CoWorker said the border was at fault that non-vaxed ppl are dying

[Danth]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah I mean this whole like political conspiracy theory stuff around the vaccine also makes no sense.

A lot of it doesn't, I agree.

I don't need a political conspiracy to look at what's going on and decide that I don't particularly need the shot right now. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, but I regard that as my choice to make, not Uncle Sam's. It's a near thing and the wife and I just about got the shot in March except it was shut down that day due to some snafu. I'm at elevated risk (clotting for one) of adverse reaction so some hesitation is not unwarranted. The wife has dramatically higher odds of reaction due to her own health issues to the point where her own doctor suggested she might not want to get it at all. Even then the risk is relatively minor--but the risk of death from covid is also minor. On the other hand, if folks try to force the issue, I'll fight on that principle alone. I consider that a worthy cause to fight for. I regard it as the duty of a good citizen to resist government over-reach in all its forms. This entire situation has reeked of overreach from the start.

Given the very clear over-reporting of death rate there's obviously a political angle at work with respect to this subject as well, but I can't even begin to claim to know the purpose. I don't easily adopt conspiracy theories, especially not on a global scale. Rather than some conspiracy an alternate scenario is over-reaction from governments (most of whom are run by old folks in their 60's and 70's and who hence have every right to be scared) coupled with lots of bribery from the drug producers. That's one option of many.

Danth

[Evia]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

On the other hand, if folks try to force the issue, I'll fight on that principle alone. I consider that a worthy cause to fight for. I regard it as the duty of a good citizen to resist government over-reach in all its forms. This entire situation has reeked of overreach from the start.

Danth

Major respect for people like you, Danth.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A lot of it doesn't, I agree.

I don't need a political conspiracy to look at what's going on and decide that I don't particularly need the shot right now. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, but I regard that as my choice to make, not Uncle Sam's. It's a near thing and the wife and I just about got the shot in March except it was shut down that day due to some snafu. I'm at elevated risk (clotting for one) of adverse reaction so some hesitation is not unwarranted. The wife has dramatically higher odds of reaction due to her own health issues to the point where her own doctor suggested she might not want to get it at all. Even then the risk is relatively minor--but the risk of death from covid is also minor. On the other hand, if folks try to force the issue, I'll fight on that principle alone. I consider that a worthy cause to fight for. I regard it as the duty of a good citizen to resist government over-reach in all its forms. This entire situation has reeked of overreach from the start.

Given the very clear over-reporting of death rate there's obviously a political angle at work with respect to this subject as well, but I can't even begin to claim to know the purpose. I don't easily adopt conspiracy theories, especially not on a global scale. Rather than some conspiracy an alternate scenario is over-reaction from governments (most of whom are run by old folks in their 60's and 70's and who hence have every right to be scared) coupled with lots of bribery from the drug producers. That's one option of many.

Danth

What over reporting of the death rate are you referring to specifically, Mr. antivax conspiracy theorist?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A lot of it doesn't, I agree.

I don't need a political conspiracy to look at what's going on and decide that I don't particularly need the shot right now. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, but I regard that as my choice to make, not Uncle Sam's. It's a near thing and the wife and I just about got the shot in March except it was shut down that day due to some snafu. I'm at elevated risk (clotting for one) of adverse reaction so some hesitation is not unwarranted. The wife has dramatically higher odds of reaction due to her own health issues to the point where her own doctor suggested she might not want to get it at all. Even then the risk is relatively minor--but the risk of death from covid is also minor. On the other hand, if folks try to force the issue, I'll fight on that principle alone. I consider that a worthy cause to fight for. I regard it as the duty of a good citizen to resist government over-reach in all its forms. This entire situation has reeked of overreach from the start.

Given the very clear over-reporting of death rate there's obviously a political angle at work with respect to this subject as well, but I can't even begin to claim to know the purpose. I don't easily adopt conspiracy theories, especially not on a global scale. Rather than some conspiracy an alternate scenario is over-reaction from governments (most of whom are run by old folks in their 60's and 70's and who hence have every right to be scared) coupled with lots of bribery from the drug producers. That's one option of many.

Danth

Hypothetically Danth, could you see how some sort of spreadable disease might make it so vaccinations aren't just about personal choice? In other words, could you imagine how one person's "personal choice" might result in someone else's death (say, because they spread the illness to someone with a weaker immune system)?

