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 think it's interesting this thread is still so active. For the record, I didn't downvote you.
But the alternative is nothing.
I believe the vaccine is fairly useless, and I don't think 'nothing' is a big difference, but I realize that's not something many people can accept, and that's fine.
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.
False premise, in my opinion, considering it doesn't seem to impart much protection, and can cause issues. So you could get hit anyway before 'immunity' kicks in, you could get vaccine side effects that outweigh the benefits, etc. It's really hard to measure, though, and I could very well be wrong. And it's situational. There are people who had their lives saved by the vaccine, I'm sure.
That said, I continue to believe that the vaccines were a net benefit.
Whether it goes to the degree of being a net benefit is a different story and, again, hard to measure. Personally I lean toward no, though.
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.
True, but I also believe there is a more correct side and a less correct side. Not calling you a fence-sitter, for the record. I think that's pretty silly.
And frankly, I strongly suspect that many people who now attack the vaccine (not you) would be supporting it if Trump was re-elected.
Supporting the vaccine? I doubt it. Some, maybe. But I think the lines have been drawn. I think people know where they stand, and plenty of people - his own supporters - were calling Trump out when he was still the president.
Me? I was off the Trump train for a while. Then the midterms happened, and the Republican leadership showed themselves to be even more traitorous than expected. Trump, sadly, has a ton of character flaws...but I think he's a useful tool to, among other things, reshape the Republican party into something better. He'll also be less authoritarian toward me than almost any Democrat. I'm fairly reluctantly back on the Trump train for now.
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.
I think it's interesting this thread is still so active. For the record, I didn't downvote you.
I believe the vaccine is fairly useless, and I don't think 'nothing' is a big difference, but I realize that's not something many people can accept, and that's fine.
False premise, in my opinion, considering it doesn't seem to impart much protection, and can cause issues. So you could get hit anyway before 'immunity' kicks in, you could get vaccine side effects that outweigh the benefits, etc. It's really hard to measure, though, and I could very well be wrong. And it's situational. There are people who had their lives saved by the vaccine, I'm sure.
Whether it goes to the degree of being a net benefit is a different story and, again, hard to measure. Personally I lean toward no, though.
True, but I also believe there is a more correct side and a less correct side. Not calling you a fence-sitter, for the record. I think that's pretty silly.
Supporting the vaccine? I doubt it. Some, maybe. But I think the lines have been drawn. I think people know where they stand, and plenty of people - his own supporters - were calling Trump out when he was still the president.
Me? I was off the Trump train for a while. Then the midterms happened, and the Republican leadership showed themselves to be even more traitorous than expected. Trump, sadly, has a ton of character flaws...but I think he's a useful tool to, among other things, reshape the Republican party into something better. He'll also be less authoritarian toward me than almost any Democrat. I'm fairly reluctantly back on the Trump train for now.