Getting My Covid Vaccine

[BadHippie]

Quote

Vaccine development does not focus on treating symptoms - it focuses on the cure (preventing covid). 

Are you serious? So taking a vaccine every few years (some people here in Germany even talk about yearly vaccination) is focusing on the cause? 

For me focusing on the cause would be advising people to have a healthy lifestyle. Not telling people to stay indoors, prohibiting sports, having curfeys, making people anxious. This actually makes people sick. The vaccine also makes people sick, but of course they are desired side effects...

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

@Forestluv

Can you post the study at least? I went through a lot of "peer-reviewed" studies, which doesn´t mean the science is good. You make another assumption that I am not being interested in expanding my knowledge. I am actually.

Sadly this forum is the complete opposite of what I expected. Most of what I see here are dogmatic views, which I can put into different perspectives. Most people here seem to think that there is only one legit perspective when it comes to COVID, which is really not doing this forum any good.

Those that are seriously interested in learning need to take responsibility for their learning. 

I'm not making an assumption about you not being interested in expanding your knowledge. This is based on your posting history. Introspect yourself. For example, notice above how you said you went through a lot of studies and put "peer-reviewed" in quotes and said it doesn't mean the science is good. This is indicative of a lens that is filtering out information that does not confirm one's pre-conceived notions. That is an intellectually lazy mind that is not interested in learning and expanding their knowledge.

I doubt you are looking at studies and asking questions like whether it was best for the study to do a univariate ANOVA analysis rather than a paired T-test. And if you were open-minded and objective, you would understand that most studies have both insights and limitations. For example, one study could show a correlation - which is evidence - yet weak evidence. Another study could show mechanistic evidence, yet have a small population size which reduces the strength of the evidence. Yet this isn't your mindset. 

As well, the idea that everyone other than me has a dogmatic view and can't put things in different perspectives is a cop-out. C'mon. If you could put things in different perspectives, you would be able to easily see various perspectives of studies and how most studies have pros and cons from different perspectives. Yet you've already dismissed them all as "peer-reviewed" and "it doesn't mean they're good. I trust my personal experience over putting in effort to learn". This is intellectually lazy. 

I'll start you off. . . do a google search for "what is the degree of asymptomatic spread of coronavirus". There will be a list of peer-reviewed primary studies. Read one of those studies. Not an opinion piece. An actual primary research article. If you are serious about expanding your knowledge and think you can see different perspectives - come back here and tell me one piece of evidence in that study that suggested the asymptomatic Ro is greater than zero as well as a criticism about the methodology of the paper. Then we can have a discussion. Yet until then, you are just blowing smoke. 

[Hardkill]

6 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Those that are seriously interested in learning need to take responsibility for their learning. 

I'm not making an assumption about being interested in expanding your knowledge. This is based on your posting history. Introspect yourself. For example, notice above how you said you went through a lot of studies and put "peer-reviewed" in quotes and said it doesn't mean the science is good. This is indicative of a lens that is filtering out information that does not confirm one's pre-conceived notions. For example, I doubt you are looking at studies and asking questions like whether it was best for the study to do a univariate analysis rather than a paired T-test. And if you were open-minded and objective, you would understand that most studies have both insights and limitations. For example, one study should show a correlation - which is evidence - yet weak evidence. Another study could show mechanistic evidence, yet have a small population size which reduces the strength of the evidence. Yet this isn't your mindset. 

As well, the idea of everyone has dogmatic view and can't put things in different perspectives is a cop-out. C'mon. If you could put things in different perspectives, you would be able to easily see various perspectives of studies and how most studies have pros and cons from different perspectives. Yet you've already dismissed them all as "peer-reviewed" and it doesn't mean their good. This is intellectually lazy. 

I'll start you off. . . do a google search for "what is the degree of asymptomatic spread of coronavirus". There will be a list of peer-reviewed primary studies. Read one of those studies. If you are serious about expanding your knowledge and think you can see different perspectives - come back here and tell me one piece of evidence that suggested the asymptomatic Ro is greater than zero as well as a criticism about the methodology of the paper. Then we can have a discussion. 

How concerned are you that about a quarter to a third of all of the individuals in the US so far have either made it clear that they will never take the vaccine or are inclined not take it?

