-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
-
-
268
Fun Quiz > Covid-19 mRNA Vax harm denial - At which stage are you?
Given the speed with which the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, I completely understand the initial scepticism - I felt some of it myself, to be honest. But things quickly veered into the absurd when anti-vaxxers began claiming that DNA was being altered, revealing just how much misinformation and misunderstanding was out there - especially from people who couldn’t even tell you what the acronyms stand for. It’s certainly worth emphasising that mRNA vaccine technology wasn’t cobbled together in a matter of months. In reality, mRNA vaccine research has been underway for over 30 years. As you point out, though, the first mRNA vaccines to receive widespread approval and public rollout were the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in late 2020. For context: In the 2010s, companies like Moderna and BioNTech began testing mRNA-based vaccines for illnesses such as flu, Zika, and rabies in clinical trials. By 2020, the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic massively accelerated funding and development, resulting in the first-ever mRNA vaccines authorised for human use - rolled out at scale, and with remarkable speed and efficacy. That efficacy was crucial, as it came during a period of global uncertainty, when data on case fatality rates, underlying risk factors, and comorbidities remained limited, and the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 had triggered widespread concern and urgency. So while the technology had been simmering in labs for decades, it wasn’t until the pandemic that it saw full clinical validation and global deployment. That doesn’t mean the vaccines were "experimental" in the sense that they were untested or hastily improvised. On the contrary, mRNA vaccine platforms had undergone years of preclinical development and early-phase human trials for other diseases, such as influenza and Zika (as mentioned earlier). What the pandemic did was compress timelines - not by skipping safety steps, but by overlapping trial phases, pouring in unprecedented funding, and streamlining regulatory processes. In that sense, the speed was extraordinary, but the core science was not improvised. The line between “new” and “experimental” became understandably blurred under the pressures of a global health crisis, but I think it’s misleading to suggest these vaccines were rolled out without a solid scientific and clinical foundation. Regarding 'coercion' - thats highly emotive language and requires clafication - this is part of the issue when debating such topics - emotive language is chosen over factually based prose. The question of whether society was "coerced" into taking mRNA vaccines depends on how one defines coercion, and perspectives vary widely based on cultural, political, and personal viewpoints. Most people were not forcibly vaccinated - no one was physically compelled. In many countries, vaccination remained a choice, and informed consent was required before administration. mRNA vaccines underwent regulatory review and were recommended, not universally mandated. But, there were coercive pressures (in a broader, social or institutional sense): - Employment mandates: Many workers, especially in healthcare, education, and public services, were required to get vaccinated to keep their jobs - Access restrictions: Some countries implemented vaccine passports, restricting entry to venues, travel, or public spaces without proof of vaccination. - Social pressure and messaging: Government campaigns, media narratives, and peer influence painted vaccination as not just a health choice but a civic duty, which, while well-intentioned, often bordered on moral pressure. - Limited options: In some places, mRNA vaccines were the only available option during early rollout phases, leaving no choice for those hesitant about the platform - this is the part I can see as being wrong - people lacked a choice between vaccine types. So, was it coercion? Legally? No, not in most democratic countries. Practically or socially? For many people, yes - it felt coercive, especially when livelihood, freedom of movement, or social participation were tied to vaccine status (I could not work without proof of vaccination). Ultimately, the context matters. During a global emergency, governments weighed public health priorities over individual autonomy. Whether that balance was struck fairly is still being debated - and will likely be studied for decades to come.... ultimately, its the crux of the 'Covid-Vaccine' debates we have on this forum.... (but certainly not part of the larger Anti-Vax debate which simply find ridiculous). -
69
What Books Are You Reading ? (2025)
Yes, one of my favorites. You may already know it but, if not, you might like the Christopher Reich series featuring Simon Riske. -
1,169
Updates and events in the War in Ukraine 2025
Closing the barn door comes to mind -
9
Commencement of UK state pension
Got those figures seriously wrong,not I but the writer of the piece,also featured in daily Mail. She quoted over a 15 year term of being frozen,something like 26 000 GBP loss, now I'm no Einstein,but way off. The individual quoted (not Puckerage) was on around 1300 GBP a year 15 years ago ,now the OAP is around 12000 GBP a year,just in one year ,this year its getting on for 11000 GBP loss a year.I figure not 26000 gbp a year loss,but 4 times that figure with compounding taking into account. I'm not going back to calculate,but one hell of a loss which any way you look at it
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
.thumb.jpg.3ee24d9400fb02605ea21bc13b1bf901.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now