RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
There's an episode of My Name is Earl, where Catalina mis-sang
"The land of the free,
And the home of the slaves"
Tickled me anyway. Undeniably true, too.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mandatory Vaccinations?
- Thread starter Friend of Mara
- Start date
There's an episode of My Name is Earl, where Catalina mis-sang
"The land of the free,
And the home of the slaves"
Tickled me anyway. Undeniably true, too.
I think it's important to differentiate between vaccine hesitancy and the outright anti-vaxxers.
People may be unsure about how the vaccines were developed or how their safety was confirmed... all that's fine. I get that, and it can be addressed by discussion and sharing information.
Vaccine hesitancy is one thing. If you tell us your concerns, we can talk about them and see if we can find a way to address them. What I have a problem with are the objections that aren't sincere.
Yes, as we begin this transition reintegrating back into society, the risks are still unknown. We will deal with them as we did other risks throughout the pandemic in its prevaccination phase. Nobody knew just how much one needed to socially isolate to avoid contact with the virus if that was even possible at all, and we were as conservative as possible about interacting with other people. We're doing the same now.
It's interesting to me that you ask us to give a pass to the fears of somebody who won't take a vaccine out of fear, then seem to blame others for their concerns about the threat level he poses.
I think I've already answered this. I can't give you an absolute risk, but the unvaccinated are an order of magnitude more likely to be infected at any given time than the vaccinated. 1000 vaccinated people with a vaccine that confers 95% protection will have 1/20th as many infected people in it as 1000 unvaccinated people exposed to the same level of virus in the air. That's what that number mean: 95% means that 95% of affections won't occur because of the vaccine, and 5% will occur anyway, although the vaccine seems to guarantee that such an infection will be brief and minor. If there is still virus being transmitted throughout the community at any appreciable level, then this protection is meaningful.
Yes. That's the basic premise underlying quarantining people coming from abroad. You can't tell if they've been cautious or reckless, or what the level of infection or dominant strain was where they came from, so you just isolate them for a time based on the unknown and probability.
It's also the idea behind not wanting to be with unvaccinated people for several hours at a home dinner party.
You probably realize that the event would not be taking place at all if we didn't consider the comfort level of all of the participants. We wouldn't be offering our home as a gathering place, and two other couples would likely decline to participate. The ball is entirely in the court of the ones who chose to remain unvaccinated.
Like I said, the recommend t quarantine under various circumstances is based on exactly that - sequester those who may have COVID.
The box of interest is my community at this time. Things are certainly both better and worse in other parts of the world, but that doesn't affect my assessment of how conservative about social contact I ought to be here and now. We don't have scientific guidelines for this transition phase, and we cannot be blamed for proceeding ahead cautiously. We're comfortable being outdoors on the street in the village, going into shops, outdoor dining, and restaurant delivery, none of which we did prevaccination.
But we have drawn the line when it comes to longer indoor gatherings (of eight people inn this case) and indoor restaurant dining for now.
Do you mean that you are waiting for my answer? If so, yes, under certain circumstances, such as the one I described. The three vaccinated couples (and the fourth couple filling in for the others) agree that they don't want to spend the evening with unvaccinated people. I realize that you don't approve, but that's life these days. People are emerging from self-imposed lockdown cautiously, still wary of the virus even after vaccination, unsure that the vaccine will deliver the promised protection, but anxious to return to normalcy as much as is possible.
I don't know what you think I'm advocating. I wish that everybody who can gets vaccinated, but I know that many will not, and I don't want to be around them at a dinner party. Nor do the other guests. We're not talking about shipping anybody to concentration camps by train at night. This isn't a persecution or a genocide.
I answered the where-to-put-yourselves question earlier with wherever you are welcome, which is probably most places.
I don't believe that this is the social injustice you imply it is. You've used the word horrible a couple of times in reference to the choices we made that I described to you. I just don't see it that way.
I took my chances with the vaccine.
The people I know who died from Covid can't undo that result either.
But everyone I know has survived the vaccine with flying colors.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I took the vaccine without a second thought. I’m not anti-vaccine, I’m anti any more lockdowns, so happy to get jabbed in order to facilitate that.
My partner though, was very reluctant to get vaccinated. Perhaps I should have threatened to kick her out the house
My partner though, was very reluctant to get vaccinated. Perhaps I should have threatened to kick her out the house
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Yes. But not many vaccinated will see that. Some will feel justified shunning unvaccinated people and blame the unvaccinated for their being shunned.
You say that as if we’re talking about a fashion choice and not a response to a deadly pandemic. The reality is that people making the choice not to wear masks or get vaccinated have caused this deadly crisis to linger and has caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. So there’s a valid reason for people to shun those who have are willingly acting in ways that are dangerous to society.
