Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination
#61
If the vaccine works and you have gotten the vaccine, then you should have nothing to worry about.  You will probably still get Covid but the odds of you dying from it are slim.

But the ones shouting for anyone to get vaccine are also probably the same ones who fight for "my body/my choice" when it comes to women's rights.

And I am vaccinated.  My GF isn't though.  But I'm not going to force her to get it though.  

That's the nice thing about choice.  You are free to choose.  You are not free of consequence from your choice.
[-] The following 4 users Like Bayliss's post:
  • BasketballJones41, Dahlsim, embellisher, MFFL
Like Reply
#62
(10-02-2021, 12:05 PM)luka_skywalker_77 Wrote: Well, that's not really an analogous comparison and you know it. If the seat belt required you to have a substance of an experimental nature injected into your body that would theoretically save you or someone else from dying, you would have a completely different conversation. You cant compare a car's safety measure to a therapeutic similar to that of a flu shot and have it be taken seriously.

What experimental substance?  I’m talking about personal liberties and the over reach of government.  Isn’t that what this thread is about?  

By the way, big star wars fan here too.
[-] The following 1 user Likes soog's post:
  • luka_skywalker_77
Like Reply
#63
The fact that piques my interest is that 94-99% of those currently in our nation's ICU's for COVID-19 are unvaccinated.  I won't quibble over the numbers.  In my city the figure is 99.5%.  

My 11 year old grandson will go back to school one month after the vaccine becomes available to his age group and not before.

As I've told many in my area,  almost every vaccine that's administered will prove fatal to a tiny minority, temporarily sicken another relatively small group, but protect the vast majority.   

The so-called freedom issue can actually be turned around.  Those who choose not to vaccinate limit where they can work, the countries they can visit or even travel within.  My 65 year old brother-in-law, one of the fittest cowboys in our area, a man who jumped out of his work truck every day in his cowboy boots to whip the asses of his grandkids at basketball, passed away from COVID-19. . . . . . his grandkids and wife of 45 years lost their best friend, regrettably unvaccinated.  So, how 'bout the freedom to shoot hoops with grandpa for however many years he should have had left?
[-] The following 3 users Like WildArkieBoy's post:
  • jerryjohnson, LifeAquatic, StrandedOnBeauboisHill
Like Reply
#64
(10-02-2021, 12:54 PM)Bayliss Wrote: But the ones shouting for anyone to get vaccine are also probably the same ones who fight for "my body/my choice" when it comes to women's rights.

Nice false equivalence. Last I checked pregnancies aren't contagious and don't affect society as a whole.
Like Reply
#65
(10-02-2021, 10:44 AM)Halfnir Wrote: ...

Not considering these failed attempts at statistical analysis is not "shooting them down" but "exposing their flaws".

As I responded earlier, its important that you and others have the opportunity to expose flaws.  
I offered that study as just one example of the fact that medical science and opinion is far from uniform on this subject. There is a real issue with debate and expression being suppressed.  

Robert F Kennedy Jr describes in detail some of the very serious issues around vaccination rights. 
Vaccination legal issues and rights.  Immune system effects
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dahlsim's post:
  • BasketballJones41
Like Reply
#66
Covid 19 is out there killing human beings. A virus vs humanity. I'm on the side of humanity.

The virus is transmitted from person to person. There doesn't appear to be a complete cure. That means the best option is to stop the transmission of the virus from one person to another person. That's where the social distancing comes in. Stay away from each other. 

In the absence of that, don't breathe in each others faces and infect each other. That's where the masks come in. Wearing masks is imperfect. Doesn't work 100%.

The vaccine seems to be the next best thing. It, too, is not 100%. The virus still is transmitted from one person to another. Statistics are showing there are fewer deaths and hospitalizations among the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. Still, nothing is 100%

Humanity must make the best of a bad situation. If you don't want to get vaccinated, stay away from everyone else. Keeping your distance is the only thing that appears to stop the transmission of the virus. You may have the virus, but you won't transmit it to another person if you isolate yourself from everyone else.

Even the former president recommends the vaccine.

