And I'd argue the problem is that people I care about are more likely to keel over and die...
Folks do many things that have that effect. If it was their choice.
Well, thanks, but that's also been your fallback before, as well as other people who argue like that. Assert one thing, then when you get pushback say "well, no, not you, you're one of the good ones."
I was talking to someone else before you joined in. It's not my fallback. If I thought you were crazy, I'd tell you straight.
For example, yes, you did tell me I sounded like I was justifying. Then when I said I wasn't, you said you didn't mean me. A story old as time.
I talked about 'such people' and said that this is what I 'suspect'. It may sound like it. But whatever.
We do agree the mandates are evil, yes. As to how bad the cost/benefit has to be...not very bad at all. And before you scream 'gotcha,' hear me out. Even if the vaccine mostly worked, and was mostly safe (which I argue it doesn't and isn't, but I know we won't agree there), I think the gaslighting, changing of terms and definitions, and general obfuscation of the science is in itself evil.
I actually do agree. Insofar as it actually happened, which I haven't verified in case of 'changing the meaning of the term vaccine'.
Even if the vaccine worked hundreds of times better than I believe it does, and was hundreds of times safer than I believe it is...it would still be a massive departure from past precedent when it comes to vaccine rollouts. They've bulled vaccines for much, much, much, much, much less, when it comes to safety concerns. A few adverse reactions, not even death, used to be enough for the powers that be to go 'whoa, let's slow this shit down, recall it and rework it.'
Is it though? Suppose for a moment that the vaccine is effective in preventing death. It would be pretty crazy to withdraw it as soon as there is one death. Isn't the question the cost vs. the benefit? The benefits can still grossly outweigh the benefits, even if there is a death. I don't see why my parents should not be able to get a vaccine that has a 1/10,000,000 chance of death, when they have a (just making stuff up) 1/4 chance of getting Covid and a 1/100 chance of dying if they do.
Now if you already have a superior vaccine, then of course, you go for that one. Like in the 1980s, the live polio vaccine was exchanged for the dead one, because the geniuses gave some kids polio.
But in context of the history of modern vaccines, it absolutely is poison. It never should have been released into the population, much less mandated.
We agree on mandating it. Not with releasing it in the population, though if you think that it literally has zero positive effect, your position makes sense from your POV. As for poison, what's the criterion for that? "It has worse side-effects than other vaccines", if true, would not make it a poison.
I still think it's evil to put it out there, since even based on their own studies it's both historically unsafe and historically ineffective. They, at best, wanted a quick buck. At worst, something far more sinister.
What is the most sinister thing that you could still regard as plausible? The most sinister to me, is that they used this opportunity to push mRNA vaccines, which people would not have accepted unless there was an emergency.
No matter how many people it saves (unless humanity would literally die out without it or something crazy like that), a vaccine that so quickly kills tens of thousands of people (your hypothetical) should not be released. It's not safe, it's not ready. Especially if told it's safe and effective, it has no side effects, and it stops both transmission and illness.
So in this scenario, you're saying that it's OK to have tens of millions of people die, to prevent potential side-effects from the vaccine. I actually think that's a respectable position, because messing with nature is something that we should not take lightly. But I do take the opposite view. People should be able to choose, without any pressure. If you want to take the risk of Covid, fine. If you want to take the risk of the vaccine, also fine.
Yup, I agree that's certainly an issue too, but I do think the vaccine itself is greatly flawed to begin with.
I agree that it's flawed. But it's the best we've got.
We agree that the lying is a big part. But I don't believe the vaccine was ready to be released at all, even if they'd been more honest about it.
I suspect that if there were no vaccine, we'd still be in on-and-off lockdowns. So I am rather happy with them. No one has given a damn about Covid here for close to a year. Imagine if they were able to say: we have to lock down until the vaccine arrives in 4-5 years, or millions of old people will die. Maybe people still would not put up with it, I don't know. But no one wants his parents or grandparents to die, and Covid put the fear of god in anyone a little older.
And I'd argue the problem is that people I care about are more likely to keel over and die...
Folks do many things that have that effect. If it was their choice.
If it's not an informed choice it doesn't matter. If you're told there's no risk by "authorities and experts," and told any counter argument is "dangerous misinformation," it's not really a fair choice.
