[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.

[ChrisLomont]

>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).

That number seems to be nonsense [0]. Since the VAERS data is on the CDC site, care to show me the real number? It looks like this claim is QAnon nonsense.

Do you understand what VAERS is? It is an adverse effect, death, from ANY reason, following someone taking a vaccine. The reason is to LOOK for things caused by vaccines by follow-up investigations. A VAERS deaths is not a death caused by a vaccine; it is a possibility.

So far, ZERO of them, count it, ZERO have been shown to be from the COVID vaccine. Here's another take [3] on the actual VAERS data: "no evidence has established that a COVID-19 vaccine authorized in the U.S. caused any deaths".

If someone is old, takes the vaccine, and dies from old age. That is a VAERS death. Given that about 400,000 people die a year from old age, many of them are going to be VAERS entries. It's the followup studies that determine if there is any issue caused by COVID vaccines, and so far, there simply is not.

Here [1] are the VAERS reports for the past 21 years. Go ahead and read about before you make such goofy assumptions. I'm pretty sure the COVID vaccine wasn't killing people in 2002. Here's [2] an overview of the VAERS program. First page, in bold, so people don't do what you are doing: "a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event".

Read that again: "a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event".

Now, please show me the report, study, publication (not some rando website or youtube video), that has shown these deaths to be caused be the COVID vaccine, because there just isn't the evidence.

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

So why subject yourself, your loved ones, those around you, and your community to the "many times" greater risk? I honestly don't understand how someone could believe they're putting so many at risk for such severe consequences and simply continue to do it. The death and destruction is obvious. Go to your local funeral parlor and ask them about it, if it's real, and watch some families come through, and see how many are glad they exercised bodily autonomy. That should be a sobering experiment.

And the risk of transmitting it to others, the risk from straining the medical system so others that need help for other things, vastly increases as the unvaccinated spread the disease more and more, is completely immoral. Just because the unvaccinated don't see the deaths and destruction don't mean they're not contributing through ignorance and self-absorption.

I'm pretty sure we're done here. You've obviously believed a lot of bad sources of information, and have posted a decent amount of super easily disproven stuff. I've found it's not generally worth the time to unwind someone from this, since it takes so long for someone to get into this state. You are the rare one that also seems to believe that vaccination has vastly better outcomes than not being vaccinated, yet still refuse it, which is odd.

I would recommend you find higher quality information sources to base your beliefs on - start with things rated as unbiased as possible, like Reuters, and completely avoid crap like youtube, facebook, tiktok, or any of the zillion fringe sites designed to suck people into a cycle of chaos and fear.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid19-vaers/fact...

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/...

[3] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/sep/20/facebook-p...

[mythrwy]

How public forums work is each person can chose to participate or not.

What that means is you can determine when you are "done here". You don't determine when "I am done here" (unless you somehow control access). It's a lazy attempt to shut things down and have the last word so as to appear correct.

You point to a fact checker, a "trusted news source" for one month, that says the number of deaths claimed for the month is not exact and say "see, not proved". I'm sorry that is very weak.

There has been a massive uptick in VAERS reporting since the introduction of this series of vaccines. Massive. Now, understood these vaccines are being administered widely all at once so they may or may not be more dangerous then say, the flu vaccine. And in raw numbers, so far, the risk of taking them appears very low.

But they have a risk profile. The manufactures admit it. The CDC admits it. Myocarditis has been observed. Is it unreasonable to suppose that the corresponding (very large) uptick in deaths reported in VAERS might be responsible? One would have to be willfully blind not to acknowledge that.

You never address unknown future risks. It's obvious it was unknown (or unstated) that the vaccines would only be effective for such a short time without continuous boosters and exactly how effective the vaccines would be. What else don't they know or are not saying?

You never show, nor has anyone else, that "others around me" is a valid consideration in the context of transmission. So I take them "for the common good". How long does that last? Not a year apparently.

"Straining medical system". Not on my part. That's a very weak argument. It's largely untrue in the extreme and perhaps points to larger problems with the medical system if the 500 or so people currently hospitalized (with not from Covid) in my state with a population of millions is breaking things. What other things might be "straining the medical system"? Can we start mandating on that too?

