Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Should we get vaccinated against COVID-19?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

    My doctor says that since I had the virus, I do not need the vaccine. He didn't give me a time frame.
    Ditto -- and my doc said she'll let me know when she finds out otherwise.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      Yes, that's what I'm talking about. And once that's in place, what's to stop the government from arbitrarily "recommending" whatever medication it wants knowing that private organizations will threaten your freedom if you don't comply? It may start with a soft mandate on the China flu vaccine, but I guarantee it won't end there.
      Indeed. Once they lock us into such a digital database, it's over. Not only can they make us take whatever they administer, but, like social media, they could ban you from society. They're already revolting in Europe. I can imagine it's going to be quite the fireworks display when they try and implement it here. Florida is already going through a legal battle.
      "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

      Comment


      • #18

        Reasons for
        1. To calm people with irrational fears of a sickness easily treatable with hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, vitamin D or other sources
        2. To meet an unsafe obligation to take the shot at risk of life (short and long term) in order to have a job or travel

        Reasons against
        1. too quick of an expectation that only a experimental genetic drug could resolve the so-called covid pandemic
        2. too high a chance of death, unending neurological problems, heart problems. the adverse effects are outnumbering any threat of illness for young people
        3. unknown long term risks due to intrusion into the protein generation process
        4. people getting shots as a reaction to fear and propaganda rather than researching the evidence
        5. the unusual expectation (since Event 201) that there would be a high level of opposition to the medical intervention they want. (Maybe there is a reason to that opposition)
        6. too many doctors and scientists who have identified fault with the hastily created experimental shots
        7. promotion that the covid shots would stop the spread of the virus when they were only tested to reduce the severity of covid
        8. the threat of vaccine passports for a disease only thought to exist for a year and a half --without knowing that the covid shots will save lives -- and is found in Israel to actually increase the chance of death.
        9. improper emergency authorization when other treatments have already been effective. Why stop promotion of hydroxychloroquine during the early months?


        On this last issue, we have a doctors group doing a lawsuit
        http://https://www.theepochtimes.com...D8guZTX6dkFckN

        Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 Vaccines



        Lawsuit citing whistleblower's claim that the true deaths following vaccination are much higher than reported

        By Li Hai
        July 22, 2021 Updated: July 22, 2021
        biggersmallerPrint



        America’s Frontline Doctors, a nonprofit, filed a motion on July 19 seeking immediate injunctive relief to stop the emergency use authorization (EUA) of COVID-19 vaccines for three groups of Americans: anyone under the age of 18, anyone who has recovered from COVID-19, and those who haven’t given informed consent as defined by federal law.
        The motion was filed against Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and other defendants in a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama.









        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          I would take it a step further: it's nobody's business but your own.
          it would be smart to talk it over with your doctor who knows your medical but you are right it is no one business so I may tell my husband if any restauran or other place of business we go to requires proof of vaccination that we tell them it is none of thier business so we will take our business elsewhere.

          Oh and we have been fully vaccinated my husband has co morbidity health issues so I choose to go ahead and get vaccinated with him.
          Last edited by RumTumTugger; 07-23-2021, 04:34 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

            My doctor says that since I had the virus, I do not need the vaccine. He didn't give me a time frame.
            Given what we've seen with the Original SARS, you likely don't need a vaccine for over 17 years (people who had SARS recognized its cousin SARS-CoV-2 enough that they produced effective antibodies against covid, 17 years after they were first infected by SARS)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
              It seems to me that most people’s decision should be based on a risk-benefit calculation, comparing (1-3) against (A-C).
              I agree that someone should carefully do the risk-benefit calculation. But because herd immunity involves everyone in the country, it needs to be done by a group of intelligent educated and skilled people and then the decision implemented nationwide.

              It's rather silly to have every individual doing the calculation because plenty of people will get the answer wrong as they would on any math test, and not everyone has the time and the brainpower and the skillset to carefully crunch the right numbers and carefully reach a rational conclusion. And if you leave it up to all the individuals the outcome will inevitably be that some people choose each option, and then you won't achieve herd immunity, and then the virus will ravage the population.

              and also they have a longer lifetime ahead of them to live with any adverse effects.
              Covid can have long term effects, e.g. permanent organ damage, or 'long Covid'.