"I got the Pfizer..."
Like Reply
#67
(10-03-2021, 12:12 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: There is a real issue with debate and expression being suppressed.  


I think the bigger issue is that articles or studies like the mentioned ones are shared without looking into them. Just posting random "critical" studies or articles without even trying to look at the data or context. That´s actually the opposite of critical thinking.
People are free to voice their opinion but in this case opinions aren´t equal. We have experts, we have studies and research of different quality and we have a lot of pseudoscience. If a flawed study is used to make a case against the vaccine we are getting very close to the dreaded "Fake News" category. It´s not a good thing. It´s dangerous.

Good example: I could use the same flawed numbers that the article provided to make the opposite case. According to the data in the under 50 category 75% of deaths occured in the unvaccinated group.
[-] The following 2 users Like dirkfansince1998's post:
  • fifteenth, Jmaciscool
Like Reply
#68
(10-02-2021, 08:53 PM)RasheedsBigWhiteSpot Wrote: Nice false equivalence. Last I checked pregnancies aren't contagious and don't affect society as a whole.

I think the area of comparison was on the issue of people having control and rights over their own bodies rather than government authorities and societies being empowered to do things to your body. 

In the case of abortion, there is a moral issue around the fact that TWO bodies are involved.  The child has a body as well but because the mother is the host body the argument has been that the states interest is all about the mother.  The my body my choice movement has made this a central point. 

In this case, taking an injection into your body, there is only one body, yours.  If you buy into the argument for women's rights to choose over their own body then shouldn't everyone have the right to make choices over their own body.  LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness. 

In terms of societal effects, there are easily a thousand ways children coming into the world affect the overall society.
[-] The following 4 users Like Dahlsim's post:
  • BasketballJones41, embellisher, luka_skywalker_77, MFFL
Like Reply
#69
(10-03-2021, 07:23 AM)david75090 Wrote: ...

Even the former president recommends the vaccine.

"I got the Pfizer..."

Naturally, it was his administration that initiated the accelerated vaccine approval and timeline.  
The question of the vaccine and forced vaccinations are two distinct issues.
[-] The following 2 users Like Dahlsim's post:
  • BasketballJones41, embellisher
Like Reply
#70
(10-03-2021, 07:45 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: People are free to voice their opinion but in this case opinions aren´t equal. We have experts, we have studies and research of different quality and we have a lot of pseudoscience.

So here is the crux of the issue.  

Do you believe in free speech and freedom of expression so that even those with flawed opinions and those whose science is pseudoscience have the freedom and liberty to air their opinions, data and interpretation in the court of public opinion? 

If you don't trust and allow the people themselves to decide which arguments are flawed and which science based presentations and interpretations of studies should be believed, then WHO do you say should be telling us this is science and that is pseudoscience?  

Again, if you don't trust the people themselves to determine for themselves then who do you say should be telling society which opinions are flawed and which are not?     
That is the crux of free speech isn't it?     Free speech allows the public, the people to decide for themselves and live with those consequences.  

If you are saying some specific "experts" are designated to make these decisions for you as to what is real science then aren't you going by faith now in those you consider experts and not really examining the science vs pseudoscience claim for yourself?  

If you're talking about experts, my point has been that there are medical professionals at the highest credentialed levels that do not agree on many of the very points people are stating as facts in this thread.   I've shared here public video from just a few of the Medical Doctors and Scientists that are presenting information and pointing to studies, even though good studies are often lacking. 

 DR. Lawrence Palevsky is just one example and he himself fought through a life threatening bout with Covid before reaching his current opinions.  There many more at every level of "expert" credentialing. 
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky



Again, I am not anti-vaccine.  I go out of my way to hear all sides when there is disagreement.  
The issue here that is clear to me is that one side of the debate is being freely expressed and widely promoted while the other side is clearly being suppressed even forcibly in such a way that I have never seen it in my lifetime.  
It is impossible to square this with constitution of the United States so that is being openly violated.  President Biden himself is on record saying months ago that he and his advisors didn't think forced vaccinations would pass a constitutional test and challenge

In a free society we must not tolerate the suppression to these people and their data or ideas.  There will be and already are consequences if we do continue to tolerate.  Some of those consequences are truly severe.   

