Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Should we get vaccinated against COVID-19?
Collapse
X
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
- 3 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
I would take it a step further: it's nobody's business but your own.
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
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostIt seems to me that most people’s decision should be based on a risk-benefit calculation, comparing (1-3) against (A-C).
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.
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’.
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 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.
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.
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.
Thoughts?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostMy doctor says that since I had the virus, I do not need the vaccine. He didn't give me a time frame.
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."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThat 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.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
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThat 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostWell 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.
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostThe 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.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
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 Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI 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.
Originally posted by StarlightCovid 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 StarlightWell 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 StarlightThe 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.
"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 StarlightTheir 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 <<<...
- 1 like
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
382 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment