The Microchip in the Vaccine

[oxmixmudd]

Yep, "doesn't pass the smell test" as the saying goes. Any time you see a story about someone dying from the China flu while insisting it's hoax, you know the story is a lie. Nobody thinks the China flu is a hoax. That narrative is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of something President Trump said. Talk about your "misinformation".

AFAIK, not only is it a true recounting, it (young people intubated and dying) is happening all over the country where vaccination rates are low. As for hoax, I'm pretty sure that refers to the severity of Covid, not the reality of Covid. And don't forget the hoax that the vaccine is so dangerous it is better to take one's chances with the virus than get the vaccine.

Time to face reality.

[Mountain Man]

Self -sacrifice is at the center of christian faith.

Your thinking on this matter is faulty and based on a flawed understanding of scripture and what it means to sacrifice. Scripture doesn't demand nor I would ever expect someone to deprive his own children of food and shelter in order to care for someone else. In fact, I would argue that this would be immoral. Similarly, I would never expect someone to accept a highly risky experimental vaccine just because someone else is afraid of getting sick.

[Mountain Man]

AFAIK, not only is it a true recounting, it (young people intubated and dying) is happening all over the country where vaccination rates are low. As for hoax, I'm pretty sure that refers to the severity of Covid, not the reality of Covid. And don't forget the hoax that the vaccine is so dangerous it is better to take one's chances with the virus than get the vaccine.

Time to face reality.

I don't know if you are inadvertently or deliberately mischaracterizing my position. If it's inadvertent, then I recommend you read the related posts again and ask good faith questions to clarify any points you still don't understand. If it's deliberate, then shame on you.

[oxmixmudd]

Your thinking on this matter is faulty and based on a flawed understanding of scripture and what it means to sacrifice. Scripture doesn't demand nor I would ever expect someone to deprive his own children of food and shelter in order to care for someone else. In fact, I would argue that this would be immoral. Similarly, I would never expect someone to accept a highly risky experimental vaccine just because someone else is afraid of getting sick.

No - unfortunately it is your thinking that is unduly influenced by this age and this country's narcissistic bent. And we are talking about getting a vaccine, not depriving our family of food or shelter. ( a better analogy would be share our resources even when our resources are limited, and yes that sort of act is praised by Jesus). Jesus made clear that when we chose to give aid to someone, we are doing it to Him, and when we chose not to do so, we are also choosing not to aid Him.

And it's not a highly risky vaccine MM. The risk is very low. you are more likely to be struck by lightning (1 in 15,300 in a lifetime) , or closer to home, more likely to die in an automobile accident (1 in 103), than to be killed by this vaccine (less than 1 in 100,000).

https://www.kare11.com/article/weath...2Dyear%20span.

https://valientemott.com/blog/chance...n-a-car-crash/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7008e3.htm

[Ronson]

Self -sacrifice is at the center of christian faith. And the act of getting the vaccine for the sake of all is completely unrelated what your analogous story describes, which is communal ownership. I dont need to adopt the idea of communal living and ownership to understand I do in fact have a biblical responsibility to look after the welfare of others, even if it involves some level of sacrifice myself.

But you are confusing "self sacrifice" with "forced sacrifice", which is what I was commenting on. It is one thing for a person to willingly give up his life for someone, but when you force that issue through the state, then it is not defensible theologically. It is, in fact, the antithesis.

As far as a distinction between collectivism and this vaccine issue, I see little difference. One mindset looks from the outside first (from the collective down to the individual) as opposed to the inside first. You're a Star Trek fan. Do you see any similarity to the Borg here?

[oxmixmudd]

I don't know if you are inadvertently or deliberately mischaracterizing my position. If it's inadvertent, then I recommend you read the related posts again and ask good faith questions to clarify any points you still don't understand. If it's deliberate, then shame on you.

Define how my characterization of your position is not accurate. Seems dead on accurate to me.

[oxmixmudd]

But you are confusing "self sacrifice" with "forced sacrifice", which is what I was commenting on. It is one thing for a person to willingly give up his life for someone, but when you force that issue through the state, then it is not defensible theologically. It is, in fact, the antithesis.

Fair enough. But then again, I am not advocating that the Christian faith requires the government to intervene, though I believe it has the right to. I am saying any Christian for whom the vaccine is not a known higher than normal risk should recognize a certain obligation wrt our Biblically mandated responsibility to others to get it. I get that there is a lot of misinformation floating about that muddies the issue. But the bottom line is there will be many 10's of thousands that will die specifically because so many refuse to get the vaccine. And the reason so many are refusing the vaccine are a combination of politically driven misinformation and misplaced political loyalties.

As far as a distinction between collectivism and this vaccine issue, I see little difference. One mindset looks from the outside first (from the collective down to the individual) as opposed to the inside first. You're a Star Trek fan. Do you see any similarity to the Borg here?

None whatsoever. I believe it was Spock who gave his life in STII "The Wrath of Khan" because "The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few". That of course was later complemented by the inverse - but again in terms of self sacrifice for others - as Kirk and crew risked their lives and careers in STIII to save Spock.

