Vaccine experience and poll

[Valjean]

And that's your right assuming this country is still based on freedoms.

It's based on responsibilities, not unchecked freedom.

Are you against all law? If not, why do you think laws exist? What purpose are they supposed to serve, and what makes them legitimate?
If an action poses a threat to others, does it not make sense to try to suppress it? How are we to live together as a society if everyone acts completely selfishly and ignores the needs of the whole?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Links?

There's a cute little fluffy term to separate the more severe side effects into their little own category.

It's called Adverse Events. The term is just adorable.

From the National Library of Medicine via Pub Med...

Adverse Events Following Immunization Associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Reported in the Mobile Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System - PubMed

 

[Valjean]

Because I don't want it. Period. I shouldn't have to give a reason.

Oh. An anti-social type, eh?

So if I don't want to stop at stop signs, pay for things in stores or refrain from shooting at pigeons from my car window, would you support me?

 

[Hold]

I've had three Pfizer shots ,I suspect there will be more in the future. I've had no side effects.

 

[Valjean]

There's a cute little fluffy term to separate the more severe side effects into their little own category.

It's called Adverse Events. The term is just adorable.

From the National Library of Medicine via Pub Med...

Adverse Events Following Immunization Associated with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Reported in the Mobile Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System - PubMed

So... very rare and mild adverse events. Much rarer and generally less severe than those from a dose of aspirin, and, in a risk-benefit assessmant, much safer than remaining unvaccinated or, in fact, driving to the clinic to get the vaccination.

 

[Jainarayan]

So if I don't want to stop at stop signs, pay for things in stores or refrain from shooting at pigeons from my car window, would you support me?

Those are laws. Regardless the reason, they are duly passed laws. Vaccinations are not laws.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So... very rare and mild adverse events. Much rarer and generally less severe than those from a dose of aspirin, and, in a risk-benefit assessmant, much safer than remaining unvaccinated or, in fact, driving to the clinic to get the vaccination.

I dunno. I'd say it's dependent on the demographics of the area.

I'm sure concentration is a factor if a population is aging vs a young healthy population.

Rarity is a superfluous term if used in a broad context.

 

[Valjean]

Those are laws. Regardless the reason, they are duly passed laws. Vaccinations are not laws.

Yet.....

If people refuse to be socially responsible, though, and the virus continues to thrive and evolve to evade preventive measures, laws may become necessary.

Q: what makes a "duly passed law" any more legitimate than voluntary, social responsible measures?
I'm probably more skeptical of law than you are, by the way.

 

[Valjean]

I dunno. I'd say it's dependent on the demographics of the area.

I'm sure concentration is a factor if a population is aging vs a young healthy population.

Aren't we talking pharmacological effects, though? Isn't our physiology pretty much identical, species-wide, and the pharmacological risks pretty similar?

Rarity is a superfluous term if used in a broad context.

????? How so?

(I'm reminded of Stalin's quip: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.)"

 

[Revoltingest]

Had 2 Moderna shots.
Getting booster Dec 7.
Too many anti-vaxers I personally have been very sick,
& some have died. Vaccinated people I know....just one
mild breakthru case. Some odds, eh.

People have the right to make bad decisions, so long
as they don't put others in danger. But there will be
consequences, eg, higher insurance premiums, loss
of job, illness, death, travel restrictions.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yet.
If people refuse to be socially responsible, though, and the virus continues to thrive and evolve to evade preventive measures, laws may become necessary.

Number 1, you're speculating and fear mongering.

Q: what makes a "duly passed law" any more legitimate than voluntary social responsible measures?

Judicial review., legal precedent, existing laws, case law. Who defines and determines the degree of voluntary social responsibility? Shall I go on? Your comparisons have holes a tractor trailer could drive through.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh. An anti-social type, eh?

So if I don't want to stop at stop signs, pay for things in stores or refrain from shooting at pigeons from my car window, would you support me?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am very anti-social. Buzz off.

 

[Valjean]

Number 1, you're speculating and fear mongering.

Advocating caution and preventive measures, during a pandemic, is fear mongering?

Judicial review., legal precedent, existing laws, case law. Who defines and determines the degree of voluntary social responsibility? Shall I go on? Your comparisons have holes a tractor trailer could drive through.

I determine my degree of social responsibility.
Ideally, individual social conscience should be sufficient, but considering the number of radical, anti-social individualists these days, some sort of compulsion may become necessary.

Law? Law is constantly changing, it differs in different jurisdictions, and it has a long history of being needlessly repressive, if not outright immoral. Morality and social conscience are a bit more stable, compassionate and dependable -- as long as one has a social conscience.

 

[Jainarayan]

Advocating caution and preventive measures, during a pandemic, is fear mongering?

When it's based on speculation on social media, yes it's fear mongering. Those "preventive measures" are already being done by our "leaders" and "medical experts". You are. which of those.. ?

