Getting My Covid Vaccine

[SASAM]

Would you say that a Christian Scientist or a Jehovah's Witness should be shamed, judged, pressured and restricted until they take this vaccine for the greater good? These groups are religiously barred from participating in modern pharma, but society is barred from restricting or discriminating against them (in Canada).

Society and the constitution has already declared that these groups are exempt and should be protected from any discrimination because of their beliefs. They MUST be allowed to go to the same schools, malls, amusement parks, etc. that the rest of society is allowed to, by law (where I am from). This is protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act).

I am saying that one shouldn't have to be part of one of these fringe groups to be protected from discrimination. You should simply be protected and free to choose for yourself (in Canada, I believe you'd be protected under Freedom of Conscience)

Live and let live.

[Forestluv]

18 minutes ago, SASAM said:

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

It's not a question of one person imposing restrictions on another person.

As I've said, personal freedom is one component of a larger system. You are hyper-focusing on that one component. Other components are benefits and harms at both individual and systems levels.

It is illegal to drink and drive because one's personal freedom to drink and drive is outweighed by harms to both the individual and society. Therefore, society can step in and say "We don't want people driving drunk". 

21 minutes ago, SASAM said:

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.

You keep throwing out this theme of "fear". I agree that fear is an aspect in both directions. Some people have and exaggerated fear of the virus and some people have an irrational fear of the vaccine.

Yet I don't see how you interpret what I've said as fear. Much of what you say has been integrated into what I've written. I've agreed with most of what you've written. Yet I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture and are hyper focusing on certain components. 

 

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, SASAM said:

Would you say that a Christian Scientist or a Jehovah's Witness should be shamed, judged, pressured and restricted until they take this vaccine for the greater good? These groups are religiously barred from participating in modern pharma, but society is barred from restricting or discriminating against them (in Canada).

From a wellness perspective, shaming and judging is irrelevant. What is relevant is benefit and harm to individual and society. I would only say that shaming is a valid method is a few cases in which someone is intentionally inflicting harm on others, yet not extreme enough to imprison them. A good example is in the U.S. with the confederate flag. Those that are using the flag as a symbol of white supremacy shouldn't be imprisoned, yet they also won't respond to rational discourse either. In this case, shaming can be effective. For example, SNL doing a skit that mocks Southern boys and the confederate flag.

The case of religious exemptions again depends on the case. For example, a religious group may say that for religious reasons, they refuse to serve black or gay people. In the public sphere, this won't fly. I restaurant owner cannot put a sign on his window and say "No blacks or gays allowed" and then try to shield themself with religious exemptions. What they are doing causes harm with no benefit. 

Another example, would be a religious group in Idaho that refuse to interact with doctors due to religious reasons. Yet there are some things that require medical attention. Some of their children have diabetes that can easily be treated with insulin shots. Yet the group refuses to take these kids to a doctor. Instead, they have some type of warlock burn some herbs. These kids suffer terrible and develop severe health problems that could have been avoided. Some of the kids die. It is a form of child abuse. In this case, I would say it is appropriate for social workers to step in and help these kids. What they are doing causes harm with no benefit. 

Yet in other cases, I think spiritual / religious exemptions should apply. For example, Some Native American groups want to use psychedelics like mescaline and peyote in ceremonies. This offers benefit, yet doesn't cause any harm. So they should be allowed to do it. 

[SASAM]

45 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

It's not a question of one person imposing restrictions on another person.

As I've said, personal freedom is one component of a larger system. You are hyper-focusing on that one component. Other components are benefits and harms at both individual and systems levels.

It is illegal to drink and drive because one's personal freedom to drink and drive is outweighed by harms to both the individual and society. Therefore, society can step in and say "We don't want people driving drunk". 

You keep throwing out this theme of "fear". I agree that fear is an aspect in both directions. Some people have and exaggerated fear of the virus and some people have an irrational fear of the vaccine.

Yet I don't see how you interpret what I've said as fear. Much of what you say has been integrated into what I've written. I've agreed with most of what you've written. Yet I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture and are hyper focusing on certain components. 

 

Certainly, I am hyperfocusing, because I am an individual. 

You are also avoiding my questions.

I actually would like to know whether you think we will save more lives by mass vaccinations versus putting a cancer warning on processed meats. You may think I'm asking in bad faith, but I promise you I actually would like to know. Which do you think would save more lives in 10 years? 