              One thing that does strike me, is that there seems to be a lot of weight being put on (2) as a reason to get vaccinated – ‘to protect other people’.
              Personally I haven't observed much emphasis being put on this and personally think more emphasis should be put on this. Because a vaccine isn't in individual health decision like "how much cancer screening should I have?", it's a decision that affects others.

              Apart from questions about how much being vaccinated actually does protect other people, it seems to me that this is not reasoning that we apply equally in other areas of life.
              I was thinking the opposite recently.

              I was reflecting on how the government requires that the cars we drive on the road meet a certain standard such that they are safe to drive and won't harm others by mechanical failure, etc. Generally when possible harm to others is involved we accept that the government has an obligation to act in such a way as to minimize that harm within reason. Over the years in New Zealand that has included things like rules about no smoking in public places so you don't harm others with second hand smoke, and gun restrictions so that its hard to get a gun capable of shooting a high number of people, etc.

              For example, we allow people to drink alcohol, and to become alcoholic, even though this means a high cost to society in terms of healthcare for people who have damaged their bodies by abusing alcohol; family violence; general violence; drunk driving and the deaths that causes, and so on.
              Well historically we tried to ban alcohol for these reasons, but Prohibition didn't work in practice because people were sufficiently determined to obtain alcohol that they smuggled it in and drank it anyway. So it's not that society or the government decided to morally accept that alcohol and the damage it caused was fine, it was more a case of accepting that in practice we couldn't find an adequate policy to successfully mitigate the harm. Governments around the world have typically tried hard to ban any drugs & substances that are harmful to people. Alcohol would be on that list, but the governments couldn't make the bans on alcohol stick.

              So your example isn't a philosophical inconsistency in the governments' moral codes or political theories - they generally do ban things due to the harm those other things do to others, and they tried to ban alcohol for that same reason, but it just didn't stick in that one particular instance.

              Yet we don’t apply the degree of pressure against this harmful behavior that we are applying towards getting people to be vaccinated against COVID. We don’t accept that a hospital (say) has the right to refuse a job to a trainee doctor because he drinks alcohol, yet we seem OK with that happening if he decides not to get vaccinated.
              The difference is in whether it affects the job. If the trainee were found to be drunk on the job, that would surely be an instant firing offence, as the trainee has compromised their ability to help patients. If they are unvaccinated they have equally compromised their ability to help patients because they might get and spread covid to patients. If they drink at home that doesn't affect the job. So your example is again not a good one.

              We can make similar parallels with other behaviours. Obesity through overeating and lack of exercise is another one. (I’m not talking about people who have weight problems due to metabolic disorders, medication for other conditions, etc) People who voluntarily choose to become obese, thus damaging their own health, and requiring the use of valuable healthcare facilities etc to care for them. Not to mention other accommodations and expenses such as larger furniture in public places etc. We don’t seem to regard this behavior as one that should be severely discouraged, say by introducing a ‘BMI passport’, where people who have an unhealthy BMI are restricted from access to some public spaces and services.
              Their weight is not contagious though. It's not going to spread across the population harming and killing people.

              Thoughts?
              It's interesting that none of your examples stand up to even mild scrutiny.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                My doctor says that since I had the virus, I do not need the vaccine. He didn't give me a time frame.
                That seems fine.

                The point of a vaccine is just to give your immune system a practice-run against something that looks a bit like the virus and so strengthen your immune system for dealing with the real virus when it hits.

                So if your immune system has already had a go against the real thing, there's likely not much need for giving it a practice run. From what I've seen, there isn't widespread agreement among scientists as to whether the vaccine would be worth it post-having-Covid or not.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  That seems fine.

                  The point of a vaccine is just to give your immune system a practice-run against something that looks a bit like the virus and so strengthen your immune system for dealing with the real virus when it hits.

