Covid Vaccination

[Ice_nine]

I want my vaccine with extra microchips

[Lilllabettt]

2 hours ago, elizabeth09 said:

Do you know my past?

ummmm no.  I'm just pointing out that the whole "I'll wait and see what happens to to other people" thing is kind of icky. It sounds bad when you say it. It's not the most Christian sentiment in the world, get me?

This is a matter of conscience and I'm all for conscientious objection. I doubt the Church will ever definitively comment on the moral responsibility to vaccinate --- although they have gone pretty far in that direction, especially recently.  But it's still up for your discernment. What I'm saying is the moral arguments for not getting the covid vaccine are not very good. If they convince you, they convince you. But imo it's far from being a close call.

There is a somewhat decent argument to be made supporting (but not requiring) conscientious objection to vaccines that use aborted babies - however none of the vaccines available in the USA used fetal cells in their development. They are mRNA vaccines, no aborted babies involved.

So like I said ... it's a weak case.

[beatitude]

On 12/9/2020 at 3:06 AM, Peace said:

No, I find walking to work to be much more "convenient" than making myself a guinea pig by injecting myself with an unknown, unproven substance rushed to the market by companies in search of massive financial gain.

The problem isn't that the Covid vaccine has been produced too fast. The problem is that other vaccines and medications are generally produced far too slowly, because outside of today's highly unusual circumstances affecting the entire planet, there is rarely sufficient incentive to fast-track them. The process is slower because far fewer people are hired to work on them and less money is put into their development. All vaccines could be available this quickly if only their production was prioritized.

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Your logic does not quite apply in this situation, however. It applies in situations, like when a pregnant mother develops cancer and she must choose whether to be treated (and lose her baby) or continue with pregnancy.  The outcome of her refusing treatment to continue growing the baby, are advised to her as likely, by experts.

Another example: The world is coming to an end. We know this with certainty. We could make decisions and refuse to do certain things based on the idea that the world will come to an end next Tuesday. There is a possibility it could happen. However that is not a good moral foundation for decision making - the mere possibility, and rather unlikely outcome that may happen in the future.

All vaccines have side effects, some quite serious. But they are exceedingly rare and unlikely to occur. Consider the MMR vaccine. It does have potentially serious side effects. However the Church seems to come down on there being a moral obligation to take it, if one is able, to protect the most vulnerable. Because the severe risks to oneself are very small.

This particular vaccine has already been tested in hundreds of thousands of people, beginning last May. So, almost 6 months have gone by. The people in a position to know have said the most common side effects are mild. There may be some very rare severe side effects (like with all vaccines); if they occurred even 5% of the time we would have seen them in around 5,000 people.

Now if you could only give the pope the same benefit of the doubt.

Yeah I don't think there is any moral obligation to believe "the people in a position to know." Look, these same folks experimented on blacks like dogs for decades. You gonna have to forgive me if I ain't just jumping on that gravy train. Ultimately we are still talking about risk levels and whether the thing is truly safe. We've had the MMR vaccine for 50 years. That ain't even close to being the same situation as something that has been out for 3 months. Not even the same ballgame. Sorry.

9 minutes ago, beatitude said:

The problem isn't that the Covid vaccine has been produced too fast. The problem is that other vaccines and medications are generally produced far too slowly, because outside of today's highly unusual circumstances affecting the entire planet, there is rarely sufficient incentive to fast-track them. The process is slower because far fewer people are hired to work on them and less money is put into their development. All vaccines could be available this quickly if only their production was prioritized.

If speed is such a desirable thing why not reduce the testing down to 7 days and inject the entire world? Would 7 days be too fast? How about 2 days? How about 12 hours? How about no testing at all just go for it?

Look, the risk of harmful side effects increases as the testing time decreases. There is no getting around that. The only thing debatable is what length of time is best, given the alternative of not having the vaccine available. That length of time is something on which reasonable people can disagree.

[Lilllabettt]

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

Now if you could only give the pope the same benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure how this applies. There is no one to give the benefit of a doubt to.

12 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yeah I don't think there is any moral obligation to believe "the people in a position to know."

