Not from Prishon, no. — Banno

It was not Prishon to whom you limited your judgement.

Fair enough. I haven't been focusing so much on the moral argument; the closest I've really come to it is considering whether someone, anyone, is more likely to be more infectious if vaccinated than if they are not vaccinated, and less likely to be hospitalized if vaccinated than if not. I don't know the answer to that specific question even though I think the answer to the general question seems pretty clear. I tend to respect someone's right not to be vaccinated if they don't want to in any case, though.

same with motorsports — Isaac

Some just can't get enough rush from virus infections...?

someone, anyone, is more likely to be more infectious if vaccinated than if they are not vaccinated, and less likely to be hospitalized if vaccinated than if not. I don't know the answer to that specific question even though I think the answer to the general question seems pretty clear. — Janus

I agree for adults (to the 'general' question), but the evidence is not anywhere near so clear for children. There's been strong disagreement among the scientific community as to whether the risk/benefit is in favour of vaccinating the under 17s.

Some people like riding fast bikes, some people like being free of prophylactic medication. Have you some argument as to why one is a reasonable preference and the other not?

Yes, I agree it certainly doesn't seem clear for people in that age group.

Yes, I agree it certainly doesn't seem clear for people in that age group. — Janus

And yet with potential vaccine passports and restrictions on travel and social venues linked to vaccination status, plus the clear media representation of the unvaccinated as little more than scum, it seems unlikely that this already criminally underrepresented group are going to have any true freedom to make a decision in their own best interests.

Fortunately the risks both ways are quite small, but any further erosion of the rights of children over their own bodies would, I think, be kicking the already beaten.

Do you compare me with a robber? — Prishon

Yes. In that you do whatever you want without thinking about others.

Someone robbing you does it because they don’t want to get a job and don’t care what they have to do to others instead. Someone not taking the vaccine does it because they are afraid of a needle and similarly doesn’t care about the consequences to others.

So actually I want to take it. But I just say that I diont want? — Prishon

No clue where you got that from. No, you don’t want to take it because you couldn’t care less about hurting the people around you severely just to avoid a needle.

I understand some people may actually be concerned about the efficacy and side effects of the vaccine but you just seem to be of the unfathomably selfish kind. You just don’t want it, and you know you’re hurting others by not taking it but fuck em.

unfathomably — khaled

If I am the robber actually not want to rob then people taking the vaccin are the robbers actualy robbing and wanting it too! Forgive for saying but then you are doubly bad.

So do you not do anything the medical system has told you is a risk? Never smoke, drink, eat red meat, exercise too little, get stressed, skip the veggies, engage in sports, ski, drive, breathe city air, travel... — Isaac

Placing myself at risk is one thing. Placing others at risk is another.

ou've just got finished telling us you don't know what the experts are actually saying, nor do you know what the dissenters are actually saying. — Isaac

No, I did not just get done saying that. Let me try again by telling you exactly what I just got done telling you: I know exactly what the experts are saying: Distance, Mask, Vax. I know exactly what the dissenters are saying: No need to do what the experts are saying. Read that again.

You said you trusted the institutions of your government. So this has nothing to do with charlatanism - you're not in a position to judge that. This has to do with choices about who to trust, that's the only thing you personally have any knowledge about. You trust the institutions of your government and what you perceive to be the consensus of scientists. Others don't. That's all you can judge on, because that's all you're qualified to know about the situation. — Isaac

You are wrong. In the military they have a term: "BTDT." And anyone who pretends to have been somewhere or done something when that is not true are called "posers." The law has the same thing, with the various Bar Associations. So too the Medical Community, and a great number of other vetted professions and activities. You know, like a certificate for graduating from kindergarten. One need not be a BTDT or an attorney or a doctor to find out if a person is a BTDT or an attorney or a doctor. The rest are posers, charlatans, or the people who believe posers or charlatans. You can vet an expert, or you can rely upon government, self-regulating entities, degrees, rank, whatever. Dr. Fauci is a vetted professional. If he was not, then you can bet all those who disagree with him and the charlatans would have vetted him and pointed out that he does not have the expert credentials that he says he has. There are others who agree with Dr. Fauci. You know, like your doctor. Have you been to your doctor? What does he/she say?

