J&J Vaccine restricted by FDA



My reply to you is very long. I've tried to tackle each point that I can, but I understand long posts are boring to read and hard to reply to, so I've written a TLDR section in as few points as I possibly can. In fact, my post was so long it hit the character limit. What you're reading now IS the TLDR of the long, long reply.

1. Two weeks to stop the spread is a straw man. That was never promised.

2. Just because the government's policy wasn't perfect doesn't mean it was a bad policy. It was reactive to an unprecedented situation.

3. If the UK government's policy wasn't the right policy, what was? What approach was less flawed?

4. You claim "a targeted vaccine rollout and isolation when positive" are preferable: we had both of these and you're forgetting the massive part of spread which is asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people.

5. You say the stats are clear and it mainly impacts the old/vulnerable, with a low fatality rate. Whilst this is true, it does still significantly impact younger groups, and it isn't just all about deaths. 193,000 COVID deaths, 850,000 COVID admissions. You need to factor in that COVID patients are resource intensive, so imagine having 20%, 30% maybe 50% more COVID patients in hospital. How would they have coped?

6. You rightly identify that lockdown has multiple negative impacts - schools, the economy etc. I accept there were things we could have done better, but in addition to more people being in hospital, how would schools, businesses and public services have coped with many more staff, students and pupils being off sick?

7. Sweden. Okay this is a hard one to distil. In a nutshell, that Telegraph article doesn't really flesh out what the headline claims. In fact it specifically mentions that Sweden's advantages were significant in a generally healthier population, and a better-resourced healthcare system. The article simply links "less strict lockdown" with "lower excess deaths" by association, not casually.

8. The Telegraph acknowledges that in terms of excess deaths, Sweden performed worse than Finland, and significantly worse than Norway. This leads to two conclusions - firstly that Sweden was always going to do better than average because it's a healthier country, and secondly that Sweden could have had an even lower rate of excess deaths, if they'd also put actual rules in place. Now, why do I say actual rules?

9. See, Sweden didn't put a lot of RULES in place, but it put a lot of GUIDANCE in place. This guidance was followed pretty closely, likely more closely than we followed our guidance. See Sweden scores very highly on measures of how much they trust each other, and how much they trust the government. The Swedish government could trust its citizenry to do the right thing.

10. Lastly, one final point on Sweden. The Swedish population realised the government didn't actually do that good a job with it's hands-off approach, and so they passed an act in January 2021 with more powers for more restrictions.

A question to you if I may, because I'm really hoping to get an answer to this, but people who argue against lockdown keep ignoring this question for some reason.

COVID is predominately airborne and requires close, social contact to pass it on. Restrictions limited that contact. If we had fewer restrictions, that would have meant more contact, so therefore more infected people, so more cases, more people in hospital and more people dying. Please can you explain to me how fewer restrictions would have led to overall better outcomes, when more people would be dead, and more people would have been admitted to hospital?

1. Give over, it was repeatedly stated as a talking point
2. I agree our governments response wasn't perfect and they've made a fair effort responding to such an event. Whilst the scandals around the finances are an issue, the vaccination program, development and rollout has to be respected.
3. On the global scale it differs, there numerous issues that are common and some extreme issues which are not. However societal wide lockdowns are one thing and in such an unprecedented situation could arguably be accepted in hindsight but to repeat this, c'mon. Not enough thought or consideration was given to the effects on such measures from a mental, societal and economic perspective in response to a virus with a very low fatality rate and a specific segment of society which as claimed by the arbiter Gates was known in March 2020.
4. Yes a targeted rollout, no mandatory jabs, focus on the elderly and compromised and work down to those who wish to have it. This is one thing we did it right. However you're also forgetting those jabbed can also catch COVID and transmit it, so it's not like the vaccine is a definitive be all and end all solution. It's pragmatism. Fundamentally on the vaccine I believe it should be pro-choice and I'm glad the NHS didn't go through with the mandatory rollout.
5.The stats are clear, as you admitted. Low fatality and elderly and compromised being those most vulnerable. It was evident as stated early doors. On the numbers front in regards to hospital admissions, we can broach a separate incident and that is that the NHS is not fit for purpose. It's a bureaucratic behemoth being stripped for everything that it's worth. How could we have tackled it? I mean, we managed to find billions for test and trace, PPE and so on that ultimately went into back pockets, perhaps we could have reacted quickly and bought more resources and built temporary facilities.
6. Yes I am right on the associated costs. But now you're being straw man in your response by stating how schools etc would have survived. There's an alternative isn't there and we did that didn't we. We brought in the right to work from home and overnight millions were able to do jobs that were previously determined to be solely completed in cubicles from their homes. We used technology to bring the schoolplace into childrens bedrooms. The caveat to this is the many business which fall victim to a shutdown, notably hospitality, lockdown was a financial death sentence.
7.So Swedens health system was better resourced then could one argue as stated above that our healthcare system was not fit for purpose despite the enormous costs? And in response to healthier populations who chose to confine people to their own four walls and never propagated the idea of general all round health in regards to combating covid?
8/9. Guidance great, all for it and that's exactly the point isn't it, educate the populace, allow them to make their own informed decisions. Not control their every action and confine them.