This is the same rationale that people use to back up their denial of climate change, their rejection of vaccines, deny the efficacy of masks, denial of evolution and so on.   Conspiracy theories are entertaining but I can't believe in them no matter how much I would like to. The reason being, I know the statistical likelihood of any conspiracy being kept secret gradually approaches zero with each new person who knows of the conspiracy.  It is difficult for a conspiracy involving even 3 people to remain secret, let alone the hundreds who would need to keep the secret about poison and microchips in vaccines.

True, physicians are not terribly good moral agents but they they are not especially good liars either.  The medical community experimented on blacks for the same reason they continue to experiment on unborn babies: they consider them subhumans without rights. It was not a secret or anything they were ashamed of doing.

I think the distribution of the vaccine will probably mirror prevailing social disparities.  Wealthy, well educated, disproportionately white people will receive it first and most comprehensively -  Poorer, less educated, disproportionately non-white people will receive it last, if at all, and coverage will be spotty.  Thanks to segregation, wealthier white people will be mostly insulated from the consequences of poorer non-white populations lack of access to the vaccine.  Disparities in morbidity and mortality will continue apace. Some will point to this as an artifact of privilege, while others will say "they did it to themselves."  Just another chapter in a very old story.

 

[Peace]

10 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

This is the same rationale that people use to back up their denial of climate change, their rejection of vaccines, deny the efficacy of masks, denial of evolution and so on.   Conspiracy theories are entertaining but I can't believe in them no matter how much I would like to. The reason being, I know the statistical likelihood of any conspiracy being kept secret gradually approaches zero with each new person who knows of the conspiracy.  It is difficult for a conspiracy involving even 3 people to remain secret, let alone the hundreds who would need to keep the secret about poison and microchips in vaccines.

Well Darwinian evolution is practically quack science, but that is neither here nor there. I haven't looked at the climate science in quite a long time, but the last time I looked at it, it was wholly unconvincing. But that's a new thread. I'll give you the efficacy of masks, which is why I wear them as such.

Look, you can accuse me of espousing conspiracy theories. I can accuse you of ignoring the evidence and blindly following the zeitgeist. Neither of those really gets us anywhere.

I didn't just sit here and write "The white man is the devil and he and his evil concoctions are not to be trusted." I explained that the risk of unknown harmful side effects increases as the length and extent of testing decreases, which is an undeniable truth. These vaccines have been put out with record speed, and there have been past incidents of serious harm done by rolling out vaccines too quickly. You can easily go online and fine plenty of articles written by well respected medical professionals that in which they warned about the risks of attempting to produce a vaccine too quickly.

Now that being said, what if "the people in the know" came along and said "You know what this vaccine is totally safe we only need to test it out on 2 people over a period of 2 days"? What if "the people in the know" came along and said "You know what we don't even need to test it at all just take it"? You would just blindly take the injection right, because to do otherwise is to espouse conspiracy theories?

No, if you objected to putting your faith in such a determination, that would not mean that you have espoused a conspiracy theory, a "web of lies," or otherwise put on a tin-foil-hat. But this is what you are accusing me of. The only thing that differs is the length of time.

You don't object to the principle that people should not just blindly accept the determinations of "the people in the know." If you did object to that principle, then you would say that we should let "the people in the know" do anything to our bodies as they please, no matter how objectionable or unreasonable it may appear to us. And not even you would go to that extreme.

So when we get down to the crux of the matter you are not debating the principle that I have established. You are simply attempting to replace my prudential judgement about whether the numbers are satisfactory, with your own judgment. I reject your attempt to do so. Sorry.

10 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

True, physicians are not terribly good moral agents but they they are not especially good liars either.  The medical community experimented on blacks for the same reason they continue to experiment on unborn babies: they consider them subhumans without rights. It was not a secret or anything they were ashamed of doing.

No, they are exceptionally good liars. They lie all the time and they get away with it in large amounts. Again, we disagree with respect to the factual underpinning.

[Anomaly]

It’s not necessarily the science lies to us.   There are differing opinions as to the efficacy and safety that goes with what is not known, what is surmised, and what is reasonably projected in the scientific community.     

What those various opinions are are voiced and then communicated to the masses through the gauntlet and agency of governmental parties and media businesses with their own agendas and desires to promote or dissuade opinions accordingly.  

For myself, I’m reasonably comfortable with the risk / benefit of the vaccine considering my robust health and the health of my mom and father-in-law.   

[Ash Wednesday]

Me: "I'm not opposed to getting it. I'll decide when it reaches the general public here. I will see what my doctor advises with my particular health situation when the time comes."