I think you can probably guess my views on drinking and driving as well, although, if I express them I am fairly certain most people who may have been agreeing with me before will diverge. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by SASAM

[tuckerwphotography]

@Forestluv Just wanted to say I appreciate your thoughtful responses to everyone's comments and have enjoyed following along in the conversation

[SASAM]

33 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

From a wellness perspective, shaming and judging is irrelevant. What is relevant is benefit and harm to individual and society. I would only say that shaming is a valid method is a few cases in which someone is intentionally inflicting harm on others, yet not extreme enough to imprison them. A good example is in the U.S. with the confederate flag. Those that are using the flag as a symbol of white supremacy shouldn't be imprisoned, yet they also won't respond to rational discourse either. In this case, shaming can be effective. For example, SNL doing a skit that mocks Southern boys and the confederate flag.

The case of religious exemptions again depends on the case. For example, a religious group may say that for religious reasons, they refuse to serve black or gay people. In the public sphere, this won't fly. I restaurant owner cannot put a sign on his window and say "No blacks or gays allowed" and then try to shield themself with religious exemptions. What they are doing causes harm with no benefit. 

Another example, would be a religious group in Idaho that refuse to interact with doctors due to religious reasons. Yet there are some things that require medical attention. Some of their children have diabetes that can easily be treated with insulin shots. Yet the group refuses to take these kids to a doctor. Instead, they have some type of warlock burn some herbs. These kids suffer terrible and develop severe health problems that could have been avoided. Some of the kids die. It is a form of child abuse. In this case, I would say it is appropriate for social workers to step in and help these kids. What they are doing causes harm with no benefit. 

Yet in other cases, I think spiritual / religious exemptions should apply. For example, Some Native American groups want to use psychedelics like mescaline and peyote in ceremonies. This offers benefit, yet doesn't cause any harm. So they should be allowed to do it. 

Great points about religion.

But both points are cases in which society is stepping in to prevent the religion from harming others who are not able to protect themselves. This is a case of protecting religious (or free-thought) adherents from society. 

Why have we not stepped in to stop male circumcision (for minors)?

Again, because society does not follow logic, we follow our irrational likes and inclinations.

Today, most of society likes materialism, pharma, processed meats, and cut (circumsized/mutilated) male genitalia.

Tomorrow, they may like spiritualism, holism, fasting, prayer, and intact male genitalia.

The individual's rights should be upheld, affirmed, and protected regardless of the whims of the current masses. 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by SASAM

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, SASAM said:

I actually would like to know whether you think we will save more lives by mass vaccinations versus putting a cancer warning on processed meats. You may think I'm asking in bad faith, but I promise you I actually would like to know. Which do you think would save more lives in 10 years? 

I don't know which would save more lives. I don't know how effective such a label would be. As well, I'm not sure how to make such a label reflect multifactorial inputs of causation to cancer. It is not as simple as processed meats => cancer. It is much more complicated than that with various inputs of causation. Yet I think it would be fair to add a label about general health risks. 

Yet cancer labels on meats is not a fair comparison to covid. If there was a vaccine that could prevent cancer, I would be 100% behind that vaccine. I would be talking very similar to the cancer vaccine as I do with the covid vaccine.  

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, SASAM said:

Why have we not stepped in to stop male circumcision (for minors)?

Again, because society does not follow logic, we follow our irrational likes and inclinations.

One irrational thing does not mean ALL things are irrational. This is extrapolation. 

If I am traveling and meet someone who is a Peruvian person that irrationally believes in dark magical spirits, it doesn't mean that everyone is an irrational Peruvian. 

Even if male circumcision is illogical, that has no bearing whatsoever whether the coronavirus vaccine is illogical. That line of thinking itself is highly illogical!

[Hardkill]

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

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. 

I see. I guess that isn't the worst. 

You think that maybe businesses will force their employees to get vaccinated?

[Forestluv]

55 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I see. I guess that isn't the worst. 

You think that maybe businesses will force their employees to get vaccinated?

Depends on the business and their culture.

[eggopm3]

I "registered" to get the vaccine, but I dunno what that means for actually getting an appointment. I guess they'll contact me when it's time to schedule one? I dunno. We'll see!

[Loving Radiance]

8 hours ago, Jake Johnson said:

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

Just because he said that heavy metal are for sure not in Pfizer and Moderna doesn't mean it is guaranteed to be in the J&J.

