Are you vaccinated for Covid-19

[larry806q]

What kind of weirdos still talk about these fucking topics?

It's like having a deficient relative who talks about their puberty for decades after the fact.

The weirdo kind that cares about their fellow human beings. Those kinds of weirdos.

 

[John K]

I've had the Pfizer jab - both doses by April and a third to come in November.

I find it's odd that this seems to generate so much passion. I'm in my 70s and have asthma so I'd be mad not to have it. It's more of an issue for younger folks because the personal threat from the disease is less. There seem to be inconsistencies in the way people act though - we have a lot of people in hospital with COVID in the UK who have refused the vaccine, yet they are happily receiving anti-viral medications that have been through no more stringent testing and are just as recent and controversial as the vaccines. To be consistent should they not refuse these treatments as well? Of course they shouldn't, but it isn't coherent.

Of course there are similar issues with people who simply flock like sheep to receive the vaccines without understanding about the risks, because the pandemic has spooked a lot of us, and we aren't completely rational about it. I don't think it's easy to get objective information off the internet though because even good data has to be understood very carefully. For example we should surely ban cars and go back to using horse drawn vehicles because cars clearly kill more people on the roads every year than do horses. The fallacy here is obvious, but less so in a country that is on top of the virus and is keeping it's folks fully vaccinated - of course more people will die from the vaccines than the virus then, because no-one is catching it or is only getting mildly ill after the prevention programs have worked. It's the same with any vaccination program.

I don't think the arguments for and against having the virus vaccine are symmetric. The case for not having it is purely to do with one's own health; but the case for having it is more than that, it includes civic responsibility as well. That's because someone who catches it risks affecting other people, not just themselves, by passing it on perhaps to folks much more vulnerable than themselves, and by taking up scarce and valuable medical resources. It's a very personal decision, but I feel for me the civic responsibility is as important as protecting my own health.

<edit to correct error>

 

[ThomasJ79]

I am vaccinated and my penis has enlarged by 150%, and that’s pre-erection! My partner is VERY pLeAsEd!

thanks Pfizer!

 

[larry806q]

I know it is just more excitement than one person can tolerate to passively aggressively attack the other side...I get that. I am still of the opinion then rather name calling looking for more information could prove useful. The Monopoly documentary provides just that. If by chance anyone were to watch it as SOON as they offer a fact that you are suspicious of, stop watching and check the fact with DOCUMENTATION, not someone else's opinion. It is quite easy and not horribly time consuming.

As a very simple example. Between Vanguard and Black Rock they have 16 TRILLION U.S. dollars in investments. Does anyone on here believe either corporation has YOUR best interests at heart? Add State Street Investments and that number jumps again.

https://worldeventsandthebible.com/commentary/who-owns-the-media

You can find this information anywhere I found this site to be the most succinct.

 

[o2b]

but the case for having it is more than that, it includes civic responsibility as well. That's because someone who catches it risks affecting other people, not just themselves, by passing it on perhaps to folks much more vulnerable than themselves, and by taking up scarce and valuable medical resources. It's a very personal decision, but I feel for me the civic responsibility is as important as protecting my own health.

Folks who refuse the jab may be motivated out of a sense of civic responsibility as well.

For example, pregnant women who had the jab are miscarrying at a high rate, I believe. So some may refuse it out of concern for others, such as the unborn.

I really hate it when one's underlying motivation for one's choices is assumed.

 

[Wyote]

I know it is just more excitement than one person can tolerate to passively aggressively attack the other side...I get that.

You are creating a false enemy in your own mind.
Nobody cares.

 

[John K]

Folks who refuse the jab may be motivated out of a sense of civic responsibility as well.

For example, pregnant women who had the jab are miscarrying at a high rate, I believe. So some may refuse it out of concern for others, such as the unborn.

I really hate it when one's underlying motivation for one's choices is assumed.

But I'm not speaking for other people, I'm saying what motivates me. I'm obviously not a pregnant woman, and for me there is a civic responsibility aspect to my choice as well as one of personal health and welfare. It's not for me to suggest how other folks sort out the ethics of their choices because like I said it's a very personal one and everyone's circumstances are different.

The situation for pregnant ladies is very difficult because recent reports I've come across suggest that they are at pretty high risk of severe illness if they do catch COVID, yet it's a big step to accept medication during pregnancy if it's not both safe and essential.

I am vaccinated and my penis has enlarged by 150%, and that’s pre-erection! My partner is VERY pLeAsEd!

thanks Pfizer!

