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. — Book273

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. mRNA vaccine is not the same as that vaccine, which was my point. The disease is also different. Covid is extremely worse than the swine flu. But you conclude that because of your anecdotal fallacy they are the same disease and the same kind of vaccine. Lack of logic reasoning... again.

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! — Book273

They are a potential risk for others. If they, through their stupidity, risk other people's health or even cause death, I think we need to protect society from their behavior. It's about protecting people from dangerous behaviors and reckless acts. I don't see them as evil, they are just morons who need to be restricted in order to protect others. Freedom of speech for them is not the same as a practical reality. Sitting in a parked car with a blindfold is not the same as driving with a blindfold.

So what's your point?

It is unfortunate that humans appear to be truly unable to accept each other's choices without railing against them. — Book273

Choices that affect yourself or don't risk other people's health or lives are not the problem here. It's when choices and acts risk other people's health or even cause them death. That you are unable to understand this simple difference is mindblowing and a foundation to your lack of logical reasoning.

being vaccinated does not prevent catching Covid, or prevent spreading Covid eh. It reduces the severity of the illness, and may reduce transmission — Book273

In that sentence, you say that it does not prevent spreading Covid, but in the same sentence, you say that it may reduce transmission. In the same fucking sentence. Good job logic brain, you are truly educated!

So the vaccine has unknown long term side effects — Book273

That phrase positions there to be unknown long-term side effects. There are no data to suggest any of that. You cannot deduce such a conclusion. And then there's the fact that Covid has documented long-term side effects, maybe you should add that to your risk assessment.

decreases transmission (lets just go with it) but does not prevent it — Book273

If it lowers the transmission, it lowers the R0 rate, so it helps prevent spread. Even if it doesn't block it, it prevents a lot of it, the more people who get vaccinated. It looks like you don't even understand what you are talking about yourself. Do you know what a black and white fallacy is? Lowering transmission rates lowers the spread rate, it doesn't have to be either blocking spread or not blocking to be effective in creating herd immunity.

The mask thing for airlines I am fine with. You want to fly, you play by their rules. Fair enough.

The vaccine thing I disagree with. There is no way to determine who is vaccinated and who isn't, who can be but chooses not to and who can't be (for whatever reason) but would if they could, without requiring everyone to share way too much personal information. Sure some people won't mind, others won't care, but many will object, and I feel that they should be respected when they say "I should not have to tell you that."

I like Florida's position: $5000.00 fine for any business requiring vaccination information from customers. Just awesome.

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. — Christoffer

Any evidence that contradicts your position you deem irrelevant. Just pathetic.

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. — Foghorn

Careful, the Karen might infect Mr Muscle Dude and the surrounding ten passengers. Better to just send in the hazard team and bubble-boy Karen as quarantine (also lowers the volume of her "opinions" about free speech)

The vaccine thing I disagree with. — Book273

Read my post again. I already agreed that it's up to each person to decide for themselves on the vaccine. If they were smart they'd get it, but it should be legal to be stupid.

You do not know the long term effects of it, no one does, not even those that make it. — Book273

https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects

History tells us that severe side effects are extremely rare, and if they if do occur, they usually happen within the first two months.

...

COVID-19 vaccine technologies have been studied for years and used in other treatments without issue.

We also don't know the long term effects of Covid. — Book273

We know in the short term it can cause sickness, hospitalisations, and deaths – at a rate higher than any known side effects from the vaccine.

I like Florida's position: $5000.00 fine for any business requiring vaccination information from customers. — Book273

You're arguing with yourself here. You agreed that the customer must comply with airline regulations, but then change your position in regards to all other businesses.

The mask thing for airlines I am fine with. You want to fly, you play by their rules. Fair enough. — Book273

You live in a society, you play by their rules. If you don't live in society, you can do whatever. Same logic.
You risk people on the plane, you risk people in society. Same logic. Get it?

I like Florida's position: $5000.00 fine for any business requiring vaccination information from customers. Just awesome. — Book273

Why is that awesome? If you are to interact with people and knowing who's vaccinated makes it safer to conduct business, it should be perfectly fine to ask about that information. Why is this a bad thing? They risk other people's health and therefore such information is a good way to make things safer.