You, Isaac, are not qualified to challenge Doctor Fauci on the merits of any discussion related to Covid. Likewise all the people that you listen to. If and when a smart person who knows as much as him denounces his recommendations, you can bet we will hear about it. You know why? Because there is no grand conspiracy to shut down the truth. We don't even shut down the lies. If we could shut down the truth then you know we would shut down the stupid people and the liars. Like Faux News. Like Tucker Carlson. Yet they blab away.

As above - do you never engage in any activity the healthcare system has told you is a risk to your health? — Isaac

Asked and answered. Life is not always about me, Isaac. I know that is hard for you to grasp. I don't know how I can explain to you that you should care for other people. Neither does Dr. Fauci. Please stay at home and don't get close to other people. You are a danger.

Slight digression, but instructive: You know how so many conservatives and Republicans are always whining about government regulations? Did you know that no regulation was ever promulgated in a vacuum? Every single regulation was promulgated in response to the failure of someone to protect the rights of others. I think everyone knew that you shouldn't shit in the river. And everyone who didn't know was asked "Please don't shit in the river." But some people, people who are disrespectful, inconsiderate and selfish, continued to shit in the river anyway. Thus, regulations were adopted. Now, we can argue about whether the regulation is properly designed to the task, to broad, to narrow, etc. But it would not exist had everyone abided the pleas of everyone else, the government, the experts.

So, in the instance of covid, the government started out nice. You know, asking. Pleading. Providing incentives, free shit. If disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish people obstinately refuse to be respectful, considerate and helpful, then a regulation will be adopted. Laws. And then the whining and wailing and gnashing of teeth will really start. Imagine NOS and all the libertarians and people who hate government and regulation. They will be apoplectic. And it will all be due to people who can't distance, wear a piece of cloth over their pie hole/snozzle honk, or take a vax. Hell, had we all played ball on the first two, we would not even need a vax.

But you people have been warned: You are bringing what is to come upon yourselves. You do not respect the rights of others.

Placing myself at risk is one thing. Placing others at risk is another. — James Riley

Yep. Nothing whatsoever to do with the argument you were attempting though, which was that someone who took a risk to their health that they had been previously warned about by some institution should not then seek help from that institution.

If you want to change that argument to "someone who puts other in a position some institution considers a risk, ought not seek aid from that institution if they get ill", then you'd need some new argument as to why. But let's say, for the sake of argument you have such an argument. The same would apply to fast food outlets, gun shops, tobacconists, car rental firms, ski resorts, diving schools...

Let me try again by telling you exactly what I just got done telling you: I know exactly what the experts are saying: Distance, Mask, Vax. — James Riley

That is about as far from 'exactly' as it can get. Three words. There's been over two hundred papers on the subject in the main journals alone, and you think three words sums up 'exactly' what they're all saying? Seriously?

You, Isaac, are not qualified to challenge Doctor Fauci on the merits of any discussion related to Covid. Likewise all the people that you listen to. — James Riley

The people I've quoted in this thread are all as or more qualified than Dr Fauci, every single one. If you disagree, pick one of my citations and point out the error.

If and when a smart person who knows as much as him denounces his recommendations, you can bet we will hear about it. — James Riley

We have heard about it. The articles I've cited are published in peer reviewed journals, the main one being the BMJ (but only because I happen to get a copy, other journals publish similar articles), one of the world's leading medical journals.

, — Isaac

It's my guess you are a military man. How can you care so much about others (by getting vaccinated) while at the same time you wear a gun? Guns always worsen the situation, especially in the USA, where unheard teenagers make themselves heard by shooting. This disease is slowly spreading the globe. I can get protection (like the vaccine) by getting a gun too, but this only worsens the situation. Likewise you can argue that vaccinating is good for everyone but this is short-term thinking. In the long run it gives weak people, dying already of a cold.

Placing — James Riley

It's my guess you are a military man. How can you care so much about others (by getting vaccinated) while at the same time you wear a gun? Guns always worsen the situation, especially in the USA, where unheard teenagers make themselves heard by shooting. This disease is slowly spreading the globe. I can get protection (like the vaccine) by getting a gun too, but this only worsens the situation. Likewise you can argue that vaccinating is good for everyone but this is short-term thinking. In the long run it gives weak people, dying already of a cold.

the — Isaac

Sorry. The post above was not meant for you. My mistake. ☺

12hReplyOptions — Banno

I stack a needle in my arms before. But it didn't contain a vaccine. I think you want me vaccinated so you can hug me safely, without infecting me. Or are you just worried about my health?

