Covid Vaccination

[elizabeth09]

13 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Trust me... you will be asked.

And how they know if I am telling them the truth?  I could be lying as well.  

[rosamundi]

15 hours ago, elizabeth09 said:

What if no one ask?  No one ask if I get the flu shot every winter.  Or if I am updated on my vaccinations.

I went on holiday last year to a place that required proof of yellow fever vaccination.

Got to the airport to check in: "can I see your yellow fever certificate?"

Got to immigration at the other end, handed over passport and certificate at the same time.

Checking in at the local airstrip for the tiny plane to the safari camp, same again.

And I was coming from a country which has no history of yellow fever or any other exciting tropical diseases.

I could quite easily see that, certainly until this thing evolves and calms down to something less virulent, you could be required to provide vaccination proof to go to college, board a plane, go to any event where large numbers of people will be gathered in close proximity.

[Ice_nine]

On 12/21/2020 at 8:37 PM, Lilllabettt said:

The problem is how this treats people - as tools whose gullibility is useful to you. If you honestly believe the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested you shouldn't be "ok" with anyone getting it. "You do you" isn't a Christian approach to public health.

I think you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions. You can believe the medicine has been tested, but would prefer a bigger sample size.  Some people may be perfectly happy to proceed with the green light of clinical scientists. No gullibility required.

If doing that is using people as tools then so is using people for clinical trials. There is no qualitative difference in that regard. You've made no meaningful distinction between the two.

[Lilllabettt]

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

 

If doing that is using people as tools then so is using people for clinical trials. There is no qualitative difference in that regard. You've made no meaningful distinction between the two.

I'm trying to keep my patience... I realize lay people have no idea how clinical trials are run. So this distinction may be meaningless to you, because you are not in contact with the ethics and how dire blurring this distinction is. But it is a very very foundational and basic distinction.  People who participated in covid vaccine trials gave their informed consent to being in a trial. People who are taking the vaccine now do not consent to being in your trial. They do not agree to you collecting experimental data on their treatment outcomes. They are taking something because they have been told it has been thoroughly tested in hundreds of thousands of people. They are not taking a risk to help you out. This expectation or let's say, hope, on your part, is unethical. Even thinking of a person, as "research" when they have not given their informed consent to participate, to being in that category, is a gross violation of ethics. It warps the mind. 

 

[Aloysius]

If you are standing at the beginning of a bridge and you decide you are unsure if you trust the safety of it's construction, all you can do is share with others your own concern but ultimately let them make their own decisions.  if you therefore say I will wait and see what happens when others cross this bridge to know whether it's going to collapse, as you are worried it might, there is absolutely nothing wrong or unethical about that--unless you're trying to trick others or coerce others into crossing that bridge. 

now there are other complex questions about this bridge-as-vaccine analogy--is your fear about the safety of the bridge well-founded or not?  are you in a situation of urgency where you crossing the bridge will help others who have some desperate need to cross the bridge?  both of those are separate debates, though.  apart from those issues, a wait and see attitude is by no means morally or ethically problematic IMO.  (assuming you're hoping everyone who takes it will be fine, you're not coercing or misinforming anyone to convince them to take an action, etc).

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

I'm trying to keep my patience... I realize lay people have no idea how clinical trials are run. So this distinction may be meaningless to you, because you are not in contact with the ethics and how dire blurring this distinction is. But it is a very very foundational and basic distinction.  People who participated in covid vaccine trials gave their informed consent to being in a trial. People who are taking the vaccine now do not consent to being in your trial. They do not agree to you collecting experimental data on their treatment outcomes. They are taking something because they have been told it has been thoroughly tested in hundreds of thousands of people. They are not taking a risk to help you out. This expectation or let's say, hope, on your part, is unethical. Even thinking of a person, as "research" when they have not given their informed consent to participate, to being in that category, is a gross violation of ethics. It warps the mind. 

 

Everyone here understands the situation, and your arguments, perfectly well. Every argument that you wrote above has already been refuted in this thread. We disagree with your view, and reject them. Stating "I have secret knowledge that you do not possess" does not make you correct. It makes you a gnostic.

Nobody here has said that they hope the general public goes out and gets the vaccine so that they can be our guinea pigs and we can get useful information from them. I already made it perfectly clear that I think that continuing social distancing and continuing the trials is a better solution. You are simply attempting to virtue signal and shame other people, no matter how many times you have been corrected on that point.