An unfortunate side effect they didn't discover till years later

Spoiler

 

[Matty]

Within 5 years everyone will have caught it at least once, if not several times. It's up to the individual and their doctor if they want or need to be vaccinated, for when they catch it.

All the moralizing, going on is just a symptom of people having a religion deficit disorder. If you personally feel the need to impose your morality onto others, I suggest you get a preacher's stole.

 

[o2b]

Hey @John K -

I guess something got lost in translation, which I think was easy to do.

The case for not having it is purely to do with one's own health; but the case for having it is more than that, it includes civic responsibility as well.

I would never have thought to interpret the above to be consistent with allowing for some of those who do not take it to base their decision not only on one's own health but with concern for the health of others.

But I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

[o2b]

All the moralizing, going on is just a symptom of people having a religion deficit disorder. If you personally feel the need to impose your morality onto others, I suggest you get a preacher's stole.

I'd love to see an example of:

1) someone moralizing here

2) Proof that said moralizing is a symptom of the person having a religion deficit disorder (whatever that is)

3) Proof that said person feels the need to impose his morality onto others

Posts like yours are games I don't play.

 

[larry806q]

You are creating a false enemy in your own mind.
Nobody cares.

1.If you didn't care you wouldn't respond.

2. Who is the false enemy?

 

[larry806q]

Within 5 years everyone will have caught it at least once, if not several times. It's up to the individual and their doctor if they want or need to be vaccinated, for when they catch it.

All the moralizing, going on is just a symptom of people having a religion deficit disorder. If you personally feel the need to impose your morality onto others, I suggest you get a preacher's stole.

You have personally talked to each person to establish that conclusion? Who are you assigning the imposition of morality? I am not familiar with a preachers stole.

 

[larry806q]

I'd love to see an example of:

1) someone moralizing here

2) Proof that said moralizing is a symptom of the person having a religion deficit disorder (whatever that is)

3) Proof that said person feels the need to impose his morality onto others

Posts like yours are games I don't play.

As I have already posted I am likewise curious of the answers.

 

[larry806q]

Hey @John K -

I guess something got lost in translation, which I think was easy to do.

The case for not having it is purely to do with one's own health; but the case for having it is more than that, it includes civic responsibility as well.

I would never have thought to interpret the above to be consistent with allowing for some of those who do not take it to base their decision not only on one's own health but with concern for the health of others.

But I stand corrected. Thanks.

Well I don't see how getting a vaccine that isn't a vaccine a civic responsibility. If it is to be argued that it is indeed a vaccine what difference does it make if other are not vaccinated? If there were to be a vaccine for herpes, I should get that vaccine so others don't get herpes?

 

[John K]

Well I don't see how getting a vaccine that isn't a vaccine a civic responsibility. If it is to be argued that it is indeed a vaccine what difference does it make if other are not vaccinated? If there were to be a vaccine for herpes, I should get that vaccine so others don't get herpes?

Of course if you believe that the vaccine medication is ineffective but carries risk then that is a different situation to mine. In the UK doctors are are pretty bolshie lot and delight in looking for ways to attack our government when they think it’s in the wrong on medical issues. If the vaccines were ineffective there would be a monumental doctor-led row here, so I accept that they are effective. What’s much harder to see is whether there are long term effects that haven’t emerged yet. But I can see plenty of effects of COVID itself and they are very nasty for a lot of people so on balance I take the position at the moment that the apparent benefits of the vaccines outweigh any potential downsides.

Again, I don’t speak for others - I’m just giving my own rationale for where I stand.

Looking at the cases made against taking the vaccines though, I do worry that they have consistently problems. They extrapolate to many other aspects of our lives that don’t get the same amount of attention. All medical treatment carries a balance of risk against benefit and it sometimes seems that the counter arguments almost imply that no new medical treatment is acceptable. I’m sure that similar arguments could have been made against the electricity supply in its early days, and many people have been killed by it over the years, but most of us accept that the benefits outweigh the ongoing risks.

In the end though the debate seems to me to come down to what people fear the most - such as catching COVID, suffering ill effects from a suspect medication, or falling prey to a con trick. There’s probably no way of resolving this except through time and events because people don’t really respond to rational case making when they are afraid. Personally, at the moment I’m far more afraid of the virus than I am of the other two so I’ll take my chances with the vaccines.

That fear needs to be handled carefully by our politicians because it spills over into potentially dangerous splits in society. If lots of folks start to be afraid of people who aren’t vaccinated for example, and vice versa, then this isn’t necessary going to end well.

 

[John K]

Hey @John K -

I guess something got lost in translation, which I think was easy to do.

