Army Tries to Bring Back Soldiers Booted for Refusing the COVID Vaccine

[FireDragon76]

For the US military?

View attachment 340071

The military routinely jabs service members with all kinds of shots you've never heard of, and soldiers are required to receive them to serve, depending on where they are deployed.

 

[KCfromNC]

So why do you think most countries don't recommend the COVID vaccines for everyone any more?

Is the argument really that we can trust large government health organizations' decisions, and that's how we know the CDC's decisions were wrong? Seems a bit self defeating, but hey, good on you for finding someone who agrees with your opinion, even if your post can't figure out why.

 

[probinson]

Is the argument really that we can trust large government health organizations' decisions, and that's how we know the CDC's decisions were wrong? Seems a bit self defeating, but hey, good on you for finding someone who agrees with your opinion, even if your post can't figure out why.

Are you incapable of answering this simple question?

Why do you think that most countries have stopped recommending the COVID vaccines to everyone? I suspect the reason you can't (won't?) answer the question is because it would require you to admit what I have been saying all along, that there are different risk/benefit analyses for different age groups and these other countries have acknowledged that fact while the CDC continues to indiscriminately recommend COVID vaccines for everyone willy-nilly despite the very real concerns of harms being inflicted on entire groups of people who derive no benefit from the continual vaccinations.

Are you following the CDC's recommendations concerning COVID vaccines? If you are, you're in the overwhelming minority.

 

[KCfromNC]

Are you incapable of answering this simple question?

If you can't figure out why you think this supports your random opinion on the subject, how do I have any chance at guessing why you think it might?

Why do you think that most countries have stopped recommending the COVID vaccines to everyone? I suspect the reason you can't (won't?) answer the question is because it would require you to admit what I have been saying all along, that there are different risk/benefit analyses for different age groups and these other countries have acknowledged that fact while the CDC continues to indiscriminately recommend COVID vaccines for everyone willy-nilly despite the very real concerns of harms being inflicted on entire groups of people who derive no benefit from the continual vaccinations.

Are you following the CDC's recommendations concerning COVID vaccines? If you are, you're in the overwhelming minority.

When a post needs to distract from a previous distraction by yet again trying to make this about posters rather than what they've written, it seems to be a pretty clear sign that the anti-vaxx narrative isn't going very well. I have to assume it went better in the anti-vaxx blog comment section, but you should probably realize that the people there aren't likely to be particularly well informed about the topic.

 

[probinson]

If you can't figure out why you think this supports your random opinion on the subject, how do I have any chance at guessing why you think it might?

What are you talking about? I'm simply asking you why you think other countries no longer recommend COVID vaccinations for all age groups. It's a pretty simple question.

When a post needs to distract from a previous distraction by yet again trying to make this about posters rather than what they've written, it seems to be a pretty clear sign that the anti-vaxx narrative isn't going very well. I have to assume it went better in the anti-vaxx blog comment section, but you should probably realize that the people there aren't likely to be particularly well informed about the topic.

This is just a bunch of WHARRGARBL about nothing. At least you're consistent.

I think the reason that other countries have stopped recommending COVID vaccines for everyone is because they have evaluated the evidence and found that the benefits no longer outweigh the harms for the vast majority of the population. The COVID vaccines provide the biggest benefit to those 65 and older and those with co-morbidities, which is why other countries now recommend them to a targeted group of people. In other words, most other countries have "followed the science".

Additionally, I am in the 82%+ of the population that has disregarded the CDC's recommendation to get an annual COVID vaccine, and I do not plan to get another COVID vaccine ever again. I have evaluated the evidence for my age group, and I do not believe that the COVID vaccine provides me any benefits while simultaneously introducing me to potential harms.

See how easy it is to actually answer questions instead of dancing around them? You should try it some time.

 

[KCfromNC]

What are you talking about?

You wanted me to predict which anti-vaxx argument was next. And then after I got it right in post 202, you kept asking the same question.

I think the reason that other countries have stopped recommending COVID vaccines for everyone is because they have evaluated the evidence and found that the benefits no longer outweigh the harms for the vast majority of the population.

But what's the rest of the argument? We should trust them because they're large government health organizations who have evaluated the evidence, while the CDC, another large health organization, has also evaluated the evidence? Seems like a long-winded way to simply appeal to an authority that happens to be convenient to your preconceptions.

 

[probinson]

...which anti-vaxx argument...

You are nothing if not predictable.

But what's the rest of the argument?

It's a pretty simple question:

Why do you think other countries no longer recommend COVID vaccines for all age groups? I've offered my explanation. Do you agree, or do you have an alternate explanation?

