Will you get the vaccine?

[fides' Jack]

On 8/14/2021 at 11:25 PM, hakutaku said:

So... the answer is "it depends."

I said, "biological male" not "phenotypic male".  Also, it's pretty clear I'm referring to human males, not Jurassic Park frogs.

Can a human, biological male ever be anything other than a human, biological male?

[fides' Jack]

So much for the idea that the educated are the people who believe in vaccines...  Not only are those with PHDs the least likely to be vaccinated (compared with other education levels), they are also the least likely to change their minds on the issue, at least in the US of A:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/americans-with-doctorates-are-least-likely-to-get-vaccinated-survey/?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=catholic

[ReasonableFaith]

On 8/17/2021 at 11:16 PM, fides' Jack said:

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/americans-with-doctorates-are-least-likely-to-get-vaccinated-survey/?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=catholic

This will be easily dismissed and seen for what it is by those who have paid heed to the warnings here. However, it seems Bingham and Weston have either not heard or paid heed to the warnings. They seem to have been seduced by the demonic science of leftist ideologues within the corrupt, leftist owned higher education system who were funded by the evil big tech overlords at Facebook as well as the international criminals at the CDC. It will be interesting to see which real believing journalists of true faith will come forth to fill the media space of truth so recently vacated by Bingham and Weston. 

[fides' Jack]

Are you a bot?

[hakutaku]

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

 

Quote

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.

 

[fides' Jack]

God help us!

[Peace]

16 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

God help us!

Are you just against this one particular vaccine, or all vaccines generally?

For example, are the polio vaccine, the flu-shot also out?

[chrysostom]

Dynavax/Valneva are close to rolling out their vax, which hopefully is coming to a clinic near me as there is no use of HEK263 or PER.C6 at any point in production or testing.

Edited August 26, 2021 by chrysostom

[Peace]

22 hours ago, chrysostom said:

Dynavax/Valneva are close to rolling out their vax, which hopefully is coming to a clinic near me as there is no use of HEK263 or PER.C6 at any point in production or testing.

I wonder what the reason not to take this vaccine is gonna be.

"Just because"?

[ReasonableFaith]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I wonder what the reason not to take this vaccine is gonna be.

"Just because"?

Developed too quickly, ‘experimental,’ not ‘approved,’ somebody died after taking it, causes every adverse medical condition known to humankind, contains heavy metals and other toxins, causes the human body to cannibalize itself, contains a tracking micro chip, makes women infertile, makes men infertile, causes spontaneous abortions, causes viral mutations, circulates too much in the body, causes ADE, crosses the blood-brain barrier, causes death in 3 years and seven months after injection, it’s a scam by Big Pharma, viruses don’t cause disease, there is no virus, there is no epidemic, it’s a ‘plandemic,’ Bill Gates is behind it, George Soros is behind it, the blood of Jesus protects me, ‘freedom’…

…all while shotgunning livestock dewormer from the feed store on the daily (locked up, behind glass, behind the counter with a purchase limit of one 250ml serving here).

Edited August 27, 2021 by ReasonableFaith
Grammar

[fides' Jack]

On 8/24/2021 at 7:15 AM, Peace said:

Are you just against this one particular vaccine, or all vaccines generally?

For example, are the polio vaccine, the flu-shot also out?

I've already answered that question.

6 hours ago, Peace said:

I wonder what the reason not to take this vaccine is gonna be.

"Just because"?

If that's my decision, that's enough of a reason.

[chrysostom]

17 hours ago, Peace said:

I wonder what the reason not to take this vaccine is gonna be.

"Just because"?

I'd be fine taking it.

[ardillacid]

18 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

 

…all while shotgunning livestock dewormer from the feed store on the daily (locked up, behind glass, behind the counter with a purchase limit of one 250ml serving here).

This is the level of discourse I expect from auths. The national divorce can’t come soon enough

[Peace]

14 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I've already answered that question.

If that's my decision, that's enough of a reason.

It's a reason, but it ain't a valid reason.

[chrysostom]

20 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

…all while shotgunning livestock dewormer from the feed store on the daily (locked up, behind glass, behind the counter with a purchase limit of one 250ml serving here).

Obviously people taking ivermectin in the veterinary doses is beyond stupid, but I'm having trouble understanding why suddenly it's being ridiculed overall. It's widely available in human-safe dosage and has been a positive contributor to global health in humanity since 1975.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

Quote

There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.

One review has positive things to say after looking at multiple double-blind RCTs for treatment of COVID-19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

There are other reviews which are not as positive, so granted there is plenty of uncertainty. Overall I'm a fan of lettings doctors do their thing. But the human dose is FDA approved safe for years.

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

It's a reason, but it ain't a valid reason.

You mean, not valid enough to not be arrested or jailed?  Is that what you mean?  If I said I don't want to take the vaccine because I don't like the color, that's enough to be a legitimate for me to not have to take it.

My decision not to take a vaccine doesn't do a thing to help or harm anyone who decides to take the vaccine.  If it does, then the vaccine doesn't work.

[Peace]

Just now, fides' Jack said:

You mean, not valid enough to not be arrested or jailed?  Is that what you mean?  If I said I don't want to take the vaccine because I don't like the color, that's enough to be a legitimate for me to not have to take it.

No, I mean that's not a valid reason for it to be considered a proper moral choice.