Friend: "I will not get it. But I won't judge your decision."

Also my friend: "I think it's the mark of the beast"

Me:

[elizabeth09]

On 12/17/2020 at 2:22 PM, Lilllabettt said:

ummmm no.  I'm just pointing out that the whole "I'll wait and see what happens to to other people" thing is kind of icky. It sounds bad when you say it. It's not the most Christian sentiment in the world, get me?

This is a matter of conscience and I'm all for conscientious objection. I doubt the Church will ever definitively comment on the moral responsibility to vaccinate --- although they have gone pretty far in that direction, especially recently.  But it's still up for your discernment. What I'm saying is the moral arguments for not getting the covid vaccine are not very good. If they convince you, they convince you. But imo it's far from being a close call.

There is a somewhat decent argument to be made supporting (but not requiring) conscientious objection to vaccines that use aborted babies - however none of the vaccines available in the USA used fetal cells in their development. They are mRNA vaccines, no aborted babies involved.

So like I said ... it's a weak case.

If you don`t know my past, why is everyone thinks that the vaccine is a answer for me to get right away? 

[Lilllabettt]

26 minutes ago, elizabeth09 said:

If you don`t know my past, why is everyone thinks that the vaccine is a answer for me to get right away? 

Idk if it is or it isn't.  Ask your doctor. If you don't trust your doctor get a different one. If you want to wait to see what happens to other people that's kind of icky. That's all I'm saying. It's an icky sentiment. 

[Peace]

8 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Idk if it is or it isn't.  Ask your doctor. If you don't trust your doctor get a different one. If you want to wait to see what happens to other people that's kind of icky. That's all I'm saying. It's an icky sentiment. 

Why is that? Don't you read the customer reviews on Amazon before you buy a product? And what are clinical trials, if not that? Do you inject yourself with substances that have not been subjected to clinical trials, or do you take the fact that certain drugs have passed trials (i.e. being tested on other people to determine their efficacy and side effects) as evidence of their safety? I think its icky that you expect drugs to pass clinical trials before taking them. How is that any different?

Edited December 19, 2020 by Peace

[Lilllabettt]

6 hours ago, Peace said:

Why is that? Don't you read the customer reviews on Amazon before you buy a product? And what are clinical trials, if not that? Do you inject yourself with substances that have not been subjected to clinical trials, or do you take the fact that certain drugs have passed trials (i.e. being tested on other people to determine their efficacy and side effects) as evidence of their safety? I think its icky that you expect drugs to pass clinical trials before taking them. How is that any different?

People volunteer in clinical trials knowing and acknowledging they are human guinea pigs.

You, thinking of other, unwilling people as guinea pigs in your risk benefit assessment of whether to take a vaccine, is gross. I totally get why people do it. It makes strategic sense from a self interested perspective.  This is the motive of all antivax sentiment right ... why take even the small risks of a vaccine ... let others take it and get the benefits of herd immunity without risking anything personally.  

 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

People volunteer in clinical trials knowing and acknowledging they are human guinea pigs.

You, thinking of other, unwilling people as guinea pigs in your risk benefit assessment of whether to take a vaccine, is gross.

No. You are not being forced to take the vaccine. You know that there are risks associated with taking the vaccine. And you also know that if you manifest harmful side-effects as a result of taking the vaccine, that the information will be useful, from a medical risk perspective, to those who have not yet taken the vaccine. You are perfectly willing to volunteer for that by your choice to take the vaccine.

And medical professionals themselves will use results from the initial round of vaccinations to provide more effective variants of the vaccine in the future.

There is literally no difference in the logic. Look, I think you are a great person, but in this particular case I think you are being a bit hypocritical in your shaming, when you have essentially engaged in the same calculation that you now find so offensive.

2 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

I totally get why people do it. It makes strategic sense from a self interested perspective.  This is the motive of all antivax sentiment right ... why take even the small risks of a vaccine ... let others take it and get the benefits of herd immunity without risking anything personally.

It's not like you signed up for one of the clinical trials yourself. You let the people who signed up for the clinical trials take the initial risk of evaluating efficacy and safety of the drug, for your own benefit. Does that make you a terrible, self-interested, person for doing so?

