Your argument is built upon making those things extreme. — Christoffer

I am taking the ideas you are proposing and taking them to their logical conclusions.

You seem to believe sometimes it is fine for people to suffer as a result of one's desires and sometimes it is not.

So far you have been unable to explain what the determining factor is.

Abortion is about your own body, — Christoffer

And the body of one's unborn child, of course.

Bodily autonomy is irrelevant if you risk hurting or killing other people. — Christoffer

Of course it isn't. The flu kills hundreds of thousands every year but we don't infringe upon people's rights to bodily autonomy because they may carry the flu.

Somehow I am reminded some famous billionnaire whose name I have forgotten. In any case, this person was nearing the end of his life and despite possessing all of that money, he locked himself up in a sterile environment out of fear of catching some germ or disease.

The funny thing is, he was unmistakenly right: interactions with other people could kill him. I wonder how the world would have reacted had he proclaimed that from now on, all the world should take measures to accomodate his fears so he could live normally. I'm sure it would have been the source of much hilarity.

I am taking the ideas you are proposing and taking them to their logical conclusions.

You seem to believe sometimes it is fine for people to suffer as a result of one's desires and sometimes it is not.

So far you have been unable to explain what the determining factor is. — Tzeentch

No, you are not taking them to a logical conclusion. Not getting the vaccine and risking other people is an active choice against the scientific logic and knowledge of the pandemic. By driving a car normally you do not actively do something reckless. Stop pretending there's a logical connection between the two.

And the body of one's unborn child, of course. — Tzeentch

So you're gonna do an argument to the extreme again. Stop trying to bait things, this has nothing to do with the conclusion I've done about the vaccine. Want to have a philosophical debate about abortions start another thread.

Of course it isn't. The flu kills hundreds of thousands every year but we don't infringe upon people's rights to bodily autonomy because they may carry the flu. — Tzeentch

Covid-19 isn't the flu. If you don't have knowledge about the disease this pandemic is about, then how can you make logical arguments about it? Covid-19 has a higher mortality rate, the only reason we haven't seen higher numbers is because of how the world has been fighting the pandemic. If we had been going about our days normally we would have an extreme situation. Just look at the surge in India where they literally burned bodies in the street.

I have no interest in arguing with uneducated people. There's no point.

But even so, if we view vaccines generally. The conclusion I've made is the same. You say:

I'll propose something radical: if one is afraid that being sneezed on will kill them, they're the one who should be isolating themselves. — Tzeentch

That is the same as saying that if I decide to go out and throw sharp rocks at other people, it's not my responsibility or moral issue because if people are afraid of being hit by rocks they should just stay home and not go out when I'm out. Their fear is not my fear, so I don't care.

It's fundamentally stupid logic.

By driving a car normally you do not actively do something reckless. — Christoffer

Whenever you step behind the wheel, you are actively accepting the risk of killing someone. The risk is small, sure, but your label of 'reckless' or 'not reckless' is obviously subjective.

Covid-19 isn't the flu. — Christoffer

I did not claim otherwise.

That is the same as saying that if I decide to go out and throw sharp rocks at other people, it's not my responsibility or moral issue because if people are afraid of being hit by rocks they should just stay home and not go out when I'm out. Their fear is not my fear, so I don't care. — Christoffer

Except that not throwing rocks does not incur any risks for the thrower. So it is not the same.

Whenever you step behind the wheel, you are actively accepting the risk of killing someone. The risk is small, sure, but your label of 'reckless' or 'not reckless' is obviously subjective. — Tzeentch

No, you don't take reckless action. All actions in the world have risks, but taking an active reckless action is not the same as taking an action that has potential risks. Ignoring the pandemic, ignoring the vaccine is actively a direct reckless choice.

I did not claim otherwise. — Tzeentch

You directly compared it to the flu.

Except that not throwing rocks does not incur any risks for the thrower. So it is not the same. — Tzeentch

What risks? Are you talking about the stupid anti-vaccer propaganda and people being illiterate on reading statistics about vaccine risks? But it still doesn't change my conclusion. Just because you are afraid of the vaccine and don't get it doesn't mean you can also enjoy social life like other people who got it. Your choice is either to get it and be able to socialize or you don't get it and isolate yourself. Any other choice of socializing after actively refusing the vaccine is a reckless act against other people, period. You haven't logically addressed this point at all.

As I said, I have no interest in debating with the uneducated. If this is gonna be about philosophy, facts matter. And you can get hit by your own rocks, there's always a risk, you say so yourself with the examples about driving and having children. This is why you are all over the place, you don't have a consistent counterargument to my conclusion, it's grasping at straws. Getting struck by your own rocks is close to the same probability of getting complications from the vaccines. Learn statistics.

No, you don't take reckless action. All actions in the world have risks, but taking an active reckless action is not the same as taking an action that has potential risks. Ignoring the pandemic, ignoring the vaccine is actively a direct reckless choice. — Christoffer

Explain the difference, then.

You directly compared it to the flu. — Christoffer

Of course. I did not state it was the flu, however.

facts matter. — Christoffer

And you, of course, a self-styled expert in all matters concering facts.

This is why you are all over the place, you don't have a consistent counterargument to my conclusion, it's grasping at straws. — Christoffer

I've actually asked you some pretty straightforward questions which you've been avoiding.

On a philosophy forum few people will be impressed by these sorts of proclamations of victory.

Explain the difference, then. — Tzeentch

I just did, in that very text.