And if so, does that bother you at all, or are you just like "fuck other people: morals are about what's right for me"?

(Genuine question, not a judgment: it could still be a principled opinion if you, like some Libertarians for instance, believe on principle that we should only care about what's good for individuals.)

[Gatordash]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hypothetically Danth, could you see how some sort of spreadable disease might make it so vaccinations aren't just about personal choice? In other words, could you imagine how one person's "personal choice" might result in someone else's death (say, because they spread the illness to someone with a weaker immune system)?

And if so, does that bother you at all, or are you just like "fuck other people: morals are about what's right for me"?

(Genuine question, not a judgment: it could still be a principled opinion if you, like some Libertarians for instance, believe on principle that we should only care about what's good for individuals.)

I wonder if there is a correlation between those who are organ donors and those who got the vaccine, and those who aren't organ donors and those who refuse the vaccine.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Gatordash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wonder if there is a correlation between those who are organ donors and those who got the vaccine, and those who aren't organ donors and those who refuse the vaccine.

People who attend church regularly tend to donate more money to any type of cause. ... Their average donation is $2,224, while their total annual charitable giving is about $2,935. Americans who never attend religious services give less, with 50% giving to secular causes, and 12% donating to religious causes.

https://balancingeverything.com/chur...gious%20causes.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People who attend church regularly tend to donate more money to any type of cause. ... Their average donation is $2,224, while their total annual charitable giving is about $2,935. Americans who never attend religious services give less, with 50% giving to secular causes, and 12% donating to religious causes.

https://balancingeverything.com/chur...gious%20causes.

Tithes don't help anyone except the pedophiles who run every major Christian denomination.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Tithes don't help anyone except the pedophiles who run every major Christian denomination.

this is the exact sentiment of a republican who thinks taxes dont help

both



SIDES

[Evia]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hypothetically Danth, could you see how some sort of spreadable disease might make it so vaccinations aren't just about personal choice? In other words, could you imagine how one person's "personal choice" might result in someone else's death (say, because they spread the illness to someone with a weaker immune system)?

And if so, does that bother you at all, or are you just like "fuck other people: morals are about what's right for me"?

(Genuine question, not a judgment: it could still be a principled opinion if you, like some Libertarians for instance, believe on principle that we should only care about what's good for individuals.)

The thing is you’re expecting other people to subscribe to your medical beliefs. That’s the core issue. While you see vaccines as life saving and excellent preventative medicine, I see it as poison and a violation of everything I believe in. I don’t understand why you cannot take your own medicine to protect you, you need me to take it too. That’s my disconnect. By all means take whatever you want to protect you from the world, but expecting your neighbor to take your medicine too because your medicine doesn’t work unless I take it as well is completely ridiculous.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Genuine question, not a judgment

It might be a personal choice, but it's a collective right. From a philosophical perspective liberty is a very inefficient thing. How often do we see this same argument come up with, say, firearms? Gun ownership means people die who don't need to. Or take abortion, the very act of which demands human death--yet another area where liberty and safety/efficiency are at odds. Covid in the here-and-now is larger than either of those, even controlling for some over-reporting, but the issue is fundamentally the same. I accept elevated risk because I'd rather take my chances with Covid than take my chances with having liberty further whittled away. One of those things will pass in due time--even if it takes me with it--the other has a habit of becoming permanent. So I resist now so we still have our rights in the future. Don't start with "now's a bad time." It's always going to be a bad time. Seldom to never do governments whittle away rights without some sort of crisis or emergency justification. So I resist, and if it means I croak from covid, or some others who might not otherwise, then so be it. That, too, is the cost of maintaining liberty.

I don't oppose the shot in and of itself, and if the government wasn't resorting to measures I consider unacceptable (like suspending HIPAA) I'd have got it myself already, as noted above. It works both ways. You might disagree with me, but I'm no hypocrite. I've never been angry with people who didn't vaccinate against diptheria or polio or chicken pox. It's their right. Should they give me something (unlikely as it is), it's still their right. If your own body isn't your own, then what is? I've never complained about getting the flu from someone who didn't get a flu shot. I don't like it, but I like the thought of living in a totalitarian environment a whole lot less.

One grey area involves addictive drugs since they affect a person's culpability for his own actions, but this is obviously not such a case.

Danth