The bottom line is that some people are not taking the vaccine because they are not convinced that it is safe to do so. You already indicated that you yourself will not take the vaccine because you are not convinced that it is safe for you to do so. And if future information comes out that indicates that the vaccine is safe (or not safe) for you in particular, you and your doctor will use that information in informing your future decision to take or reject the vaccine. When you decide that something has not been proven safe for you, and to hold off on taking it, it is perfectly fine. When others decide for themselves that something has not bee proven safe for them, and hold off on taking it, then they are morally corrupt individuals who are leading others to the slaughter so that they may live.

And why is that? Because you are so much smarter than all the rest of us who have no idea what we are talking about.

Where I am from we call all of that hypocrisy.

That being said, Merry Christmas! I hope you have a great holiday.

[Lilllabettt]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Everyone here understands the situation, and your arguments, perfectly well. Every argument that you wrote above has already been refuted in this thread. We disagree with your view, and reject them. Stating "I have secret knowledge that you do not possess" does not make you correct. It makes you a gnostic.

Nobody here has said that they hope the general public goes out and gets the vaccine so that they can be our guinea pigs and we can get useful information from them. I already made it perfectly clear that I think that continuing social distancing and continuing the trials is a better solution. You are simply attempting to virtue signal and shame other people, no matter how many times you have been corrected on that point.

The bottom line is that some people are not taking the vaccine because they are not convinced that it is safe to do so. You already indicated that you yourself will not take the vaccine because you are not convinced that it is safe for you to do so. And if future information comes out that indicates that the vaccine is safe (or not safe) for you in particular, you and your doctor will use that information in informing your future decision to take or reject the vaccine. When you decide that something has not been proven safe for you, and to hold off on taking it, it is perfectly fine. When others decide for themselves that something has not bee proven safe for them, and hold off on taking it, then they are morally corrupt individuals who are leading others to the slaughter so that they may live.

And why is that? Because you are so much smarter than all the rest of us who have no idea what we are talking about.

Where I am from we call all of that hypocrisy.

That being said, Merry Christmas! I hope you have a great holiday.

The problem is with the attitude of "ill wait and see what happens to others". I promise you I am not waiting and watching to see what happens to pregnant women who take the vaccine. Some pregnant women are getting it because the risk of them contracting covid is greater (they work in healthcare). Regardless they are not testing it for me. The mental representation of pregnant women who did not sign up to be test subjects, as test subjects, is repellant to me and I think that is normal. 

 

On 12/22/2020 at 11:55 AM, elizabeth09 said:

And how they know if I am telling them the truth?  I could be lying as well.

My understanding is that after people are vaccinated for covid they are given a little card saying so. I guess you could fabricate such a card in much the same way fake licenses are made. But I think that would be immoral.

[Peace]

50 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

The problem is with the attitude of "ill wait and see what happens to others". I promise you I am not waiting and watching to see what happens to pregnant women who take the vaccine. Some pregnant women are getting it because the risk of them contracting covid is greater (they work in healthcare). Regardless they are not testing it for me. The mental representation of pregnant women who did not sign up to be test subjects, as test subjects, is repellant to me and I think that is normal.

Happy Holidays

[Lilllabettt]

21 minutes ago, Peace said:

Happy Holidays

I've been told that in order to win the war on Christmas all who tell me 'happy holidays' must be beaten to within an inch of their lives

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

I've been told that in order to win the war on Christmas all who tell me 'happy holidays' must be beaten to within an inch of their lives

And have a Happy New Year to you too!

[Anastasia]

Here is a good article which addressed the other side of a problem, the unethical vaccines, something I have seen being downplayed even in the Church.
The Morality of the COVID-19 Vaccines

There are also good links there, including this 
Covid Vaccines: ‘The Ends Cannot Justify the Means’

[elizabeth09]

10 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

The problem is with the attitude of "ill wait and see what happens to others". I promise you I am not waiting and watching to see what happens to pregnant women who take the vaccine. Some pregnant women are getting it because the risk of them contracting covid is greater (they work in healthcare). Regardless they are not testing it for me. The mental representation of pregnant women who did not sign up to be test subjects, as test subjects, is repellant to me and I think that is normal. 