If we tolerate it we the people will be calling things science but operating by faith in those we empower to tell us what is the real science.
[-] The following 4 users Like Dahlsim's post:
  • BasketballJones41, ItsGoTime, khaled1987, SleepingHero
Like Reply
#71
(10-03-2021, 10:17 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: So here is the crux of the issue.  

Do you believe in free speech and freedom of expression so that even those with flawed opinions and those whose science is pseudoscience have the freedom and liberty to air their opinions, data and interpretation in the court of public opinion? 

If you don't trust and allow the people themselves to decide which arguments are flawed and which science based presentations and interpretations of studies should be believed, then WHO do you say should be telling us this is science and that is pseudoscience?  

Again, if you don't trust the people themselves to determine for themselves then who do you say should be telling society which opinions are flawed and which are not?     
That is the crux of free speech isn't it?     Free speech allows the public, the people to decide for themselves and live with those consequences.  

If you are saying some specific "experts" are designated to make these decisions for you as to what is real science then aren't you going by faith now in those you consider experts and not really examining the science vs pseudoscience claim for yourself?  

If you're talking about experts, my point has been that there are medical professionals at the highest credentialed levels that do not agree on many of the very points people are stating as facts in this thread.   I've shared here public video from just a few of the Medical Doctors and Scientists that are presenting information and pointing to studies, even though good studies are often lacking. 

 DR. Lawrence Palevsky is just one example and he himself fought through a life threatening bout with Covid before reaching his current opinions.  There many more at every level of "expert" credentialing. 
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky



Again, I am not anti-vaccine.  I go out of my way to hear all sides when there is disagreement.  
The issue here that is clear to me is that one side of the debate is being freely expressed and widely promoted while the other side is clearly being suppressed even forcibly in such a way that I have never seen it in my lifetime.  
It is impossible to square this with constitution of the United States so that is being openly violated.  President Biden himself is on record saying months ago that he and his advisors didn't think forced vaccinations would pass a constitutional test and challenge

In a free society we must not tolerate the suppression to these people and their data or ideas.  There will be and already are consequences if we do continue to tolerate.  Some of those consequences are truly severe.   

If we tolerate it we the people will be calling things science but operating by faith in those we empower to tell us what is the real science.

That´s the beauty of science. It comes with a review system. Cannot publish anything in a medical journey without going through the process.  It´s not one person or a group of experts. It´s a world wide network of people. I don´t claim that it is without fault but it is far more trustworthy than the personal opinion of random people or interest groups.
Problem in recent years was that bigger media outlets aren´t willing to wait. They are publishing things that are still in the review process. Especially when it comes to COVID related research.
Going back to the individual opinion and freedom discussion. If you want to listen to the people you actually have to do the work and not just accept that there are different opinions. Or to use a popular quote. Do your own research. 
If you want to go down the route you are proposing. Equally valuing every possible opinion. We might as well all live in different realities. The earth is flat. Who am I to argue that it isn´t? Someone told me that the sky is green. I think it is blue but I have to tolerate his opinion. Maybe he is right.
Where do you draw the line? Hate speech? Spreeding missinformation that endangers other people? Nowhere?
Do we have to give up on everything humanity discovered because people didn´t do their own research or can we accept certain things as facts?
[-] The following 3 users Like dirkfansince1998's post:
  • fifteenth, Jannemann2, mvossman
Like Reply
#72
Palevesky by the way is the perfect example for an opinion that shouldn´t be valued. He hasn´t done the neccesary research. He made claims without anything to back them up. Didn´t try to follow the scientific process. No peer review. Just one man spreading his views.
He already did a lot of damage with his MMR vaccine/autism theories. Now he is taking it even further.
[-] The following 1 user Likes dirkfansince1998's post:
  • Jannemann2
Like Reply
#73
(10-03-2021, 11:13 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: That´s the beauty of science. It comes with a review system. Cannot publish anything in a medical journey without going through the process.  It´s not one person or a group of experts. It´s a world wide network of people. I don´t claim that it is without fault but it is far more trustworthy than the personal opinion of random people or interest groups.