Placing myself at risk is one thing. Placing others at risk is another.
— James Riley

Yep. Nothing whatsoever to do with the argument you were attempting though, which was that someone who took a risk to their health that they had been previously warned about by some institution should not then seek help from that institution. — Isaac

What is wrong with you Isaac? You asked a question and I answered it. Directly. If you wanted me to address the issue of seeking help from an institution whose adivce was rejected, then you should have asked me a question about that. You did not.

If you want to change that argument to "someone who puts other in a position some institution considers a risk, ought not seek aid from that institution if they get ill", then you'd need some new argument as to why. But let's say, for the sake of argument you have such an argument. The same would apply to fast food outlets, gun shops, tobacconists, car rental firms, ski resorts, diving schools... — Isaac

I'm not changing any argument. Rather, you are failing to keep up. But I will entertain your effort to change the argument back to what we were talking about before you asked me your silly question that I directly answered. In the future, though, if you want me to answer a question about something, then ask the question about that.

Carrying on: Some people won't vax because they don't trust the gubmn't. Those same people say the vax is not FDA approved. The FDA is part of the gubmn't. So they should have the courtesy of not making that argument.

Some people won't vax because the vax is not FDA approved. However, they go to the hospital and are treated by several different drugs that are not FDA approved. Should not the Doctors refuse giving such drugs to people who don't want them?

Some people don't trust doctors. Yet they go to doctors when they get sick.

Whatever. The point here is this, in answer to your argument: Those people should not be treated to the detriment of others who took the vax but got in a car accident or suffered some other illness that demands medical care in a hospitals with limited resources. If a vent is on a person who refused the vaccine, and someone else needs it, that vent should be ripped out of the covid patient's mouth and he/she should be brought to Tucker Carlson's house so he can take care of them.

So, that should answer your question. But let me digress into the nuances of fast food and whatnot: The same analysis should apply. If someone acts against their own interest, that is fine as long as it does not inure to the detriment of someone else. Use the smoking debate for an example. People smoke. That is against their best interests. They know it. The States, who had to pick up the bill for all these sick people, sued the tobacco companies. Regulations and laws were implemented. Taxes on tobacco went through the ceiling. Kids can't legally smoke. People can't smoke in bars and restaurants. Tobacco companies had their contents regulated, and the list goes on and on. But in the end, the government did not outlaw smoking. People can still smoke. It's just that their right to smoke is limited to where it does not adversely impact others. But yes, if they are receiving treatment to the detriment of another patient, they should be pushed to the curb. Just like states charging people for rescue operations when they get lost in the woods.

Here's another distinction: Tobacco, fast food and what not, all have corporations selling their product to people who want to buy it. No one, to my knowledge, wants covid and no one is selling covid on the market.

Finally, when society decides to assume a risk (end prohibition, for example) because people demand it, then that is a conscious decision to assume risk. Society has not decided to assume the risk of Covid. Society is trying to fight covid. See the difference? If society wants to throw in the towel and champion the right of people to not distance, mask or vax, then it can do so. And, quite frankly, it has. It merely wants those who exercise that right to not share their filthy disease with other, innocent third parties.

That is about as far from 'exactly' as it can get. Three words. There's been over two hundred papers on the subject in the main journals alone, and you think three words sums up 'exactly' what they're all saying? Seriously? — Isaac

I already explained to that I (and most definitely you) are not capable of understanding what is in those papers or journals. But we are capable of seeing who says distance/mask/vax and who says don't. The is not far from "exactly" as it can get. It is right the fuck on point.

The people I've quoted in this thread are all more qualified than Dr Fauci, every single one. If you disagree, pick one of my citations and point out the error. — Isaac

I have not seen you quote a single name. And even if I had, I've already told you that I am not qualified to enter the debate between Fauci and his peers. Neither are you. You can't even follow an argument.

We have heard about it. The articles I've cited are published in peer reviewed journals, the main one being the BMJ, one of the world's leading medical journals. — Isaac

What you mean "we" Kimosabi? If any of those articles are saying "don't distance, don't mask and don't vax," then their respective professions are complete failures in taking down charletons like Fauci. Hell, even the Bar Associations have taken down Giuliani. Are you saying the medical profession is allowing Fauci to endanger people's health? As stated, I am not qualified to argue the merits of the discussion between his peers (and neither are you) but I am qualified to judge whether a profession is vetting, supervising, disciplining, guiding and maintaining their own objective standards. Show me where the names you cite are jockying to advise government, be in Fauci's position, and he should be in the street.