Choosing to drive is not a reckless act, but choosing to refuse a vaccine and then socialize normally during a pandemic is a reckless act. One is an act that can have risks, one is a reckless act that can have direct serious risks.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. And ignoring the difference between an act and a reckless act is the problem. We make actions all the time that can risk someone else, but we know the risks of those actions and take precautions to not end up with those risks. Doing a reckless action that can risk someone else but we know of those risks and do it anyway, is immoral.

It's crystal clear.

Of course. I did not state it was the flu, however. — Tzeentch

So you just... compared the two... because of reasons... seriously, this is just ridicoulus.

And you, of course, a self-styled expert in all matters concering facts. — Tzeentch

The facts of the pandemic are out there in publications. And there are a lot of publications about diseases and vaccines, statistics, biases, and fallacies in general. Facts matter and statistical facts about the vaccine risks matter. Failure to use those logically when arguing about the Covid-19 vaccines is a failure in logic. If you want to ignore this, go to some reddit forum, I don't have time for sloppy wannabes of philosophy. You either use logic, facts, and reason or you are just puking out irrelevant opinions and there's enough of that going around.

I've actually asked you some pretty straightforward questions which you've been avoiding.

On a philosophy forum few people will be impressed by these sorts of proclamations of victory. — Tzeentch

I've been pretty clear, but you ignore simple logic because of the fallacies and biases you seem to have. I haven't avoided questions, I've pointed out the fallacies in your reasoning and you ignore those and you actively avoid trying to accept simple logic because it doesn't fit your narrative. It's crystal clear what you're doing in the way you are presenting your arguments. Just as an example, your comparison with the flu that you then point out that you didn't state that Covid was the same as the flu, but still use as a comparison to make... what point exactly? Why make the comparison to the flu? For what reason? You are the one who isn't straightforward.

You just try to prove your opinion, without regard for addressing to the science of the pandemic, to the logic of my conclusion, and when challenged you just go all over the place trying to find a way to question that logic.

The logic is pretty straightforward: Making a choice of ignoring the science of the pandemic and vaccines in order to refuse to get a vaccine but still choose to socialize without regard for restrictions and regulations that exist to stop the spread, you are then actively making a reckless action that can hurt or kill other people.

That is a logical statement and there's no getting around that. You need to disprove the logic behind it and there's nothing about driving cars or having children that disprove that logic. You make vague comparisons that really don't change the logic of that statement.

On a philosophy forum, few people will be impressed by your sloppy philosophical scrutiny. I'm asking for better philosophical debate around the subject, but you discuss this with the same level of logic and knowledge as any other anti-vaccer out there. That makes it impossible for you to reach the philosophical scrutiny needed for the discussion to be a philosophical one.

One is an act that can have risks, one is a reckless act that can have direct serious risks. — Christoffer

When you step into a car, you may crash into someone. How is that not direct and serious, and not just as much of a reckless action as interacting with people without being vaccinated?

Just as an example, your comparison with the flu that you then point out that you didn't state that Covid was the same as the flu, but still use as a comparison to make... what point exactly? Why make the comparison to the flu? For what reason? — Christoffer

Because both cause many deaths, yet the flu is accepted as normal, yet in the case of covid-19 people start questioning fundamental human rights like bodily autonomy.

On a philosophy forum, few people will be impressed by your sloppy philosophical scrutiny. — Christoffer

There's a reason I didn't respond to the rest of your post. :kiss:

When you step into a car, you may crash into someone. How is that not direct and serious, and not just as much of a reckless action as interacting with people without being vaccinated? — Tzeentch

The choice to "drive a car" is not the same as crashing into someone. Driving a car means you know the risks and follow the rules. To refuse a vaccine and then choose to break restrictions, you choose to not follow the rules and instead choose to "drive recklessly". If you choose to drive intoxicated, or with a blindfold, you choose in the same way to drive recklessly.

The choice "to drive" is the same as choosing to follow restrictions, vaccinate yourself and follow the rules of the pandemic.

This is the social code of a pandemic. The same as a driving license and the rules of the road is the social code of driving.

If you break those, you are reckless. You can choose to drive recklessly or you can choose to drive normally. You can choose to live in the pandemic according to the rules set to prevent spread, or you can choose to break it and be reckless.

It's crystal clear.

Because both cause many deaths, yet the flu is accepted as normal, yet in the case of covid-19 people start questioning fundamental human rights like bodily autonomy. — Tzeentch

They are fundamentally different in mortality rate, so that's why we have these restrictions and vaccines. You fail to understand the science behind it, but you can't argue against it, or you will argue against the science itself. They are not the same.

If I slap you with my hand and then slam you with a sledgehammer, that's two different types of hitting you, but the consequences are fundamentally different. If you only have the choice to use gear in order to prevent damage to yourself, you would probably choose to have body armor when I hit you with the sledgehammer. You argue that both hits are the same, so why would you need body armor if a slap and a sledgehammer are fundamentally just me hitting you? That's your logic right there, examine it.

There's a reason I didn't respond to the rest of your post — Tzeentch

The reason being you don't have an argument and haven't counterargued the logic yet. You tiptoe around it with zero philosophical insight or apparent knowledge about the subject at hand. So we're at a standstill until you can grasp the basics of this.

The choice to "drive a car" is not the same as crashing into someone. — Christoffer

And similarly, not being vaccinated and breaking regulations is not the same as killing or even infecting someone with covid-19.

Essentially what you're saying is, "I agree with the rules and therefore everyone that doesn't follow them I label as reckless." Of course, anyone who disagrees on the science or the rules you would probably regard as being wrong, because you think the science is conclusive: it isn't.

Anyway, fine. You're putting a lot of faith in whoever made those rules.