As for me personally, "having the benefits of herd immunity while taking none of the risks myself" has not crossed my mind at all. That's not the way that I am looking at it. The "people in the know" could have a 3 or 4 year clinical trial like they typically do, without offering a vaccine to the general public at all, and I'd be fine with that situation. I'm not convinced that a vaccine developed and offered to the public at the current speed is a good course of conduct for the public at large, let alone for me personally. Masks, social distancing, flattening the curve, etc. seem to viable alternatives, given the risks involved with contacting the virus itself.

But if people decide to go down that course and take the vaccine, then there is no reason why I should not weigh the information that can be obtained from their choice in my own calculation, just like you did by not participating in the clinical trials, and then deciding that it was safe based on the medical recommendations obtained from those trials.

[Lilllabettt]

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

No. You are not being forced to take the vaccine. You know that there are risks associated with taking the vaccine. And you also know that if you manifest harmful side-effects as a result of taking the vaccine, that the information will be useful, from a medical risk perspective, to those who have not yet taken the vaccine. You are perfectly willing to volunteer for that by your choice to take the vaccine.

And medical professionals themselves will use results from the initial round of vaccinations to provide more effective variants of the vaccine in the future.

There is literally no difference in the logic. Look, I think you are a great person, but in this particular case I think you are being a bit hypocritical in your shaming, when you have essentially engaged in the same calculation that you now find so offensive.

It's not like you signed up for one of the clinical trials yourself. You let the people who signed up for the clinical trials take the initial risk of evaluating efficacy and safety of the drug, for your own benefit. Does that make you a terrible, self-interested, person for doing so?

As for me personally, "having the benefits of herd immunity while taking none of the risks myself" has not crossed my mind at all. That's not the way that I am looking at it. The "people in the know" could have a 3 or 4 year clinical trial like they typically do, without offering a vaccine to the general public at all, and I'd be fine with that situation. I'm not convinced that a vaccine developed and offered to the public at the current speed is a good course of conduct for the public at large, let alone for me personally. Masks, social distancing, flattening the curve, etc. seem to viable alternatives, given the risks involved with contacting the virus itself.

But if people decide to go down that course and take the vaccine, then there is no reason why I should not weigh the information that can be obtained from their choice in my own calculation, just like you did by not participating in the clinical trials, and then deciding that it was safe based on the medical recommendations obtained from those trials.

There's a huge moral and ethical difference... huge, between people involved in clinical trials and people taking an fda approved vaccine and the mental framing of that second group of people as test subjects, for your benefit.

I think you can overlook this because you have no schema for how ethical clinical research is done. Therefore  "The logic is the same to you" whether you are waiting for the result of tests on clinical research volunteers, or the result of your testing on the second larger group who are only taking it because they have been told it is both safe and effective.  

If you truly believe the vaccine has not been proven safe and effective the ethical thing would be to scream in protest at the top of your lungs in the defense of your fellow man being duped in this massive human rights violation. But you are not - why not?

What are the practical effects of your frame, none really. I mean even if you did scream the "experiment" would continue, and some informative data would result, and why not then make the best of it in that case, to aid your decision making? Nevertheless, there are consequences for dehumanizing others this way, and thinking of them as unwitting tools whose naivete may prove useful.  

 I was told today that in my present condition (7 months pregnant) I should not get the vaccine because it has not been tested thoroughly on pregnant volunteers. So I will not get it, and urge others like me not to get it, unless they are volunteering for research, fully cognizant of the fact it is not proven to be safe or effective in pregnancy.

 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

There's a huge moral and ethical difference... huge, between people involved in clinical trials and people taking an fda approved vaccine and the mental framing of that second group of people as test subjects, for your benefit.

I have not mentally framed the second group as test subjects for my benefit. As I wrote in my previous post, I would rather continue with the alternative measures, and roll out the vaccine after years of testing as is typically the case.

Regardless, for the sake of argument let's assume that I have mentally framed the second group as test subjects for my benefit. Then you have also framed the first group as test subjects for your benefit. You state that there would be a "huge moral and ethical difference" between the two situations, but you have failed to demonstrate any relevant distinction. The fact that the FDA has approved the vaccine in the case of the second group makes no difference from the ultimate moral standpoint, because both people in the first group and the second group know that there are risks associated with taking the vaccine (or any other medicine or medical procedure for that matter). It is not as if when the FDA approves a drug it is intended to be, or understood as, a solemn declaration to the world that there is absolutely no risk of future harm in taking the drug. Both groups also know that information from their experiences will be used for the benefit of other people who have not yet taken the drug. The only thing that differs is the degree of risk involved (the first group undertaking a greater degree of risk because less testing has been conducted before the trials begin). But the principles involved in both situations are exactly the same.

