|
| Thread: USA, EU, UK refuse to share vaccine formulas. |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 10 20 29 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted March 19, 2021 05:05 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:07, 19 Mar 2021.
|
@JJ
First of all, that is manipulative world play, what I called “obvious” was not my argument (which I did support with stats, links and facts btw) but what anyone would understand from “modern medicine” regarding the context and to say something like “china had some ancient vaccine practice in 200 BC so it is not modern medicine” is absurd. This is you, wanting to have the last word no matter what.
And the answer to your question is a simple no, no matter how ideal your work conditions are, no matter how good the food, how clean the water is, if you have no cure to epidemics and if they are not the exception but the rule, they will still bring down average life expectancy. This must be pretty clear to see, since including in your own links, you can see that in medieval centuries with great plauge epidemics, it goes down although rest of the factors are the same.
I am extremely skeptic about the muslim scholar stat btw, because it doesnt fit in with anything else and in Islamic tradition it is common to exaggerate respected people’s age. It symbolizes how God loves them. But I do know for instance, when Sultan Suleyman lived up to 71 years, this was seen as quite an unexpected situation even for a king, so his son wanted to get to the throne before his death and was killed for it.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
husham123
Famous Hero
Yes
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 05:07 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
If you think about the conditions the majority of the people lived in in the 19th century
Well snow, just as I was posting my big block of text, you tackled this point xD
JollyJoker said:
It's clear that these conditions simply wasted their lives away. The key isn't medicine, the key is not getting sick in the first place.
You see, the issue is, 'medicine' as a term also refers to the prevention of disease. Why do you think if you go to your doctor complaining about jaundice, and eventually tell him you drink two bottles of whiskey every day, he will recommend, amongst other things, laying off the drinks ? You could say he is prescribing a lifestyle choice. It's a misnomer, I know, but I think after all, we're all on the same page.
Also, on the topic of cancer, I read your post, and I've gotta say, my condolences, that must have been even tougher, being someone you've grown so close to. I lost my father to cancer when I was two. Been kinda rough growing up without him in one way or another. I found it interesting how he lived a farmer/carpenter life, and was never in prolonged contact with any carcinogen. He did not smoke, and did not live anywhere near an industrial plant, amongst other things, and never even used asbestos, even though it was a popular material back in his prime. What causes cancer ? Damage to the DNA, which creates tumors that spread ? It seems very random to me. If you look at the stats, 4 in 10 men will be diagnosed with cancer at one point in their lifetime. 1 in 5 men will die of cancer. But cancer was not really as well-documented/recorded in ancient history, or even in medieval times. It's a very recent phenomenon. People would have died of this before, if they got to grow old, but they could not even grow old due to a lack of medicine. And even then, chemotherapy, although not always effective, is the reason why half of people who get diagnosed with cancer don't actually die from it, despite it being random and with no real reason for popping up.
Sometimes, you just can't prevent fatal diseases, like cancer (which is now a leading cause of death), but you can certainly prevent death itself by the use of what you refer to as 'medicine'.
____________
What the darn-diddily-doodily did you just say about me, you little witcharooney? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at Springfield Bible College, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 05:35 PM |
|
|
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "prevention" is very low on the to-do-list in the West (it is in Cuba). Why? Preventing diseases doesn't pay - except when it comes with regular examinations and so on. THEN it's like with cars, you know. Prevention is fine when the yearly inspection gains a regular income. Same with human health.
You have to consider that we live in a capitalist system and the goal is, making MONEY. In Germanymore and more hospitals are PRIVATE institutions, operating with the task to make a profit. Take one and the same person with the same problems, send them to a doctor, and depending on their insurance, diagnosis and treatmenat may vastly differ.
"Medicine" doesn't exist. It's called health business.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 05:41 PM |
|
|
@ artu
You are getting polemic now. What I wanted to say with China is that modern medicine hasn't been necessary to discover and use the principle of vaccination. Ancient medicine did that already.
But the scientific method has made it a dependable thing to use as often as you want with the same result and social advance has made it possible to use it widely. THAT is the difference between now and then, not "modern medicine".
Mind you, I repeat, I'm not saying medicine is useless - I'm just saying it plays only second fiddle and a process of try and lots of errors, one that hasn't ended in 2021.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 05:59 PM |
|
|
Prevention did pay, when things were much worse. Your perspective is coming from a position where a lot of the deadly contagions had been prevented decades ago. Why isnt there polio anymore? Why did they end it?
JJ said:
But the scientific method has made it a dependable thing to use as often as you want with the same result and social advance has made it possible to use it widely. THAT is the difference between now and then, not "modern medicine".