Edited April 23, 2021 by Hardkill

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

Are you serious? So taking a vaccine every few years (some people here in Germany even talk about yearly vaccination) is focusing on the cause? 

Vaccines do not try to treat symptoms. f someone as covid symptoms and needs a respirator, a vaccine is not going to help them in the short term. This is as basic as gets. You have a misunderstanding of what a vaccine is. 

Part of the problem is that anti-maskers, anti-mitigators and anti-vaxxers have allowed the coronavirus to take hold and spread. The more viral replications there are, there more opportunities there are for variants to arise that are more harmful, contagious and resistant to vaccines. So yes, we may need another round of vaccines next year to deal with new resistant variants that spread through =>unvaccinated<= people. If you can't see this, you are not open or serious about learning, expanding knowledge and seeing truth from different perspectives.

11 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

For me focusing on the cause would be advising people to have a healthy lifestyle. Not telling people to stay indoors, prohibiting sports, having curfeys, making people anxious. This actually makes people sick. The vaccine also makes people sick, but of course they are desired side effects...

This is great advice for general wellness. Social interactions are important for wellness. Yet you are seeing this myopically. You say you can see things from different perspectives, yet here you can only see one perspective (which has some truth).

Now look from the perspective of the virus. The virus wants people to people in social groups. The virus wants people to form crowds at sporting events. That is how the virus spreads, via close contact between humans. 

So your suggestion to form social gatherings is beneficial in the sense of allowing social wellness, yet it is harmful in the sense of allowing the virus to spread. The two need to be balanced in terms of benefit and harm. If 1,000 people go to the kids soccer game and have a great time, that's all fine and dandy - yet if it also spreads the virus, puts 30 people in the hospital and grandma dies - that is not fine and dandy. Taken together, that would be more harm than good. 

 

 

[BadHippie]

@Forestluv

Well I don´t think we can have a discussion. You are doing the same thing again. I actually read studies and know they have limitations and some truth, but never all the truth. 

You seem to think pretty highly of yourself, I can see in your posting history. So I don´t think discussing stuff with you will lead to anything for me. You won´t even acknowledge the fact that masks don´t really work that well, and that even vaccinated people still get the virus. There were actually 15/18 people tested positive in a retirement home (where everyone has been vaccinated twice) not far from where I live. Some of them even died. But you make it seem as if the Anti-Vaxxers are the problem, and not the people who are pushing this vaccinate-everyone -is-the-only-way-for-this-pandemic to end.

If the vaccine actually worked, all the people who are vaccinated wouldn´t even need to fear the people who don´t want to take the vaccine, because they simply don´t want to. Everyone has their own reasons.

My step-mom just had a customer here today, who told me his father (66 year old) died one weak after getting his second AstraZeneca shot. He was healthy before. And guess what? They told him it wasn´t because of the vaccine, without doing any autopsy. If we would count vaccine deaths, the same way we count COVID-Deaths the number would be way higher.

Quote

Yet you've already dismissed them all as "peer-reviewed" and it doesn't mean their good. This is intellectually lazy. 

I didn´t say they aren´t good peer-reviews studies. All I said is that just because a study is peer-reviewed, doesn´t automatically mean the study is good. You read way to much into everything I write. Probably partly my fault, as I am not a native english speaker, yet I try my best. 

 

Quote

Those that are seriously interested in learning need to take responsibility for their learning.

This is actual wisdom. Yet we still come to completely different conclusions, as I would say I take responsibility.  Well we will probably see in a few decades who was right. 

 

[Consept]

@BadHippie what you don't see is that in this discussion @Forestluv is not saying you're right or wrong. Your viewpoints are correct, they just don't encapsulate the whole picture.

It's like your looking at one corner of a painting and saying 'it's a cloud, that's all there is' , but if you stand back and look at the whole painting there's a whole country scene that's been captured. 

You have to acknowledge that truth encompasses things you don't know and/or don't accept, if you don't you are severely limiting yourself 

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

How concerned are you that about a quarter to a third of all of the individuals in the US so far have either made it clear that they will never take the vaccine or are inclined not take it?

I am most concerned about variants arising. Each infected person contains many thousands of viral entities. That means that there are trillions of viral replications. Each one of those replications has a chance of mutation. The vast majority of them will be irrelevant or harmful to the virus. Yet a very small percentage will be beneficial - perhaps 0.0001% of the time. Yet with trillions of replications, that becomes a serious threat. Those mutations will allow the virus greater binding affinity to cells, expand the range of cells it can infect and evade previous vaccines.