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

I think you can overlook this because you have no schema for how ethical clinical research is done. Therefore  "The logic is the same to you" whether you are waiting for the result of tests on clinical research volunteers, or the result of your testing on the second larger group who are only taking it because they have been told it is both safe and effective.  

"Safe" and "effective" are relative terms. As noted above, the only substantive difference is the degree of risk that both groups believe that they are undertaking. Both the first group and the second group know that there are risks associated with taking the vaccine (or any other medicine or medical procedure).

Medical researchers will use information obtained from the first group and the second group, to benefit future third groups that will take the vaccine after the second group (for the benefit of people like you who have chosen not to take it because of pregnancy, for example). The fact that the use of the information from the first group is stamped with the label "clinical" while the use of the information from the second group is stamped with some other label, does not change the fact that the information is being used for exactly the same purpose. The only thing that differs is the specific level of risk involved at the time the vaccine is taken, but that is a difference in the degree, not a difference in the principle involved.

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

If you truly believe the vaccine has not been proven safe and effective the ethical thing would be to scream in protest at the top of your lungs in the defense of your fellow man being duped in this massive human rights violation. But you are not - why not?

The reason why you wrote the above appears to be your desire to ascribe nefarious motivations to me, so that you can shame me, instead of just taking what I wrote at face value. You seem to imply that if I truly believed what I wrote, I would be screaming that belief from the rooftops. Therefore, the fact that I have not screamed from the rooftops is evidence that my true motivation is other than what I actually wrote (that is, to benefit from herd immunity while taking no risk myself, as you accused before). I would appreciate it if you could kindly stop the attempt to ascribe to me sentiments that I have not expressed.

In fact, I have no moral obligation to go screaming from the rooftops that I do not believe that the vaccine has been proven safe and effective. When the Chinese and Russians approved their vaccines months ago you had no idea whether they were safe or effective. I didn't see you on any rooftops telling people that you did not believe that they were proven safe and effective.

Here, there is a moral difference between having positive knowledge that something is harmful, and lacking knowledge that it is safe. If I know that the glass on the table contains arsenic, I should throw it out so that nobody drinks it by accident. But there is a glass on my table right now, which was placed there by someone else. I am not going to drink it because I don't know what is in it. I do not know if it contains orange juice, water, diet coke, sprite, arsenic, gasoline, or poison from a Russian spy. I don't have to go around my house and warn every person that I do not know that there is a safe substance in the glass just because I do not have positive information that there is a safe substance in it.

And even if I did have positive knowledge that it was not safe, it is not my moral obligation to inform the world, only those who I am responsible (such as my wife and children, for example). For example, I have recently come to believe that alcohol is extremely harmful. I should tell my children not to drink. But the guy 3 blocks down the road has to make his own choice as to what to put in his body. It's not like I have failed morally by not choosing to go down the road and knock on his door with holding a "Mother's Against Drunk Driving" placard. But this is essentially what you are asking me to do by your statement.

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

What are the practical effects of your frame, none really. I mean even if you did scream the "experiment" would continue, and some informative data would result, and why not then make the best of it in that case, to aid your decision making? Nevertheless, there are consequences for dehumanizing others this way, and thinking of them as unwitting tools whose naivete may prove useful.  

Yeah you keep repeating the same mantra, ascribing to others motives and sentiments that they have not only not expressed, but have repudiated. This leads me to think that you are more interested in shaming others, or signaling your own virtue, than discussing the issue in earnest.

I don't take any issue with your choice to take, or not take the vaccine. But I have to object when you attempt to shame me for my choice. I don't think you have established any basis on which I should feel guilty for my decision.

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

 I was told today that in my present condition (7 months pregnant) I should not get the vaccine because it has not been tested thoroughly on pregnant volunteers. So I will not get it, and urge others like me not to get it, unless they are volunteering for research, fully cognizant of the fact it is not proven to be safe or effective in pregnancy.

Well regardless of what you choose to do, I hope that you and your child remain safe.