Review systems are great but as you've said yourself its far from perfect because its not immune to forces, such as political forces and financial forces that influence the reviewers.

How about let the public and each person decide for themselves which opinions are random or personal?
Freedom of expression is still the best possible safeguard to any system.  That is why oppressive governments and oppressive societies will ALWAYS attack and eliminate free speech.


(10-03-2021, 11:13 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Do your own research. 
If you want to go down the route you are proposing. Equally valuing every possible opinion.


I didn't say anything about equally valuing every possible opinion did I?  What I have said, repeatedly, is let me and each of us decide for ourselves which opinions to value and to what degree we value you them.  I asked the question, who will decide for you which opinions you should not value?

Apparently you are willing to accept the suppression of those opinions so you won't even get a chance to fully hear and evaluate them even though they involves matters of life and death!


Quote:Do your own research.

What makes you think I don't do my own research?  I think I've posted more references here than anyone and I post the dissenting views because I can clearly see they are being suppressed, banned, individuals being attacked etc. etc.

I personally know people that have had severe adverse reactions to the vaccine, to the point of healthy people that ended up in ICU and even death.  My observations are anecdotal from a science perspective but still very real in terms of personal research. 
I am not anti-vaccine because I know also many, many more people that have not had any major adverse reaction and most have no problem at all at least not yet.

The problem is if you support forcing vaccines on people, we do know for a fact at least a few will suffer severe health effects is honestly immoral.  The CDC's own government VAERS site confirms that there is a real adverse effect issue for more than a few people  At least allow people to choose for themselves so if they and their family suffer it won't be something the government and employers forced on them. 

That's one reason the free world has never forced a vaccine on the public, until now. Now you have forced vaccinations with no recourse for you or your family if things do not go well.  Does that sound moral to you?

I understand the argument that the number is small but honestly we don't know how small or large the real number is unless all those people are accurately counted, do we? 
I know for example that the adverse effects I know about, none of them are counted in anyone's statistics or studies for the vaccine. In the videos I shared there are examples such as a vaccinated CNA who has major neurological damage and she has tried to submit her case several times to be counted in VAERS.  She has gotten no response, so her case is not in the statistics.

I imagine some are not even watching linked videos but if you haven't seen any actual adverse reaction cases go to about 12 minute mark and see Shawn Skelton's story, she's a 25 year CNA.
---
Shawn Skelton Vaccination


Other doctors and lawyers and studies even have verified that the true adverse numbers are not accurately counted and therefore simply not scientifically validated.
Again, can we stop pretending this is a one sided "Science vs Dummies" issue?
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dahlsim's post:
  • BasketballJones41
Like Reply
#74
(10-03-2021, 12:32 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: Again, can we stop pretending this is a one sided "Science vs Dummies" issue?


If you are refering to Tenpenny or Palevsky as experts we can´t. Red line for me. We can end the discussion right here. They have already done enough damage.
I haven´t even argued in favor of a vaccine mandate even though as a medical worker I would absolutely support it. We can talk about the risk/reward situation in individual cases (for example pre existing conditions) but the overall data is as clear as it could be.
But I want to come back to my question. Is there a certain point where you draw a line? Is it all about me and my personal freedom and opinion or is there a certain point where the potential damage it is doing to other lifes and the society is not acceptable. Is there some kind of responsibility?
[-] The following 1 user Likes dirkfansince1998's post:
  • Jannemann2
Like Reply
#75
(10-03-2021, 12:32 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: That's one reason the free world has never forced a vaccine on the public, until now. Now you have forced vaccinations with no recourse for you or your family if things do not go well.  Does that sound moral to you?


Not true. In America it actually started with Washington himself who enforced smallpox inoculation. Some historians go as far and claim that it was the deciding factor in the war.
Always was a controversial topic (as it should be) but on a state level we have seen it. Best example would be the smallpox legislation in Massachussets. Upheld by the supreme court more than 100 years later. Other good example would be the measles outbreak in Alaska in 1976. It´s not like the mandate didn´t exist prior to it but outbreaks like this forced the government to enforce them.
We have different vaccination requirements for public schools depending on the state. And obviously requirements for certain jobs (army, medical workers...).

