Jump to content

Let's talk about Vaccines


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mariashtelle1 said:

I feel that Europe has much more freedom than where I’m based right now 😉 

we don’t have travel, airports are shut down, we can’t even go on a street without a mask, you can’t get anywhere without a tracing app that checks you in everywhere and tracing any Bluetooth connections around you, we have a limit of only 2-5 people that can get together depending on a situation even if it’s a family of 3-6 they have to separate going out etc. 
So yes, I think Europe is pretty free at the moment 🙈 

🤪

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mjaninea said:

So, what are your thoughts about it? Do you feel like the Government is subtly imposing us to get vaccinated? Do you feel like we are not getting enough freedom to choose? Feel free to express yourselves and share your opinion 🙂

COVID didn't give us much room to choose, and perhaps your government is reacting the same way. If we look at the options, getting vaccinated seems a safer option, even if it has it's own problems and that's why they are passive-aggressively pushing for it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Portugal here. Almost the entire population is vaccinated. I had mine, felt nothing, no side effects, just perfect. Now, if I do get covid, it's extremely unlikely I'll be seriously sick.  It's just the best decision in terms of upside vs downside. Fortunately here most of the population actually wants to get vaccinated, and nobody is being forced to. In a country where most don't, I do think making it mandatory makes sense. Personal freedom is a value, but being a disease vector is not a right. It's one of those "for the greater good" type thing. Is it "correct" to force people? No. If I knew I was saving millions of lives by doing it, would I still do it? Yes.

In other words - it's fine for any individual to not want to take this vaccine and be free to do so. But if those individuals represent a significant % of the population, then it's no longer fine since they'll compromise social immunity. At some point when that % grows, things need to be enforced.

Edited by visualstudios
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My family and I all had COVID last year. One of my little sisters (25yo) was hospitalized for it. She got pneumonia and lost a month of work. The kids and I weathered the virus just fine, we mostly just slept a lot. My husband didn't do so well, and at the end of the virus, right when he was about to get better, he had a massive internal bleeding incident that led to a month-long hospital stay. That was how we found out he has end stage liver disease. The liver disease is caused by a genetic disorder, so unrelated to the COVID except in the sense that it probably put extra load on his system leading to the emergency. But now that we know he has a rather serious condition that isn't going anywhere, we really don't want him to get COVID again, so we're willing to take on the potential risks of the vaccine. I have four kids, one of whom is too young to be vaccinated, but the rest of us are all vaxed. 

Also in our household is my father, who is in his 60s and has COPD also got vaccinated with no problems. My brother, too, got vaccinated. He passed out in the store after he got his shot, but he also didn't eat, drink water, or sleep the night before getting his. But my two younger sisters, including the one who was hospitalized for the virus previously, and one who has some moderately serious ongoing health problems, are not interested in getting the vaccination at all. Also we live in a very conservative area and practice a religion that is mostly political ultra-conservatives, so we're surrounded by people who are not vaccinated. Now I personally am 100% opposed to anybody being forced to take any vaccine - no way, no how. People should have control over their own bodies. Especially since it is such a young vaccine and we all know we're taking a risk using science that has been hurried like this. Buut I would rather my sisters did get vaccinated. 

So if I got a say in any of it, I wish the American government would just pay people to get vaccinated. And, shoot, get the big corporations in on it. Split the cost with Bezos and it would probably pay for itself. I know it sounds cheesy and maybe even borderline irresponsible, but I know both of my sisters would find their objections to suddenly clear up if there was a hundred dollar Walmart or Amazon gift card involved. I'm sure a lot of my relatives would feel the same way. It wouldn't change everybody's mind, but it would take a HUGE chunk out of the unvaccinated population in my particular area, without anybody having to declare any emergencies or steal away anybody's rights or hurt any businesses.

Edited by rachelbostwick
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, catwriter said:

I've heard that they did go through animal trials (and clinical trials on humans).

I can't see how, the average research time to do trials is 10-15 years. Otherwise you still have no idea what happens in the coming years after the shot. 

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, catwriter said:

Considering that even vaccinated people can get infected and infect others

Yes, if the unvaccinated have to take the vaccine to protect the vaccinated, then the world is officially nuts. This is why many don't trust the thing.  Polio, one shot, eradicates the disease. Israel is getting ready to start 4th shot. Smells weird. 

Edited by newsmike
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, visualstudios said:

I do think making it mandatory makes sense

So do you block the unvaccinated from being able to buy food in order to starve them into submission, or just have the police kick in the door and hold each family member on the floor at gunpoint while injecting them?  Man, some folks really feel qualified to rule the world with an iron fist. 

Edited by newsmike
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, rachelbostwick said:

I know both of my sisters would find their objections to suddenly clear up if there was a hundred dollar Walmart or Amazon gift card involved

That may be the saddest commentary in this entire discussion so far. Some people did get the vax for a Krispy Kreme donut. True. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, newsmike said:

I can't see how

Money.

7 minutes ago, newsmike said:

the average research time to do trials is 10-15 years

It's in part because it has to be done on a large enough group of people to be statistically significant (to check for adverse events that rarely happen, like 1 in 10,000 people), and that costs a lot of money. This time, money was poured in.