People may not agree with the rules. They may not have faith in whoever makes the rules. They may weigh things against each other and have different ideas as to what acceptable risks are. There's a subjectivity to all of this that you are not taking into account, that I am trying to make clear to you.

They are fundamentally different in mortality rate, — Christoffer

Different? Yes. Fundamentally different? Up for debate. Where I live it certainly is not fundamentally different from a heavy flu.

You argue that both hits are the same, so why would you need body armor if a slap and a sledgehammer are fundamentally just me hitting you? That's your logic right there, examine it. — Christoffer

No, that's your logic. Don't put words in my mouth.

So we're at a standstill until you can grasp the basics of this. — Christoffer

I don't think we're at a standstill. You are, however, conducting yourself like a child.

And similarly, not being vaccinated and breaking regulations is not the same as killing or even infecting someone with covid-19. — Tzeentch

It's the same as driving recklessly, with a blindfold, or intoxicated. How can you not understand this? Or maybe you just don't want to.

"I agree with the rules and therefore everyone that doesn't follow them I label as reckless." Of course, anyone who disagrees on the science or the rules you would probably regard as being wrong, because you think the science is conclusive: it isn't. — Tzeentch

The rules are based on scientific knowledge and facts. To say that the science is inconclusive is not the same as the science saying that there is a pandemic, that the virus kills, hurts or cause serious harm and is deadlier than normal flu viruses. These are scientific facts, and disagreeing with them is disagreeing with reality itself. Just ask any citizen of India what they think of the smell of burning bodies if you don't agree with "the science". The scientific consensus on the deadliness and seriousness of this virus is absolutely conclusive. Just because people think they understand how science works and think they have the academic background to understand publications, doesn't mean that they actually understand them. There's no serious scientist in the world right now saying with any form of verification that this virus is harmless.

To disagree with the scientific consensus surrounding Covid-19 is not rational in any way and is the way of the moronic anti-vaccer movement.

If you are of the idea that this virus is harmless and the scientific community isn't clear on how serious this pandemic is, then you are fucking clueless and there's no point in even trying to make a philosophical argument with someone like you. Because you disagree with fundamental facts and can't even enter the question we are actually discussing.

Anyway, fine. You're putting a lot of faith in whoever made those rules. — Tzeentch

And you are a conspiracy nut if you believe the restrictions are there for any other reason than to stop the spread of the virus.

They may weigh things against each other and have different ideas as to what acceptable risks are. There's a subjectivity to all of this that you are not taking into account, that I am trying to make clear to y — Tzeentch

There's no subjectivity in science. The virus is dangerous, the way it spreads is proven and the vaccine is one more tool and weapon to battle this pandemic. People who disagree with this have a hell of a challenge to prove otherwise and so far they've only proven themselves to be morons. And an infected moron who runs around in a crowd of people thinking his covid-19 infection won't hurt or kill the people around him, should be treated the same as anyone driving around recklessly, intoxicated or with a blindfold. If they also make a lot of people sick, some of them dying, that person is guilty of manslaughter. There's no mystery here, it's crystal clear.

That you subjectively think otherwise is irrelevant. You don't give a shit about facts, you don't understand the science, you don't understand statistical analysis of different risk levels. I'm glad that we have serious restrictions so that people who are morons don't have the freedom to risk other people's lives with their stupidity. I'm fed up with the morons of this world thinking their idiotic ideas are a foundation everyone else should live by.

I don't care for anyone's opinion if that opinion has nothing to do with rationality, logic, facts and reason. It's just noise and bullshit. I'm glad society listens to the experts of their field. I'm glad the conspiracy nuts aren't the ones deciding the rules.

Different? Yes. Fundamentally different? Up for debate. Where I live it certainly is not fundamentally different from a heavy flu. — Tzeentch

It's not up for debate. Learn statistical analysis and understand that your single location is irrelevant as a statistical data point. You really show off your inability to understand basic science and the data we have about the pandemic.

No, that's your logic. Don't put words in my mouth. — Tzeentch

No, it's your logic. It's literally the same kind of logic. You compare the flu with Covid-19, it's like comparing a slap and a sledgehammer. You are just uneducated about this virus, simple as that.

I don't think we're at a standstill. You are, however, conducting yourself like a child. — Tzeentch

No, I'm desperately trying to explain simple fucking logic to a moron, that's what's going on. Someone who uses the current surrounding of his living location as proof of how Covid-19 isn't very different from normal flu. Someone who seemingly interprets the current scientific research of the virus in his own way, concluding the level of conclusiveness the research is at. Who disregard the actual facts we already know, who fail to understand statistical comparisons between vaccine risks and risks of the virus. Who doesn't think that someone who don't give a fuck about restrictions and getting the vaccine is in his right to break against everything and go around coughing on people because it's "up to them if they should fear it or not".

It's just stupid. With your level of logic and relation to facts and science, you fit right in with the other intellectual lowlives on Reddit who think they are educated experts while they spread anti-vaccer bullshit.

I'm done. I'm tired of this forum and how my will to discuss philosophy always gets hijacked by people like you.

It's the same as driving recklessly, with a blindfold, or intoxicated. — Christoffer

No, it isn't. Is there no such thing as common sense and using one's own judgement in your world view?

The rules are based on scientific knowledge and facts. — Christoffer

These are scientific facts, and disagreeing with them is disagreeing with reality itself. — Christoffer

You are ignoring the fact that science has been wrong numerous times during this pandemic. Remember how Covid-19 was initially ranked among diseases like Ebola, something which was in hindsight clearly wrong?

That is fine. That is how science works.

Science also tells us the restrictions and vaccinations come at a cost, and opinions on whether the costs weigh against the benefits of (some of) the restrictions vary. But you seem to have a low tolerance of opinions other than your own.