Any evidence that contradicts your position you deem irrelevant. Just pathetic. — Book273

It's an anecdotal fallacy you philosophical illiterate. You are on a philosophy forum and you can't even understand basic fallacies. Fucking moron. I even linked to a description of what anecdotal fallacy means and you still react like this.

I'm still wondering what moderators mean by "low-quality" posts. I guess I'll never find out.

Vaccine information is medical information, that makes it none of your business. Wear a mask if you want to fly, fair enough. Come to my country and you need to have your yellow fever vaccine. Sure, it's your country. Want to buy a cheeseburger, show me your vaccine history: WTF?

We know in the short term it can cause sickness, hospitalisations, and deaths – at a rate higher than any known side effects from the vaccine. — Michael

It can also create a total loss of smell and taste, distorted smell and taste that could be permanent. It can cause exhaustion that lasts for months, some speculate years. Damage to the lungs can be permanent, meaning they will likely not give you enough oxygen until fully healed, which might never happen due to scarring of the tissue. Damage to the heart that poses a higher risk of heart disease in the future...

I can go on, there's a long list of potential and direct side effects after recovery that are extreme and way worse than anything ever reported about the vaccines.

Vaccine information is medical information, that makes it none of your business — Book273

If you wish to have a debate, you will have to first find someone who hasn't already expressed support for your position.

life isn't safe eh. We all die. Adjust. I disagree with getting the vaccine, at least right now. I don't buy into the sales pitch. A lot of us that work in healthcare don't, no matter how much that may shock you. At the end of the day I am very glad you don't make the rules I have to live by.

By the same logic why are people not against alcohol and cigarettes in public?
@Christoffer @Book273 @Foghorn

worse than anything ever reported about the vaccines — Christoffer

So far. Give it a few years eh. Let me know then.

Come to my country and you need to have your yellow fever vaccine. Sure, it's your country. — Book273

The country you live in also demands things of you as a citizen. Just because it's your country doesn't mean it's yours. They can demand that you get the vaccine and fine you whatever you want if you don't. Don't like, move to a country that give you some other freedoms or vote for those who will give you that freedom. But bitching about things because you don't like them is not giving you the right to dismiss them in the society you live in. You are not the king, you are an irrelevant speck compared to a whole nation.

Want to buy a cheeseburger, show me your vaccine history: WTF? — Book273

Why not, if you are to sit in-doors with a lot of other people and eat your cheese burger, you are a potential risk to others if you aren't vaccinated. So making sure everyone in-doors are vaccinated is a valid thing to make sure.

You cannot argue around the fact that unvaccinated people pose a risk to others. Even if the transmission is lowered and the spread rate is maybe only 50% lower, it's still enough to warrant vaccines for people that get boxed into a room with others.

Your right to not get the vaccine is not giving you the right to be close to others in public spaces. In public among other people, your rights are based on how you exist in relation to the group, if you pose a risk towards them, then you don't have any rights to do whatever you want. This is basic logic.

life isn't safe eh. We all die. Adjust. — Book273

This means nothing in this context.

A lot of us that work in healthcare don't, no matter how much that may shock you. At the end of the day I am very glad you don't make the rules I have to live by. — Book273

So you work in healthcare and don't get the vaccine. This is seriously getting dangerous in my opinion. If you work in healthcare, you work close to people who might be open to serious harm or death if they get infected. You don't care about restrictions and you don't care about getting vaccinated. This is almost up for us to report you as a danger in society as your opinion, just like my example with the blindfolded driver, has been put into practice (driving blindfolded).

I would urge you not to work with what you do if you don't care about restrictions or getting the vaccine. I'm dead fucking serious here, you are a potential health risk for real.

So far. Give it a few years eh. Let me know then. — Book273

Maybe you should check in on people with long-term covid complications. We know these exist, there's zero evidence of any long-term vaccine side effects. You compare something that will actually exist in the future with something that might exist in the future as long as everything goes according to what you say.

By the same logic why are people not against alcohol and cigarettes in public? — Trinidad

Smoking has been banned in many public spaces, so the logic applies. And alcohol is also banned in public spaces, while not affecting others as much, any dangerous act upon intoxications is a crime. So the logic holds fine.