                  So if your immune system has already had a go against the real thing, there's likely not much need for giving it a practice run. From what I've seen, there isn't widespread agreement among scientists as to whether the vaccine would be worth it post-having-Covid or not.
                  Agreed. I do recommend it for people who either have a compromise immune system or have high risk comorbidities or people who live/interact frequently with them.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    That seems fine.

                    The point of a vaccine is just to give your immune system a practice-run against something that looks a bit like the virus and so strengthen your immune system for dealing with the real virus when it hits.

                    So if your immune system has already had a go against the real thing, there's likely not much need for giving it a practice run. From what I've seen, there isn't widespread agreement among scientists as to whether the vaccine would be worth it post-having-Covid or not.
                    Indeed. A very large study from Cleveland Clinic indicates no observable statistical benefit from vaccinating someone who had covid.

                    And some smaller studies indicate there may be increased risk of side effects from the vaccine for those who had covid and then get the vaccine, as well as at least one study that seemed to show a possible hindering/decrease in T-cell responsiveness (which is the opposite of what you want your immune system doing) in those who got the vaccine after already having had covid.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      Well historically we tried to ban alcohol for these reasons, but Prohibition didn't work in practice because people were sufficiently determined to obtain alcohol that they smuggled it in and drank it anyway. So it's not that society or the government decided to morally accept that alcohol and the damage it caused was fine, it was more a case of accepting that in practice we couldn't find an adequate policy to successfully mitigate the harm. Governments around the world have typically tried hard to ban any drugs & substances that are harmful to people. Alcohol would be on that list, but the governments couldn't make the bans on alcohol stick.
                      What do you mean by "didn't work in practice"? Do you mean "it didn't stop people from drinking alcohol?" If so, almost no law works in practice because people break laws. Prohibition didn't completely stop alcohol consumption, but it did noticeably reduce it. We know it was reduced because we saw a notable reduction in alcohol-related diseases during the time of Prohibition. Someone could say it failed in that it didn't reduce it enough, but of course what counts as "enough" is subjective.

                      The reason Prohibition was a failure was largely twofold. First, it really fueled the power of organized crime, letting people like Al Capone rise up. Second, it just plain proved unpopular, both in that people wanted to drink but also because of dislike of the increased crime it caused (for that matter, dislike of the ban was another factor that helped the organized crime, because people were less interested in helping out police because they didn't like the law to begin with). Its "failure" was that the alcoholic consumption reduction was not seen as worth the problems it caused. But in terms of reducing alcohol consumption to a notable degree, it was in fact a success.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The Republican leadership (and talking heads) seem to be getting on board with encouraging people to be vaccinated. I assume this is because they figured out that otherwise, most of the people who die will be Republicans, and they can't afford to lose the voters.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                          The Republican leadership (and talking heads) seem to be getting on board with encouraging people to be vaccinated. I assume this is because they figured out that otherwise, most of the people who die will be Republicans, and they can't afford to lose the voters.
                          When were they NOT on board?
                          Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                          Beige Nationalist.

                          "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                          Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            At this point, because of the fascist approach to demanding submission to the jab, I believe that standing up for individual freedom is a legitimate reason to refuse in and of itself.
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Nationalist.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                              When were they NOT on board?
                              I don't know. Maybe they've just become more vocal about it lately.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                I agree that someone should carefully do the risk-benefit calculation. But because herd immunity involves everyone in the country, it needs to be done by a group of intelligent educated and skilled people and then the decision implemented nationwide.

                                It's rather silly to have every individual doing the calculation because plenty of people will get the answer wrong as they would on any math test, and not everyone has the time and the brainpower and the skillset to carefully crunch the right numbers and carefully reach a rational conclusion. And if you leave it up to all the individuals the outcome will inevitably be that some people choose each option, and then you won't achieve herd immunity, and then the virus will ravage the population.
                                Despite your totalitarian preferences, it does remain a fact that the risk calculation will be different for each individual, and I agree with others here that the person who should decide that is each individual, in consultation with their doctor.


                                Originally posted by Starlight
                                Covid can have long term effects, e.g. permanent organ damage, or 'long Covid'.