.

Placing — James Riley

Why do you take a word like "Placing" out as a quote in isolation? Either quote the sentence/context or just ask your question or make your point.

How can you care so much about others (by getting vaccinated) while at the same time you wear a gun? — Prishon

Asked and answered.

Guns always worsen the situation, especially in the USA, where unheard teenagers make themselves heard by shooting. This disease is slowly spreading the globe. I can get protection (like the vaccine) by getting a gun too, but this only worsens the situation. Likewise you can argue that vaccinating is good for everyone but this is short-term thinking. In the long run it gives weak people, dying already of a cold. — Prishon

"Always" is too big a word for you to use. It makes me want to ignore the rest of your post. It's hyperbole.

If you think the vax is short term thinking, and that, in the long run, letting it run it's course is a good thing, then you could use the same reasoning for guns. Give a gun to everybody and let nature take it's course. Sure, there will be a messy start, but things will settle out and all we'll have left is good people and a polite society.

That quo

short — Prishon

Why do you take a word like "Placing" out as a quote in isolation?

Same happens now. I push quote and there shows up a random word. I asked already to fix that.:) A hyperbole has its function. Of course not always. But only a government should be allowed to wear them. If not, the end is near.

I push quote and there shows up a random word. — Prishon

Use your left mouse button to highlight the text you would like to respond to. Then you should see the word "Quote" immediately to the lower right of the text you just highlighted. Press that word "Quote" and the text you just highlighted should appear in the response box. You would then type your response to that that quote. If that is what you are doing and it's still not working, then I don't know how to help.

I am in rabid disagreement on the government/gun thing, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion so I'll let it be.

shows — Prishon

Thanks for the advice. Im using a phone. I think thats the problem. And the cause of me typing wrongly sometimes. These dials are so fu... da.. eeeh small. :). I as a new question about guns. Though I think this has been discussed a 167846 times already and well never reach agreement on that. I had a pressure gun once. If not, a ducklin would still live.

, the vaccine is harmless, the virus ain't, and apparently conspiracy theories (and certain religious faiths) ain't either. The father and son could have lived on to be stupid another day, but chose (the "rush" of) drowning in their own blood. (Worth it? Not according to their family.)

That’s where he [the son] died of COVID on August 3 – never getting the vaccine because he thought it was a government conspiracy. Now, she’s [the wife of the dead son is] pleading with the public to get the vaccine. After Stevenson’s death on August 3, one of his sons who was also choosing to not get vaccinated, finally went and got the shot. — Kaitor Kay/KFOR

As an aside, someone wrote a piece comparing the deniers with various cults. Where the included cults could be characterized as suicide cults, the deniers were more like a homicide cult. A tad hyperbolic, but I can see their argument. Detroiter Jason Hargrove ain't forgotten. RIP.

The deniers are fertile ground for the virus to "live on", spread mutate kill, much to the frustration of medical workers.

the vaccine is harmless — jorndoe

That's not true unfortunately. There are risks.

the vaccine is harmless, the virus ain't — jorndoe

What a ridiculous thing to say. There's not a scientists in the world you could get to back up that statement. There's just been a massive disagreement about whether the risk/benefit is even positive for the under 25s, most still disagree it is for the under 12s.

The father and son could have lived on to be stupid another day, but chose (the "rush" of) drowning in their own blood. (Worth it? Not according to their family.) — jorndoe

No, they chose to try and do without prophylactic medicine. I asked you why that was any different to motorsports. I'm sure the families of any who die from anything are distraught, life contains risks, some of which we deliberately choose to take. Deciding that some people are sub-humanly stupid for choosing one particular risk is ridiculous.

The deniers are fertile ground for the virus to "live on", spread mutate kill — jorndoe

Your article conflicts with WHO advice

People cannot feel safe just because they had two doses, they still need to protect themselves. — Mariângela Batista Galvão Simão, WHO assistant director general

...it's almost as if scientists are not one mono-vocal legion...surely there couldn't be some complexity and disagreement could there?

I'm not changing any argument. — James Riley

The argument you made was...