You don't give a shit about facts, you don't understand the science, you don't understand statistical analysis of different risk levels. — Christoffer

I do care about facts, but I may weigh those facts differently than you.

I don't care for anyone's opinion if that opinion has nothing to do with rationality, logic, facts and reason. — Christoffer

That's your issue, isn't it? What are you doing on a philosophy forum if you're incapable of accepting that people can look at the same facts as you do and come to different conclusions, let alone have a normal discussion about it.

"There is no subjectivity in my science".

I'm done. I'm tired of this forum and how my will to discuss philosophy always gets hijacked by people like you. — Christoffer

Maybe you wouldn't burn yourself out if half your post wasn't angry ranting.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. :kiss:

No, it isn't. Is there no such thing as common sense and using one's own judgement in your world view? — Tzeentch

Common sense without rational thought is irrelevant and does not function well with reality. It's also the common thing people fall back on if they lack the capacity to actually do the work of rational reasoning, which is... well, the foundation of philosophy. So I don't care much for opinions from people who just say their opinions without any care for being rational or logical. It's just noise.

You are ignoring the fact that science has been wrong numerous times during this pandemic. Remember how Covid-19 was initially ranked among diseases like Ebola, something which was in hindsight clearly wrong? — Tzeentch

Science is not "wrong", anyone who says this does not understand the scientific process. It's about chopping away little at a time to reach as close to the truth as possible. The reason people think science has gotten things "wrong" is because we've never had this level of media coverage of every slight discovery or hypothesis by scientists. Every discovery has been translated by stupid journalists who simplify something down to barebone clickbait headlines and then people get confused when things turn around. It's the same thing every time when people don't understand science or the scientific process. Time and data is the most important thing when researching. Back when this whole thing started there was very little data and very little spent time on analyzing that data. At the moment, both data and time are much better and more accurate than before. But the conclusion that has survived is still that this is a dangerous virus that has a higher mortality rate than other more common corona-type viruses.

The dangers have never been in question, we're more accurate now than ever about Covid-19. Your way of speaking about the process of research on this virus just shows how little you actually know about how science and the scientific process works. So you just say "oh, it's been chaos and no one knows really anything". This is simply not true and it's an extremely low-quality premise in philosophy to point out.

That is fine. That is how science works — Tzeentch

You don't know how it works, clearly.

Science also tells us the restrictions and vaccinations come at a cost, and opinions on whether the costs weigh against the benefits of (some of) the restrictions vary. But you seem to have a low tolerance of opinions other than your own. — Tzeentch

This has nothing to do with the logic of how someone breaking restrictions actively becomes a danger towards others. People's opinions are irrelevant if we have a virus that kills and someone just doesn't give a fuck about it. That person is hurting and killing others through reckless behavior. That we have a cost to restrictions has absolutely nothing to do with the logic of that. So once again, you show a failure to understand what this is all about.

I do care about facts, but I may weigh those facts differently than you. — Tzeentch

Facts are facts. The fact is that we have a virus with a high mortality rate. The fact is that restrictions and vaccines are tools and weapons to fight the pandemic. The fact is that the risks of vaccines have extremely low risks of side effects and even in those cases, those vaccines have been managed to even lessen those side effect risks even further. The fact is that the risks of serious damage and death by the virus are much larger than any risk of serious side effects.
These are facts supported by publications, they are facts of decisions being made, they are facts about statistical risks.

If you are unable to read into these facts and understand what they mean, that does not mean you "weigh those facts differently", it means you are cherry-picking facts or opinions or whatever supports your conclusion. A conclusion that still does not counterargue what I've concluded about the moral choice of someone not getting the vaccine and then ignoring restrictions putting other people in danger. You seem to be unable to understand any logical throughline here.

That's your issue, isn't it? What are you doing on a philosophy forum if you're incapable of accepting that people can look at the same facts as you do and come to different conclusions, let alone have a normal discussion about it. — Tzeentch

Philosophy requires you to create a reasonable and rational argument. If you fail to do that you are not conducting philosophy, you are just venting opinions. That is not philosophy. If you cannot back your conclusions up with anything more than "I have my opinion and I interpret things however I want", then it is I that need to ask the question what you are doing on a philosophy forum? Go to reddit if you need to vent opinions. I ask for rational arguments from you and you provide nothing of the sort.

"There is no subjectivity in my science". — Tzeentch

What do you even mean by this? I can't even begin to try and understand this low-quality bullshit.

Maybe you wouldn't burn yourself out if half your post wasn't angry ranting. — Tzeentch

Maybe you could start acting like you are on a philosophy forum instead of just venting opinions? You're today's poster boy for "low-quality posts" and you get the correct response accordingly.

It seems there is a cheap, safe and proven treatment for Covid 19, a drug that has been around for 40 years, and yet, puzzlingly, the WHO is warning against its use. I wonder why that is? Could it have to do with the fact that if it was approved, the vaccine rollout would likely be halted and the pharmaceutical companies fail to make the unprecendented profit they stand to make from the vaccines?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

http://outbreaknewstoday.com/ivermectin-is-highly-effective-as-a-safe-prophylaxis-and-treatment-for-covid-19-comprehensive-review-12291/

Thank you for clearly elucidating basically everything I find abhorrent with the pro-vaccine types. It must be horrible living with that kind of abject terror everyday. To justify forcing your beliefs onto others, simply because you are afraid, puts you on par with pretty much every dictator ever. "I will do this, and don't worry, you will thank me later" Said the church as they took people's children, burned down places of worship, and set about destroying "the heathen", "to save them from ignorance."