@Christoffer Where I live alcohol is not banned in public.
In fact people drink together in pubs! And cigarettes are only disallowed in confined spaces.
And what of people who drink and smoke in groups together inside? Is that considered acceptable health risk?

In fact people drink together in pubs! And cigarettes are only disallowed in confined spaces. — Trinidad

Well, exactly, we are talking in public right? Not specific locations for the purpose. It's still illegal to drink alcohol in many public spaces, nowhere did we mention pubs here. And smoking in public is sometimes prohibited outside certain shops or restaurants.

My point is, there are definitely regulations surrounding smoking and alcohol that are based on how those things affect other people. There are no restrictions on how they affect the user. This is probably how it should be. As long as you don't harm or pose danger to others, it's ok.

So in the case of restrictions and vaccines surrounding the pandemic. If you don't pose a danger to others, it's fine. If you don't get the vaccine, fine. But if you go out, unvaccinated into public spaces, and pose a risk of them getting infected, then that should be restricted.

That people get confused about what moral rights to have when A) affecting yourself, compared to B) affecting others, is pretty mind-blowing. You affect yourself, fine, do whatever - affect others, get in line and follow the law, restrictions, and rules of society. That's what society is. Anyone who thinks they are above society and doesn't need to follow what is collectively agreed on is either fine to move somewhere else, isolate themselves, or face the consequences of breaking against these things.

It's like the most basic form of ethical logic here, and I don't understand how on a philosophy forum this logic is misunderstood or downright not getting through the skull of some.

@Christoffer You've missed the point entirely.
You are suggesting the unvaccinated to stay home?
Yet drinkers and smokers do go out together and congregate together. People can decide themselves about the alleged risks of certain activities.
If you follow your paranoid logic there are risks in old people driving,crossing the road,air travel,etc,etc.
When it comes to morality many of us don't take lectures or orders from authoritarian or paranoid types.
If your soo scared or worried,you stay home.
Funny,I thought vaccines protected you,so what you worried about?

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. — Christoffer

When there were multiple other vaccines in the rollout. That's not what we're talking about here: Janus' idea is that we should stop that rollout altogether and go a whole new route with under-tested medicine.

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. — Janus

Irrespective, it's proposed application to Covid is new. Stopping an already successful vaccine rollout to try a whole new approach that maybe would work would be nuts.

You are suggesting the unvaccinated to stay home?
Yet drinkers and smokers do go out together and congregate together. People can decide themselves about the alleged risks of certain activities. — Trinidad

Someone smoking in the proximity of others is not at direct risk of getting sick. An unvaccinated person who carries the virus can infect and hurt or kill other people at that very instant.

People can clearly not decide or understand the risks in this pandemic. How else do you think people have gotten sick and died? Do you think it just magically happen?

Unvaccinated people should follow the restrictions and regulations that we have to battle the pandemic. Until they are vaccinated there's no going around this fact. And because some people can't get the vaccine due to things like allergies, if an unvaccinated person just don't give a shit and walk out into the public and infect one of these people, that is a direct consequence of their action to disregard the restrictions set in place to block the spread.

To compare this to drinkers and smokers in how that would affect others is really not the same thing. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about this? If you don't care about the actions set in place to battle the virus and you disregard it all and go out into a crowd, all it takes is a cough or even talking to another person too close. If that person gets complications from the virus, it's either death or damage that could be permanent, like the scar tissue people reportedly some patients have got on their lungs. Do you really mean that smoking and drinking are in any shape or form comparable to this? Seriously?

@Christoffer I will be Frank. You are a scaremongerer.
You have swallowed the government and media narratives to a tee.
Answer me this,in what previous time did we ever social distance or wear masks to prevent colds?
Yet we still here and i have zero fear of covid.
This whole corona fiasco is an IQ and paranoia test.

I will be Frank. You are a scaremongerer.
You have swallowed the government and media narratives to a tee. — Trinidad

In what way? People are burning bodies in India, a relative of mine died and the statistics are through the roof about people dying even when we have restrictions in place. What the fuck do you think would happen if we didn't have any restrictions or countermeasures in place? Seriously, you don't know what is going on? Do you think this pandemic is some conspiracy narrative by the government? What proof do you have of that? What kind of reasoning are you doing to conclude it to be so?