9 minutes ago, newsmike said:

Otherwise you still have no idea what happens in the coming years after the shot. 

Most of the adverse effects happen pretty soon after the vaccine...plus it's really, really hard to determine whether something that happens 10 years after the vaccine is due to the vaccine or thousands of other things.

5 minutes ago, newsmike said:

Yes, if the unvaccinated have to take the vaccine to protect the vaccinated

No, they're protecting themselves, and those who can't get vaccinated due to medial reasons, and the healthcare system. Once the hospitals fill up with covid patients, there are no available doctors to treat other patients, and people die of preventable stuff. Happened in my country, surgeries postponed, people died...

6 minutes ago, newsmike said:

Polio, one shot, eradicates the disease

For other vaccines you need two or more shots. For flu, you need it every year. The latest malaria vaccine takes three shot plus a booster dose, or something like that.

Long story short, I'm not sure how much the covid vaccines help, I just know that they do help (for example, we now have as much newly infected on daily basis as in December last year, but the number patients in the ICU and deaths is considerably smaller; and 95% of the patients in the ICU are not vaccinated). And any help we can get is good, as far as I'm concerned (of course, I'm still not telling people what to do with their lives or their bodies).

4 minutes ago, newsmike said:

Some people did get the vax for a Krispy Kreme donut.

Or a voucher at a shopping mall.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, newsmike said:

So do you block the unvaccinated from being able to buy food 

That's the whole problem with wanting to force people to do anything isn't it?

"You have to-"

-"or what?"

And there are no good answers to that question. I'm never going to be okay with putting people in jail for being afraid of something that it would be unethical to tell them they shouldn't be afraid of anyway. On either side of the argument, really. 

2 minutes ago, newsmike said:

That may be the saddest commentary in this entire discussion so far. Some people did get the vax for a Krispy Kreme donut. True. 

I mean, yeah. But it's fine. They're not scientists and aren't qualified to know whether it is safe or not. They're going with their instincts. Their instincts could be overridden with a little motivation.

It's kinda like the time I paid my teenaged daughter to stop talking to some guy who was creeping on her Instagram. She liked the attention he was giving her, but I was getting a bad vibe from him. She liked the money I gave her a little more than the attention, and I didn't have to force her to do something she didn't want to. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, newsmike said:

So do you block the unvaccinated from being able to buy food in order to starve them into submission, or just have the police kick in the door and hold each family member on the floor at gunpoint while injecting them?  Man, some folks really feel qualified to rule the world with an iron fist. 

No, I never said that was a good idea. There are ways to make people do things even if people don't want to do them. Taxes, for example. Would you also make the same argument there? It's also the same thing - policy enforced on people regardless of their personal opinion on it, for an assumed greater good.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, visualstudios said:

Taxes, for example. Would you also make the same argument there?

It is not intellectually honest to compare the simple paying of taxes to forced medical procedures. Where does that end? There are plenty of examples to discuss, but I believe China's forced abortions for the "greater good" is a perfect example. An intelligent argument would not even place taxes and forced medical procedures in the same discussion as the moral and ethical consequences cannot be seriously compared. 

Edited by newsmike
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that human trials began without animal trials being run.
It is also true that animal trials have been run.
For example, here is the animal trial for Moderna: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7449230/

The confusion comes from how the media reports science. They'll use the study's wording but not explain that the meaning of a word is different between scientists and layfolk or any nitpicky details. Like, when a study says something 'is not effective', scientists are talking about it being less than 95% effective. Score a 94%, and that's not an effective result according to science's standards. In the case of the animal trials thing, the pre-clinical human trials, and animal trials, were started in parallel. The studies didn't say it like that. Just that the pre-clinical began without animal, as an ethics disclosure. So if the journalist just reads that oen study, or is actively seeking legally safe clickbait, that's what they quote. But, the vaccine did not get approved without animal trials, or pre-clinical trials, or clinical trials. All the boxes were ticked, just in a less ideally ethical order than is usually demanded by the system.

So the issue then becomes which 'long term unknown' should an individual be scared of; the unknown long term effect of covid, or the unknown long term effect of the vaccine. The studies on long term covid are still running. After all, it's a long term thing. A good place to keep up with it is https://directorsblog.nih.gov/?s=long+covid

As an anecdotal summary (do your own research!), it's looking like 5% of natural infections have long haul symptoms while "0%" of vaccinations have revealed anything long term... so far.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, visualstudios said:

policy enforced on people regardless of their personal opinion on it, for an assumed greater good.

To play the devil's advocate, though, people do go to jail here if they don't pay their taxes. If they refuse to go to jail, they're forced at gunpoint. They pay fines if they don't obey traffic laws. And if they don't pay their fines they go to jail. And if they refuse to go to jail, they're eventually forced at gunpoint. And those are just things that people have to be pretty bullheaded to refuse to do. Most of our taxes are taken right out of our checks if we're employees, and the taxes are reduced if we make so little money that we couldn't afford to feed ourselves, and if we really don't have enough money to feed ourselves, most places in America have free places to get food, so all in all you have to try pretty hard to get to the violence inherent in this system. But it's still there. It's not a polite suggestion.