I see it as a race in time and we are at a critical period right now as we near 50% of people vaccinated. So far, the limiting factor has been the number of shots - they have been giving vaccines as fast as possible. So anti-vaxxers haven't been an issue. Yet that is changing right now as we approach 50% vaccinated. As a rough estimate:

Group A: 25% of population was eager to get the vaccination. They were will to pay money to get it, drive for hours for it or wait in line for hours. They have all been fully vaccinated.

Group B: 25% of the population was somewhat reluctant to get the vaccine. Yet when it became available, they got it with mild trepidation. 

Group C: 25% of the population are very reluctant to get the vaccine. They will not take initiative on their own. They need some encouragement. 

Group D: 25% hard-core anti-vaxxers.

In America, we are now finishing up Group B at maximum speed. Moving into Group C is critical. If vaccination rates slow down that will give the virus opportunity to spread. 50% vaccinated is not enough. There will be new variants that arise that are more contagious and resistant to the original vaccine. So I think it's super important to educate people about risks and work to socially invite Group C. I don't think they will be motivated enough on their own.

Hopefully, we get to about 65% vaccinated soon, before new variants take hold. It will be much harder to convince the public to take a second vaccine for variants. To get above 65% vaccinated, I think society will need to implement vaccine passports, yet 65% of people would be vaccinated, so they will be cool with this. If a sporting event wants a vaccination certificate on your phone for entry, vaccinated people will be fine with this. This will put more pressure on those unvaccinated and could boost it up to 75-80%, which I consider the target threshold. . . However, there is also a risk. This type of social passport can be abused by government, so it's important for those vaccinated to be socially responsible in the opposite direction and pushback on government over-reach. 

[SASAM]

What will save more people in the long run: Mass vaccinations or slapping a Cancer-warning sticker on hot dogs and bacon?

"This same World Health Organization came out with the (to me, world-shattering) news that hot dogs and bacon are to be classified as Class 1 Carcinogens back in 2015; the same cancer-causing group as cigarettes and alcohol. However, society did not react by slapping CANCER warning stickers on all hot dog and bacon packages at your grocery store, as would be logically and socially-ethically consistent. Especially as heart disease and cancer are the top causes of death in these societies. No, we implicitly decided that an individual's right to eat hot dogs and bacon without being reminded that they are cancer causing superseded the massive (although distant) burden on our health care system. "

Edited April 23, 2021 by SASAM
Added previous post for context

[BadHippie]

@Consept

Actually feels the same to me with Forestluv. I think my worldview is pretty holistic, but he will probably say the same. 

I try to see this in a broader context, by talking to people from different countries, listening to different experts. Checking out studies which aren´t shown in mainstream media and so on. 

I just don´t think vaccines are the answer to end this pandemic as Forestluv does. He can have that opinion that´s fine. I just have different opinion, based on my research and life experience.

[BadHippie]

@Forestluv

And you don´t actually see the problem with vaccine-passports? We can see pretty clearly in history what happens if we introduce a two-tier society. 

[Jake Johnson]

On 4/19/2021 at 2:55 AM, Leo Gura said:

Scheduled my vaccine for Tuesday.

Maybe I can shoot a video of me getting it. We'll see.

Pfizer version.

Neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna vaccines contain any heavy metals.

Don't delay, schedule yours today.

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine does contain heavy metals? If so which ones? Mercury and lead? I hope not!

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

@Forestluv

Well I don´t think we can have a discussion. You are doing the same thing again. I actually read studies and know they have limitations and some truth, but never all the truth. 

Of course. Show me a study you've read that showed evidence that asymptomatic people can spread the virus (at low rates). Tell me your concern about the methodology and we can have a discussion.

I'll start off in good faith. Here is a study indicating that the spread of covid through asymptomatic people is substantial. Give it a read and tell me what you consider the strong and weak points of the study. I think the study is strong in some areas, yet also has some weak points. 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707

22 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

@Forestluv

You won´t even acknowledge the fact that masks don´t really work that well, and that even vaccinated people still get the virus.

That is not my position. Please don't project positions onto me.