Here's is what I found:

• recombinant
• replication-incompetent adenovirus type 26 expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
• citric acid monohydrate
• trisodium citrate dihydrate
• ethanol
• 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HBCD)
• polysorbate-80
• sodium chloride

Seems to be very similar to the Pfizer ingredients which I had looked into. In general, heavy metal containing molecules are used in some of the conventional vaccines as preservatives. I haven't had virology in university but it seems to be unique to RNA vaccines that heavy metal preservatives are not needed. However I haven't looked in all RNA vaccines, there could be exceptions.

 

@Forestluv I can wholeheartedly agree with @tuckerwphotography and thank you for your work here. It is very educational to see the focus on the map on Paris distort the map of Europe, and I also love to project that onto myself how I do that too. Enlightening for sure ?

[BadHippie]

@Consept

Quote

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? 

Yeah I read almost all the studies that I find and interest me.

I don´t believe consensus in science is something that happens naturally. Let´s look at the climate change study, where the guy said 97% of scientists agree that climate change is on the largest part man-made.

When you actually check the study you will find that this is untrue. Just a bit of playing with numbers.

Also when it comes to COVID-19, you have to keep in mind that Scientist are anxious to say what they want. They get banned, publicly vilified and sometimes even get their title taken away. So of course a lot of scientists will be quiet.

When it comes to COVID-19 I actually feel that the majority of scientists is just echoing the mainstream media and not thinking for themselves, so I don´t listen to them. 

There are tons of scientists here in Germany who disagree with the current way we handle COVID-19. 

I think it only feels like the majority is agreeing on these measures because of crazy censorship and scientists being to anxious to speak out.

[Consept]

8 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

@Consept

Yeah I read almost all the studies that I find and interest me.

I don´t believe consensus in science is something that happens naturally. Let´s look at the climate change study, where the guy said 97% of scientists agree that climate change is on the largest part man-made.

When you actually check the study you will find that this is untrue. Just a bit of playing with numbers.

Also when it comes to COVID-19, you have to keep in mind that Scientist are anxious to say what they want. They get banned, publicly vilified and sometimes even get their title taken away. So of course a lot of scientists will be quiet.

When it comes to COVID-19 I actually feel that the majority of scientists is just echoing the mainstream media and not thinking for themselves, so I don´t listen to them. 

There are tons of scientists here in Germany who disagree with the current way we handle COVID-19. 

I think it only feels like the majority is agreeing on these measures because of crazy censorship and scientists being to anxious to speak out.

So do you think theres absolutely no truth in the scientific consensus in the case of Covid 19 and climate change?

Also if there was a scientific consensus that agreed with your conclusion on these topics would you accept that?

 

[BadHippie]

@Consept

There certainly is truth to it. Climate Change is real. It´s just not known yet how much of a part our CO2-Emission (and a lot of other factors) actually play. At least that´s what I got out of my research.

Same with COVID-19. Yes it can be dangerous. But for people below 70 the lethality is something around 0,05%. I think most people will agree on that. That´s why I don´t think all these measures are the right way to handle it. We should focus more on elderly people and actually help them have better environments.

I live in munich, the mother of a friend is in the administration of retirement homes. She told me some crazy stuff.

For example here in munich we have 2 retirement homes, where we had 0 COVID-19 cases till March 2021. Guess why that was? Because those were the retirement homes, where the people actually get treated well.

All the other homes in munich suck she said and also have COVID-19 cases. The people get put into a room, get their food and get forgotten. Guess what that does to old people, who have Alzheimer for example? She also told me that since COVID-19 started a lot old people get depressed, because the nursing stuff doesn´t actually see them as subjects anymore. 

This basically means if we would focus on giving those old people a safe and healthy environment we would have way less deaths / COVID cases. But guess what? Most poeple don´t care about those people honestly, they just do it now to virtue-signal that they are so moraly superior. 

Quote

Also if there was a scientific consensus that agreed with your conclusion on these topics would you accept that?

No I wouldn´t, at least not take if for certain. I know that my perspectives change over time and that I can always learn new stuff. 

There may would be a higher probability, yet that wouldn´t mean that view is absolutely truth. Just look at history, you can find many cases where people got stuck by believing they know everything about a topic.

Edited April 24, 2021 by BadHippie

[Consept]

11 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

Same with COVID-19. Yes it can be dangerous. But for people below 70 the lethality is something around 0,05%. I think most people will agree on that. That´s why I don´t think all these measures are the right way to handle it.

I think the death rate is actually higher, its said to be between 0.5% and 1% (https://fullfact.org/health/covid-ifr-more-01/)  . But either way lets say youre right and its really that low, do you think the death rate is the only thing to take into consideration?

Also do you think everything wouldve been fine if there were no lockdowns or precautions taken? As in no extra stress on hospitals, no long covid etc if not what measures do you think wouldve been reasonable? 

