Jump to content

Covid Vaccination


ardillacid

Covid Vaccination  

31 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Everyone has to make their own choices.  I personally hope that the way society handles this vaccine will be similar to the way society has handled flu shots in the past--highly recommended to those who are highest risk, made available to all / recommended to all.  All the talk of either governmental requirements or employer / travel /etc requirements I think is probably a bad direction for our society to go, particularly given the actual data we know in terms of death rates and severity, this is not the plague or even polio by that data, so while the extreme of force would theoretically save the MOST lives, the same strategy of the flu shot would do enough for society to be able to live with it.  At the level of policy, there are always trade-offs; we could have perfect security if we empowered a police state and that would save more lives, but we don't; we could stop people from dying from flu if we socially distanced / locked down every flu season, but we don't; it's reasonable and not at all ethically wrong to engage in the best possible balanced action at the level of public policy.  this would mean that if we didn't use societal pressure / governmental force to pressure the vaccine on the whole population, but just led it spread voluntarily, there may be some people who are left more at risk (ppl whose allergies prevent them from the vaccine or for whom it turns out not to be effective, who would benefit from forced herd immunity strategies, we would have to do our best to try to help those people to find the best ways to minimize their risk)

All that said, I want to add my two cents about the types of vaccines that are on offer now as part of what I think should be part of the informed conversation by which people are making those choices.

mrna vaccine technology is brand new.  we do not know for certain all of the implications of what it does.  it has been rushed because of the covid situation.  anyone who is worried or doubtful of that should not be shamed.  are there long term consequences?  relatively short term consequences that haven't been seen yet?  does it really work the way it's been theorized to work?  without the present emergency the incontrovertible answer to that of the scientific community WOULD have been: it's too early to tell.  For those who choose to accept that risk, I sincerely hope that it ends up working out ok and it likely will, but people should be informed that this is not just the same kind of vaccine technology that we've been using as society for a few generations now and it's perfectly logical for anyone to be concerned.  the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are these kind.

The AstraZeneca / Oxford vaccine, on the other hand, is a more traditional vaccine, and while its safety testing may also be rushed, we can rest a little more on a longer track record of understanding how vaccines like these work.  If anyone who is wary of that above information still wants to take a vaccine (or ends up socially pressured / forced to do so), hopefully you'll get this option, and if so I would recommend taking it.

Here's 20 minutes of Brett Weinstein and his wife discussing the issue for anyone interested:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Lilllabettt

    24

  • Peace

    23

  • elizabeth09

    16

  • Anastasia

    10

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think that the vaccination should not be mandatory, because there is a lot we do not know for sure.

If you are standing at the beginning of a bridge and you decide you are unsure if you trust the safety of it's construction, all you can do is share with others your own concern but ultimately let the

ummmm no.  I'm just pointing out that the whole "I'll wait and see what happens to to other people" thing is kind of icky. It sounds bad when you say it. It's not the most Christian sentiment in the w

2 hours ago, Aloysius said:

The AstraZeneca / Oxford vaccine, on the other hand, is a more traditional vaccine, and while its safety testing may also be rushed, we can rest a little more on a longer track record of understanding how vaccines like these work. 

 

I've heard, per Jimmy Akin, this vaccine has a more direct and problematic connection to aborted fetal cell lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

I've heard, per Jimmy Akin, this vaccine has a more direct and problematic connection to aborted fetal cell lines.

This is correct.