My position on masks is that they reduce the Ro of viral spread, yet that is context-dependent. In some situations, the effectiveness is trivial. Some of the mask requirements are absurd. For example, at our local river - people are required to wear masks while kayaking. This is absurd. The chance of person-to-person spread during kayaking is tiny. These types of over-zealous requirements irritate people. However, in other contexts the effectiveness is better - such as in supermarkets.

Of course vaccinated people can get the virus. C'mon dude, these are simple constructs of degrees. Getting vaccinated massively reduces infection chances by about 90%+ and those that get infected have milder symptoms. That is a massive reduction in infection spread. If 100% of people got vaccinated and we went back to social gatherings, the Ro would drop from about 2.5 (everyone unvaccinated) to about 0.2 (everyone vaccinated). That is easily controllable. 

22 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

@Forestluv

 

If the vaccine actually worked, all the people who are vaccinated wouldn´t even need to fear the people who don´t want to take the vaccine, because they simply don´t want to. Everyone has their own reasons.

You are not looking at systems and viral life cycles. It's not about vaccinated people being afraid of non-vaccinated people. I agree that would be a social toxin that we need to prevent through education.

Consider the epidemiology at the population level. The issue is thresholds of % vaccinated in a population. If only 60% of people get vaccinated, the virus can persist at a high enough rate to form new variants - some successful variants will be resistant to the previous vaccine. If a new resistant virus arises, 0% of the population is vaccinated against that virus. If anti-vaxxers allow the arising of new variants and everyone needs yet another vaccine, that is going to piss off vaccinated people. As well, when people learn that unvaccinated people are the ones generating and spreading resistant variants - there will be fear and resistance against them. A lot of people will want them banned from social events like concerts and sporting events. I can't blame them. I got both of my shots. I'm fine going to a concert with vaccinated people right now, yet not with unvaccinated people that are petri dishes incubating new variants.

22 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

@Forestluv

 

My step-mom just had a customer here today, who told me his father (66 year old) died one weak after getting his second AstraZeneca shot. He was healthy before. And guess what? They told him it wasn´t because of the vaccine, without doing any autopsy. If we would count vaccine deaths, the same way we count COVID-Deaths the number would be way higher.

You are being irrational. There have been 100s of millions of shots given. A very small percentage of people will have serious adverse effects. You could give 100s of millions of people lettuce and some will have serious adverse effects. If there was a subtantial number of vaccine-induced death, there is no way that could be kept secret. No way. Period. 

The last report I read was that several thousand people have been reported to die within 50 days of receiving the vaccine. Yet these were mostly 65+ year old people and it is the same death rate as if no shot was given. And none of the cases have been linked directly to the vaccine as direct cause. Yet there probably are a handful of deaths directly related to the vaccine. A few people will have autoimmune disorders and the vaccine could cause a severe response. Yet this has been extremely low. Well under 1%. If the serious negative outcome rate for the vaccine was 1%, that would mean millions of people in the U.S. would be suffering serious effects after the vaccine. Tens of millions of people worldwide. They wouldn't be able to keep it secret.  

22 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

@Forestluv

I didn´t say they aren´t good peer-reviews studies. All I said is that just because a study is peer-reviewed, doesn´t automatically mean the study is good. You read way to much into everything I write. Probably partly my fault, as I am not a native english speaker, yet I try my best. 

 

I agree, yet peer-reviewed is a higher standard of data integrity. 

It would be like saying "Olympic athletes don't always have good diets". Of course not. Yet they have higher standards of fitness and have healthier diets than the average person. 

 

[Consept]

24 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

I try to see this in a broader context, by talking to people from different countries, listening to different experts. Checking out studies which aren´t shown in mainstream media and so on. 

OK so I guess you read the standard studies as well and take them into account. You are aware that there's a scientific consensus contrary to your central points. How do you square the circle of accepting the scientific consensus but also disagreeing with it? Let's 98% of experts say make up the consensus and 2% disagree, does it make sense to give equal weight to the 2% that disagree? 

[Hardkill]

36 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I am most concerned about variants arising. Each infected person contains many thousands of viral entities. That means that there are trillions of viral replications. Each one of those replications has a chance of mutation. The vast majority of them will be irrelevant or harmful to the virus. Yet a very small percentage will be beneficial - perhaps 0.0001% of the time. Yet with trillions of replications, that becomes a serious threat. Those mutations will allow the virus greater binding affinity to cells, expand the range of cells it can infect and evade previous vaccines.