Your last point, protect the vulnerable and compromised and allow those who wish to to continue participate in society. We shut down the world for a virus with a less than 1% fatality rate, that targeted a small and spcific % of the population as stated by the arbiter of covid. It was a severe over reaction and the fallout will be felt for years to come.
 
1. Give over, it was repeatedly stated as a talking point
2. I agree our governments response wasn't perfect and they've made a fair effort responding to such an event. Whilst the scandals around the finances are an issue, the vaccination program, development and rollout has to be respected.
3. On the global scale it differs, there numerous issues that are common and some extreme issues which are not. However societal wide lockdowns are one thing and in such an unprecedented situation could arguably be accepted in hindsight but to repeat this, c'mon. Not enough thought or consideration was given to the effects on such measures from a mental, societal and economic perspective in response to a virus with a very low fatality rate and a specific segment of society which as claimed by the arbiter Gates was known in March 2020.
4. Yes a targeted rollout, no mandatory jabs, focus on the elderly and compromised and work down to those who wish to have it. This is one thing we did it right. However you're also forgetting those jabbed can also catch COVID and transmit it, so it's not like the vaccine is a definitive be all and end all solution. It's pragmatism. Fundamentally on the vaccine I believe it should be pro-choice and I'm glad the NHS didn't go through with the mandatory rollout.
5.The stats are clear, as you admitted. Low fatality and elderly and compromised being those most vulnerable. It was evident as stated early doors. On the numbers front in regards to hospital admissions, we can broach a separate incident and that is that the NHS is not fit for purpose. It's a bureaucratic behemoth being stripped for everything that it's worth. How could we have tackled it? I mean, we managed to find billions for test and trace, PPE and so on that ultimately went into back pockets, perhaps we could have reacted quickly and bought more resources and built temporary facilities.
6. Yes I am right on the associated costs. But now you're being straw man in your response by stating how schools etc would have survived. There's an alternative isn't there and we did that didn't we. We brought in the right to work from home and overnight millions were able to do jobs that were previously determined to be solely completed in cubicles from their homes. We used technology to bring the schoolplace into childrens bedrooms. The caveat to this is the many business which fall victim to a shutdown, notably hospitality, lockdown was a financial death sentence.
7.So Swedens health system was better resourced then could one argue as stated above that our healthcare system was not fit for purpose despite the enormous costs? And in response to healthier populations who chose to confine people to their own four walls and never propagated the idea of general all round health in regards to combating covid?
8/9. Guidance great, all for it and that's exactly the point isn't it, educate the populace, allow them to make their own informed decisions. Not control their every action and confine them.

Your last point, protect the vulnerable and compromised and allow those who wish to to continue participate in society. We shut down the world for a virus with a less than 1% fatality rate, that targeted a small and spcific % of the population as stated by the arbiter of covid. It was a severe over reaction and the fallout will be felt for years to come.

what alternative would you have suggested?
 