Here is a relevant info from Charlotte Lozier Institute (including a chart which compares literally all vaccine candidates in detail)
Update: COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates and Abortion-Derived Cell Lines

Edited by Anastasia
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, of course, there is that moral / ethical issue to deal with.  My previous post was attempting to address anyone with safety concerns, so the moral issue is a whole different question my last post didn't address.  The Vatican guidance on the matter suggests it is possible as indirect material cooperation that may be ethically permissible, but I understand many people have different views.  I would not blame anyone for not wanting to take any of the vaccines that are associated with that on moral/ethical grounds, although I tend to fall more on the side the Vatican's guidance falls on; I would say that people with actual power have some moral/ethical obligation to stop such abortion-cell lines of research, but as far as the individual person I'm far less democratic in my view of what extent to which your taking of the vaccine participates, encourages, or has any actual impact whatsoever on whether babies are killed or their cells are misused.  Imposing such a moral obligation on people strikes me more of the modern style of boycott ethics than of any moral theology that informs my own conscience.  (but again, I don't blame anyone who does feel they should promote a boycott of it and can see an alternate argument)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

mrna vaccine technology is brand new.  we do not know for certain all of the implications of what it does.  it has been rushed because of the covid situation.  anyone who is worried or doubtful of that should not be shamed.  are there long term consequences?  relatively short term consequences that haven't been seen yet?  does it really work the way it's been theorized to work?  without the present emergency the incontrovertible answer to that of the scientific community WOULD have been: it's too early to tell.

Yeah but "people in the know" say its safe so I am a terrible human being for not injecting myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Aloysius said:

mrna vaccine technology is brand new. 

Wrong.

Mrna vaccine tech has been tested in humans for years and was in non human subject trials years before that. I believe the Zika vaccine, the leading contender for marketing, is mRna. It's true there are no mrna vaccines currently on the market other than covid. But it's hardly brand new. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

Wrong.

Mrna vaccine tech has been tested in humans for years and was in non human subject trials years before that. I believe the Zika vaccine, the leading contender for marketing, is mRna. It's true there are no mrna vaccines currently on the market other than covid. But it's hardly brand new. 

Before COVID there has never been a mRNA drug or vaccine that was licensed for use in humans. With all due respect, having conducted some tests and having some "contenders" ain't exactly anything to write home to mom about.

What is mRNA? How Pfizer and Moderna tapped new tech to make coronavirus vaccines (nbcnews.com)

For decades, vaccine researchers have been enchanted and frustrated with the promise of messenger RNA. The tiny snippets of genetic code are essential in telling cells to build proteins, a basic part of human physiology — and key to unleashing the immune system.

But they've been hard to tame, at least until the coronavirus spurred a global race to create a vaccine.

Now, both Pfizer and Moderna are testing their separate vaccine candidates that use messenger RNA, or mRNA, to trigger the immune system to produce protective antibodies without using actual bits of the virus. If the experimental coronavirus vaccines win approval from the Food and Drug Administration, they will be the first-ever authorized vaccines that use mRNA — a development that would not only turn the tide in this pandemic but could also unlock an entirely new line of vaccines against a variety of viruses.

The two experimental vaccines have some key differences that will likely affect who they are administered to and how they are distributed. But experts say promising early results from both camps could be a boon for the technology, which had made progress over nearly three decades but was long thought to be something of a pipe dream.

“This was a brand new platform,” Dr. Carlos del Rio, executive associate dean of the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said. “There were a lot of people who were skeptical that an mRNA vaccine would work. Scientifically, it makes sense, but there’s no mRNA vaccine out there that has been approved yet.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quibble with the term 'brand new' all you want (though @Peace seems to have found a doctor using that same term), it's relatively new in the sense of having never been seriously tried on any kind of mass scale.

I stand by my assertion that if it were not for the covid situation, the general scientific consensus based on the data that is available would be, to a question of whether mrna vaccines were ready for mass public use, a big ol' "too early to tell".

Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, I am not necessarily trying to dissuade ppl on those types of vaccines, I just think people need to be aware of that to be able to make your own decision.  Anyone who is in a particularly high risk group for covid, I would actually recommend them to take even an mRNA vaccine if available, although if another version is available I think it'd be reasonable to opt for one of those if you're uncertain.  Make your own risk assessment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe if Christians and their Churches made a firm statement (some time ago) that we will refuse to use the vaccines with the embryo cells it would make a difference. State governments are interested in total vaccination so they would invest more into ethical vaccines development.

