Covid-19 Thread

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, RussTCB said:

Medicines are not, have never been and will never be error free. 

You will have to define ''error'' for me here. Obviously buy any drug, over the counter, and there will be a list of potential ''side effects'' with recommended guidance, whilst some people are allergic to certain ingredients: my mother for instance is allergic to penicillin, then could it be said that Alexander Fleming made a human error? You are assuming a ''mistake'' from the human producing the medicine, not the natural/god-given limitations and variance - DNA and/or immune reaction - of the recipient human being. The latter is not an error. 

PS

Or are we going to be taking vaccines with the foreboding that the work experience kid had knocked the drug together haha?

Edited December 9, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

I hope the seniors in the UK who received the vaccine are okay and not having any weird symptoms.

Initial observance sees vaccinated ceasing entirely from racist utterances, and discussing the subject ''The (Second World) War''. Allergic reaction detected in some for Bingo, John Smiths and purple rinse.

[RussTCB]

29 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

No. Straw man.

 

I love when people use "straw man" incorrectly just because they can't argue their point. 

[DieselDaisy]

12 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I love when people use "straw man" incorrectly just because they can't argue their point. 

It is a straw man because I never espoused your rhetorical question pertaining to ditching medicine in toto. If I had stated as such, it wouldn't be a straw man. 

[bucketfoot]

55 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yet every year we have a new flu vaccine. 

You know I'm right, Soul, so just button it.

[RussTCB]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is a straw man because I never espoused your rhetorical question pertaining to ditching medicine in toto. If I had stated as such, it wouldn't be a straw man. 

A "straw man" or "straw man argument" is when someone attacks the person, instead of their point. I didn't do that in any way, shape or form. 

However, what actually happened was this: I said that errors with the vaccine are to be expected due to the existence of human error. 

You then said that there is no room for error where medicine is concerned. 

Then I asked if you were suggesting that all medicine be done away with because all medicine is made with human error. 

Then you had no answer, so you said "No" and followed it up with an incorrect use of the term "straw man". 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, RussTCB said:

A "straw man" or "straw man argument" is when someone attacks the person, instead of their point. I didn't do that in any way, shape or form. 

No it isn't. That is called an ad hominem. A straw man is a type of rhetorical fallacy, refuting an argument that was not proposed in the first case. 

[RussTCB]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

No it isn't. That is called an ad hominem. A straw man is a type of rhetorical fallacy, refuting an argument that was not proposed in the first case. 

I've heard both be referred to as straw man, so maybe that's just my experience. 

So, would you like to answer the question or just continue to dodge it? How is human error OK in some cases with respect to medicine, but the vaccine must be totally human error free which is impossible? 

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I've heard both be referred to as straw man, so maybe that's just my experience. 

So, would you like to answer the question or just continue to dodge it? How is human error OK in some cases with respect to medicine, but the vaccine must be totally human error free which is impossible? 

I clarified my point early, and here it is again,

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

You will have to define ''error'' for me here. Obviously buy any drug, over the counter, and there will be a list of potential ''side effects'' with recommended guidance, whilst some people are allergic to certain ingredients: my mother for instance is allergic to penicillin, then could it be said that Alexander Fleming made a human error? You are assuming a ''mistake'' from the human producing the medicine, not the natural/god-given limitations and variance - DNA and/or immune reaction - of the recipient human being. The latter is not an error. 

PS

Or are we going to be taking vaccines with the foreboding that the work experience kid had knocked the drug together haha?

 

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The basic premise is correct however, that medicines can (and will) possess foibles - e.g., 

https://www.medicalerroraustralia.com/medical-disasters/10-worst-drug-recalls-in-history/

The issue is, would anyone so flippantly disregard them now, for this?

 

[RussTCB]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I clarified my point early, and here it is again,

 

 

Read that earlier. So it seems your answer is basically "covid isn't important enough"? 

[soon]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

No it isn't. That is called an ad hominem. A straw man is a type of rhetorical fallacy, refuting an argument that was not proposed in the first case. 

Yes, but its an argumentative fallacy, an informal one. You actually put forward a rhetorical fallacy when suggesting that it was unfair to conclude that your point didnt clearly imply that all medicine was bad because its not 100% safe for everyone. Your point did imply that.

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Read that earlier. So it seems your answer is basically "covid isn't important enough"? 

You have just provided another straw man!

 

[DieselDaisy]

Although you are actually correct in your assumption this time. In my opinion, no disease/virus, at this stage in human history, is worth using an erroneous and potentially dangerous vaccine. 

[Dazey]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Although you are actually correct in your assumption this time. In my opinion, no disease/virus, at this stage in human history, is worth using an erroneous and potentially dangerous vaccine. 

There's nothing dangerous about it you fanny!  

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

There's nothing dangerous about it you fanny!  

 

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Without commenting on this particular story...

 

[RussTCB]

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You have just provided another straw man!

 

 

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Although you are actually correct in your assumption this time. In my opinion, no disease/virus, at this stage in human history, is worth using an erroneous and potentially dangerous vaccine. 

Resorts to straw man bit again, then confirms what I said. Solid. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, RussTCB said:

 

Resorts to straw man bit again, then confirms what I said. Solid. 

You provided a rhetorical argument for me, that I did not produce (i.e., straw man), yet I do agree with what you set forth irrespective, that I believe vaccines should not be placed on the market containing errors. One does not necessarily have to disagree/agree with the straw man set forth, sufficing that the straw man argument was never stated to begin with. 

[DieselDaisy]

As a reminder, here is an example of a straw man argument that I pulled off wikipedia, a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.