I determine my degree of social responsibility.

Right.. operative phrase "I determine my", not mine.

Ideally, individual social conscience should be sufficient, but considering the number of radical, anti-social individualists these days, some sort of compulsion may become necessary.

Ideally social conscience should provide homes for all the homeless veterans and other homeless who want it, food for those who can't get it but this isn't an ideal world, now is it?

Law? Law is constantly changing, it differs in different jurisdictions, and it has a long history of being needlessly repressive, if not outright immoral. Morality and social conscience are a bit more stable, compassionate and dependable -- as long as one has a social conscience.

Again, who determines the social conscience? Who determines what's moral? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

How about we concern ourselves with ourselves. If you're vaccinated whom do you fear? Me being unvaccinated and potentially a carrier? Why? Afraid of me for your family? Why aren't they vaccinated? Fear for the general population you don't know? Why are you concerned for people you don't know if they're in danger? Are you worried about me? Why? Please explain.

 

[sun rise]

I will always defend people's right to choice. It's your body, not theirs.

When someone's choice impacts my choice, I don't see why I should give way to their choices. I choose to be around fully vaccinated people and want those who refuse to stay away from me and my friends, to stay away from where I go.

It's also societies right to choose to limit the ability to spread disease and misery by those who choose to not take precautions.

Society has a right to stop people who choose to take a crap in public and those who choose to take public craps should not have their choice override other people's choices.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh. An anti-social type, eh?

So if I don't want to stop at stop signs, pay for things in stores or refrain from shooting at pigeons from my car window, would you support me?

Let's see...

Cop running stop sign....

Cop not paying in store...

Cop shooting pigeons... er people through the window.

Oh btw...

I like those pathetic analogies. Keep using them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When someone's choice impacts my choice, I don't see why I should give way to their choices. I choose to be around fully vaccinated people and want those who refuse to stay away from me and my friends, to stay away from where I go.

It's also societies right to choose to limit the ability to spread disease and misery by those who choose to not take precautions.

Society has a right to stop people who choose to take a crap in public and those who choose to take public craps should not have their choice override other people's choices.

No. Not really.

 

[Jainarayan]

When someone's choice impacts my choice, I don't see why I should give way to their choices. I choose to be around fully vaccinated people and want those who refuse to stay away from me and my friends, to stay away from where I go.

If you are vaccinated, what does it matter if someone else is or is not? If you, your family and friends are fully vaccinated, how am I a threat to you? That aside, unless and until such time as vaccinations become legally mandated why are you free to move about and I should be restricted? That sounds very pink triangle. If you fear contagion, doesn't it behoove you to not put yourself in harm's way?

 

[Valjean]

When it's based on speculation on social media, yes it's fear mongering. Those "preventive measures" are already being done by our "leaders" and "medical experts". You are. which of those.. ?

I'm speculating', on social media?
You seem to have a very broad definition of fear mongering.

Preventive measures done only by leaders and medical experts protects -- leaders and medical experts.
I'm not worried about leaders, so much as citizens. There are only a handful of these 'leaders' and they can afford premium medical care.

Right.. operative phrase "I determine my", not mine.

Not following.
We all determine our own behavior, don't we? Nobody's holding our hands. Laws may help a little, but the anti-social will ignore non-compulsory laws, and criminals are impulsive and not known for pre-crime, risk-benefit analysis. 99% of the time we make our own behavioral choices, based on our own perception of right and wrong, ie: conscience.

Ideally social conscience should provide homes for all the homeless veterans and other homeless who want it, food for those who can't get it but this isn't an ideal world, now is it?

No! So should we throw up our hands and make no attempt to improve it?
It was the idealistic, 'impractical', pie-in-the-sky dreamers who ended slavery, gave women the vote and created what little social safety net we have left. Realpolitik rarely improves life or promotes social progress.

Again, who determines the social conscience? Who determines what's moral? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

Again: The individual, the individual, and, in some cases, yes. You cannot have total anarchy and a viable society.

How about we concern ourselves with ourselves. If you're vaccinated whom do you fear?

Vaccination reduces risk. It doesn't eliminate it.
Last week a tech in the spay-neuter clinic where I volunteer came down with covid. She was fully vaccinated and wore a mask. So how about we concern ourselves with both ourselves and others? We're all in this together.

Me being unvaccinated and potentially a carrier? Why? Afraid of me for your family? Why aren't they vaccinated? Fear for the general population you don't know? Why are you concerned for people you don't know if they're in danger? Are you worried about me? Why? Please explain.

Should I concern myself only with those I know?
Your statement is intensely anti-social. It borders on sociopathy.

 

[Valjean]

Let's see...

Cop running stop sign....

Cop not paying in store...

Cop shooting pigeons... er people through the window.

Oh btw...

I like those pathetic analogies. Keep using them.

So is there a point, here?