Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» Obviously OF COURSE those with underlying conditions like heart disease diabetes, cancer were part of the virus test group. CORRECT?
Obviously OF COURSE those with underlying conditions like heart disease diabetes, cancer were part of the virus test group. CORRECT?
To ascertain whether or not having an underlying conditon would render the vaccine DANGEROUS for them. Right? Elsewise otherwise sidewise only healthy people could take it. Now how stupid would that be?
I'm not a doctor or biologist but as I understand it, a vaccine should not affect existing, different diseases because it is not attacking the body, although it may cause some side-effects in some people. It basically shows the immune system a chemical template of the new threat. Even so I can understand doctors being reluctant to try it on seriously ill people until a lot more experience has been gained.
The problem with diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart damage is that they weaken the body so it can't easily fight off real infections.
It was Covid that ended the life of a friend of mine, suddenly and rapidly but quite peacefully - but he was already weakened by a heart problem and advanced Alzheimer's. Two other patients in the same home survived it even though quite a bit older than him. Whether a vaccine might have saved him is a moot point we can never know, partly because looks as if that different vaccine types affect different age-groups of people in their own way.
I am very sorry your friend did not survive Durdle. The surges spikes and tsunami we are now edging into will make that a reality for too many of us. The fast tracking is unsettling. Something was shortened or eliminated in the protocol. You can't collapse time and have it be harmless. Something that should take two years or more is done in less one year? That's like the 9 months of typical pregnancy is cut down to 4 months. It does not compute for me. Setting that aside how do we know we can trust what we are being told by the pharmaceutical companies? They want to sell product. Remember the lies the cigarette companies told? The lies a car manufacturer told about mileage? They all lie to push an agenda. The vaccine is just another one of them. Of course it's possible that it is exactly as advertised. But is it probable? Though we in America are being BEGGED IMPLORED to stay home this Thanksgiving allegedly something like 40% of Americans plan to travel and be in places where there are more than 10 people. The 40% who support a duck. Oddly enough the duck is hiding out in the White House this year instead of going to Mar a Lago for golf and food and games and camaraderi. So we are out of luck here. Condolences to all of us. We are headed for far worse and there is nothing we can do about it except stay home. Thank you for your thoughtful reply m'dear and Happy Saturday to thee and thine. Starting tonight at 10pm we in California are on curfew. 10pm to 5 am every day. We're always home then but I guess lots of folks aren't. The more things change the more they stay the same. :(
This post was edited by RosieG at November 21, 2020 1:28 AM MST
Are the pharmaceutical companies lying? I think they would lose too much to risk. Of course they are huge money-making businesses, but they have seen what happened with the tobacco and car companies; and this time the money and reputation stakes are much higher than they were for VW. Even so, they may be being horribly over-optimistic, but only time will tell.
I did learn something yesterday about why it can take some years to test a new drug. The testing itself does take time, of course, but much of the overall time is not that but the bureaucracy as the product and test results queue for attention at every stage. So it may be that vaccine tests are being put at the head of the queue at the moment.
I also learnt today why they are unlikely to test vaccines on older people with serious illnesses - vaccines are much less likely to help them anyway. The researchers are looking at medicines though that could work for an infected person in such situations.
They have not tried curfews as such in Britain, though it's happened in a few other countries. What they did though was insist on catering establishments closing at 10pm, when they were allowed to re-open. It didn't really work though, not in the some of the larger cities anyway. It just put lot of people out onto the streets in a short time, with many congregating there or in friends' homes where they could carry on drinking.
How was that 40% figure worked out? I wonder if in fact many fewer than that will gather in over-larger groups, and we can all hope so!
Durdle 