What a crock of shit. I assume you justify rape as saying that those who refuse to engage in consensual sex are against the continuation of humanity and are therefore guilty of complicit genocide, therefore, for the security of procreation, must be made to procreate regardless of their opinion on the matter?

And colchicine as well. Used to treat gout for many decades. I won't take the vaccine but I would have no problem with colchicine if needed.

This has nothing to do with the logic — Christoffer

And that pretty much captures your stance. Also nothing to do with ethics. Bravo.

Could it have to do with the fact that if it was approved, the vaccine rollout would likely be halted and the pharmaceutical companies fail to make the unprecendented profit they stand to make from the vaccines? — Janus

Could it be due to the fact that, for safety reasons, no health organisation fast-tracks new medicines in under two months on the say-so of some initial findings from a middling journal paper? Or that, knowing how mammoth a global vaccine rollout is, that changing course at this stage would be impractical when the current course appears to be working okay?

To justify forcing your beliefs onto others, simply because you are afraid, puts you on par with pretty much every dictator ever. — Book273

Nothing of this is based on beliefs. It's like if you are in a position where you don't know if the pain in your back is serious or just some aching muscles. And instead of asking the experts in the field of medicine to reach a consensus about what it might be, in order to really know if it's cancer or something, you turn to a community of online self-proclaimed experts who are fundamentally uneducated, who are unable to reason past their biases, who analyze statistics and data without having any kind of education on how to properly do so and then trust their words completely.

It's the anti-vaccers who force beliefs onto others because they are afraid. It's like literally what they do. Because they don't go by the broad consensus in science on a topic, they cherry-pick their sources to support their fear-based arguments. It's actually pretty ironic that by pointing out that we should support our stance surrounding the pandemic and vaccines, on the science behind it, the proper analysis of the statistical risks and respecting other people's lives by following precautions that block yourself from accidentally spreading the virus to people who can literally die if you are not careful, it's instead me that gets criticized for forcing a belief out of fear. I'm actually laughing out loud at this because I cannot even comprehend the lack of logic that this kind of counterargument has.

I hold the stance that we need to listen to the consensus of science and we need to get past human error, biases, and fear to judge the course of action in order to fight this pandemic. There's nothing in this that even remotely follows the idea that I'm forcing my "belief" of fear onto others. How is this remotely true? Where's your support that positions your point of view as rational reasoning and not fear-based in comparison? Give me a fucking break.

"I will do this, and don't worry, you will thank me later" Said the church as they took people's children, burned down places of worship, and set about destroying "the heathen", "to save them from ignorance." — Book273

Care to explain what this has to do with any of this? What sources do you go by to form your stance about not taking the vaccine? Or should we just "thank you later"?

I assume you justify rape as saying that those who refuse to engage in consensual sex are against the continuation of humanity and are therefore guilty of complicit genocide, therefore, for the security of procreation, must be made to procreate regardless of their opinion on the matter? — Book273

This is a textbook example of what is called an appeal to extremes fallacy. You would fail basic philosophy with this kind of reasoning.
And to try and answer this because I'm not sure which quote you are referring to as I believe you just emotionally react and didn't read everything I've written in here:

Opinions don't matter if the following practice means an increased danger to other people. The question posed in this thread is about the vaccine. Anti-vaccers have "opinions" on why not to take the vaccine. And I've never said they can't have opinions.

What I've been saying is that if someone, an anti-vaccer probably, has the "opinion" that the vaccine is dangerous and refuses to take it, that is absolutely in his or her right. However, the vaccine is there to help fight the pandemic, it's there so that risks of infecting others through socializing and taking part in other social situations/encounters in society are greatly reduced and the dangerous consequences of the infection are reduced. So if someone refuses the vaccine they need to understand that they cannot be part of the equation of fighting the pandemic. They need to isolate themselves or live far away from dense populations in order for them not to be at risk of spreading the virus. This is just basic logic. If you choose selfishly, you have to be by yourself if the crisis is affecting an entire population.

If someone refuses the vaccine, and turns out to be the source in a super spreading event, and as a consequence people infected by that person ends up seriously ill with many of them dying. That person has effectively and willingly refused a way to prevent such a thing. If a person refuses the vaccine and then ignores restrictions and precautions, they are absolutely doing an immoral act. The logical causation from the active decision of refusing the vaccine to taking part in a risky act of socializing during a pandemic is unquestionably immoral. Any objection to this logic needs to be supported by something other than anti-vaccer's appeal to emotion and fear. Because there's no statistical support or data that can change the moral nature of such an act. Period.

And that pretty much captures your stance. Also nothing to do with ethics. Bravo. — Book273

Maybe you should include the entire quote instead of, you know, take things out of context.

This has nothing to do with the logic of how someone breaking restrictions actively becomes a danger towards others. — Christoffer

This was a response to a point that the restrictions and vaccines come at a cost. What those costs specifically are, wasn't actually pointed out, just that "people have opinions". And even if it's true that costs need to be balanced between each other, the argument was made as to for some reason position the risks of vaccine as high, which there is no broad data for whatsoever. The risks of the vaccine are extremely lower than the risks of the virus. And the deadly risks of an unchecked full-blown pandemic are extremely higher than the risks of restrictions. That's not to say that there are health risks involved with isolation and consequences of restrictions, but in comparison with an unchecked pandemic, it becomes clear what risk aversion is the best course of action and best for as many as possible.