Answer me this,in what previous time did we ever social distance or wear masks to prevent colds? — Trinidad

It's not a common cold you stupid fuck. I give up, I don't know why you are on this forum and I don't understand how moderators tolerate this level of low-quality posts.

@Christoffer So Sweden and all the States that are fully open are chimeras hey?
Your just ranting.
If you trust your media and government then lock yourself in buddy.

A person is not a statistic.
— baker
The safety of the vaccine though is. — Fooloso4

I'm talking about persons.

For the person who ends up with bad side effects, it does not matter if they are in the statistical minority.
— baker
All drugs potentially have bad side effects. It is a matter of risk/benefit analysis.

In that case, for a particular person, the probabilities can only be calculated theoretically, not empirically. Which makes for a lot less optimistic numbers.

More importantly, people don't make decisions based on a risk/benefit analysis, but based on their values, ie. what they consider important.

That is not the way medicine works.
Then why talk about it this way, as if it does work that way?
— baker
You have misunderstood what it means for a drug to be safe and effective.

Always blame the person, eh?

You could say that bleach is "safe and effective" -- provided one is a flat glass surface.

Medicine is ignoring the very people it is supposed to help.

Still, medical lays are being fooled by the medical system there is such a thing as "informed consent".
— baker
Informed consent is not all or nothing. — Fooloso4

What do you mean?

then why not have them decide about medications, including experimental ones?
— baker
This is all regulated by agencies such as the FDA.
Political considerations include such things as freedom and compliance.

I'm talking about the discriminatory practices that are already taking place: such as being required to get vaccinated, or else get fired. The foundation of such discriminatory practices would need to be legalized, but it isn't.

You state this as if it is a fact. It is not. How effective it is at preventing the spread of the virus is still under review. One thing is clear, where vaccination rates are high covid rates have decreased significantly. — Fooloso4

It doesn't matter. As long as it is possible that one ends up with a stroke and paralyzed and homeless after getting vaccinated, this is all that matters to one.

You probably wouldn't understand. Those who sign a blank check for an amount up to and including their lives don't always pretend to know better than those they are willing to follow. You can end up getting killed in a righteous war against Nazis, or you can end up getting killed in some BS war for the MIC or oil or whatever. The sacrifice and the honor is in the signing; not in the motives of those who send you. You don't get to decide policy. Once signed, you let people like Baker protest the war in the rear with the gear and say things like "war is dangerous."

I chose to follow the advice of people and institutions who I trust know more than "Baker" on the internet. After all, Baker hasn't devoted his life to the study of infectious diseases, vaccines, and this new product. Instead, he/she reads shit, tries to make him/herself informed, and ends up thinking he/she knows better.

People like Baker seem to think they are entitled to 100% safety guarantees in life. I imagine they spend a great deal of time hiding under the bed. — James Riley

Making sure to keep the discourse ever so superficial, eh?

but choosing to refuse a vaccine and then socialize normally during a pandemic is a reckless act. — Christoffer

Who's advocating 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. — Christoffer

Actually, it must be great to feel so confident that luck is on one's side. Getting the vaccine, thinking, "Oh, surely I'm so great and so lucky that I will not get the side effects!"

That people get confused about what moral rights to have when A) affecting yourself, compared to B) affecting others, is pretty mind-blowing. You affect yourself, fine, do whatever - affect others, get in line and follow the law, restrictions, and rules of society. That's what society is. Anyone who thinks they are above society and doesn't need to follow what is collectively agreed on is either fine to move somewhere else, isolate themselves, or face the consequences of breaking against these things.

It's like the most basic form of ethical logic here, and I don't understand how on a philosophy forum this logic is misunderstood or downright not getting through the skull of some. — Christoffer

Remember, the Iron Lady said there is no society.

Not taking the vaccine will put a strain on communities with a lot of people in close proximity. Whatever the consequences of the vaccine, it helps fight the virus. — Christoffer

No no no. If you're so eager to talk about risks and probabilities, then you need to present the above claims in terms of probabilities, so that we get the full picture.

You say, for example "Not taking the vaccine will put a strain on communities" -- as if this were 100% certain. But is it? Calculate the probability. Otherwise, all you have is ideology.


I'm guessing that the probability of getting a bad case of covid is about the same as getting bad side effects from the covid vaccine, at least in some areas.