You sound like someone who has made the choice to ignore red lights and stop signs when driving. And then you’re baffled as to why all of the people who choose to obey the traffic laws flip you off every time you blow through a red light.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Actually, no. Majority of people are wearing masks and even more so are vaccinated. So, the little handful that don't wear masks (not those who are against it, those who don't wear it) is small and most likely those unvaccinated even smaller. You guys have the upper hand. Cases still go up and they are quoting people still dying. It's not the material on a person's face-it really isn't.
It's not a valid reason to shun people. I can't remember if I asked you or someone else. Would you put all vaccinated people on an island, concentration camp, or trail of tears (worse case scenario to make a point) given you feel it's alright to shun people (same context-best case scenario)?
How far would you shun someone before its borderline...how to say...
No. If you're not on the road, you don't need to watch for the lights. The problem I see you having is thinking everyone has a car just because you chose to drive.
Your province? 33 hospitalizations? Can you tell me how many people under 19 in your province get hospitalised for flu related pneumonia every year? People die from pneumonia that is not Covid related.
It’s the scare tactics behind the vaccination campaign that seems to be out of perspective to me.
This vaccine is touted as the “be all and end all” solution to the pandemic....but is it? Aren’t the variants now proving to be way more deadly and contagious, yet these are not covered by the current vaccine that was supposedly developed for the original outbreak. So convince me.....I have not heard anything that inspires my confidence so far.
For young children, yes. Natural immunity is what works so much more efficiently than artificially produced efforts. Our immune system manufactures superior anti-bodies that means no “booster” shots are ever required. So tell me why vaccinations require them? What’s wrong with that?
You mean like the one you used yourself for your little part of the world?
I was merely relating a personal experience that demonstrated what the medical community already knows.
Do you understand the holes in your own argument? Read post #127 where I explain things a little more clearly about my personal opinion of the orthodox medical system......I simply have no faith in it.
As for your edit: do you honestly think I care about your opinion...? You support a medical system that I see as greedy for profit, with little interest in promoting good health. GP’s appear to be little more than ‘pimps’ for the drug conglomerates. It is way more interested in supplying ongoing and ridiculously expensive symptom control, rather than ever getting to the cause of disease and effecting actual “cures”.....why are there never cures? If we are so technologically and scientifically advanced, why are people still dying of cancer and heart disease in their millions every year? Now there is a real pandemic for the medical community to address. Their virtually useless and barbaric methods have not changed very much in decades.
Your devotion to the orthodox medical system is duly noted, but horribly misplaced IMO.
What you do is up to you....but shaming people into taking a largely untested vaccination as if it’s going to really make a difference to the death rate in this current situation, is not the way to prove the efficacy of the current vaccine. Results will speak for themselves. We don’t have them yet....which is the crux of my argument.
The main reason for the push as I see it, is more to do with the world’s economy getting back to business, rather than how safe or effective the vaccine actually is. That is my position and I will not be bullied into submission by a system in which I have no confidence.
I am pleased that they survived the vaccination.....I hope they continue to be well......we will have to wait and see....that is my position. I also happen to live in a country where there is very little Covid infiltration. But the continuing appearance of variants is the main worry. What have they got for the increasing numbers of these more deadly strains?
By having many not being vaccinated, the disease
can spread around, with new variants emerging.
The vaccine has not proven itself yet.....there is evidence that I have read that those vaccinated may even be able to spread the virus as well.....if they have one of the variants, the jab doesn’t work.....that would give some a false sense of security.......we just have no long term results at this point.
Vaccination does not stop you getting the virus.....if it is a true vaccination, it would. Vaccines are supposed to be given to prevent infection. Why does this vaccine not prevent infection in the first place? It seems weird to me that all it does is prevent you from dying.....I keep hearing “very low risk” but how do they know? That is a hope, not an established fact.
It’s been rushed and not thoroughly tested. I am not one to rushed into any decision....especially one that cannot be undone. I need to test the long term results and at this stage, there aren’t any. They are all merely suggested, because that is all they can do. They play down the risks and talk up desired results.....that isn’t good enough for me.
It’s the rock and the hard place.....vaccine related injury is not advertised for obvious reasons, (see post #127) but for the blood clotting, they know that this is related to the AZ and the J&J jabs. Long term safety and efficacy has not been demonstrated, so I will wait. That is my call....my personal decision. What others do is up to them.
I recommend looking into that.
It's shown to have efficacy.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Actually, no. Majority of people are wearing masks and even more so are vaccinated.
Good deal!
So, the little handful that don't wear masks (not those who are against it, those who don't wear it) is small and most likely those unvaccinated even smaller.
So the number of people facing possible shunning is very small... that's good as well.
You guys have the upper hand.
The 'upper hand'? We have common sense and logic on our side, if that's what you mean. You could have the 'upper hand' as well, if you just decided to use common sense and logic. If you make the choice not to, then don't complain about the consequences.
Cases still go up and they are quoting people still dying.