But as I pointed out, if you include the context of what I wrote from which you quoted me, I pointed out that the cost comparison of restrictions and vaccines have nothing to do with the moral evaluation of someone who refuses vaccine and then still socializes and in turn becomes at risk of spreading the virus. It's not immoral to refuse the vaccine, it's not immoral to socialize past restrictions if vaccinated, but to refuse a vaccine and then socialize is definitely immoral as you cannot guarantee the safety of the people you meet. If you refuse the vaccine, break restrictions, socialize with others or go into public spaces and infect others that later die because of your act, that is, without a question, an immoral act.

I won't take the vaccine but I would have no problem with colchicine if needed. — Book273

Why would colchicine be safer than the vaccine? There's not enough data to conclude that it helps. What's your logic behind this?

And maybe explain how you morally handle and justify your refusal of the vaccine. I'd like to hear what your plans are going forward. You will refuse the vaccine and... then what? Are you gonna break the restrictions? Are you gonna go out in public? Socialize with people who are unknowing about your refusal?

Because if you only think that you will protect yourself and refuse any chance of blocking yourself from spreading the virus, you are effectively helping to spread the virus if you get infected and do so. How is that not immoral? How can you justify such an act against other people who don't know if you are infected? Please educate others on your ethical stance in this, because the way you write you just sound like you care for yourself and not others, and that's not really what ethics is about now... is it?

Or that, knowing how mammoth a global vaccine rollout is, that changing course at this stage would be impractical when the current course appears to be working okay? — Kenosha Kid

But this is not true. The Astra Zenica vaccine had extremely minor risks of blood clots and it was pulled instantly in most nations in order to evaluate further if it's safe or not.

What I see is that people don't know how to interpret statistics correctly. Most people fail at math, but statistics is not only math, it's logic and also requires situational data and a lot of further parameters for a correct interpretation.

The problem is media and social media. While normal media simplify complex data down to click-bait headlines, social media runs these headlines and people become afraid. This pandemic is the best example of the extreme knowledge polarization between the educated experts, scientists, analysts, and the common people who have no knowledge of how to interpret the data researchers publish and how that misinterpretation or skewed conclusion grows into mass panic. This is why I have little respect for uneducated people's "opinions", because if I had a cent for every bias, fallacy, and inability to fact check correctly when people pose their "opinions" I would be a billionaire today.

The vaccine manufacturers and reviewers of those vaccines take extreme care towards making vaccines safe. There's no interest in releasing unsafe vaccines. Even if you cynically think that they only think of revenue and public reputation, those are the first things to go if they released something unsafe. It's in literally no one's interest to release a faulty vaccine and in everyone's interest to carefully review how things go.

And then there's the talk about side effects. All substances you take have side effects, food, fluids, medication whatever. The main question is the severeness of the side effects and the risk of them. If you take a medication that has a 1 in a million chance of a serious side effect, that's a pretty safe medication compared to what you probably get out of it, i.e treatment. Vaccines have side effects, Astra Zenica's had serious ones, but by April 7, 20 million doses had been administrated and 19 had fatal blood clots. Compare that to the burning piles of bodies in India due to the failure in containing the pandemic. And Astra Zenica's vaccine was even pulled, only to be used in age groups that had no side effects at all. While other vaccines showed little to no such side effects.

People just don't understand basic statistical awareness and this fuels the fear that fuels the anti-vaccer bullshit. I would guarantee that the majority of things that people consume during one day consist of substances that have even greater damaging effects on their health and lifespan, but no one care to think about that because people are just uneducated and form opinions out of that lack of knowledge.

It's like the whole meme and old gag of getting people riled up and afraid of Dihydrogen monoxide.



As an example of its use

In April 2013, as part of an April Fool's Day prank, two radio personalities at Gator Country 101.9, a station in Lee County, Florida, told listeners that dihydrogen monoxide was coming out of their water taps and were suspended for a few days. The prank resulted in several calls by consumers to the local utility company, which sent out a release stating that the water was safe.

I absolutely love the response to this meme and joke. It's one of the best ways to show how easily fooled people are and how severe the consequences are because of people's stupidity and lack of critical thinking. And all anti-vaccers fall under this. It's so fun seeing these people shoot themselves in the foot but also very obvious as to why emotional "opinions" just don't matter in a pandemic.

Thalidomide had awesome reviews initially and was the wonder drug of the time. That did not work out so well longer term. Long terms studies matter. Multiple short term studies do not have the same value as a single decent long term one.
You are comfortable rolling up your sleeve for the vaccine, good for you. I, and many other educated individuals, are not so keen. Perhaps in five years, or ten, maybe. You do not know the long term effects of it, no one does, not even those that make it. We also don't know the long term effects of Covid.

So my choices are: A) Trust in my body to do what it has always done by responding appropriately to new pathogens and trust in the health of others' to do the same; B) Allow myself to be injected with something new, that has had testing time that numbers in months rather than years, to protect me from another new thing that has been known of for less than two years, which we also know not much about. I go with option A. The second just seems too risky. The speeches attached to the vaccine are very snakeoil salesmanish.

You are espousing the position that I should take the vaccine, or hide away, for the health of the species. I say that I should not take the vaccine, nor hide away, for exactly the same reason; the health of the species. I have done the research, I have read the monographs, I have listened to the experts explain the value and then go back and change what they said as new information arose (multiple times). I remain unconvinced, therefore elect to not be vaccinated. I see the data, not what I want to see, but what is there.

Firstly, Ivermectin is not a new medicine; according to the information I have it has been around for forty years, and is considered one of the safest medications. Secondly as far as I am aware The American Journal of Therapeutics is a peer-reviewed journal. not a "middling journal" as you assert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Journal_of_Therapeutics

And it's too early to tell how effective the vaccines are at this stage. Cases are on the rise again in the UK despite more than 70% of the population having had the first shot of vaccine..