I am very put off by the argument done by some high rank clergy about "the remoteness of the evil act" hence a vaccine is OK. First, it is nonsense; time passed does not reduce the evil. It seems to me this argument works as an anesthesia of a feeling via hypocrisy. This is quite dangerous because ones started this process of depersonalization is impossible to stop. It would be much more honest to say "It is evil, make up your own mind after evaluating own risk". My point is that it is far better for the soul to make such a choice with a full knowledge of the truth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that's could be up to leaders of the churches to take a stand about stopping these things, and if they did so and called upon the faithful to join them it could be an effective strategy, so I won't argue against you if you think that's what the Church should be doing.  However, as long as it is happening, the remoteness of the material cooperation in the evil act means that individual Christians can morally receive it and are by no means morally obligated to boycott it. 

Of course, the modern age is focused on the power of people voting with their dollars, boycotting, etc, and makes ethics and morals built around this kind of democratic principle that tries to call on people to feel morally obligated to boycott things in order to stop bad things happening around them.  I think imposing that as a moral obligation on people is, most of the time, incorrect--when there are things in the world outside of your control, that you are not influencing in any way, there is a morally acceptable and sometimes necessary principle in which you may remotely materially cooperate with it.  such it is with usurious credit card companies, paying taxes to warmongering nations, buying things from stores that exploit their workers, etc. It may certainly be virtuous to refuse such things and/or encourage others to do so in the hopes of making a change, however, there is nothing necessarily immoral about remotely materially cooperating when there are other motivations.  sometimes the burdens of morals imposed under what I think of as this kind of democratic attitude of boycott ethics is excessive IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several moral reasons for not taking these vaccines, and the "remote material cooperation" argument is used incorrectly for these.  This discussion is worth a listen.

https://sensusfidelium.us/resistance-podcast-143-answers-on-vaccination-concerns-w-fr-ripperger/

And yes, I am absolutely trying to convince everyone NOT to take any of the covid-19 vaccines.  None of them have been sufficiently tested.  They ALL carry more weighty moral concerns than simply "remote material cooperation".  Do your research.  Turn off MSNBC/CNN/FOX.  

Our Lord said, in the end times, bishops would be against bishops, and priests would turn on each other.  We know that in the end times, very few of our shepherds would be teaching truth.  And that is what is going on, now.  What is the narrow road?  Refusing any covid-19 vaccine for any reason, especially when it's mandated.  And if you really want to travel the narrow road, refuse to wear face masks.

On 1/11/2021 at 3:39 AM, Aloysius said:

I would say that's could be up to leaders of the churches to take a stand about stopping these things, and if they did so and called upon the faithful to join them it could be an effective strategy, so I won't argue against you if you think that's what the Church should be doing.  However, as long as it is happening, the remoteness of the material cooperation in the evil act means that individual Christians can morally receive it and are by no means morally obligated to boycott it. 

Abortion is not the only moral concern.  There are several.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Thank you very much for the link, I have just listened to the whole discussion. The Thomistic argument comes to a life there somehow i.e. it does not feel cold/ inhumane/legalistic as it often happens, something I dread.

It was helpful (although I cannot say I agree about everything) and aided my own thinking. It is also good to see that there are still Roman Catholics who refuse to engage in self-serving hypocrisy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2020 at 2:02 PM, ardillacid said:

This field is required.

I do regard playing around with RNA to be significantly different from playing around with DNA but...... I would prefer to take high levels of MSM, vitamin C, D3, and zinc....... as opposed to taking the vaccine.

I may decide to take it if it is mandatory to continue with my job as a janitor...... but I may decide to change careers????  

Edited by tate4242
spelling and add comment....
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



It costs about $850 a year for Phatmass.com to survive–and we barely make it. If you’d like to help keep the Phorum alive, please consider a monthly gift.



×
×
  • Create New...