B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

[RussTCB]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You provided a rhetorical argument for me, that I did not produce (i.e., straw man), yet I do agree with what you set forth irrespective, that I believe vaccines should not be placed on the market containing errors. One does not necessarily have to disagree/agree with the straw man set forth, sufficing that the straw man argument was never stated to begin with. 

So you weren't saying that Covid is not important? I'm confused because that seemed to be your point earlier. Then when I summed up what you were saying as "covid is not important enough", you resorted to the straw man bit. Again. 

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

So you weren't saying that Covid is not important? I'm confused because that seemed to be your point earlier. Then when I summed up what you were saying as "covid is not important enough", you resorted to the straw man bit. Again. 

I was being more general however I certainly don't believe Covid is important enough to dump an potentially dangerous vaccine on the market*.

 

*For those with reading comprehension abilities, I am not stating that any of these particular corona vaccines are error-filled and potentially dangerous (there seems to be some issues with Oxford/AstraZenaca's trail data, and now this regarding Pfizer's, but I just skim read the headlines and don't know the specifics), so.....I am in effect already dumping lighter fuel on your strawman beforehand. 

[RussTCB]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I was being more general however I certainly don't believe Covid is important enough to dump an potentially dangerous vaccine on the market*.

 

*For those with reading comprehension abilities, I am not stating that any of these particular corona vaccines are error-filled and potentially dangerous (there seems to be some issues with Oxford/AstraZenaca's trail data, and now this regarding Pfizer's, but I just skim read the headlines and don't know the specifics), so.....I am in effect already dumping lighter fuel on your strawman beforehand. 

You seem to have zero ability to carry on a debate without attempting to insult. 

You threw the straw man thing at me twice, then conceded twice that I actually understood your point the whole time, you just didn't seem to want to admit that it was actually your point. 

Now, you're using throwing the straw man bit in again after adding the "for those with reading comprehension abilities" bit in. 

Not  sure why that last part is even necessary as at no point has anyone said you or anyone else think all Covid vaccines would be error filled. 

What was actually said was that all medicine is going to have human error and Covid vaccines aren't going to be exempt from that. 

After that, it's a been a mess of you going in circles with your straw man bit and now attempting to add other insults into the mix. 

[DieselDaisy]

27 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

You seem to have zero ability to carry on a debate without attempting to insult. 

You threw the straw man thing at me twice, then conceded twice that I actually understood your point the whole time, you just didn't seem to want to admit that it was actually your point. 

Now, you're using throwing the straw man bit in again after adding the "for those with reading comprehension abilities" bit in. 

Not  sure why that last part is even necessary as at no point has anyone said you or anyone else think all Covid vaccines would be error filled. 

What was actually said was that all medicine is going to have human error and Covid vaccines aren't going to be exempt from that. 

After that, it's a been a mess of you going in circles with your straw man bit and now attempting to add other insults into the mix. 

That (*) wasn't really aimed at you, but thrown in there as I simply knew somebody - the usual suspects - would throw something into the mix about me being an antivaxer amoral nutter, when in fact I suspect all three vaccines are perfectly safe for the mass majority of people.

The debate is utterly lost in misunderstanding and misreading - and I am not necessarily exonerating myself in all this. It is the sort of tongue-twisting linguistic conundrum I used to chastise a certain person on here for!

[action]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

No it isn't. That is called an ad hominem. A straw man is a type of rhetorical fallacy, refuting an argument that was not proposed in the first case. 

he must be thinking about the "straw man" used by frauds in auctions, and applying it to arguments.

[action]

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You hit the nail on the head a few posts back when you said something to the effect of medicine having to be flawed since they are made by humans. That is entirely correct. Our manufacturing processes aren't perfect and the active ingredient in a drugs display some chemical variation. Which is why regulatory bodies demand 98 % purity or so, meaning that some variation is okay. In fact for some complex drugs, like antibody drugs made using CHO cells, the batch-to-batch variation is staggering, but it is the best we humans can do. 

But in addition to the medicines not being homogenous, which may lead to side effects or lowered efficacy, we are not always able to design active ingredients that don't cause some undesired side effects. We simply don't have the biochemical skills to develop perfect drugs. 

Lastly, and @soonmade this point earlier, we humans are so different physiologically and chemically, that we respond differently to any chemical injected, eaten, swallowed, etc. Which is why clinical trials not only involves many people, but many different people. And which is why we know see the advent of personalised medicine where we tailor-make drugs (or administration protocols, or dosing regimes, or delivery methods) to each patient. 

Yet every year we have a new flu vaccine. 

wow, that was fast

and with that, the change of tune has happened.

from "the vaccin is rigurously tested, it won't be dangerous" earlier, to "medicine is always flawed since it's made by humans"

with every change you make, you're coming one step closer to my stance, and as with mouth masks and covid not being like the flu, you'll have to concede that I was right all along.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, action said:

from "the vaccin is rigurously tested, it won't be dangerous" earlier, to "medicine is always flawed since it's made by humans"

You don't understand. I have never denied that drugs come with side effects and that some of these will first be discovered when that drug is administered to many more people than can be achieved during clinical trials. What I have been saying is that there is no reason to believe covid-19 vaccines have a higher chance of having such unknown side effects than other drugs, because contrary to what many people think, there doesn't seem like shortcuts have been taken during clinical testing and contrary to what we feared, regulatory bodies have not been strong-armed and threatened by politicians to approve the vaccines before they have been sufficiently tested. In short, covid-19 vaccines are likely to come with side effects -- just like any other drug -- and some of these may even be fatal to very small groups of people -- just like any other drugs -- but that doesn't make them "dangerous" to the general public, especially considering the benefits they provide.

You don't seem to understand this and basically live in fear. First it was fear of covid-19 that made you act irrational, and now fear of the solution.