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.
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.
Sorry, I misunderstood. You were asking a hypothetical. Anyway, to answer your question; both.
There were definitely a ton of lies and coercion around the vaccines, which is wrong, but the vaccine itself is also faulty in my opinion.
Suppose there was full, informed constent by the said authorities and EXPERTS...Is that OK?
Mostly, yes. Although I do have concerns with letting relatively untested and new things out into the general population; I think there's a lot of potential danger there.
But, yes, if they were upfront with everything, and there were no mandates, that would certainly be a start. I've never said people shouldn't be able to get the vaccine, although I suppose I did indirectly by saying I don't think it was in a state to pass use authorizations. But as long as people were informed just how experimental and untested it was...that's something at least.
There were definitely a ton of lies and coercion around the vaccines, which is wrong, but the vaccine itself is also faulty in my opinion.
And I can even agree with you in that, in that I don't think that the vaccine was perfect or as good as people wanted it to be - ergo faulty. But the alternative is nothing.
I'll even agree with you that natural immunity is better, which is backed with ample evidence. But you have to be infected to get natural immunity, and I'd rather not that my grandfather or father gets infected with no protection.
Mostly, yes. Although I do have concerns with letting relatively untested and new things out into the general population; I think there's a lot of potential danger there.
I mean, even as I presented the hypothetical to you in order to figure out what you think, I had my own concerns. Because it may be incompatible to free something for the public while remaining objective about it. Too much money is at stake, and the health authorities are too corrupt - see Oxycontin.
That said, I continue to believe that the vaccines were a net benefit. More of a net benefit now that there is basically no coercion. That does not prevent me from acknowledging the many things that went wrong, though it is less than you would say was wrong.
I've never said people shouldn't be able to get the vaccine, although I suppose I did indirectly by saying I don't think it was in a state to pass use authorizations. But as long as people were informed just how experimental and untested it was...that's something at least.
Someone just called me a 'fence-sitter' on the matter. But surely you don't have to go all in one side or the other. And frankly, I strongly suspect that many people who now attack the vaccine (not you) would be supporting it if Trump was re-elected.
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.
Sorry, I misunderstood. You were asking a hypothetical. Anyway, to answer your question; both.
There were definitely a ton of lies and coercion around the vaccines, which is wrong, but the vaccine itself is also faulty in my opinion.
Mostly, yes. Although I do have concerns with letting relatively untested and new things out into the general population; I think there's a lot of potential danger there.
But, yes, if they were upfront with everything, and there were no mandates, that would certainly be a start. I've never said people shouldn't be able to get the vaccine, although I suppose I did indirectly by saying I don't think it was in a state to pass use authorizations. But as long as people were informed just how experimental and untested it was...that's something at least.
And I can even agree with you in that, in that I don't think that the vaccine was perfect or as good as people wanted it to be - ergo faulty. But the alternative is nothing.
I'll even agree with you that natural immunity is better, which is backed with ample evidence. But you have to be infected to get natural immunity, and I'd rather not that my grandfather or father gets infected with no protection.
I mean, even as I presented the hypothetical to you in order to figure out what you think, I had my own concerns. Because it may be incompatible to free something for the public while remaining objective about it. Too much money is at stake, and the health authorities are too corrupt - see Oxycontin.
That said, I continue to believe that the vaccines were a net benefit. More of a net benefit now that there is basically no coercion. That does not prevent me from acknowledging the many things that went wrong, though it is less than you would say was wrong.
Someone just called me a 'fence-sitter' on the matter. But surely you don't have to go all in one side or the other. And frankly, I strongly suspect that many people who now attack the vaccine (not you) would be supporting it if Trump was re-elected.