The case for not having it is purely to do with one's own health; but the case for having it is more than that, it includes civic responsibility as well.

I would never have thought to interpret the above to be consistent with allowing for some of those who do not take it to base their decision not only on one's own health but with concern for the health of others.

But I stand corrected. Thanks.

You are right that there are some cases when not having the vaccine has a possible beneficial impact on others, but it's in the rather special and limited sorts of circumstances you mentioned. On the other hand, someone with symptom-less COVID can unwittingly infect by cascade a potentially unlimited number of other people at any time when the R number is above 1, so it still seems a highly unsymmetric situation to me.

But this is a position I take from a perspective that the vaccines are effective and that the risks associated with them are far outweighed by the risks of letting the virus have a free run in society. Of course as I said in another post a short time ago, if you don't accept that the vaccines are effective, then of course that leads to a different conclusion.

These things are hardly ever all black or all white and the vaccines won't be perfect, even if they are effective. If they are harmful, they will only be very marginally so. There is in fact an insurance type of argument for being vaccinated even if you don't believe in them - that's because even the most di-hard rejection has to accept the possibility that they might be effective, and the probability is that they are only harmful to a very small degree. So what's to lose by being vaccinated, and it might be of great benefit? It's like we buy insurance - we can spend a lot of money on that over our lifetimes that we could have used on other things, all the time hoping that it's never actually needed. We take similar risks every time we go out in a car, often for not very compelling reasons.

 

[o2b]

You are right that there are some cases when not having the vaccine has a possible beneficial impact on others, but it's in the rather special and limited sorts of circumstances you mentioned.

If they are harmful, they will only be very marginally so.

Hey @John K, just to parse two separate things. One is your perception of things and another is another's perception of things. And of course if broaching another person's motives that is reliant on his perception and not one's own.

For example, my perception of things is that the jabs are extremely harmful and much more so than marginally so and therefore I have a much different perception of what constitutes civic responsibility, as an example.

As always, I appreciate your tone (seriously).

 

[John K]

Hey @John K, just to parse two separate things. One is your perception of things and another is another's perception of things. And of course if broaching another person's motives that is reliant on his perception and not one's own.

For example, my perception of things is that the jabs are extremely harmful and much more so than marginally so and therefore I have a much different perception of what constitutes civic responsibility, as an example.

As always, I appreciate your tone (seriously).

Of course - that's why I'm making it very clear that I'm only giving my own personal perspective. I only replied to this thread after someone commented that the recent discussion was mainly that of those opposed to vaccination. My own direct experience from people I know, as well as myself and my wife, is that the disease is far more harmful than the vaccines, but of course that's based on what I am exposed to and experience in everyday life.

If you fear the vaccine more than COVID, and have experience that backs this up, then of course you will obviously avoid it, and that is a perfectly understandable position.

What is your take on the new antiviral treatments that are getting a good press recently for people who have actually caught the illness - would you refuse those as well? I've not heard anything said about them with the same weight of passion as the vaccines generate, but they must carry the same doubts about their safety too.

 

[Matty]

I'd love to see an example of:

1) someone moralizing here

2) Proof that said moralizing is a symptom of the person having a religion deficit disorder (whatever that is)

3) Proof that said person feels the need to impose his morality onto others

Posts like yours are games I don't play.

Grow up. Assigning the quality of good/bad or right/wrong to people's vaccination choices is moralizing.

As for what you'd like to see, that's really your responsibility, not mine. Think and talk like an adult, and you'll get adult responses.

 

[o2b]

Grow up. Assigning the quality of good/bad or right/wrong to people's vaccination choices is moralizing.

As for what you'd like to see, that's really your responsibility, not mine. Think and talk like an adult, and you'll get adult responses.

moralizing
noun
1. A moral reflection; a moralization. Also spelled moralising.
2. The behaviour of one who moralizes.
3. indulgence in moral pronouncements; the exposition (often superficially) of a particular moral code

I profess a Christian belief system and the Good Book has the following text: The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

While I sense I have experienced some character change, I personally must assume my heart is deceitful and I do not know much of it. So I cannot insist I am not doing as you assert. I also cannot insist that I am. I haven't a clue.

@larry806q wrote:
The weirdo kind that cares about their fellow human beings. Those kinds of weirdos.

I honestly believe the covid nightmare may be the most horrible thing ever foisted on this planet and millions will likely die due to the jab so I do know one motive I have. It is an intense concern for humanity.

I continue to see that you made unfounded critical assertions.

And here you add to that. (Grow up and I do not think or talk like an adult.)

You can attempt to justify that allegation, but don't bother on my account.