But a vaccine is a medical procedure that people have rational objections to. So I am sincerely curious - what are some ways you think people could be forced to take a vaccination that don't eventually involve violence?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The process is the same. Fines, etc. Any rule that is enforced is a violence at the end of the day, there's no way around it. It's just that some rules are more popular with people than others. In the case of public health, if there's data supporting the claim that a vaccinated population has objectively less dead/infected/sick people if the entire population (or as many as possible) is vaccinated, it looks like a sensible path to take to make it "mandatory". It's not a lesser goal than "let's tax people to subsidise the system and redistribute some wealth", from a moral standpoint. It's utilitarian, i.e. the most good for the most people.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, visualstudios said:

It's utilitarian, i.e. the most good for the most people.

History is full of some absolutely horrific periods, all of which were presided over by a benevolent leader who, of course, was simply acting for the "good of most people."  You really are either very trusting, or are not aware of much of the history of mankind.  

There may also be a cultural difference. I see you are in Portugal, so I can't speak to whether you have civil rights or human rights there. But in the US, which is my frame of reference, we have a constitution designed to prevent tyranny. So political violence wielded by a would be dictator, overstepping his authority is not popular here. 

Edited by newsmike
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, visualstudios said:

 It's utilitarian, i.e. the most good for the most people.

I respect that you're being honest about your reasoning. Utilitarianism is one of the most popular ethical philosophies for excellent reasons. Like so many things, though, unchecked utilitarianism can result in evil, even if it's only for a few people. You can use it to justify just about anything under the right circumstance.  That's probably true of unchecked Kantianism too, so I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. 😄 I totally see your point, I just don't agree with the conclusion. I'd like to think of myself as one of the ones walking away from Omelas.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, alphagev said:

I'm living in Italy too and yes, I totally feel that they're pushing us. I'm generally pro vaccines but I'm not for imposing them. To me, health is a individual responsibility, some people have diseases not listed for an exemption but are they still at risk. No one talks about them, instead the government's really pushing on Green Pass, extending it to various categories of workers. Also, I don't like the psychological terrorism that television is putting on, glossing over the problems people had with the jab and emphasizing how hospitals are filling up with unvaccinated.
These behaviours generate only confusion and little confidence in the scientific community.

👏 Very well said. That's exactly what I hate right now. And just yesterday, they confirmed that GREEN PASS will be mandatory for private and public workers, so NO GREEN PASS, NO SALARY. That's so sad..

 

17 hours ago, smashradio said:

I think everyone should do the same. And I think we should have the freedom to do so, without being punished or discredited for making different choices than other people. The vaccines are a perfect example of how society has split: one half is being ridiculed for not doing what the other side says they should. I find that to be quite disgusting. When did we stop being individuals? 

👏 This though!! Couldn't have said it any better. Everyone should have the freedom to choose for himself/herself.

Edited by mjaninea
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, newsmike said:

I see you are in Portugal, so I can't speak to whether you have civil rights or human rights there.

 

This is amazingly insulting, and speaks more about the the average American than anything else. I can't believe I have to say this, but yes, we do have a constitution, civil and human rights. As does any other country in western Europe. And I'm still waiting for examples of those freedoms Americans claim to have that Europeans do not. Unless we're talking about the freedom to pay $1000 to get an ambulance, or the freedom to own a military arsenal, I'm not seeing it.

Edited by visualstudios
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rachelbostwick said:

Kantianism

Kantianism is objectively worse, and doesn't even make sense. A categorical imperative is absurd, since we don't want or should want all people to behave a certain way. It doesn't work, because people are different, so certain people should behave a certain way and others should behave differently, according to their own qualities and personalities. My categorical imperative will be necessarily different from yours, since we are necessarily different people. The concept of a universal law is impossible. There are no universals, only specifics. It could maybe, possibly work if people were perfect rational actors, and there was a single objective, rational, common goal. This isn't the case.

Edited by visualstudios
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys where is this discussion heading really? I mean it's one thing to say "what's your opinion" and another to say "why do you have that opinion?".. it's one thing to say "this is how things are right now" and another to say "this is how things ought to be"... besides leaving a few souls frustrated, I don't really see this discussion achieving a closure .. and there's no point really since I am sure none of us here are lawmakers or scientists (directly connected to the COVID research)..

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, visualstudios said:

This is amazingly insulting, and speaks more about the the average American than anything else.

Very excellent distraction from the point...which is. You are fine with a regime performing political violence at the whim of a single dictator. You still have not addressed the police, and the entire methodology of how they get into homes and force vaccinate people. I'd love to hear how that is done with your supposed set of "human rights".  Nor have you addressed my point of how these suspension of such human rights "for the common good" have lead to millions of deaths at the hands of some very cruel people.

If you simply want to say, I'm insulted, that's OK. I figured you would not want to explain why you support "human rights" and liberty, yet also support such tyranny. You cannot pretend to have human rights if any dictator can simply suspend them on a whim.

Again, please address how this is in line with the actual US constitution, not simply your opinion of how you would rule the world if you were King. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...