Lol, that is like saying it is not modern medicine, it is modern medicine. And to object to the term because of some secluded ancient practice...
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 06:01 PM |
|
|
These arguments about medicine and life expectancy are getting more out to lunch every time I review this thread. I think I'm done talking about it. Over a billion people have had loved ones whose lives have been saved or extended from medicine, and often their healthspan in addition to lifespan. There's a lot more to be done but the effects have already been revolutionary.
---
On the subject of vaccine equity, in case anybody thinks I am not a flexible person, I am willing to accept an alternative for those who are big fans of the nationalist model. Anti-vaxxers that don't want a vaccine can swap places with people in developing countries who do want one and are unable to do so. It will be like a student exchange program, except with vaccine participants. Also, since Hypochondriac Europa has less than 10% of people who have received even a single dose and they want to murder their own population by shutting down vaccination programs because of like a 0.00002% chance of a blot clot or something (I don't remember exactly how many zeros are to the right of the decimal lol), it should just donate all of its vaccines. Yes/no/maybe?
I still got a few weeks before its my turn. I am willing to risk the almighty dangerous AstraZeneca vaccine although in addition to a blood clot I also heard that it's technically possible to slip on the pavement as you're walking into the clinic and break your skull open against the corner of a step. Then you get a tragic domino effect because the people walking behind you slip on your dislodged brains and then they slip and then their brains splatter all over the place, and so on and so forth. Whose to say I will even be lucky enough to develop a blood clot? I think I'll go to the clinic in a wheelchair covered in bubble wrap instead of using my feet to walk, or maybe get a kind-hearted and overworked nurse to roll me in like a barrel.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 07:48 PM |
|
|
Okay I skimmed the mini novel from a few pages ago:
Quote:
Even so, as long as we are clear this isn't science, there's an interesting thought experiment: if we define aging as the progressive decline in biological function due to progressive chemical deterioration of structures (I'm open to alternative definitions), can aging be prevented, or slowed, or stopped by perfect maintenance and repair? My inclination would be to think of this from a strictly chemical point of view. Prevention first. Can you prevent a process defined by downward trajectory of chemical reactions? No, you cannot change thermodynamics, but you can influence kinetics. Just so, if you fall out of a plane, you cannot remove the influence of gravity, but you can slow your fall. Fine. So you can use chemical treatments to slow the chemical reactions that result in aging? Probably, although my notion of it is vague.
Dude, your notion isn't vague. It's fatal. You would kill a person if you did that or least mess them up considerably. You don't want to slow the chemical processes of aging because those are the same processes people need to replicate cells and live. For slowing aging you would want those processes to become more efficient. This is just rambling.
As far as my comment on that I trust science but I don't necessarily trust scientists: this thread is a living example of why. You can still trust the process itself because you have entire teams of people working together and then those teams are checked by other teams, and then checked again, etc. In this case there's you - a lone person on a gaming forum - ranting about something you clearly have very limited understanding about. Not that I claim to know much either, but at least I'm not pretending to be an authority. Okay, maybe I have, but in a more underhanded sort of way.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 08:11 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Prevention did pay, when things were much worse. Your perspective is coming from a position where a lot of the deadly contagions had been prevented decades ago. Why isnt there polio anymore? Why did they end it?
JJ said:
But the scientific method has made it a dependable thing to use as often as you want with the same result and social advance has made it possible to use it widely. THAT is the difference between now and then, not "modern medicine".
Lol, that is like saying it is not modern medicine, it is modern medicine. And to object to the term because of some secluded ancient practice...
Polio has been an ENDEMIC disease until the 1880s - when it changed to becoming pandemic (who knows why). Polio is still there - and lo and behold, in Africa, polio is rising again due to ... the weaker vaccine version, since due to the generally bad living conditions in Africa even those weaker versions are too much for the population.
Medicine doesn't work well with weakened, malnourished people. What people need first is a decent life.
And it's saying that modern medicine is PROFITING from science like everything else, but the medicine isn't that impressive, considering that people used "natural antibiotics" as well as quasi vaccinations at least some 2000 years ago. THEN - impressive. Now? Well, not so much.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 08:32 PM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
These arguments about medicine and life expectancy are getting more out to lunch every time I review this thread. I think I'm done talking about it. Over a billion people have had loved ones whose lives have been saved or extended from medicine, and often their healthspan in addition to lifespan. There's a lot more to be done but the effects have already been revolutionary.