Just now, fides' Jack said:

My decision not to take a vaccine doesn't do a thing to help or harm anyone who decides to take the vaccine.  If it does, then the vaccine doesn't work.

That might be true, but not everyone has taken the vaccine, and you could spread it to them by your refusal to do so. For example one poster here said that her doctor advised her not to take it because she was pregnant. Another example is that the vaccine is not readily available around the world. Many people in other countries do not yet have an opportunity to be vaccinated. Your decision can impact people in those countries (we don't want to stop air travel now do we, since that would result in millions of people starving, per your previous argument).

But yeah, if you want to self-quarantine, then I suppose your decision would not impact others.

[fides' Jack]

23 minutes ago, Peace said:

Your decision can impact people in those countries

No it can't.  I refuse to wear a mask, and there's no way I'd be allowed on board a plane right now.

23 minutes ago, Peace said:

For example one poster here said that her doctor advised her not to take it because she was pregnant.

Thank God for that doctor.  Many doctors have advised the opposite.

Here's the thing, though.  There's no evidence that the vaccines prevent transmission anyway, so it's a moot point.  There's some evidence that they help alleviate minor symptoms, but there's no evidence that they lower the rate of serious illness or death from covid.

So no, my decision to take an experimental shot does not in any way impact others. 

If, in 10 years time, when these experimental shots are proven safe and effective, and all the data on them is transparent and conclusive, and there's no evidence of silencing those opposed to them, THEN I will consider taking one.  I read somewhere else that 10 years was the average time it took to develop a traditional vaccine for other viruses (that's probably off, but I don't know by how much), so that seems reasonable to me.

31 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, I mean that's not a valid reason for it to be considered a proper moral choice.

But it is a valid reason for it to not be legally imposed on me.

Don't get me started on morals...  The world has completely lost its ability to discern morality on any scale.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

No it can't.  I refuse to wear a mask, and there's no way I'd be allowed on board a plane right now.

Thank God for that doctor.  Many doctors have advised the opposite.

Here's the thing, though.  There's no evidence that the vaccines prevent transmission anyway, so it's a moot point.  There's some evidence that they help alleviate minor symptoms, but there's no evidence that they lower the rate of serious illness or death from covid.

So no, my decision to take an experimental shot does not in any way impact others. 

Sure, if your technical analysis is correct. That's a big if but certainly within the realm of one's prudential judgment.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

If, in 10 years time, when these experimental shots are proven safe and effective, and all the data on them is transparent and conclusive, and there's no evidence of silencing those opposed to them, THEN I will consider taking one.  I read somewhere else that 10 years was the average time it took to develop a traditional vaccine for other viruses (that's probably off, but I don't know by how much), so that seems reasonable to me.

But if everyone took your view, there would never be any experimental data at all 10 years from now, no? I mean, not only have you chosen not to take it yourself, you are actively discouraging everyone you know from taking it.

Your ideal state is simply that no vaccines ever get developed, that nobody ever wears masks or does any social distancing, that essentially we just do nothing, keep living our lives like normal, and let nature take its course, right? Perhaps I am wrong but this certainly seems to be the approach that you are advocating for.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

But it is a valid reason for it to not be legally imposed on me.

Well I don't think it should be imposed on anyone as a matter of law. Your employer and other private establishments have the right to require it though.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

Don't get me started on morals...  The world has completely lost its ability to discern morality on any scale.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's not as if the world is less moral today than it was 50, 100, 500, or 1000 years ago. You can't exactly lose what you never had.

Besides, it's not like you or I get a free pass just because the world is corrupt.

[fides' Jack]

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

Sure, if your technical analysis is correct. That's a big if but certainly within the realm of one's prudential judgment.

Precisely.  Which is why I don't judge those who took the shot.  I pray for them.

 

10 minutes ago, Peace said:

But if everyone took your view, there would never be any experimental data at all 10 years from now, no? I mean, not only have you chosen not to take it yourself, you are actively discouraging everyone you know from taking it.

Your ideal state is simply that no vaccines ever get developed, that nobody ever wears masks or does any social distancing, that essentially we just do nothing, keep living our lives like normal, and let nature take its course, right? Perhaps I am wrong but this certainly seems to be the approach that you are advocating for.

Not everyone will take my view.  That would never, ever happen.  So again, it's a moot point.

I am not against all vaccines.  But at this point I might be against all vaccines for coronaviruses.  Certainly there are some viruses and some diseases of which humanity has greatly benefited from vaccines.  Polio is one, but the most obvious example is rabies.

But in those cases, the dangers of the disease had been known for decades.  They were talking about "vaccines" for covid the month after the disease was public knowledge.

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well I don't think it should be imposed on anyone as a matter of law. Your employer and other private establishments have the right to require it though.

I do expect to lose employment at some point.  10 months ago, I was saying it would come within 2 years.  Seems now that I was likely pretty close to the truth.

In my view, however, it should be law that employers can't fire you because of your vaccination status, especially if that's based on religious values, just like they can't because of the color of your skin, or because of your other religious values.

 

17 minutes ago, Peace said:

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's not as if the world is less moral today than it was 50, 100, 500, or 1000 years ago. You can't exactly lose what you never had.

Actually, I disagree with this.  I believe there are times when humanity has been better, but never worse than we are now.  I think we're at a point where we are worse than before the flood, and worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.  

18 minutes ago, Peace said:

Besides, it's not like you or I get a free pass just because the world is corrupt.

Exactly my point.