I see it as a race in time and we are at a critical period right now as we near 50% of people vaccinated. So far, the limiting factor has been the number of shots - they have been giving vaccines as fast as possible. So anti-vaxxers haven't been an issue. Yet that is changing right now as we approach 50% vaccinated. As a rough estimate:

Group A: 25% of population was eager to get the vaccination. They were will to pay money to get it, drive for hours for it or wait in line for hours. They have all been fully vaccinated.

Group B: 25% of the population was somewhat reluctant to get the vaccine. Yet when it became available, they got it with mild trepidation. 

Group C: 25% of the population are very reluctant to get the vaccine. They will not take initiative on their own. They need some encouragement. 

Group D: 25% hard-core anti-vaxxers.

In America, we are now finishing up Group B at maximum speed. Moving into Group C is critical. If vaccination rates slow down that will give the virus opportunity to spread. 50% vaccinated is not enough. There will be new variants that arise that are more contagious and resistant to the original vaccine. So I think it's super important to educate people about risks and work to socially invite Group C. I don't think they will be motivated enough on their own.

Hopefully, we get to about 65% vaccinated soon, before new variants take hold. It will be much harder to convince the public to take a second vaccine for variants. To get above 65% vaccinated, I think society will need to implement vaccine passports, yet 65% of people would be vaccinated, so they will be cool with this. If a sporting event wants a vaccination certificate on your phone for entry, vaccinated people will be fine with this. This will put more pressure on those unvaccinated and could boost it up to 75-80%, which I consider the target threshold. . . However, there is also a risk. This type of social passport can be abused by government, so it's important for those vaccinated to be socially responsible in the opposite direction and pushback on government over-reach. 

I totally agree with you. However, how likely do you think that most if not all of the group C people in the country will be ultimately persuaded to take the vaccine after much education and push for it?

[Forestluv]

30 minutes ago, SASAM said:

What will save more people in the long run: Mass vaccinations or slapping a Cancer-warning sticker on hot dogs and bacon?

I don't understand this logic. Crappy food and pathogenic viruses both cause social harm. I can see the argument that we don't spend enough resources on Cancer prevention, yet that isn't a good argument against the coronavirus which also causes widespread harm.

That would be a better argument for something like Blastomycosis. This pathogen rarely infects people and only causes mild symptoms. It would be absurd to demand everyone get vaccinated for Blastomycosis when we have more serious illnesses like cancer. Yet covid is not a rare, benign microbe. 

[Forestluv]

31 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

@Forestluv

And you don´t actually see the problem with vaccine-passports? We can see pretty clearly in history what happens if we introduce a two-tier society. 

You keep creating dualistic constructs. I agree that vaccine passports are problematic, yet not having vaccine passports is also problematic. You can clearly see why vaccine passports are problematic, that is why I'm not discussing that because you can already see that part. You are missing the part that not having vaccine passports is also problematic. It's like you can only see side aspect of a cube.

Many issues involve pros and cons. Designing public policies involve zooming into to aspects, yet also zooming out and looking at the big picture is also important. 

[SASAM]

20 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I don't understand this logic. Crappy food and pathogenic viruses both cause social harm. I can see the argument that we don't spend enough resources on Cancer prevention, yet that isn't a good argument against the coronavirus which also causes widespread harm.

That would be a better argument for something like Blastomycosis. This pathogen rarely infects people and only causes mild symptoms. It would be absurd to demand everyone get vaccinated for Blastomycosis when we have more serious illnesses like cancer. Yet covid is not a rare, benign microbe. 

The logic is that The World Health Organization, the same organization that declared this pandemic, declared that these foods were cancer-causing in 2015. In science, declaring something as causative is almost never done, it is mostly correlative and suggestive/supportive, so this was big news.

Not just 'crappy foods'.

It was in all the headlines for a few weeks and then thizzled out.

This declaration should have been viewed as a huge deal with massive societal changes in attitudes to follow, similar if not identical to that which happened with cigarettes .

Society decided: no, 'we like bacon.' 

My point is that society is more motivated by arbitrary feelings, likes, dislikes, and fear, mostly, rather than logic. 