I don't really get your argument. You're saying even if the vaccine is killing people around me, it would be fine, as long as they weren't mandated? Even though there was a bunch of lies, as well as societal pressure? Even if this was back in the days of "YOU'RE LITERALLY KILLING GRANDMA?"
The vaccines are supposed to make you healthier in theory, not less healthy. Having people die from medicine, and then handwaving that away as "if it was their choice," is pretty terrible. They wanted to live, so they took the medicine. If the medicine kills them it's not "oh, they made a bad choice..." Yikes.
I suspect that if there were no vaccine, we'd still be in on-and-off lockdowns. So I am rather happy with them.
Eh, lockdowns didn't work either, and people got sick of them. I think the vaccines and lockdowns are unrelated, and just an excuse. They pushed as far as they thought they could, then backed off. Lockdowns may even come back at some point, I wouldn't be surprised. So, yeah, I don't credit the vaccines with "ending lockdowns" or anything of the like. We just don't talk about the people dying any more, and we don't have CNN with a running tally. If you want to credit anything with "ending lockdowns," it's that Bad Orange Man stopped literally murdering everyone, and Benevolent Biden saved our souls. They didn't want to push as much fear any more. We're in the Russia Bad arc now anyway. Covid is so last year.
No one has given a damn about Covid here for close to a year. Imagine if they were able to say: we have to lock down until the vaccine arrives in 4-5 years, or millions of old people will die. Maybe people still would not put up with it, I don't know. But no one wants his parents or grandparents to die, and Covid put the fear of god in anyone a little older.
But they could still try that, nothing's stopping them. Again, I don't credit the vaccine with anything policy-related. The people at the top have shown time and again that they can work with any data to push their agenda, facts be damned.
If it's not an informed choice it doesn't matter. If you're told there's no risk by "authorities and experts," and told any counter argument is "dangerous misinformation," it's not really a fair choice.
I completely agree.
But that is not an issue with the vaccine per se. Suppose there was full, informed constent by the said authorities and EXPERTS. This is your risk of Covid for your age, these are the known side-effects from the vaccine for your age, there may be further side-effects with a smaller likelihood that for that reason have not blipped on the radar, and there may be long-term risks which take time to emerge.
Is that OK?
You're saying even if the vaccine is killing people around me, it would be fine, as long as they weren't mandated? Even though there was a bunch of lies, as well as societal pressure? Even if this was back in the days of "YOU'RE LITERALLY KILLING GRANDMA?"
Nope. But you weren't suggesting that there is a huge chance that they will die from the vaccine, if they are. Only an increased chance. The fact that I drink a substantial amount of alcohol also does that.
Eh, lockdowns didn't work either
Whether or not they did, it certainly didn't stop politicians from enacting them. And who's to say that they would not have continued if the vaccine had not removed all excuse they had?
We just don't talk about the people dying any more, and we don't have CNN with a running tally. If you want to credit anything with "ending lockdowns," it's that Bad Orange Man stopped literally murdering everyone, and Benevolent Biden saved our souls.
I thought that this would happen as well. It happened less quickly than I had expected.
The people at the top have shown time and again that they can work with any data to push their agenda, facts be damned.
Compliance will likely be vastly different though. The folks at the top will try to do what they can. Whether or not they can get away with it is something else.
But that is not an issue with the vaccine per se. Suppose there was full, informed constent by the said authorities and EXPERTS. This is your risk of Covid for your age, these are the known side-effects from the vaccine for your age, there may be further side-effects with a smaller likelihood that for that reason have not blipped on the radar, and there may be long-term risks which take time to emerge.
Is that OK?
You're doing a bit of the Sam Harris / Scott Adams thing, where you argue that if things were different you'd be right. Yes, that hypothetical scenario you propose is better...but that's not what's happening.
I'm not doing the Sam Harris thing at all. I'm just trying to figure out where the problem is according to you: with the vaccines themselves, or with the way they were sold to the public.
Obviously, the way things happened is quite wrong. But I think the issue was not the vaccine themselves.
Folks do many things that have that effect. If it was their choice.
I was talking to someone else before you joined in. It's not my fallback. If I thought you were crazy, I'd tell you straight.
I talked about 'such people' and said that this is what I 'suspect'. It may sound like it. But whatever.
I actually do agree. Insofar as it actually happened, which I haven't verified in case of 'changing the meaning of the term vaccine'.
