No drug is 'harmless' per se. — I like sushi
Also, what justifies the hatred and the contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers express for anyone who is in any way not enthusiastic about the vaccine? — baker
Well, I take it you're against vaccination, and such arguments you adduce ill-informed and ungrounded on the one hand, and irrational on the other - and that you persist in and insist on them. In particular it seems you deny that an authority can reasonably impose duties on citizens when justified. Assuming of course the authority is itself reasonable and well-intentioned - and perhaps where you live that is not the case, and perhaps never has been. — tim wood
Matters of public health should not be left to individual citizens to decide, simply because they are too complex for an ordinary citizen to have the proper grasp of them, and too important to be left to lay public discourse and individual decision.
The government should make a decision and make it mandatory for people to comply.
— baker
Infectuous diseases (esp. those with potentially fatal outcomes) are a matter of public health, and therefore, cannot be left to the individual to decide about. They should be regulated at least by laws, but preferrably, by the constitution.
The focus on personal choice is nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility on the individual person, releasing doctors, science, and the government from responsibility, all under the guise of "respecting the individual's right to choice".
— baker
I'm not against vaccination in general, nor against vaccination against covid in particular.
But I am against vaccinating people of unknown medical status with an experimental medication.
And I am against vaccinating people in epidemiologically unsafe conditions. At mass vaccination sites, but also in smaller vaccination settings, people often don't wear masks, or don't wear them properly, they don't social distance, disinfect. It's a perfect place to spread the virus. And this at a time that is critical for the people there: they can get infected precisely at the time when they should be most cautious and most safe. Ideally, a person should go into sufficiently long quarantene prior to vaccination and afterwards. Some will say that this is not realistic. But then we get the result: covid hospitals filling with vaccinated people. The trend is clear: as more and more people are getting vaccinated in unsafe conditions, more and more vaccinated people end up in hospitals.
— baker — baker
But this is false. Hospitals are filling with people not vaccinated, to nearly 100 percent of patients being unvaccinated, as reported in the US.But then we get the result: covid hospitals filling with vaccinated people. The trend is clear: as more and more people are getting vaccinated in unsafe conditions, more and more vaccinated people end up in hospitals. — baker
But this is false. Hospitals are filling with people not vaccinated, to nearly 100 percent of patients being unvaccinated, as reported in the US. — tim wood
Some EU countries have been trying to scare people into getting vaccinated by making it a policy to publish the daily covid numbers (infected, hospitalized, dead) along with the percentage of the unvaccinated in those numbers.
Too bad that the percentage of the fully vaccinated who get infected, hospitalized, or who die keeps growing.
Just the other day on the Croatian news, the reporter said "Of today's 18 coronavirus deaths, as much as 13 were unvaccinated". No, adding that "as much as" doesn't make it more egregious, but it does make the other number more egregious. — baker
I’m talking about bullying/forcing people into taking the vaccine. If people cannot work when they want to that is bad. — I like sushi
You have a right to refuse a vaccine, you don't have a right to infect others.
— Xtrix
I think that’s a pretty poor argument anyway. If other people have taken the vaccine then the chances of the, getting infected and dying are very very small. If the chances are not very very small then those refusing to take it have an even better reason not to take it as it wouldn’t be effective. — I like sushi
All I’m trying to do here is a make what I thought was a reasonable and common sense argument against effectively forcing people to have injections they fear and/or don’t believe in. — I like sushi
Again, this isn't about merely 'opting out'. We're talking about people who 'opt out' being marginalised based on their own personal position. We're taking about people being coerced (if 'effectively forced' is to strong for you) to take medication they don't wish to take. — I like sushi
My case is that I don't see the current threat of Covid as justifying companies/governments to prevent people from working. — I like sushi
No drug is 'harmless' per se.
— I like sushi
Then why call it "harmless"?
Also, what justifies the hatred and the contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers express for anyone who is in any way not enthusiastic about the vaccine? — baker
No. It stopped being harmless the moment the patent holder of the vaccine officially published its side effects, ranging from mild to deblitating to fatal. — baker
but the scary thing is that even if we continue (or begin) to act on these things, odds do not look good at all. — Manuel
Granted, we'll have a shot only if we try. But prospects are not good. — Manuel
I used to think that. And I agree the prospects do not look that great. But the future is unknown, and the more positive the general attitude is towards dealing with an existential threat is, the better the outcome will be. And better remains better even if the outcome might be bad from our present standpoint. If everyone just gave up and said "we're fucked", then we would be truly fucked. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.