And further, elected officials are more motivated by big business (bacon/hot dog manufacturers) than the health of the people. I don't think that changed from 2015.

Likewise, everyone's seemingly new sense of societal duty for this virus was nonexistent when it came to bacon and hot dogs in 2015.

Edited April 23, 2021 by SASAM

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I totally agree with you. However, how likely do you think that most if not all of the group C people in the country will be ultimately persuaded to take the vaccine after much education and push for it?

I would say half of group C is persuadable with moderate social peer-pressure. I predict vaccination rates will begin to slowly decline soon at 50% at the decline will be more pronounced at 65%. 

That is why this is the critical period. So far the limiting factor for vaccine rates was number of shots available. We are at the turning point in which the limiting factor will soon be number of willing unvaccinated people. 

Yet it's human nature to want to fit in and participate within social groups. Nobody likes to feel like an outcast. For example, imagine a college says that only vaccinated people can attend graduation. There is a policy that only vaccinated students can attend college sporting events for the next year. That would piss off some anti-vaxxing parents and students. Yet that type of thing shifts persuadable Group C. People want to feel accepted in social groups and participate in social events. Half of Group C would be like "whatever, I'll get the vaccine - then I don't have do deal with this crap".

Yet that second half of Group C into Group D will be kicking and screaming. The bottom half of Group D would take up semi-automatic weapons and threaten violence. 

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, SASAM said:

The logic is that The World Health Organization, the same organization that declared this pandemic, declared that these foods were cancer-causing in 2015. In science, declaring something as causative is almost never done, it is mostly correlative and suggestive/supportive, so this was big news.

Not just 'crappy foods'.

It was in all the headlines for a few weeks and then thizzled out.

This declaration should have been viewed as a huge deal with massive societal changes in attitudes to follow, similar if not identical to that which happened with cigarettes .

Society decided, no, 'we like bacon.' 

My point is that society is more motivated by arbitrary feelings, likes, dislikes, and fear, mostly, rather than logic. 

I agree with you that there are many serious social ills that haven't gotten enough attention. Yet that does not translate into covid getting too much attention. Covid is a serious pandemic worthy of attention. 

Yes, there may be some aspects of feelings and over-reacting. Yet I consider it absurd to say that logic hasn't been implemented. Epidemiology, immunology and modeling is based on logic. That logic is then integrated with social dynamics, in which human psychology is considered. Together, that shapes public policy.

The viral life cycle and mechanisms of infection has nothing to do with feelings, likes, dislikes, fear etc. For example, we know the viral spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor of some epithelial cells and injects viral RNA into the cell. As well, viral variants have arisen with mutations in the spike protein. That has nothing to do with anyone's personal feelings. likes, dislikes etc. 

If I drop a bowling ball from a building, that ball will travel downward due to gravity at a specific rate. How anybody feels about that phenomena is irrelevant to the ball falling. 

[SASAM]

1 minute ago, Forestluv said:

I agree with you that there are many serious social ills that haven't gotten enough attention. Yet that does not translate into covid getting too much attention. Covid is a serious pandemic worthy of attention. 

Yes, there may be some aspects of feelings and over-reacting. Yet I consider it absurd to say that logic hasn't been implemented. Epidemiology, immunology and modeling is based on logic. That logic is then integrated with social dynamics, in which human psychology is considered. Together, that shapes public policy.

The viral life cycle and mechanisms of infection has nothing to do with feelings, likes, dislikes, fear etc. For example, we know the viral spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor of some epithelial cells and injects viral RNA into the cell. As well, viral variants have arisen with mutations in the spike protein. That has nothing to do with anyone's personal feelings. likes, dislikes etc. 

If I drop a bowling ball from a building, that ball will travel downward due to gravity at a specific rate. How anybody feels about that phenomena is irrelevant to the ball falling. 

I get that all that stuff has convinced you.

Why do you think you have the right to impose restrictions on my freedom to believe and act otherwise?

There should be the highest of highest limitations and care to ensure that your fears and convictions do not interfere with my freedoms and vice versa.

I am thankful I live in a place where people understand this and are willing to speak out to protect those freedoms:

https://www.saanichnews.com/news/doug-ford-backtracks-on-new-police-covid-19-powers-amid-intense-backlash/