The issue is balancing the two, nicely outlined in STII and III.

But there is a big difference between communal living and simply caring for those around us, being willing to make sacrifices for the needs of others. We are indeed obligated by our faith and the teachings of scripture to look after the needs of those around us. I just posted two verses for that, and there are in fact many others. We can't just turn a blind eye to it. But nowhere in scripture are we commanded to live communally (though at first those in Jerusalem chose to do so).

[Cow Poke]

Fair enough. But then again, I am not advocating that the Christian faith requires the government to intervene, though I believe it has the right to. I am saying any Christian for whom the vaccine is not a known higher than normal risk should recognize a certain obligation wrt our Biblically mandated responsibility to others to get it. I get that there is a lot of misinformation floating about that muddies the issue. But the bottom line is there will be many 10's of thousands that will die specifically because so many refuse to get the vaccine. And the reason so many are refusing the vaccine are a combination of politically driven misinformation and misplaced political loyalties.



None whatsoever. I believe it was Spock who gave his life in STII "The Wrath of Khan" because "The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few". That of course was later complemented by the inverse - but again in terms of self sacrifice for others - as Kirk and crew risked their lives and careers in STIII to save Spock.

The issue is balancing the two, nicely outlined in STII and III.

But there is a big difference between communal living and simply caring for those around us, being willing to make sacrifices for the needs of others. We are indeed obligated by our faith and the teachings of scripture to look after the needs of those around us. I just posted two verses for that, and there are in fact many others. We can't just turn a blind eye to it. But nowhere in scripture are we commanded to live communally (though at first those in Jerusalem chose to do so).

While that's all well reasoned, Jim, the fact remains that a Christian father is responsible for his own family first. "The good of others" is secondary to that.

And this is complicated by the fact that it has been made so incredibly political. Remember Biden and Harris slamming "Trump's vaccine", and pretty much declaring they'd never trust it?

My own doctor didn't tell me "don't ever get the vaccine" - she simply said "not now".

[oxmixmudd]

While that's all well reasoned, Jim, the fact remains that a Christian father is responsible for his own family first. "The good of others" is secondary to that.

It's not that simple, AND, that is not the topic of my comments, which center around our obligation to others wrt getting the vaccine.

And this is complicated by the fact that it has been made so incredibly political. Remember Biden and Harris slamming "Trump's vaccine", and pretty much declaring they'd never trust it?

My own doctor didn't tell me "don't ever get the vaccine" - she simply said "not now".

No, I don't recall anyone legitimately bashing the vaccine itself because of Trump. I do know that are some comments made wrt concerns over the Trump admin short circuiting normal testing protocols to get the vaccine out before the election that are mischaracterized out of context as supporting that accusation, but I find that particular attempt and rewriting history absurd.

As for you - I think I have made clear, this isn't about you.

But to accommodate your concerns, I have made sure I make clear and explicit mention of those that either have have a high chance of a negative reaction to the vaccine, or known natural immunity.

I also would note that in general (not knowing or wanting to know the specifics of why your doctor made her recommendation) natural immunity is not typically as good as what the vaccine gives, and has been shown to be spotty, unpredictable in terms of how good a protection it gives. And as such the general recommendation (subject to specific modification by a persons personal doctor) is that people that have had covid also get vaccinated.

[Cow Poke]

It's not that simple, AND, that is not the topic of my comments, which center around our obligation to others wrt getting the vaccine.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

No, I don't recall anyone legitimately bashing the vaccine itself because of Trump.

Wow, THAT was parsed carefully! "legitimately bashing" --- is that a new legal definition?

I do know that are some comments made wrt concerns over the Trump admin short circuiting normal testing protocols to get the vaccine out before the election that are mischaracterized out of context as supporting that accusation, but I find that particular attempt and rewriting history absurd.

For cryin out loud - it was a CRISIS, and he swung into action... you guys really need to get your stories straight --- he RUSHED TOO FAST, or he DIDN'T ACT QUICK enough.

As for you - I think I have made clear, this isn't about you.

There are many like me - including my veteran friend who was also told not to get the vaccine by a group of doctors at the VA.

But to accommodate your concerns, I have made sure I make clear and explicit mention of those that either have have a high chance of a negative reaction to the vaccine, or known natural immunity.

I also would note that in general (not knowing or wanting to know the specifics of why your doctor made her recommendation) natural immunity is not typically as good as what the vaccine gives, and has been shown to be spotty, unpredictable in terms of how good a protection it gives. And as such the general recommendation (subject to specific modification by a persons personal doctor) is that people that have had covid also get vaccinated.

Liberal - abortion should be allowed because it's a solemn health matter strictly between the woman and her doctor.
Conservative - vaccination, especially one still in trials - should be a choice between the person and his or her doctor.

Liberal - But but but.... other people might DIE if you don't get vaccinated.
Conservative - in the case of a "successful" abortion, there is a human death 100% of the time, every time, without exception -- but it's still "the woman's choice".