 

My understanding is that after people are vaccinated for covid they are given a little card saying so. I guess you could fabricate such a card in much the same way fake licenses are made. But I think that would be immoral.

If it was not mandate, will you still get it?  Why did you say is should not be mandate it?  Is forcing and mandate the same thing?  Do you  know any of the side effects?  Why are you saying that this vaccine is a good thing when you say it should not be mandate?

[Anomaly]

On 12/8/2020 at 10:06 PM, 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.

Too many unfounded generalizations to even think you’re serious.  

“unknown”?  What, they found it on a shelf and know nothing about it?   Hundreds of scientists and doctors were not involved in the development for each vaccine?

”unproven”?  What, there weren’t any testing or review for any of the vaccines?   Not one, not one hundred, not one thousand?  For any of the vaccines?

”massive financial gain”?   You actually know how much net profit is being made?   Did all the scientists, lab workers, doctors, work for free?   Did the janitors keep the place clean and running ‘gratis’?    What percentage net profit is unfair?   .5%?, 1%, 5%?

”rush”?   How long should they wait, given that about 1,000 people a day due of Covid in the US?   Maybe deaths are over reported, so let’s say only 500 a day.   We should wait a month, 15,000 deaths, “to see how things go”?

The vaccines are being distributed now.  Is it ideal?   No.   Is it because of gross negligence and unfettered greed? No.   Come on, you’re usually more honest and balanced.    I’m surprised and disappointed. 

[Lilllabettt]

On 12/24/2020 at 9:05 PM, elizabeth09 said:

If it was not mandate, will you still get it?  Why did you say is should not be mandate it?  Is forcing and mandate the same thing?  Do you  know any of the side effects?  Why are you saying that this vaccine is a good thing when you say it should not be mandate?

I will get it as soon as I can. My doctor says most pregnant doctors and nurses are electing to take it, due to their constant exposure to the disease.  I work in healthcare but in an admin role so. I can earn my living from home. He wants me to wait for now and see if my baby might be born before the vaccine is even available to me. I will however have to follow a strict 6 week quarantine before my due date. Should I test positive within 2 weeks of my delivery I will not be allowed to have anyone with me at the hospital and my husband will not meet his child until later. And they will take the baby away from me right away so I don't infect it. I feel very badly for pregnant women who cannot quarantine at all. Hopefully other people will either quarantine themselves or get the vaccine if they can so they will not have to deliver alone. 

There is strong constitutional precedent for mandatory vaccination. The government probably can do it. However I'm against it because it sets a bad precedent, and it is counterproductive. Part of the unique American character is a dislike and rejection of being "bossed." A significant portion of the American people will resist doing things specifically because some authority has told them to do it. In children this is called oppositional defiance. The best way around oppositional defiance is to frame the desired behavior as a choice. If you choose to get the vaccine you can travel, go to school, gather with coworkers, attend concerts and football games, enjoy movie theaters and so on, all the lovely things we lost with covid19.  If you choose instead to continue quarantine, only work for a telework company, keep your children home from school etc. that's your "choice." The vast majority will get the vaccine given these options, no mandate required. 

There were no serious side effects reported in the vaccine trials. Most people did have some side effects: sore arm, fatigue, headache. 1% had a very high fever (102f). The vaccine is mRNA, which works by triggering a brief but massive immune response.  It injects you with a recipe for a feature of the corona virus - specifically the spiked corona. The immune system sees this completely harmless but foreign thing and attacks.  So it's common to feel "under the weather" for a day or 2, like you are getting a cold (Most of the misery of colds is not from the cold itself but the immune systems efforts to kill the invader.)

Edited December 30, 2020 by Lilllabettt

[Ice_nine]

6 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

I will get it as soon as I can. My doctor says most pregnant doctors and nurses are electing to take it, due to their constant exposure to the disease.  I work in healthcare but in an admin role so. I can earn my living from home. He wants me to wait for now and see if my baby might be born before the vaccine is even available to me. I will however have to follow a strict 6 week quarantine before my due date. Should I test positive within 2 weeks of my delivery I will not be allowed to have anyone with me at the hospital and my husband will not meet his child until later. And they will take the baby away from me right away so I don't infect it. I feel very badly for pregnant women who cannot quarantine at all. Hopefully other people will either quarantine themselves or get the vaccine if they can so they will not have to deliver alone. 

 

didn't know you were pregnant. Congrats