Not to mention other highly developed countries. In the last 100 years most of western europe enforced polio, small pox, tuberculosis and measles vaccines. Got rid of it after the diseases was completly or nearly eliminated. A lot of them still have mandates for other diseases that are comparable to the public school requirements in most states.
Like Reply
#76
(10-03-2021, 01:11 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: If you are refering to Tenpenny or Palevsky as experts we can´t. Red line for me. We can end the discussion right here. They have already done enough damage.
...


I'm not designated who are experts or who is not, I guess you do that. Is Faucci and expert for example? If so he's changed his own public positions and directions more than once so who is to say the life and death directives he offers now he won't later change but it will be too late for some people to get his updated expert guidance right?

I specifically referred to credentials and people that have various credentials and years of specialized experience. I'm not fond of the game of picking the experts. I could list here 20 doctors and medical scientists that happen to hold varying opinions from the ones stated here as though they are accepted facts.

You could in turn reject every one of them without even hearing a word they would say just on the basis of character assassination or challenges to the person rather than the argument.
Ad hominem attacks and responses do not increase the scientific nature and reliability of research or the accuracy of results, they can only really reduce and corrupt the entire inquiry.


(10-03-2021, 01:11 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: I haven´t even argued in favor of a vaccine mandate even though as a medical worker I would absolutely support it.


You do know that thousands of healthcare workers including nurses have been fired because they did not take the same position as you right? Thousands of others have only taken the position and the vaccine because they were financially pressured and forced to.

So you support forcing your peers to take mandated injections. Is is because you know they are so much less informed and intelligent than you are?


(10-03-2021, 01:11 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: We can talk about the risk/reward situation in individual cases (for example pre existing conditions) but the overall data is as clear as it could be.
Sigh. Every position you hold on the matter is invalidated right there. So clear to you must be considered clear to everyone? How could the data possibly be clear as it could be when we know literally thousands of adverse cases are not counted so how is it you know the clear data?
Seriously your research has to be very one sided to make that statement.

Putting aside adverse reactions, do you recognize how many studies have not been done or only have small samples sizes because the urgency and speed of implementation?
Do you recognize how many possible long term effects of the vaccinations are simply not knowable yet because there hasn't been time for long term studies yet?

Have you researched some of the complaints and studies that have been put forth for example concerning potential adverse effects on pregnant women and the reports of miscarriages?
Again I'm not saying I know these issues to be valid but to say the data is clear as it could be is serious absurdity and its scary that clearly intelligent citizens such as yourself are carrying that water.

(10-03-2021, 01:11 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Is there a certain point where you draw a line? Is it all about me and my personal freedom and opinion or is there a certain point where the potential damage it is doing to other lifes and the society is not acceptable. Is there some kind of responsibility?


Of course. We all in a civil society and community have a responsibility to not only ourselves but to the good of the entire community we belong to.
I am simply saying that for you or anyone else to support and implement a forced injection into people's bodies then write off let's just say thousands that suffer severe consequences as "hey its for the good of the whole" is maybe being well meaning but is in fact irresponsible.

This is especially true when all the data and effects of the injection are absolutely not clear or incomplete at this time. The line is drawn at a choice for people to make over their own bodies.
The line is not drawn to surrender citizens bodies to societal pressure, financial coercion and government mandates.

Encourage and educate your fellow citizens so they can make their own informed decisions for their good and the good of the whole. Let them hear all the information they are willing to research for themselves then decide. Do you have a problem with that?
[-] The following 2 users Like Dahlsim's post:
  • BasketballJones41, embellisher
Like Reply
#77
(10-03-2021, 01:39 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: Not true. In America it actually started with Washington himself who enforced smallpox inoculation. Some historians go as far and claim that it was the deciding factor in the war.
Always was a controversial topic (as it should be) but on a state level we have seen it. Best example would be the smallpox legislation in Massachussets. Upheld by the supreme court more than 100 years later. Other good example would be the measles outbreak in Alaska in 1976. It´s not like the mandate didn´t exist prior to it but outbreaks like this forced the government to enforce them.
We have different vaccination requirements for public schools depending on the state. And obviously requirements for certain jobs (army, medical workers...).