You haven't "disprove" anything as you claim, just more "you are dumb, Q nonsense" and lazy attempts to circumvent. Yes people have died from the disease no need for the emotive funeral home spiel.

You can leave off statements like "ignorance and self-absorption". You don't see me saying "scared, cowardly, unperceptive, and prone to authoritarianism".

This is apparently a highly emotional issue that makes people on all sides not be as objective as they may be in other contexts. I've made my points and don't have much else to say in this thread. I don't fault you for your point of view and assume you have good reasons for it but do not agree it's objective.

[ChrisLomont]

>Massive

I just posted the data, which you ignore. Post this "massive" increase, because, as I show next, ....

>There has been a massive uptick in VAERS reporting since the introduction of this series of vaccines.

This amuses me - you put such effort into reading the worst materials and believing them, while ignoring any good, reliable sites, or putting any thought why there might possibly be an uptick in deaths not attributable to vaccines that also shows up in VAERS....

Maybe there has been an uptick in deaths unrelated to the vaccine, say, perhaps, from the worst pandemic in 100 years? Gee, guess what. Increased deaths for ANY reason will increase deaths in VAERS.

COVID was 10% of deaths in 2020. That is a large increase, so large, that life expectancy dropped. It's a category that did not exist in 2019. The US death rate soared 17% in 2020, with no vaccines, leading to, you guessed it, a ~20% increase in VAERS deaths, because the underlying population is also dying.

Before the vaccine. Yet you are happy to put the blame on a vaccine that had not been invented?

Same in 2021.

If you actually find the VAERS deaths, and look at the graphs (which are public) you will see no such massive uptick - there is one, which begins, you guessed it, when COVID started, not when the vaccine did.

So, again, cite a source. Because this is not true, except for tiny values of "massive"... And again you will not cite a source....

This is why it's not worth my trying to give you data - you ignore, attribute the least thought out and nonsensical claims attributable to data that is easily explained not needing such fear and doubt.

Again, any death in VAERS cannot be attributed to a vaccine until a study determines the cause. Stop making this simple reasoning mistake. It's clearly stated on the VAERS site that this is faulty reasoning, I pointed it out, and you do it again.

Seriously - why do people believe fringe sites, youtube idiots, facebook, ticktok, over the people that have put entire careers into hard science to solve precisely this type of problem?

>Myocarditis has been observed

This is the perfect example of spreading fear and doubt. Quick question: which has shown more likely to increase the chance of myocarditis: getting the vaccine or getting COVID? Hint, one has been shown in peer reviewed, vetted, published papers to have a vastly greater (over 10x) chance of leading to myocarditis. Yet you continue to recite the fear and doubt nonsense on the opposite side of what the actual evidence is. The evidence so far is not getting a vaccine leads to a higher chance of getting myocarditis by a large margin since it comes along with COVID.

Seriously - put the time into learning this stuff before you continue to spread more ignorant fear, which is exactly what such statements are. They are the opposite of reality, completely well documented, yet you must have consumed enough nonsense fear sites to repeat it without simply looking at the evidence.

I'll help you - go to google scholar, google covid myocarditis and read rates, then add the word vaccine, search again, and read the rates. Done. Now you know, and should never repeat such nonsense again. But you won't put in the work and will repeat it I am quite sure.

>attempt to shut things down and have the last word so as to appear correct.

No, it's realizing that, as I wrote, people that have worked themselves into such deluded worldviews do not change easily, so becomes worth less and les of my time the clearer it becomes such people straight up ignore well presented data. I've requested multiple times you source ANY of your claims with reputable sources, and so far, zero. I only continue since others that are not like that do learn from such discussions get better knowledge. And it's interesting to see how people rationalize behavior.

Once I realize that someone does not want to look at evidence, look at data, cite and inspect reputable sources, it is clear they are not someone who uses reason to make choices or adapt. At that point it's sometimes useful to poke them enough to anger them into looking stuff up. Or give up on them. That's the game, purely rational based on actions.

[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.