[BadHippie]

@Consept

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13554

No I don´t the death rate is the only thing we should take into consideration. There´s a lot more stuff going on. Bad Testing, which increases the numbers, without actually having any use.

People getting labeled as COVID-19 Case, but not actually having it. And then being wrongly treated. 

The Dogma of Asymptomatic Spread, which turned out to be untrue in my research. And so on.

Quote

Also do you think everything wouldve been fine if there were no lockdowns or precautions taken? 

For Germany yes, it would have been fine. At least if we wouldn´t have closed over 20 hospitals in 2020.

If you look at countries like Belarus, or Sweden you can also see that Lockdowns aren´t necessary.

Sweden even has one of the lowest number of intensive beds in all of Europe. 

Quote

As in no extra stress on hospitals, no long covid etc if not what measures do you think wouldve been reasonable? 

There may would have been. As there is almost every year in winter. Hospitals are always at 75%+ workload, because they get more money that way, and they have been privatized here in Germany.

The whole medical-system sucks, even though Germany is a prime example, when it comes to Healthcare... Just shows how bad other countries have it.

Edited April 24, 2021 by BadHippie

[Consept]

22 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

There may would have been. As there is almost every year in winter. Hospitals are always at 75%+ workload, because they get more money that way, and they have been privatized here in Germany.

The whole medical-system sucks, even though Germany is a prime example, when it comes to Healthcare... Just shows how bad other countries have it.

Its not privatised in the UK and the hospitals were basically over run, all other treatments were getting pushed back etc. Having spoken to nurses in the hospital system who had treated and even caught covid, its hard to imagine that covid didnt have any effect on this. 

25 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

No I don´t the death rate is the only thing we should take into consideration. There´s a lot more stuff going on. Bad Testing, which increases the numbers, without actually having any use.

People getting labeled as COVID-19 Case, but not actually having it. And then being wrongly treated. 

The Dogma of Asymptomatic Spread, which turned out to be untrue in my research. And so on.

So lets say a virus didnt kill anyone, it could be treated, only thing is it is very contagious so millions get it and you need hospital treatment to recover and even if you recover you may have bad affects with breathing and other things later down the line. In this case do you think it would make sense to only focus on the death rate and come to the conclusion that because its 0 no precautions should be taken?

[LfcCharlie4]

@tuckerwphotography thanks for sharing, I really liked this article, and feel you took a really Holistic perspective on it  

[SASAM]

@Leo Gura

Still trying to figure out how viruses are real when brains are not.

Not trying to be a 'hoaxer'; just joined this forum to exchange with people who were trying to understand the ultimate verities of life; who were interested in deep metaphysical truth. I would've thought a convo like this would be a bit different here.

Leo's breakdown of science on Youtube is advanced. He exhaustively lays out the follies of modern science (Scientism); the implicit bias and limitations of today's science.

He suggests that people's belief in modern science is no different from a religious person's belief in their religion. No different. A person spewing out scientific facts and literature to prove their point, without a deep and critical epistemological analysis, is no different from a Christian proving their point by referring to passages and verses in the Bible.

This thread is filled with arguments pointing to modern scientific proofs; seemingly to an audience that on some level understands the serious biases and limitations of modern science in relation to 'objective truth'. This audience ostensibly understands the perspective that 'there is nothing but subjectivity'.

I have given a good comparison in how today's society does not give a damn about rational objective truth, saving lives and protecting others when it conflicts to their individual and group preferences (carcinogenic meats and infant male circumcision); and in my ultimate analysis I see a deluded and miseducated public who place their faith on science, which they do not understand the limitations of, who are moving not by rationality, but by fear;

Fear that this 'new normal' will be permanent, fear of their loved ones dying, fear of themselves dying, fear that they'll lose the future they envisaged before the lockdown, and even their homes.

The problem is; fear unchecked has a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

At the end of the day, I respect people's right to take the vaccine if they so choose, and would like to see more people defending people's right to opt-out of taking the vaccine, without any restrictions on their freedoms - without shame or duress. To me, the line is clear on the reasonability of what society can demand here - it stops at forcing people to put substances into their bodies. May seem arbitrary to some; not to me. Anti-maskers are not identical to anti-vaxxers. A more appropriate term might be anti-forcing-through-group-shaming-and-social-restriction-vaxxers.

The second you try to impose your worldview on another to the detriment of their freedom, you are on thin ethical ice.

Edited April 25, 2021 by SASAM