They are utterly worthless as to be deserving of nothing but to be kicked to the street because that was their choice. So, when it turns out they were wrong, they want to come, on bended knee, to the very system they failed to trust, because they did some penny anti BS research in search of conformation bias, and then found it? Tough. — James Riley

Since you've now admitted that it being their choice is irrelevant we can assume you've relented.

Some people won't vax because they don't trust the gubmn't. Those same people say the vax is not FDA approved. The FDA is part of the gubmn't. So they should have the courtesy of not making that argument. — James Riley

So?

Some people won't vax because the vax is not FDA approved. However, they go to the hospital and are treated by several different drugs that are not FDA approved. Should not the Doctors refuse giving such drugs to people who don't want them? — James Riley

Yes.

Some people don't trust doctors. Yet they go to doctors when they get sick. — James Riley

Sounds daft to me.

Not sure what any of these examples have to do with me.

The point here is this, in answer to your argument: — James Riley

What argument is that? I haven't given any argument regarding the people you mentioned above. You've given three reasons why people might not take a vaccine and then assumed that's a counter-argument to anyone not taking the vaccine. Was three your limit? Did you have trouble thinking of more?

Here's another distinction: Tobacco, fast food and what not, all have corporations selling their product to people who want to buy it. No one, to my knowledge, wants covid and no one is selling covid on the market. — James Riley

What the fuck has marketing got to do with reasonable risk?

when society decides to assume a risk (end prohibition, for example) because people demand it, then that is a conscious decision to assume risk. Society has not decided to assume the risk of Covid. — James Riley

So you're saying we're morally obliged to take only the risks that have been approved by society? Harsh, but consistent at least. Bullshit though.

I already explained to that I (and most definitely you) are not capable of understanding what is in those papers or journals. But we are capable of seeing who says distance/mask/vax and who says don't. — James Riley

"Distance/mask/vax" are policies. No scientific paper could ever produce a policy, they produce OR values, or plausible mechanisms, depending on the objective. Policies are something politicians decide, based on their values and objectives.

I have not seen you quote a single name. — James Riley

I've given more than thirty citations in this thread alone, probably more in the other Coronavirus thread. I'd be very surprised if anyone here has cited more papers than I have on this subject.

If any of those articles are saying "don't distance, don't mask and don't vax," then their respective professions are complete failures in taking down charletons like Fauci. — James Riley

That's why I asked you 'exactly' what you think Fauci is saying.

Are you saying the medical profession is allowing Fauci to endanger people's health? — James Riley

Yes. That is the opinion of experts, including the official opinion of the World Health Organisation.

Show me where the names you cite are jockying to advise government, be in Fauci's position, and he should be in the street. — James Riley

Why would they have to be wanting Fauci's job, what's that got to do with anything?

The argument you made was... — Isaac

But that is not the argument you asked about when you asked me about my risk. Maybe put more context, or more of my argument (like you just did with the kick-to-the-curb argument I made). Then I would respond to that. See how that works? That way you won't get all confused by answers to questions you didn't ask.

Since you've now admitted that it being their choice is irrelevant we can assume you've relented. — Isaac

I haven't relented on anything. My argument is consistent and solid, and I've handed your ass to you. Don't ASSume, son. You're making an ass of yourself.

So? — Isaac

That is a nonsensical response. Up your game or I will tune you out.

Yes. — Isaac

Well, then. We agree. However, all these sick people are going to the hospital and getting drugs that are not FDA approved. That makes no sense.

Sounds daft to me. — Isaac

Me too, but understandable. I just wish when the doctor's save their lives with drugs that aren't FDA approved, the patient would not dig in their heels, double down and say they wouldn't take the vaccine because it's not FDA approved. They don't know what's in it. These people eat all kinds of shit from the grocery store, get tats with ink and avail themselves of tons of stuff that they don't know what's in it.

Not sure what any of these examples have to do with me. — Isaac

The record speaks for itself.

What argument is that? I haven't given any argument regarding the people you mentioned above. You've given three reasons why people might not take a vaccine and then assumed that's a counter-argument to anyone not taking the vaccine. Was three your limit? Did you have trouble thinking of more? — Isaac

You asked about kicking to the curb. I answered. It flew over your head. Okay. I see who I'm dealing with.