                                Personally I haven't observed much emphasis being put on this and personally think more emphasis should be put on this. Because a vaccine isn't in individual health decision like "how much cancer screening should I have?", it's a decision that affects others.

                                I was thinking the opposite recently.

                                I was reflecting on how the government requires that the cars we drive on the road meet a certain standard such that they are safe to drive and won't harm others by mechanical failure, etc. Generally when possible harm to others is involved we accept that the government has an obligation to act in such a way as to minimize that harm within reason. Over the years in New Zealand that has included things like rules about no smoking in public places so you don't harm others with second hand smoke, and gun restrictions so that its hard to get a gun capable of shooting a high number of people, etc.

                                I've emphasised the key words. That is the question - is it within reason?

                                Which is why I have concerns about social and psychological pressures being exerted on people to make them get vaccinated, as well as the scale of the attempts at 'information control' that are going on. We - societies - should be able to have a completely open, reasoned, and apolitical discussion this topic.


                                Originally posted by Starlight
                                Well historically we tried to ban alcohol for these reasons, but Prohibition didn't work in practice because people were sufficiently determined to obtain alcohol that they smuggled it in and drank it anyway. So it's not that society or the government decided to morally accept that alcohol and the damage it caused was fine, it was more a case of accepting that in practice we couldn't find an adequate policy to successfully mitigate the harm. Governments around the world have typically tried hard to ban any drugs & substances that are harmful to people. Alcohol would be on that list, but the governments couldn't make the bans on alcohol stick.

                                So your example isn't a philosophical inconsistency in the governments' moral codes or political theories - they generally do ban things due to the harm those other things do to others, and they tried to ban alcohol for that same reason, but it just didn't stick in that one particular instance.

                                (1) So you'd be quite happy if government attempts to get people to vaccinate also 'didn't stick'?

                                (2) We accept the trade-off between allowing people the freedom to drink alcohol and the damage drinking causes. That's the point. We seem to unwilling to accept a similar trade-off between allowing those who choose not to get vaccinated to do so of their own free choice without also enforcing negative consequences or punishments such as vaccine passports.



                                Originally posted by Starlight
                                The difference is in whether it affects the job. If the trainee were found to be drunk on the job, that would surely be an instant firing offence, as the trainee has compromised their ability to help patients. If they are unvaccinated they have equally compromised their ability to help patients because they might get and spread covid to patients. If they drink at home that doesn't affect the job. So your example is again not a good one.
                                If they drink and that habit in any way affects their performance (such as being hungover, or merely not getting sufficient sleep, or whatever, that in any way impairs their performance then that's a negative effect that hurts society as a whole. That's the principle at play here:

                                "You shouldn't do something that harms others" - such as not getting vaccinated against COVID. But we allow people to do many things every day that do harm others, directly or indirectly. We allow people to choose professions that are not optimal for them, thus reducing the efficiency of society as whole. We allow people to be lazy, both mentally, morally, and physically. That reduces their ability to contribute effectively to society.

                                Everything we do, and don't do, has some effect on our society for good or ill. We allow people to buy cars that can go well over the speed limit. We allow people to indulge in all sorts of behaviours that are risky to their health, or could result in them being injured (rugby), and we as a society pay some of the cost of that freedom, both in terms of caring for them if they are injured or sick, and in terms of losing some of their potential productivity.

                                So the question is one of where do we draw the line, not whether there is a line at all.


                                Originally posted by Starlight
                                Their weight is not contagious though. It's not going to spread across the population harming and killing people.

                                It's interesting that none of your examples stand up to even mild scrutiny.

                                It's interesting that you focused on the details of some examples, rather than the principles involved. If you're going to be a snarky smarty-pants, run along and find another thread.

                                ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Sparko, Today, 08:10 AM
                                2 responses
                                37 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 09-19-2021, 07:03 PM
                                5 responses
                                53 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 09-19-2021, 12:34 PM
                                19 responses
                                155 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 09-19-2021, 10:21 AM
                                6 responses
                                98 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 09-17-2021, 08:16 PM
                                14 responses
                                118 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X