Florida health care can now be denied based on moral, ethical, religious beliefs.

[Aldebaran]

It could be said, and was being said. It is a bit disingenuous to say it couldn't be said. Getting kicked off of 'social' media is overrated, and not illegal. Private sites make their own rules, just like here. Are you an anti-vaxxer?

Doctors and others have lost their jobs over it. So the consequences of questioning the Covid shot went far beyond social media expulsion.

 

[JustOneWay]

It was actively censored by social media in conjunction with the government. It was deemed "misinformation".



It is not. The position that vaccines were "experimental" was largely censored.



Except private companies were being heavily influenced by government.



I am not. I am, however, strongly opposed to mandates and the government control of the flow of information.

Social media. WOW. That is pretty widespread. All of social media, right?

Experimental - (of a new invention or product) based on untested ideas or techniques and not yet established or finalized. It really was not experimental because they already have vaccines for similar viruses and had to find the right combination for Covid.

Now we are down to arguing semantics

There is no longer a mandate in America regarding the unprecedented world pandemic.

Private companies are always influenced by the government - they are called laws.

 

[JustOneWay]

Doctors and others have lost their jobs over it. So the consequences of questioning the Covid shot went far beyond social media expulsion.

Doctors were prescribing Ivermectin. They should have lost their jobs.

 

[Aldebaran]

Private companies are always influenced by the government - they are called laws.

The influence can also come in the form of veiled threats, from government or other groups. Many companies did things to be "politically correct", or to fall in line with a narrative. Another term for it is "virtue signaling".

 

[Aldebaran]

Doctors were prescribing Ivermectin. They should have lost their jobs.

Your statement is just one example of what I was just referring to above.

 

[JustOneWay]

The influence can also come in the form of veiled threats, from government or other groups. Many companies did things to be "politically correct", or to fall in line with a narrative. Another term for it is "virtue signaling".

Veiled threats, like when trump says he will fire each and every FBI agent involved with investigating him if he becomes president again? Threats like that? By now, veiled threats have become the norm thanks to TFG.

 

[Aldebaran]

Veiled threats, like when trump says he will fire each and every FBI agent involved with investigating him if he becomes president again? Threats like that? By now, veiled threats have become the norm thanks to TFG.

More like Obama's “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

 

[probinson]

Social media. WOW. That is pretty widespread. All of social media, right?

Specifically Twitter. But yes, social media companies as a whole basically catered to the government's wishes to censor and shadow ban content they deemed misinformation.

Experimental - (of a new invention or product) based on untested ideas or techniques and not yet established or finalized. It really was not experimental because they already have vaccines for similar viruses and had to find the right combination for Covid.

Oh, it was incredibly experimental. mRNA vaccines had NEVER been used in humans until COVID-19. In fact, if you look at the history, there were all kinds of safety concerns.

Take a look at this article from 2017. Here is a snippet.

​

But mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.​

​

Bancel has repeatedly promised that Moderna’s new therapies will change the world, but the company has refused to publish any data on its mRNA vehicles, sparking skepticism from some scientists and a chiding from the editors of Nature.​

​

Lavishly funded Moderna hits safety problems in bold bid to revolutionize medicine

Moderna Therapeutics, the most highly valued private company in biotech, has run into troubling safety problems with its most ambitious therapy, STAT found.

www.statnews.com

​

The whole article is worth your time.

Now we are down to arguing semantics

This is not "semantics". The truth is governments the world over mandated experimental vaccines. Anyone who supported this is on the wrong side of history.

There is no longer a mandate in America regarding the unprecedented world pandemic.

So you think we should just let bygones be bygones? Just forget that people lost their jobs for refusing experimental vaccines that NEVER should have been mandated? Forget all of the flip-flops and goal-post moving that public health agencies and governments alike pushed? Forget the "othering" of those who would not comply with the ill-advised mandates?

Not likely.

Private companies are always influenced by the government - they are called laws.

You have to know how ridiculous this comparison is, right? I mean, we're talking about the government regulating speech, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. I'm continually amazed at the disinterest that people have toward this topic.

 

[probinson]

Doctors were prescribing Ivermectin. They should have lost their jobs.

Why?

 

[Bradskii]

The truth is governments the world over mandated experimental vaccines.

This is more out of curiosity than anything...But as far as I know Eritrea was the only country that made no attempt to vaccinate their population. Even North Korea did so. So effectively the whole planet did it. From the most left wing to the most right. From the most democratic to the least. Every government. Every national medical authority. They all said 'We need to do this.'

Why do you honestly think they did?

 

[probinson]

This is more out of curiosity than anything...But as far as I know Eritrea was the only country that made no attempt to vaccinate their population. Even North Korea did so. So effectively the whole planet did it. From the most left wing to the most right. From the most democratic to the least. Every government. Every national medical authority. They all said 'We need to do this.'

Why do you honestly think they did?

It's not quite that simple.

The US took a unilateral approach to vaccination. US health authorities said (and still say) that anyone over the age of 6 months needs a COVID vaccine. Other countries took a more nuanced approach.

Consider Denmark. One year ago, the Director of the Danish Health Authority said this.