Are you gonna break the restrictions? Are you gonna go out in public? Socialize with people who are unknowing about your refusal? — Christoffer

Those who are vaccinated will, according to your argument, be safe. The only people at risk will be others who have chosen not to have the vaccine. Of course if the vaccines are not effective then those vaccinated will also be at risk, but then...

My vote is as follows...

We have to respect people's right to decide what goes in to their own bodies. Some people will make poor decisions about that, this is nothing new.

I would reserve social condemnation for those who won't wear a mask when that is ordered. It's such a tiny burden, to decline it is to raise one's middle finger to the rest of society.

And now, please greet my inner fascist! No shit, those stories about people who get in to fights with flight attendants about masking gets my blood boiling. Mr. Fascist says, take them to the nearest door, hand them a parachute, and push them out. After all, they have 30,000 feet to figure out how to use the parachute.

Ok, so maybe, maybe, maybe that's a tad extreme. But really, we put up with way too much shit from such people. How about, ban them from all airlines for life? Ok, I guess I can live with that.

You are comfortable rolling up your sleeve for the vaccine, good for you. — Book273

So are millions of others. I guess they are all idiots in your eyes.

I, and many other educated individuals, are not so keen. Perhaps in five years, or ten, maybe. You do not know the long term effects of it, no one does, not even those that make it. We also don't know the long term effects of Covid. — Book273

So, because you are educated, as you clearly point out, you know the difference between an mRNA vaccine and for example the swine flu vaccine that had serious consequences?

Your "education" in this matter is not a foundation of proof that there will be serious consequences five years from now. Not only that, there are documented cases of serious problems for people who survived Covid that might last for years or their entire life. So you compare an outright guess based on your "educated" opinion. Remind me again what education you use as a foundation for your evaluation here? Or are you referring to anecdotal evidence through emotion based on the swine flu debacle and not really about how these vaccines actually work? Further disregarding actual documentation of long-term Covid complications that are far more serious than anything even remotely reported about the vaccines. So even if you survive Covid, there's a high risk of complications. That needs to be evaluated against any wild guesswork about speculative five-year consequences of an mRNA vaccine that no one who worked on the swine flu vaccine says is even remotely possible because of the basic differences in how these vaccines work.

A) Trust in my body to do what it has always done by responding appropriately to new pathogens and trust in the health of others' to do the same — Book273

Do you mean to die if you are unlucky? Or get serious complications?

B) Allow myself to be injected with something new, that has had testing time that numbers in months rather than years, to protect me from another new thing that has been known of for less than two years, which we also know not much about. — Book273

Wait, you say we don't know much about Covid but you dismiss the dangers of it and trusting your own body to respond to it in a predictable way? Compared to vaccines which have been extremely tested due to the importance of finding one and thousands of people have worked on and even more people have gone through human trials for and even more data compiling now that millions have gotten it? You mean to say that your logic is that because there are some unknowns left, you evaluate the risks of something documented to have a high mortality rate and that can create serious illness if survived as being lower risk than the vaccine with less risks documented? Nice logic there. Are you also thinking like that while driving? Only driving off-road because there's risks involved with having oncoming drivers going the opposite direction. Maybe you will hit them! You cannot use the roads they are unsafe, look at the statistics of deaths in traffic! Let's go off-road into uncharted territory so to avoid all other cars. Oh no, didn't see that hole in the gound

I go with option A. The second just seems too risky. The speeches attached to the vaccine are very snakeoil salesmanish. — Book273

I thought you were educated? Where do you get the education to spot snake-oil salesmen's speeches?
All I see is someone speculating and having emotional opinions based on fear. I see very little signs of any education... at all. And your risk assessment is extremely flawed and not very rooted in the research surrounding the virus. You have higher risks from Covid than any vaccine, but you flip it and think Covid is less dangerous. Maybe go to India and ask the burning bodies what they think about the dangers of the vaccine.

I have done the research — Book273

Oh, for fuck sake.

You are espousing the position that I should take the vaccine, or hide away, for the health of the species. I say that I should not take the vaccine, nor hide away, for exactly the same reason; the health of the species. — Book273

You have no idea what you are talking about. You have concluded that people should just interact with each other normally, not isolate and battle anything, not vaccinate at all because that will lead us to better health.

What are you smoking? The mortality rate is high and the only reason we do not see this in practice is that we've introduced restrictions and regulations in society to block extreme spread. With the Delta variant getting stronger at 70% higher infectious risk, it's even worse to break restrictions.

What fucking education are you referring to? Cherry-picking points that only prove your point?
You make conclusions about how people should act based on the fact there are still some questions left unanswered about the virus. That's NOT a foundation for any conclusions that we should just open up and not give a damn about restricting the spread.

Seriously, you

I have listened to the experts explain the value and then go back and change what they said as new information arose — Book273

This is the scientific process. You know, to examine, conclude, examine again, modify, adapt. The scientific process is about chopping away at something until the truth becomes more clear. This is why we have words like hypothesis and scientific theory (not to be confused with common tongue "theory"). Experts talk about their recent findings, media are uneducated and blow things up with click bait headlines. But if you know what the scientific process is about, you would understand WHY they change the conclusions they make, especially as everyone races against time to figure the virus out.

If you don't even understand how science works, how can anyone take your "education" seriously? This is getting seriously stupid.

I see the data, not what I want to see, but what is there. — Book273

No, you clearly don't. You don't have the knowledge of statistical analysis, you don't have an understanding of the scientific process and you don't understand how to evaluate risks. You don't see data, you have an opinion and you pick data to support that first.