That's true... it is still rising and people are still dying in places where folks refused to wear masks and practice social distancing... whereas in places where pe9ople DO wear masks and practice social distancing new cases are rapidly dropping.
It's not the material on a person's face-it really isn't.
Are you HONESTLY claiming that wearing a mask doesn't help prevent air-born contaminates? Do you think that the reason surgeons wear masks during surgery is because they think it makes them look cool?
It's not a valid reason to shun people.
I disagree. When people act in ways that are dangerous to society as a whole they definitely SHOULD be shunned.
I can't remember if I asked you or someone else. Would you put all vaccinated people on an island, concentration camp, or trail of tears (worse case scenario to make a point) given you feel it's alright to shun people (same context-best case scenario)?
How far would you shun someone before its borderline...how to say...
I would give anyone who chooses to ignore basic health guidelines the opportunity to self-quarantine themselves. However anyone who refuses to do so and insists on inflicting themselves onto the general public should be arrested and force-quarantined.
No. If you're not on the road, you don't need to watch for the lights. The problem I see you having is thinking everyone has a car just because you chose to drive.
If you're 'not on the road' or don't intent to try and interact with the general public then there isn't a problem, is there? No one is going to shun you if you're not around. It's only those who refuse to self-quarantine who have anything to worry about.
So far.....
Are you concerned that it might lose effectiveness?So far.....
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Both sides seem to say they have common sense and logic.
Upper-hand meaning the majority and having the greater influence on what people say and do. It has it's good and bad sides. On one end, it helps people think together to solve a problem. On another, it builds a (how to say) a group-gang mentality where the bully feels pride and validated because the majority of people agree with him; peer pressure in some respects. The problem is people are so much in their group that they don't think of the people they are stepping on to make their point. Then justify it by saying "we have common sense."
If you got a blood clot (heaven forbid) because of the vaccine you had taken, don't complain that you got it because it was your choice.
Same mentality. "I care about 7,000 people's lives who died" BUT "if 'I believe' you don't care about others because you didn't take the vaccine, no. I don't care about you" and one RFian said if an unvaccinated person died, he'd laugh.
That's a weird way of carrying for people.
No. I'm saying there's more that meets the eye.
Surgeons take off their masks when they leave the operating room. They don't wear them when they are the only ones in a grocery store. They don't wear them when they are at a cubical at a bank. They don't wear them when they are playing golf and most definitely not wearing them when they are out walking on their own.
You act like the minority of us have guns ready to kill every person we are less than six feet next to. Dangerous?
I usually see people as dangerous when they either threaten me or have a gun to my head not off of fear that he possibly have a gun (making myself anxious) when he didn't give me any factual reasons to assume he had one. It's what leads to anxiety. We fear something that may or may not be true and shun people or judge people as a response (unconscious or not) because of our fears. It's fear of the unknown. While shunning because you're afraid is natural, but since there are no facts involved, I don't see how its justified.
How to say. Unless you Know the unvaccinated person has COVID, the anxiety, fear, or "concern" is all on you. A person can only be guilty of something if there was a direct influence or threat. If they are just saying they aren't vaccinated, that means nothing in a court of law (case in point). If they came up to you, then yeah. You can jump back, push them to the ground. Justified? No. But fear makes us do the silliest things.
I mean, I would never shun people regardless, but if I had, I'd want to know the facts not do so cause I fear the unknown. Not like someone saying "I have a gun, can I come to your party." All of it would be in My head until objective facts prove otherwise.
You're setting your own criteria on someone else Just because they say they are not vaccinated.
Are there other factors or just that they aren't vaccinated?
Thank goodness if I were on the road and speeded, the cop would give me a ticket, may throw me in jail depending, but won't tell me to leave town or keep the car parked in the garage.
The problem I see you have with is you do not Know-you have no facts. All you have is people telling you whether or not they are vaccinated and an opinion of saying if they haven't, they need to self-quarantine. That's fine as an opinion but it's not based on facts.
Even if it were based on facts, you'd probably have your own criteria to decide whether the facts were justified or not.
I mean, you don't have to invite people you don't know have COVID into your home. But that's different than shunning people for a blanketed statement: I'm unvaccinated.
I am not sure it has any real benefits because there has been no time to establish any.....or that the variants will keep mutating so that we will never be on top of this thing....no one seems to be addressing this issue....
The more prevalent the virus is the more opportunity it has to mutate. That is just simply math. So if you are co concerned about mutations (as we all should be) it is best to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.I am not sure it has any real benefits because there has been no time to establish any.....or that the variants will keep mutating so that we will never be on top of this thing....no one seems to be addressing this issue....
I see a very different picture from this, & recommendI am not sure it has any real benefits because there has been no time to establish any.....or that the variants will keep mutating so that we will never be on top of this thing....no one seems to be addressing this issue....
searching the internet for news of research offered by
mainstream sources, eg, Mayo Clinic, CDC.