer vaccine was approved by the FDA on August 31st, 2021, while the Moderna vaccine was approved last week.

Most possible side-effects were understood in the development stages because the drug components of the vaccine aren't that different from other vaccines and neither the mRNA components themselves, nor the biologics they encode, are capable of doing what many skeptics have suggested. There were then trials and a broad emergency deployment, of course, prior to the now achieved general approval.

A complete map of all potential side-effects probably isn't practical, but the same could be said about essentially any drug or biologic. We are still discovering rare novel interactions/side-effects of things as old and commonly used as aspirin and caffeine, for example. If one's personal cut off is 'when it's too late to matter', that's not very useful. The cutoff used by scientific/medical consensus and those who defer to that expertise, when deciding to favor a new preventative or treatment, is when it becomes clear that the balance of risk probabilities favors it over the pathogen/disease...which has long since passed.

the main inventor of the tech is strongly advising not to use it.

Categorizing Dr. Malone as the main inventor is an exaggeration, at best. He also hasn't done much of anything in the mRNA field, beyond spread misinformation, for years. He's an anti-vaxx figurehead now, but it's hard to say whether he believes his own nonsense or is just cashing in on it.

in other news what is going on in Israel? one of the most vaccinated countries?

A lot of things. Flagging immunity from a lot of early vaccination, but dubious uptake of boosters; high population density; a lot of travel/tourism; lax restrictions and certain segments of the population bringing down total vaccination rate, etc. It seems very similar to Israel's spike last summer.

On the surface Israel is a statistical anomaly, but any explanation of that anomaly that suggests that vaccination isn't enormously beneficial is fallacious. Even in Israel, the hospitalization and mortality rates dramatically decline with completeness of vaccination.
 
Still not approved, and the main inventor of the tech is strongly advising not to use it.
That's a conspiracy theory and he's a conspiracy theorist.


in other news what is going on in Israel? one of the most vaccinated countries?
Their death rate per capita is really low for a developed country. Unlike the UK and US.
 
That's a conspiracy theory and he's a conspiracy theorist.



Their death rate per capita is really low for a developed country. Unlike the UK and US.
And what is this about then?

"Seropositivity estimates for N antibody will underestimate the proportion of the population previously infected due to (i) blood donors are potentially less likely to be exposed to natural infection than age matched individuals in the general population (ii) waning of the N antibody response over time and (iii) recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination."

Page 23
 
Top Bottom