1. Give over, it was repeatedly stated as a talking point
2. I agree our governments response wasn't perfect and they've made a fair effort responding to such an event. Whilst the scandals around the finances are an issue, the vaccination program, development and rollout has to be respected.
3. On the global scale it differs, there numerous issues that are common and some extreme issues which are not. However societal wide lockdowns are one thing and in such an unprecedented situation could arguably be accepted in hindsight but to repeat this, c'mon. Not enough thought or consideration was given to the effects on such measures from a mental, societal and economic perspective in response to a virus with a very low fatality rate and a specific segment of society which as claimed by the arbiter Gates was known in March 2020.
4. Yes a targeted rollout, no mandatory jabs, focus on the elderly and compromised and work down to those who wish to have it. This is one thing we did it right. However you're also forgetting those jabbed can also catch COVID and transmit it, so it's not like the vaccine is a definitive be all and end all solution. It's pragmatism. Fundamentally on the vaccine I believe it should be pro-choice and I'm glad the NHS didn't go through with the mandatory rollout.
5.The stats are clear, as you admitted. Low fatality and elderly and compromised being those most vulnerable. It was evident as stated early doors. On the numbers front in regards to hospital admissions, we can broach a separate incident and that is that the NHS is not fit for purpose. It's a bureaucratic behemoth being stripped for everything that it's worth. How could we have tackled it? I mean, we managed to find billions for test and trace, PPE and so on that ultimately went into back pockets, perhaps we could have reacted quickly and bought more resources and built temporary facilities.
6. Yes I am right on the associated costs. But now you're being straw man in your response by stating how schools etc would have survived. There's an alternative isn't there and we did that didn't we. We brought in the right to work from home and overnight millions were able to do jobs that were previously determined to be solely completed in cubicles from their homes. We used technology to bring the schoolplace into childrens bedrooms. The caveat to this is the many business which fall victim to a shutdown, notably hospitality, lockdown was a financial death sentence.
7.So Swedens health system was better resourced then could one argue as stated above that our healthcare system was not fit for purpose despite the enormous costs? And in response to healthier populations who chose to confine people to their own four walls and never propagated the idea of general all round health in regards to combating covid?
8/9. Guidance great, all for it and that's exactly the point isn't it, educate the populace, allow them to make their own informed decisions. Not control their every action and confine them.

Your last point, protect the vulnerable and compromised and allow those who wish to to continue participate in society. We shut down the world for a virus with a less than 1% fatality rate, that targeted a small and spcific % of the population as stated by the arbiter of covid. It was a severe over reaction and the fallout will be felt for years to come.

1. You're confusing a 'talking point' with actual policy. It was never policy, it was never promised.

2. Agreed.

3. Plenty of thought will have been given to the "mental, societal and economic" issues caused by lockdown. It was of the utmost importance that the health service didn't become overwhelmed with COVID patients, because that would have led to a) fewer or no resources for anything else and b) a feedback loop of more cases in hospital, infecting doctors, leading to fewer resources, leading to poorer outcomes.

4. Those jabbed can become infected and give it to other people, yes. I've had three jabs and I first had COVID approximately six months after my booster. However, all the reliable evidence that we have shows that the vaccine a) reduces the severity of symptoms and b) reduces the likelihood of transmission

5. We could build a hospital in every town, it wouldn't help because we don't have enough doctors or nurses.

6. You keep calling valid counterpoints a straw man. A straw man argument is when you construct a false conclusion from someone else's argument, and then argue against that. You say that my response to you regarding schools is a straw man. You're wrong for two reasons - the first being you raised the issue of schools in post number 44 on this thread, and the second being that it's an entirely valid point to ask you how public services would have coped without lockdown, when you're arguing against lockdown.

7. Yes, it would be fair to say that our health service isn't adequately funded in order to meet all the demand it faces. That much has been evident for about a decade when you look at how key performance figures have declined under Conservative leadership.

8. The crux of your perspective on this seems to be an ideological opposition to state control over the population. Ideology is a luxury. We didn't have time for luxury, we had to take action. You seem to exist in this fantasy land where people would have followed the guidance as strictly as they did when it as law. Look at how many people were fined for breaking the rules. Think how many pubs, shops, businesses etc would have remained open if it was just 'guidance'. Think how many more cases that would have led to, think how many more admissions, think how many more deaths. Ideology is a luxury, and that's what it would have cost you. Willing to pay that price?
 

Back
Top