 

[KCfromNC]

You are nothing if not predictable.

Yeah, given I've mentioned the failings of this argument a number of times, it shouldn't be a challenge to understand why, after having those posts ignored, I'd just say the same thing until it's actually acknowledged. No point in putting any more effort in only to have the subject changed to yet another empty talking point.

It's a pretty simple question:

Why do you think other countries no longer recommend COVID vaccines for all age groups? I've offered my explanation. Do you agree, or do you have an alternate explanation?

I've addressed the failings of this argument in several different ways. I'm not sure what asking me to try and fix it for you is going to accomplish, especially when these posts seem reluctant to address what I've already written about it.

 

[probinson]

Yeah, given I've mentioned the failings of this argument a number of times, it shouldn't be a challenge to understand why, after having those posts ignored, I'd just say the same thing until it's actually acknowledged. No point in putting any more effort in only to have the subject changed to yet another empty talking point.

See? Predictable.

I've addressed the failings of this argument in several different ways.

You have not answered the question. It's not an "argument". It's a question. I gave you my answer and asked you (repeatedly) to provide yours. Almost certainly futile, but here is the question again:

Why do you think other countries no longer recommend COVID vaccines for all age groups?​

 

[probinson]

Since I've tried to elicit a response for days to no avail, I am going to provide my own explanation for why this simple question is not being answered.

The crux of the vaxx-zealot argument is that there can be no legitimate reason anyone would question the benefit of the vaccine for everyone. Any such questioning is to be tarred as "anti-vaxx" so that the concerns can simply be dismissed rather than discussed.

I'd like to take moment to point out that I have said on this forum on numerous occasions that I am not "anti-vaxx". I have received all of my regular childhood vaccinations and so have my children. My argument is and always has been against the overly broad recommendation for everyone to receive COVID vaccines in perpetuity despite having no evidence that there is a benefit to do so. There are also very real concerns with potential harms, and the less benefit one derives from a medical intervention, the more adverse events become concerning.

If the vaxx-zealot position were to acknowledge, like almost all of the rest of the world, the COVID vaccines are best suited to the elderly and those with serious co-moribidities, this calls into question why the US is now an outlier in recommending them to all age groups, especially when there are studies that show an adverse event rate as high as 2,000 per million doses administered.

But before any of this can be discussed in earnest, one has to acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns with these overly-broad recommendations. One has to drop the "anti-vaxx" nonsense and admit that there are always harms and benefits to any medical intervention, and just because someone has concerns about the harms associate with COVID vaccines does not make them an "anti-vaxxer".

This also calls into question the CDC's recommendations concerning COVID vaccines. Clearly, >80% of the US population is disregarding the CDC's recommendation on COVID vaccines. Why? If the CDC is the reputable health agency that some believe it to be, then why is the vast majority of the US population ignoring their recommendation on COVID vaccines?

But again, any conversation in earnest on this topic requires the dropping of the "anti-vaxx" pejorative. It's nothing more than an intellectually dishonest and lazy way to dismiss valid questions and concerns.

 

[KCfromNC]

See? Predictable.

I have to assume there are some venues where this sort of thing is thought to be convincing. I know I mentioned comment sections of anti-vaxx blogs before, perhaps other similar echo chambers exist.

You have not answered the question. It's not an "argument". It's a question. I gave you my answer and asked you (repeatedly) to provide yours.

I'm not the one who thought it was important to bring up what various government health organizations have or are recommending. But if it feels better to have an excuse for ignoring what I did write in favor of what you wish I had, have fun with it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Since I've tried to elicit a response for days to no avail, I am going to provide my own explanation for why this simple question is not being answered.

Pretty sure there's a term for addressing things people never wrote as an excuse not to address what they actually did. Or maybe this will be an accurate summary of the thread so far? Let's see.

The crux of the vaxx-zealot argument is that there can be no legitimate reason anyone would question the benefit of the vaccine for everyone.

Nope, guess not. This is a fabrication. The discussion so far has included me posting research showing how vaccines were effective and also pointing out how an opinion piece trying to demonstrate the dangers of vaccines in response had to play fast and loose with the data from their own sources to try and make their point.

I've said there's a possibility this dishonesty wasn't necessary and was just an oversight, and the response was to change the subject and then, here, when even that diversion led to yet another dead end for the anti-vaxx talking points, create claims out of thin air and hope no one will catch on.

I get it, when the narrative starts moving away from the talking points carefully curated to make it look like there's anything legitimate to the anti-vaxx points the natural response is to start over by reiterating the initial spin, even if it has been taken apart by the facts. Some people might even fall for it.