But nothing of this has anything to do with the immoral act of endangering other people by disregarding the vaccine and disregarding restrictions. You are just trying to justify for yourself why you don't want the vaccine or need to follow restrictions, but even you admit to not knowing all the consequences of Covid in an unchecked outbreak.

So if you go out, unvaccinated, unknowing if you are a carrier, right into a public space in close proximity with other people and infect someone who later dies... you are guilty of manslaughter. Why wouldn't you? You disregard all health recommendations, all recommendations from actual educated experts and you disregard the potential hazard risk of infecting other people, even though there's tons of info supporting the dangers and how it spreads. By disregarding all of this and put other people at risk of getting infected, you actively cause someone else to die.

Even if there were more unknowns about the virus and even lesser mortality rate, it's still immoral to break what has become socially accepted norms of living in order to prevent damage and death onto others.

It's like the most basic example of ethics you can come across and you fail any sort of rational reasoning behind your stance. No one cares if you infect yourself through being careless, no one cares about idiots causing themselves harm, it's not about that. It's about them causing others harm. You cannot justify your own behavior in the light of risking other people. You either follow the same restrictions and regulations as everyone else or you are an immoral agent that should be judged accordingly. You can refuse the vaccine, but that requires you to follow the restrictions when vaccinated people can go out in public normally. If you don't get the vaccine, you have no right to the same level of freedom, because you are still a risk when you don't have the vaccine. It's just basic fucking logic here that you try to justify with extremely poor philosophy and rational reasoning. Why are you even on this forum if this simple logic goes over your head.

Those who are vaccinated will, according to your argument, be safe. The only people at risk will be others who have chosen not to have the vaccine. — Janus

Or people who can't get the vaccine because of allergic reactions and such. There are many people who can't get vaccines. But maybe the anti-vaccers think they are collateral damage for "the greater good of human health". Maybe some dihydrogen monoxide will help anti-vaccers think better, maybe not.

Ok, so maybe, maybe, maybe that's a tad extreme. But really, we put up with way too much shit from such people. How about, ban them from all airlines for life? Ok, I guess I can live with that. — Foghorn

I'm with you. The respect for people's opinions goes far, but there's a limit. When we have a clear situation where these idiots' behavior can harm or even kill other people, it's not up for debate anymore. Seriously, why should we respect someone's opinion if the following behavior out of that opinion is a great risk to someone else's life?

Just like my example with driving with a blindfold. If I sit in my parked car and put on a blindfold, that's my "opinion", if I drive with the blindfold that's me applying that opinion to behavior. If my opinion is to support the idea of people driving blindfolded, but my practical appliance of that opinion is to only do it in a parked car, then there's no problem. If I, however, put on the blindfold and start driving down the road, that is not an opinion anymore, it's a practical reality where the risks happen outside of my opinion. That means the consequences are real. Even if I, in my stupidity, don't believe that driving with a blindfold will kill anyone, I will still risk other people's lives and my belief doesn't matter when I eventually hit and kill someone because that is a real risk that everyone except me, agrees upon.
And even so, spreading such ideas so that someone eventually does it can be harmful. This is why there are cases where people are convicted because they incited dangerous behavior in others. It's the entire reason Trump was criticized for the Capitolium attack. He didn't do it, but he incited part of it. So what about anti-vaccers and those pushing ideas of breaking restrictions, if people follow that or if they follow their own ideas, shouldn't that be considered in the same manner as driving blindfold or getting someone else to do it?

I don't think it's fascism to position yourself hard against reckless behavior. If someone starts waving a gun around and there's a risk of it going off and kill someone, you shoot that person down. That's not fascism, it's survival, it's protecting others. How is protecting others from harm or death, fascism? Shut the idiots down, there's nothing to be gained by tip toeing around such reckless behavior.

the swine flu vaccine that had serious consequences? — Christoffer

Hey thanks for bringing that up! I had forgotten that crap. I work for the same outfit now as I did then. Then it was mandated that I get that vaccine or lose my job. I needed the money as my kids were young, so Daddy stepped up and did as directed. In a nutshell, that sucked royally. Now they aren't mandating this vaccine as they did the H1N1 vaccine. Likely because a full third of the staff would go home, and hospitals can't run on 2/3 of staff for any length of time. They assured us it was safe then, much the same as this vaccine. All full of doom and gloom then too. And a whole lot of not much was the result.

If you don't get the vaccine, you have no right to the same level of freedom, — Christoffer

There ya go! Restrict all them anti-vaxers! They are evil bastards that won't listen to what we want! Damn all those who will not obey! ( I am out of torches, you will have to make your own for the Anti-vaxer march)

It is unfortunate that humans appear to be truly unable to accept each other's choices without railing against them. I am not asking everyone that has had a vaccine to stay away from other people in case the vaccine has some unknown communicable side effect. Worth noting: being vaccinated does not prevent catching Covid, or prevent spreading Covid eh. It reduces the severity of the illness, and may reduce transmission ( not solidly proven yet, but it seems to be working out that way).

So the vaccine has unknown long term side effects, decreases illness but does not prevent it, decreases transmission (lets just go with it) but does not prevent it, and....I forgot why I should get this again. The sales pitch falls flat.

I don't think it's fascism to position yourself hard against reckless behavior. — Christoffer

Suppose each flight had a bouncer, like in a night club? If one raises a stink about a mask, the pilot sends back this 300 pound NFL linebacker Mr. Muscle Dude to discuss it.

Is there a problem here sir?

So what about anti-vaccers and those pushing ideas of breaking restrictions, if people follow that or if they follow their own ideas, shouldn't that be considered in the same manner as driving blindfold or getting someone else to do it? — Christoffer

Not at all.