Many more can say the same from social advance - and in much more ways than just one. Dude, we have a rover on Mars, we should be WAY further in medicine. WAY WAY further. This pandemic, for example, should never have had the impact it has, because we should have been MUCH better prepeared after SARS and the scenarios that were played through.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 08:40 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:42, 19 Mar 2021.
|
Sorry, I meant smallpox. Disease names are easy to swap by accident in English.
Once again, this is not about which comes first, not being exposed to pathogens is PART OF a decent life. And even if you were strong as an ox, living and working under ideal conditions, 200 years ago, risk of getting sick was much much bigger and this is directly related to average life expectancy. Modern medicine changed that. I keep reminding you this simple fact and you keep ignoring it.
Some form of ancient vaccines existing does not change anything at all. Even if we assume they were as effective as modern ones, your argument would still be moot. It would be like me, emphasizing the importance of public access to clean water, and you objecting by saying “ancient Chinese had clean water, too.” It’s absurd. You can also say, in some African countries, the public still dont have access to clean water. These do not refute the cause and effect I point out.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 09:11 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Many more can say the same from social advance - and in much more ways than just one. Dude, we have a rover on Mars, we should be WAY further in medicine. WAY WAY further. This pandemic, for example, should never have had the impact it has, because we should have been MUCH better prepeared after SARS and the scenarios that were played through.
Yeah. A corrupted relationship between research and politicians and over-targeting the wrong projects is partially responsible for this (Corribus will jump in and patriotically rant about how immaculate his colleagues are, etc.) but there's also purely the lack of logistics to respond to a pandemic, which is political.
See how Eastern Asia has handled the pandemic comparatively far better, and I'm not talking about an authoritarian regime like the PRC, but places like Taiwan and S. Korea as well. That's not so much from better medicine but from a drastically superior and better prepared coordinated effort. They actually took the pandemic seriously well before the WHO got around to identifying it as a pandemic in the early spring (not really sure why it took that long but they seem to enjoy being on their knees).
The population itself being significantly healthier than many other places also helps, but without the logistics they could never have kept it contained'ish. Building up from only a skeleton network against a superspreader virus that can triple the number of people infected in a few days is a lost cause. There's no time.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 09:23 PM |
|
|
@Blizz
If you skim something, it is really no surprise you don't understand what they've written. It's also just a sign that you have no respect for other people involved in the discussion or their viewpoints.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 09:42 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
@Blizz
If you skim something, it is really no surprise you don't understand what they've written. It's also just a sign that you have no respect for other people involved in the discussion or their viewpoints.
You're right. It's not respectful.
The truth is that I've skirted around my web blocker and I'm on social media right now when I'm not even suppose to be. I don't want to have a lengthy conversation with you about this, especially if it's going to involve typing 1000+ word replies and if you're going to demand that I look up the hundreds of sources at the back of the book and present them to you on a gaming forum. Am I suppose to take an extended vacation to do this? Why would you ask something like this? If you're seriously that interested in it (and it is really interesting) just read it yourself. It also doesn't help that you're deliberately misrepresenting what I'm typing to try to look good, such as claiming that I think there shouldn't be any research on Alzheimer's, which I never said. I don't want to go back and defend little points when I never even said those things to begin with.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 09:58 PM |
|
|
artu said:
And even if you were strong as an ox, living and working under ideal conditions, 200 years ago, risk of getting sick was much much bigger and this is directly related to average life expectancy. Modern medicine changed that. I keep reminding you this simple fact and you keep ignoring it.
This is complete nonsense. It is a baseless claim, because there is no if. There were no ideal conditions 200 years ago (AND medicine was worse - which didn't matter because the population had no access). All medical progress would be moot if it hadn't been made available to the broader public. And all medical progress wouldn't be worth much, if people would still be working 100 hours a week.
Quote:
Not being exposed to pathogens is PART OF a decent life.
Then we don't have a decent life, because we are. We have an immune system to deal with that, mind you.
Quote:
Some form of ancient vaccines existing does not change anything at all. Even if we assume they were as effective as modern ones, your argument would still be moot. It would be like me, emphasizing the importance of public access to clean water, and you objecting by saying “ancient Chinese had clean water, too.” It’s absurd. You can also say, in some African countries, the public still dont have access to clean water. These do not refute the cause and effect I point out.
You don't get it. If there WAS public access to clean water THEN and YOU claim rise of life expectancy comes from public access to clean water NOW, it shouldn't be too difficult to spot the error in your reasoning.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 10:07 PM |
|
|
And by the way @ blizzardboy,
you agreed with me on page 5 of this thread.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 10:26 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:35, 19 Mar 2021.
|
All 3 of your answers lack one simple notion: Ratio.