Is it though? Suppose for a moment that the vaccine is effective in preventing death. It would be pretty crazy to withdraw it as soon as there is one death. Isn't the question the cost vs. the benefit? The benefits can still grossly outweigh the benefits, even if there is a death. I don't see why my parents should not be able to get a vaccine that has a 1/10,000,000 chance of death, when they have a (just making stuff up) 1/4 chance of getting Covid and a 1/100 chance of dying if they do.
Now if you already have a superior vaccine, then of course, you go for that one. Like in the 1980s, the live polio vaccine was exchanged for the dead one, because the geniuses gave some kids polio.
We agree on mandating it. Not with releasing it in the population, though if you think that it literally has zero positive effect, your position makes sense from your POV. As for poison, what's the criterion for that? "It has worse side-effects than other vaccines", if true, would not make it a poison.
What is the most sinister thing that you could still regard as plausible? The most sinister to me, is that they used this opportunity to push mRNA vaccines, which people would not have accepted unless there was an emergency.
So in this scenario, you're saying that it's OK to have tens of millions of people die, to prevent potential side-effects from the vaccine. I actually think that's a respectable position, because messing with nature is something that we should not take lightly. But I do take the opposite view. People should be able to choose, without any pressure. If you want to take the risk of Covid, fine. If you want to take the risk of the vaccine, also fine.
I agree that it's flawed. But it's the best we've got.
I suspect that if there were no vaccine, we'd still be in on-and-off lockdowns. So I am rather happy with them. No one has given a damn about Covid here for close to a year. Imagine if they were able to say: we have to lock down until the vaccine arrives in 4-5 years, or millions of old people will die. Maybe people still would not put up with it, I don't know. But no one wants his parents or grandparents to die, and Covid put the fear of god in anyone a little older.
If it's not an informed choice it doesn't matter. If you're told there's no risk by "authorities and experts," and told any counter argument is "dangerous misinformation," it's not really a fair choice.
I don't really get your argument. You're saying even if the vaccine is killing people around me, it would be fine, as long as they weren't mandated? Even though there was a bunch of lies, as well as societal pressure? Even if this was back in the days of "YOU'RE LITERALLY KILLING GRANDMA?"
The vaccines are supposed to make you healthier in theory, not less healthy. Having people die from medicine, and then handwaving that away as "if it was their choice," is pretty terrible. They wanted to live, so they took the medicine. If the medicine kills them it's not "oh, they made a bad choice..." Yikes.
Eh, lockdowns didn't work either, and people got sick of them. I think the vaccines and lockdowns are unrelated, and just an excuse. They pushed as far as they thought they could, then backed off. Lockdowns may even come back at some point, I wouldn't be surprised. So, yeah, I don't credit the vaccines with "ending lockdowns" or anything of the like. We just don't talk about the people dying any more, and we don't have CNN with a running tally. If you want to credit anything with "ending lockdowns," it's that Bad Orange Man stopped literally murdering everyone, and Benevolent Biden saved our souls. They didn't want to push as much fear any more. We're in the Russia Bad arc now anyway. Covid is so last year.
But they could still try that, nothing's stopping them. Again, I don't credit the vaccine with anything policy-related. The people at the top have shown time and again that they can work with any data to push their agenda, facts be damned.
I completely agree.
But that is not an issue with the vaccine per se. Suppose there was full, informed constent by the said authorities and EXPERTS. This is your risk of Covid for your age, these are the known side-effects from the vaccine for your age, there may be further side-effects with a smaller likelihood that for that reason have not blipped on the radar, and there may be long-term risks which take time to emerge.
Is that OK?
Nope. But you weren't suggesting that there is a huge chance that they will die from the vaccine, if they are. Only an increased chance. The fact that I drink a substantial amount of alcohol also does that.
Whether or not they did, it certainly didn't stop politicians from enacting them. And who's to say that they would not have continued if the vaccine had not removed all excuse they had?
I thought that this would happen as well. It happened less quickly than I had expected.
Compliance will likely be vastly different though. The folks at the top will try to do what they can. Whether or not they can get away with it is something else.
You're doing a bit of the Sam Harris / Scott Adams thing, where you argue that if things were different you'd be right. Yes, that hypothetical scenario you propose is better...but that's not what's happening.
I'm not doing the Sam Harris thing at all. I'm just trying to figure out where the problem is according to you: with the vaccines themselves, or with the way they were sold to the public.
Obviously, the way things happened is quite wrong. But I think the issue was not the vaccine themselves.