What the fuck has marketing got to do with reasonable risk? — Isaac

You tried to draw an analogy to fast food and other risky activities. Covid has no market. The other activities that you tried to analogize have a market. Try to pay attention, son.

So you're saying we're morally obliged to take only the risks that have been approved by society? Harsh, but consistent at least. Bullshit though. — Isaac

No, son, that is not what I'm saying. Go back and read your posts and how I directly responded to the issue you raised, shot it down and left you with nothing but pretending that you don't know what I'm saying or how it relates. It's a weak man's cop out. Just admit you were wrong. Go ahead, it's cathartic.

Policies are something politicians decide, based on their values and objectives. — Isaac

Policies are something people decide based on evidence. They often come from recommendations of experts. Sometimes that evidence is scientific. Sometimes the experts are scientists. Doctors, even.

I've given more than thirty citations in this thread alone, probably more in the other Coronavirus thread. I'd be very surprised if anyone here has cited more papers than I have on this subject. — Isaac

But I just told you, son, I have not seen a single one. And I also taught you that it would not matter one bit if you were to go regurgitate all that alleged shit that you posted that I have no read, because I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you. I am not qualified, and neither are you. You are only qualified to decide if you like the policies, values and objectives that the government has laid out based on evidence. You aren't smart enough to weigh the evidence. Neither are the politicians. They are just relying on experts.

hat's why I asked you 'exactly' what you think Fauci is saying. — Isaac

And I answered, for the umpteenth time: He is saying distance, mask, vax. If you make this mistake one more time I will have to add you to my personal ignore list. I can't keep engaging obstinate children.

Yes. That is the opinion of experts, including the official opinion of the World Health Organisation. — Isaac

So, have they moved to remove Fauci from his position? Can you show me where steps have been take to remove his license to practice? I'm just curious, because that is how it would be done. I mean, if he is endangering the lives of people and your experts are really experts, his peers, then surely there is a movement afoot.

Why would they have to be wanting Fauci's job, what's that got to do with anything? — Isaac

Well, if they are really his peers and if he is really endangering peoples lives by saying distance/mask/vax, then they would want him replaced. If they would not want such a person replaced then surely they are not worthy of consideration. I mean, you know, Hippocratic Oath and all.

Whats the big deal here? If you want it take it. If you dont dont take it.

Maybe on the short term all those vaccines work. On the long term they will produce weak people. And then the non-vaxxers will laugh.

That's not true unfortunately. There are risks. — frank

Well, yes, everyone already knows. Minimal. Don't have numbers handy, but suspect stupidity have those risks outdone. (By the way, whenever we've had flu shots in the past, one of the questions was always about allergies.)

• Suspicions grow that nanoparticles in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trigger rare allergic reactions (Dec 21, 2020)
• COVID-19 Vaccines: 6 Vaccine Myths Explained (Mar 8, 2021)
• Teen boy dies a few days after receiving second COVID vaccine shot (Jun 26, 2021)
• Three things to know about the long-term side effects of COVID vaccines (Jul 6, 2021)
• BLOOD CLOTTING, COVID-19 AND VACCINES (Jul 7, 2021)
• The Johnson & Johnson Vaccine and Blood Clots: What You Need to Know (Aug 4, 2021)

What a ridiculous thing to say — Isaac

Nah, it ain't. Comment ↑ suggests lack of proportional sense. :eyes: We already know some stuff.

• Children with long covid (Feb 27, 2021)
• When will children under 12 be vaccinated against COVID-19? (Jul 6, 2021)
• Should children get COVID vaccines? What the science says (Jul 20, 2021)

they chose to try and do without prophylactic medicine — Isaac

They were conspiracy theorists thinking in terms of mind control or whatever ridiculous nonsense. Now they're dead. :death: RIP.

conflicts with WHO advice — Isaac

Already spoke to risks. There's no magic :sparkle: spell. Everyone already knows, including WHO.

I call bullshit :point: @Isaac

Whats the big deal here? If you want it take it. If you dont dont take it. — Prishon

I guess it's a social thing. Not the same as pizza with pineapple. There are social consequences to take into account as well.

The vaccines have already been developed a some time before the genetically manipulated virus was released, by the pharmaceutical companies, from a phial. When enough people were dead, the vaccine was made public like: "We have found a vaccin for you!". The vaccine was already there before the pandemic. The companies fare well...

By the way, our dog was already vaccinated against Corona in 2008. A different variant though.