1- There were ideal conditions for a few minority of people and they got exposed to pathogens a lot more, hence died more. So therefore we can extrapolate that even if the conditions were better for everyone, they would still die of malaria or smallpox without the meds.
2- What is considered a decent life is a normative, value based statement. TODAY, you would consider being exposed to as much disease as a medieval person, as an indecent standard BECAUSE of the medical revolution. Before that, people made many kids and some of them survived, some of them didnt, people considered it the natural order of things, which it is. That’s how your immune system works, by natural selection. Must I really remind you that civilization is, by default, about nerfing that process.
3- No you dont get it, masses having access to vaccines and deadly diseases becoming much less frequent for generel public, has nothing to do with some ancient type of primitive vaccine, using the same principle. Just like a modern sewer system is different than some people living near the river and having access to clean water.
Let me ask you a very simple question, today, in countries with decent social standards, why are anti-vaccine movements considered a general threat to the public health? Why is it mandatory to have your vaccines? I mean, shouldnt it be so much less important and not much of a threat according to your claims? Social conditions are sweet and dandy anyhow.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 10:56 PM |
|
|
Let me ask you a simple question.
Where would you want to live?
1) In a big city slum 2nd half 19th century, working 100 hours a week, having no paid vacation, no pension, no spare money, no decent food, no decent housing, no clean water, no health insurance - but with modern day medicine (you can't pay for).
2) Or in modern times living conditions, home office, 38.5 hours per week working, health insurance, pension, paid vacation, decent food, decent housing, clean water ... but with the medicine of 1870 (available to you).
Because that's what we are talking about - which impact is more meaningful, not whether one has all impact and the other none.
Quote:
Let me ask you a very simple question, today, in countries with decent social standards, why are anti-vaccine movements considered a general threat to the public health? Why is it mandatory to have your vaccines? I mean, shouldnt it be so much less important and not much of a threat according to your claims? Social conditions are sweet and dandy anyhow.
why would I be against vaccinations? That's absurd. You could just as well say, well, if we were having it your way we'd have no hospitals. I mean, where does that come from? Or do I ask YOU, why you are not in favor of working 100 hours a week, since you seem to view social progress with total disregard?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 19, 2021 11:09 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:11, 19 Mar 2021.
|
I havent said you were against them, I said if their importance is so secondary, why are people who are against them considered a public threat? Dude, you are such a cheater!
And your “this or that” is a false dilemma, because if there had been contagions all the time around us, the conditions you speak of would be affected just as well. Do I really have to spell that out in these days of covid? That’s why I keep telling you, from the very beginning, that all of them are interlinked and you cannot dissect them that easily, sure if you pick the mine worker, living under worse conditions, or kids used as chimney sweepers because they fit in, but then die of tuberculosis in a few years, because they inhale ash all the time, or the potato famine, these were just as bad, but than I can pick the Spanish flu which killed more than WWI alone, you can be selective about which is worse, incident by incident but overall, all of them affected each other anyway.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2021 07:32 AM |
|
|
You just don't want to answer it and that makes you the cheater.
Because, let's not forget how this started. Some people sang the high praise to the gods in white and medicine and how medicine will make us all live even longer and stop aging, and I said, social progress, better working and living conditions, social insurance and so on, did more for people's lifespans than what is called medicine.
A sizable part of the problems medicine found solutions for were a direct consequence of the working and living conditions people had to put up with. Life made people pretty sick pretty fast. Changing that has been the most important thing.
You say, things are so interwoven they can't be separated. Then why isn't THAT your point. "I don't think you can rate those two. Both have been important." Instead you try to tell me how important medicine is, as if your point was, medicine was more important.
So what IS your point?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 20, 2021 10:22 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:23, 20 Mar 2021.
|
I did answer it. But even if I had answered it the way you wanted it, this would have had nothing to do with average life expectancy.
My point is that medicine is not as secondary as you make it sound when it comes to longetivity of life and that how it affected public health is an intrinsical part of the social conditions you speak of. I think I had to repeat that so many times because of your dodging, that my point is very clear to anyone but you.
And btw, whether it is possible or not, if we are to live any longer, this would be even more about medicine than social conditions anyway. Because no matter how optimal the social conditions, you would still die of aging in your 130. Nobody ever makes it pass that. So if that was the basis for your objection, it is a flawed comparison to begin with, even if pulling it up from 40 to 60 was more about conditions, pulling it up from 80 to 150 isnt.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