But seriously, those tactics show there's nothing of significance to address here.

 

[probinson]

I'm not the one who thought it was important to bring up what various government health organizations have or are recommending. But if it feels better to have an excuse for ignoring what I did write in favor of what you wish I had, have fun with it.

Still haven't answered the simple question. I know why. So do you.

 

[probinson]

there's nothing of significance to address here.

Well at least we agree here. And yet, you continue to respond, intentionally being dishonest about what a horrible "anti-vaxxer" I am. You've completely fabricated a caricature of me where I frequent the "comment sections of anti-vaxx blogs" and "other echo chambers". You do have a vivid imagination.

Once again, you are free to answer the question and explain how you think I'm wrong. Although I don't think you will.

 

[probinson]

This is a fabrication.

Oh good. I'm glad to see that you agree that COVID vaccines are most beneficial in the elderly and those with serious co-morbidities and that the risk/benefit analysis for COVID and the vaccine is quite different for young, healthy people.

 

[probinson]

Here's another "random blog article" (albeit by Dr. Adam Cifu, MD) that makes some very good, balanced points about vaccines.

“How do I suggest we increase vaccine uptake? ​

​

I think we do it with honesty and transparency. ​

​

“These are the vaccines that have changed life for the better in the 20thand the 21st century. If you are hesitant to get these, or give them to your children, you really need to explain you hesitancy to me so that we can discuss it. Not getting these vaccines is a terrible decision.”​

​

On the other hand: ​

​

“These are vaccines whose benefits vary by your personal risk or are supported only by observational or surrogate outcome data. If you would like to do everything that might provide some benefit, take these vaccines. If you are concerned about excessive medical care or are a ‘less is more type’, you might forgo some of these vaccines.” ​

​

Trying to convince all people that all vaccines are the same is not the way to raise vaccination rates, garner trust, or improve public health. Trying to convince all people that all vaccines are the same is probably the way to make people reasonably skeptical of some vaccine be unreasonably skeptical of them all.​

​

Not the Way to Pull Vaccines Back from a “Dangerous Tipping Point”​

 

[KCfromNC]

Still haven't answered the simple question. I know why.

Yeah, because it's yet another part of the pattern. Throw out a talking point, when it is show to conflict with reality, divert to another one. And so on, and so forth. I'm glad you saw my previous explanation for why that pattern in previous posts makes it obvious there's not much point in looking too deeply at any of the arguments - the behavior shows they simply aren't intended to be taken seriously, given how transparent the rhetoric is.

But in this case, I was able to predict the response you were going to give before you gave it, only to have followup posts complain that I didn't given the answer that was hoped for. Did I mention this being repetitive and boring?

 

[KCfromNC]

Oh good. I'm glad to see that you agree that COVID vaccines are most beneficial in the elderly and those with serious co-morbidities and that the risk/benefit analysis for COVID and the vaccine is quite different for young, healthy people.

Posts like this which intentionally mischaracterize what someone else wrote are rubbing up against rules violations. I'd be careful of that sort of thing. I mean, maybe it won't get reported but still it doesn't show the behavior of someone interested in a serious discussion.

But it is curious how these anti-vaxx "arguments" need to strictly dictate what both sides of the discussion say for them to remain even remotely believable. Once or twice could just be a coincidence, but there seems to be a real pattern forming here.

 

[probinson]

Posts like this which intentionally mischaracterize what someone else wrote are rubbing up against rules violations.

Well then, you should be really concerned, because you constantly mischaracterize what I write. I won't report you. I never report anyone. But someone else might if they see your incessant mischaracterization of what I'm saying.

To clarify, specifically which part of this statement mischaracterizes your beliefs of the COVID vaccines?

I'm glad to see that you agree that COVID vaccines are most beneficial in the elderly and those with serious co-morbidities and that the risk/benefit analysis for COVID and the vaccine is quite different for young, healthy people.​

​

But it is curious how these anti-vaxx ...

See? Complete mischaracterization. Name-calling to boot. I've told you that I'm not "anti-vaxx", yet you continually intentionally mischaracterize me as such. One has to wonder why you must resort to pejoratives like this.

 

[probinson]

Yeah, because it's yet another part of the pattern. Throw out a talking point, when it is show to conflict with reality, divert to another one. And so on, and so forth. I'm glad you saw my previous explanation for why that pattern in previous posts makes it obvious there's not much point in looking too deeply at any of the arguments - the behavior shows they simply aren't intended to be taken seriously, given how transparent the rhetoric is.

If you would spend half as much time actually engaging in discussion as you do inventing and explaining imaginary "patterns", this would be a far more productive endeavor for both of us.