Not to mention other highly developed countries. In the last 100 years most of western europe enforced polio, small pox, tuberculosis and measles vaccines. Got rid of it after the diseases was completly or nearly eliminated. A lot of them still have mandates for other diseases that are comparable to the public school requirements in most states.

Point taken @"dirkfansince1998".  I should have more carefully stated in terms of clearly defining a vaccine mandate versus a forced vaccination

https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-va...reme-court 

Quote:But while the Cambridge vaccine order was compulsory, it wasn’t a “forced” vaccination. People like Jacobson who refused to get vaccinated faced a $5 fine, the equivalent of nearly $150 today. On July 17, 1902, Dr. Spencer issued a criminal complaint against Jacobson and other anti-vaccine activists to collect that $5 fine.


The fine and the reasonable test are critical ideas here.  A relatively small fine is very different for example from depriving a person of their means of living entirely.  The very definition of government overreach.  

Put this all in the context of the vaccine debate itself, i.e. there is significant debate from the medical community as to whether this qualifies as a real vaccine since many vaccinated people still get the disease and vaccinated people can still spread the disease.    

Combine measures that clearly more than reasonable fines, with the speed to market of the vaccine, the fact that significant numbers of medical professionals and scientists question the degree of safety and the long term safety of the vaccine combined with the suppression of debate across the society and you have a recipe for a potential disaster for many citizens as well a precedent of completely surrendering to the government, your rights over your own body. 

It exacerbates the issue to take a precedent setting $5 fine mandate and put that forth that an excuse to deprive people of life and liberty forcibly. 

Quote:But in a reversal, the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 against broadly applying the logic of Jacobson to all COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. In Roman Catholic Diocese Of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, the Court decided that the State of New York violated the constitutional rights of citizens wanting to safely gather in churches and synagogues during the pandemic. The reasoning was that the lockdown laws barred religious gatherings altogether while still allowing secular business to operate at limited capacity.

Jacobson hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch for the 5-4 majority. “That decision involved an entirely different mode of analysis, an entirely different right, and an entirely different kind of restriction.
Like Reply
#78
(10-03-2021, 01:57 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: I could list here 20 doctors and medical scientists that happen to hold varying opinions from the ones stated here as though they are accepted facts. 


So far you have listed a woman that links COVID cases to 5G and one of the main protagonists of the vaccination/autism theory. Neither is willing or able to provide any prove. Both made a lot of money with it.


(10-03-2021, 01:57 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: I'm not designated who are experts or who is not, I guess you do that.  Is Faucci and expert for example?  If so he's changed his own public positions and directions more than once so who is to say the life and death directives he offers now he won't later change but it will be too late for some people to get his updated expert guidance right?


Faucci is an expert and thanks to the already mentioned scientific process we are learning more and more about the virus, potential treatments and vaccines. What you don´t seem to understand is that what Fauci is saying isn´t even his own opinion (might be). It´s the work of 1000s of scientists from all over the world. Leading to guidelines and advise. He isn´t making any political decisions himself.
Please give me a quote where Fauci gives potential harmful advise. Only questionable statement came early in the pandemic when the US tried to avoid a mask shortage.


(10-03-2021, 01:57 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: You do know that thousands of healthcare workers including nurses have been fired because they did not take the same position as you right? Thousands of others have only taken the position and the vaccine because they were financially pressured and forced to.

So you support forcing your peers to take mandated injections.  Is is because you know they are so much less informed and intelligent than you are?



I do know that some lost their job. I also know that a lot of them died. I also know that many more support a vaccine mandate because they feel that it would make the job safer and easier. Would love to have a mandate for health care workers in Germany. Personally I can tell you a lot about the work with immune suppressed patients during a pandemic. How far most of my collegues and me were willing to go to prevent a potential infection and spreeding it in the hospital. Don´t think that is any different in other hospitals. At least I hope so.