[oxmixmudd]

Wow, THAT was parsed carefully! "legitimately bashing" --- is that a new legal definition?

Lots of bashing going on. Very little of it legitimate (i.e. the reason for the complaint is verifiable and true)

For cryin out loud - it was a CRISIS, and he swung into action... you guys really need to get your stories straight --- he RUSHED TOO FAST, or he DIDN'T ACT QUICK enough.

Trump was pushing to short circuit the known protocols to get the vaccine out before the election. Rushing to get the vaccine out with as little delay as possible having not short circuited necessary elements of the testing protocols is a very different thing that setting an arbitrary deadline based on political whim. Your sarcasm pretends these were capricious complaints. They were NOT. The issue was risking public safety for political gain.

You know that, I know that. You just need to acknowledge it.

There are many like me - including my veteran friend who was also told not to get the vaccine by a group of doctors at the VA.

Which you seem intent on making it a point of contention when it doesn't need to be. We don't need every sentence to mention your particular exception - or your friend's - every time we raise the issue of people refusing vaccines based on false information of misplaced political loyalties. What we need is for the majority of those people choosing not to get vaccinated to recognize the danger we are in because so many that can and should be vaccinated do not. I am quite confident that if all those people get vaccinated, we will be much better off in terms of reducing or stopping covid-19 spread. Again, this is NOT about you.

Liberal - abortion should be allowed because it's a solemn health matter strictly between the woman and her doctor.
Conservative - vaccination, especially one still in trials - should be a choice between the person and his or her doctor.

Liberal - But but but.... other people might DIE if you don't get vaccinated.
Conservative - in the case of a "successful" abortion, there is a human death 100% of the time, every time, without exception -- but it's still "the woman's choice".

It is foolish to conflate the two issues. One is a personal matter, the other is a matter of public health and safety. The specific decision to refuse vaccination when you have no medical reason to do so affects everyone in your family, community, state, and nation that you come in contact with. It is a public health issue. The decision to have or not have an abortion affects your life and the life of your baby. It is a private health issue.

[oxmixmudd]

...



Liberal - abortion should be allowed because it's a solemn health matter strictly between the woman and her doctor.
Conservative - vaccination, especially one still in trials - should be a choice between the person and his or her doctor.

Liberal - But but but.... other people might DIE if you don't get vaccinated.
Conservative - in the case of a "successful" abortion, there is a human death 100% of the time, every time, without exception -- but it's still "the woman's choice".

A comment on this sort of false equivalence. We just had people exposed to Monkey Pox enter the US and they and those they exposed have been placed in quarantine. Policies that deal with disease and controlling the spread of disease are specific and critical to all of our health. It is irresponsible to even try to mix discussions on those policies in with the abortion debate. They are not even remotely connected to each other.

[Mountain Man]

And we are talking about getting a vaccine, not depriving our family of food or shelter.

It's called an analogy. And, yes, the facts say that the China flu vaccines represent an unacceptably high risk, and I honestly believe that if this were not a politically charged issue that they would have been recalled months ago due to the excessively high number of negative outcomes being reported by health professionals. VAERS, which traditionally only captures around 5% of all cases, recently doubled the number of China flu vaccine deaths from 6000 to 12,000. This number, of course, does not include other significant harms suffered by test subjects.

Define how my characterization of your position is not accurate. Seems dead on accurate to me.

Of course you think it's accurate because you have a nasty little habit of mischaraterizing your opponent's position in the least charitable way possible. I'm giving you benefit of the doubt that it's unintentional.

[Cow Poke]

Lots of bashing going on. Very little of it legitimate (i.e. the reason for the complaint is verifiable and true)




Trump was pushing to short circuit the known protocols to get the vaccine out before the election. Rushing to get the vaccine out with as little delay as possible having not short circuited necessary elements of the testing protocols is a very different thing that setting an arbitrary deadline based on political whim. Your sarcasm pretends these were capricious complaints. They were NOT. The issue was risking public safety for political gain.

You know that, I know that. You just need to acknowledge it.



Which you seem intent on making it a point of contention when it doesn't need to be. We don't need every sentence to mention your particular exception - or your friend's - every time we raise the issue of people refusing vaccines based on false information of misplaced political loyalties. What we need is for the majority of those people choosing not to get vaccinated to recognize the danger we are in because so many that can and should be vaccinated do not. I am quite confident that if all those people get vaccinated, we will be much better off in terms of reducing or stopping covid-19 spread. Again, this is NOT about you.




It is foolish to conflate the two issues. One is a personal matter, the other is a matter of public health and safety. The specific decision to refuse vaccination when you have no medical reason to do so affects everyone in your family, community, state, and nation that you come in contact with. It is a public health issue. The decision to have or not have an abortion affects your life and the life of your baby. It is a private health issue.

You're so full of yourself.

[Cow Poke]

He didn't say everyone should be vaccinated.

Actually, he did - maybe in the other thread --- the quote you provided is not the one I was referencing.