[TimTheTinker]

> It's a great argument, so long as "rejecting a vaccine during a pandemic" meets the same moral tests as "opposing war". In fact it does not

You say this, but you don't name any criteria by which this judgment should be made.

Could you elaborate?

[ChrisLomont]

Me opposing war doesn't kill my neighbor. Me opposing the war didn't kill 800,000 people. It didn't cause lifelong suffering for millions more.

It's not hard to understand the difference.

Why do the people that accept driving on the government mandated side of the road for public safety, who accept food being cooked to government standards for public safety, who have gotten the other multiple government mandated vaccines for public safety, who don't get into fights in stores for being required to wear shoes for public safety, who don't march against government mandated building codes for public safety, and so on for literally hundreds of items, suddenly obtain "personal liberty" for this particular vaccine, which has killed more Americans than any event in history?

Because they've been fed a constant stream of chaos from the grifters milking them, grifters that mostly got the vaccine themselves.

It's amazing what culture and virtue signaling can do.

[spookthesunset]

Well, perhaps they think that none of what we are doing kept those 800,000 out of the grave. Perhaps they, rightly in their mind, think there are far worse threats out there than Covid and being asked to make such a significant sacrifice doesn’t make sense.

The fact that so many people disagree with your position seems to suggest that you might not be as correct in your thinking as you believe.

[ChrisLomont]

>The fact that so many people disagree with your position seems to suggest that you might not be as correct in your thinking as you believe.

The fact that so many of those dying right now are precisely such people, and by using up so much hospital resources, they are causing others who where responsible to suffer.

Correctness in thinking is not popularity. It's demonstrable statistical evidence.

>perhaps they think that none of what we are doing kept those 800,000 out of the grave

This is complete nonsense. There is no question whatsoever that vaccinated people are not dying at the rate unvaccinated are. I work with a decent number of medical personnel, and more importantly, can read the science.

>Perhaps they, rightly in their mind, think there are far worse threats out there than Covid and being asked to make such a significant sacrifice doesn’t make sense.

Are you claiming that the outcomes from taking the vaccine are worse than the outcomes from not taking it? Care to provide a single peer reviewed, published article that supports this?

[arrrg]

In what sense is getting a vaccination that has been administered to literally billions of people, billions of times, with no serious adverse effects a significant sacrifice?

That statement does not make sense under any possible rational interpretation.

[mythrwy]

Because it's an infringement of bodily autonomy. This is very serious to many people (myself included). I'd be more receptive to sacrifice on behalf of others if it looked like it was more effective and less performative.

"No serious adverse effects" < Nonsense. People have been injured and died from these vaccines. Perhaps you meant to say "side effects so far appear very rare"? (which I'd agree with).

If there are no serious side effects we can remove the liability protections drug companies currently enjoy right?

I do agree the vaccines work to an extent for some months. They have reduced deaths. I'm glad they exist and would encourage any vulnerable person to take them. But my risk profile is very low. My Covid experience was a short cold a week ago. And the statistics aren't showing they do a whole lot to prevent transmission.

So I won't be playing any level of Russian roulette with unneeded pharma products, even if it's a 1 in a million chance of serious issues or death.

[arrrg]

A one in a million adverse effect is not in any way serious, even if it sometimes leads to death.

This is deeply irrational and highly antisocial behavior. It it disgusting and awful. Bodily autonomy is not that important, either.

[jasonladuke0311]

> Bodily autonomy is not that important, either.

To you.

[mythrwy]

We'll have to agree to disagree on what is irrational, disgusting and anti social I suppose. Just know I feel exactly the same about your position (but wouldn't express the disgust if you hadn't brought it up first).

If bodily autonomy isn't that import rape only lasts 10 minutes so what's the harm? Nope, it's of primary importance.

Lose some weight and keep your D levels high, get vaccinated if you chose, and stop demanding that everyone engage in risky or unnecessary performative behavior to create an illusion of safety.

[ChrisLomont]

>People have been injured and died from these vaccines.

Really, how many? How many have died that didn't take it that could have?

Those honestly medically unable to take it (which is a crazy small number) compared to those that don't out of willful ignorance is a drop in the ocean.

>So I won't be playing any level of Russian roulette with unneeded pharma products, even if it's a 1 in a million chance of serious issues or death.

hahhahaha.... Right now you'll not take something you claim affects under 1 in 1 million while helping spread something that has killed 1 in 400 in the US. That's a difference by a factor of 2500. 2500 - think about that. And has likely given millions lifelong permanent damage.

You really prefer a 2500 times increased death rate, and view that as defensible for society? Really?

Now, let's look for demonstrable numbers. About 500 million doses have been given in the US last year, 206 million people fully vaccinated, many partially vaccinated. Where are the hundreds dead by your claims? There are currently (as far as I can tell on Google scholar, CDC, etc.) exactly ZERO people whose death is attributed to the vaccine.

So go ahead and show me your data.

So it's not 1 in a million - it's likely more like 1 in 100 million or even fewer that die from the vaccine. 1 in 400 die from COVID.

This clearly shows the lack of compassion, understanding, numeracy, that such arguments display.

[mythrwy]

Near as I can tell from VAERS (in the US) around 20,000 deaths have occurred following vaccination. Over-reported? Under-reported? I don't know. But deaths have occurred, so have serious heart problems (again, very rare with millions of doses administered).

In many (most?) adult cases the risk from the virus is many times greater then the _known_ risk from vaccines. No argument.

But the risk from the vaccines is not 0 and we should be clear about that. Additionally (and this is one of my main issues), the risk of allowing big pharma subscription model to be instituted by force is also not 0.

[mythrwy]

You seem to be missing the part where my taking the vaccine helps others.

Has this been quantified or is it just hand-waving? Because it's very obvious transmission is widely occurring regardless.

I've already explained how the vaccine does not help me. Was not needed.

We know short term risks exist from vaccination, we know people have died, we know that it is rare to have very serious side effects (like death). What about long term risks? More hand waving claims of "unlikely"?

The end of your post is a long way of saying "well you are dumb". Ok, whatever. If you don't want to accept rationality or have different views of human agency, it's not my business.

I've clarified my position on these vaccines. I'm glad they exist, I recommend vulnerable people take them. I don't need them and won't be taking them. Unless it can be clearly shown it would be of great benefit to others (we've already established minimal risk for myself). And that somehow taking the vaccines with immunity from previous infection already existing is needed to do that.