(10-03-2021, 01:57 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: Sigh.  Every position you hold on the matter is invalidated right there.  So clear to you must be considered clear to everyone?  How could the data possibly be clear as it could be when we know literally thousands of adverse cases are not counted so how is it you know the clear data?
Seriously your research has to be very one sided to make that statement.

Putting aside adverse reactions, do you recognize how many studies have not been done or only have small samples sizes because the urgency and speed of implementation? 
Do you recognize how many possible long term effects of the vaccinations are simply not knowable yet because there hasn't been time for long term studies yet? 

Have you researched some of the complaints and studies that have been put forth for example concerning potential adverse effects on pregnant women and the reports of miscarriages?
Again I'm not saying I know these issues to be valid but to say the data is clear as it could be is serious absurdity and its scary that clearly intelligent citizens such as yourself are carrying that water.


Not sure how to respond. Concerns like this might have been valid in december or january. At this point the sample size isn´t small. 6.3 billion doses. 2.7 billion fully vaccinated. We know about complications that can appear shortly after the jab and the potential risk groups. Even in those cases the risk to suffer longterm health problems is a lot higher in case of a COVID infection most of the time. That´s why most "at risk" patience are still advised to take the shot.
If you are waiting for some unknown longterm effects even though the vaccine itself already left the body at max weeks after the shot I am not sure what you are expecting.

You are doing the same stuff all over again. Come up with some random he said/ she said, what about this or that. What about pregnant women?
As far as the data goes the miscarriage rate among vaccinated women is right in line with the general population. No anomalies. (UK, US). Yes miscarriages happen but there is no evidence that the vaccine itself increases the risk.


(10-03-2021, 01:57 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: Of course.  We all in a civil society and community have a responsibility to not only ourselves but to the good of the entire community we belong to. 
I am simply saying that for you or anyone else to support and implement a forced injection into people's bodies then write off let's just say thousands that suffer severe consequences as "hey its for the good of the whole" is maybe being well meaning but is in fact irresponsible.

This is especially true when all the data and effects of the injection are absolutely not clear or incomplete at this time. The line is drawn at a choice for people to make over their own bodies.
The line is not drawn to surrender citizens bodies to societal pressure, financial coercion and government mandates.

Encourage and educate your fellow citizens so they can make their own informed decisions for their good and the good of the whole.  Let them hear all the information they are willing to research for themselves then decide. Do you have a problem with that?



Other countries are doing fine without mandates. For whatever reason their population is more willing to accept the vaccine as a result they can move on and "go back to normal". Prime examples would be Portugal and Denmark.
Question is why other countries like the US, UK or Germany are struggling to get over the threshold. Might have something to do with cultural differences. Including the views on personal freedom/opinion or trust in the political system.
As I already stated. I am all for freedom/opinion as long as it doesn´t endanger others. I guess the main difference between our opinions is where I draw the line. People that are actively spreeding misinformation about the virus or the vaccine. You are thinking about a small group of people that might suffer from vaccine complications. I am just as  concerned about a bigger group that might suffer because they refused to take the vaccine. And even worse is also endangering others because they are more likely to spread the virus.

If people want to do their own research I am all for it but the way it is happening right now is clearly not working. Twitter, youtube and other media platforms are not the way to go.

Matter of fact. A basketball board is probably one of the worst possible places.
[-] The following 5 users Like dirkfansince1998's post:
  • fifteenth, Jannemann2, jerryjohnson, LifeAquatic, mvossman
Like Reply
#79
@"dirkfansince1998", thanks

Great job of presenting straight forward explanations, advocating for peer reviewed research and calmly pointing out logical fallacies while not descending into youtube comment section style flame throwing matches.
Like Reply
#80
One thing that hasn't received much attention since this topic got stirred up again by the Mavs' attendance requirements: the Mavs aren't requiring vaccination for entry. You can either show proof of vaccination OR a recent negative test. 

IMO, the inclusion of the ability to show a negative test takes this discussion completely outside of the "The Mavs are wrong to try and make me...." conversation. Having to show a negative test for entry into a large gathering makes so much sense.
[-] The following 1 user Likes fifteenth's post:
  • Dahlsim
Like Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)