In retrospect, we did not get much out of the expansion of the vaccination program for children when it comes to epidemic control. But it is seen in hindsight.​

​

In retrospect, we didn't get much out of vaccinating the children, admits Brostrøm​

Also consider this study, which shows that booster doses in college age students likely resulted in a net harm.

Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5–4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation). We also anticipate 1430–4626 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity interfering with daily activities (although typically not requiring hospitalisation).​

​

COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities | Journal of Medical Ethics

​

And let's not forget the resignation of the top two vaccine regulators at the FDA in protest of pushing boosters on everyone without sufficient data. They published this paper in The Lancet.

Thus, any decisions about the need for boosting or timing of boosting should be based on careful analyses of adequately controlled clinical or epidemiological data, or both, indicating a persistent and meaningful reduction in severe disease, with a benefit–risk evaluation that considers the number of severe cases that boosting would be expected to prevent, along with evidence about whether a specific boosting regimen is likely to be safe and effective against currently circulating variants. As more information becomes available, it may first provide evidence that boosting is needed in some subpopulations. However, these high-stakes decisions should be based on peer-reviewed and publicly available data and robust international scientific discussion.​

​

Considerations in boosting COVID-19 vaccine immune responses

A new wave of COVID-19 cases caused by the highly transmissible delta variant is exacerbating the worldwide public health crisis, and has led to consideration of the potential need for, and optimal timing of, booster doses for vaccinated populations.1 Although the idea of further reducing the...

www.thelancet.com

​

Way back in January 2008, the ACLU published their own pandemic preparedness plan, which said this.

American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.​

​

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf

​

So your attempt to paint a black and white picture that pretends everyone said "we need to do this" is false. Other countries have MUCH more nuanced vaccination programs than the US and always have. That was always wise. It isn't exactly rocket science to understand that the medical interventions you take for an 80-year old woman in a nursing home may not provide the same benefit to a 20-year old male athlete at the top of his form.

So to answer your question, we have to first acknowledge that not everyone did the same thing. As to why they all did it? Fear. Uncertainty. The need to "do something". Overstating vaccine benefits while all but ignoring any potential harms.

I believe that vaccines provided a benefit to those at high risk who had never had COVID. To those who had been infected and recovered, and to those young, healthy people that COVID never posed a significant risk to, it was foolish to mandate them to be vaccinated. All it did was enrich Pfizer and Moderna while simultaneously violating trust, exactly as the ACLU said it would back in 2008. Have you seen that vaccine uptake is down across the board? It's because the CDC is pretending like the COVID vaccine is just as important to a 6-month old baby as the measles vaccine is. But most people know that's nonsense, and now they are questioning the utility of vaccines that DO have long-term safety and efficacy data.

Trust has been violated, and trust is paramount to public health. The people that pushed for indiscriminate vaccine mandates now own the fallout of depressed vaccination rates and the overall loss of trust in public health.

 

[Bradskii]

It's not quite that simple.

It is.

I asked why every government on the planet and every national health authority vaccinated their citizens. And your response was 'fear and uncertainty'.

Fascinating.

 

[probinson]

It is.

I asked why every government on the planet and every national health authority vaccinated their citizens. And your response was 'fear and uncertainty'.

Fascinating.

What's really fascinating is your inability and/or refusal to acknowledge the nuance in my position.

 

[JustOneWay]

Also consider this study, which shows that booster doses in college age students likely resulted in a net harm.

That is not what it says. It said:

(2) may result in a net harm to healthy young adults;

You took something that describes a possible outcome, and concludes it likely resulted in a net harm. The study never provides any statistics for that.

You also omitted the point they were talking about a third booster.

Abstract​

In 2022, students at North American universities with third-dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates risk disenrolment if unvaccinated. To assess the appropriateness of booster mandates in this age group, we combine empirical risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis. To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that 31 207–42 836 young adults aged 18–29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine. Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5–4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation). We also anticipate 1430–4626 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity interfering with daily activities (although typically not requiring hospitalisation). University booster mandates are unethical because they: (1) are not based on an updated (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit assessment for this age group; (2) may result in a net harm to healthy young adults; (3) are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; (4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related harms are not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury schemes; and (5) may result in wider social harms. We consider counterarguments including efforts to increase safety on campus but find these are fraught with limitations and little scientific support. Finally, we discuss the policy relevance of our analysis for primary series COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

 

[probinson]

That is not what it says.

It is exactly what it says.

You took something that describes a possible outcome, and concludes it likely resulted in a net harm. The study never provides any statistics for that.

So wait. You'll accept a completely made up computer modeling study on how many lives were saved from vaccines without question, but when this study suggests that net harms will result in repeated vaccination of healthy, young people, that's where you decide to scrutinize? So any pro-vaccine study is to be accepted without criticism but any study that calls into question its safety and/or efficacy is to be immediately questioned? Doesn't sound very "science-y".

You also omitted the point they were talking about a third booster.

Sadly, some colleges are STILL mandating boosters, which will almost certainly result in net harms.

Like this poor girl, who is now dead thanks to vaccine mandates.

'Brutal, unnecessary': Mum blames vaccine mandate for daughter's death

Single mother Debra Hamilton has shared the tragic story of her daughter Natalie Boyce who died almost a year ago.

www.skynews.com.au

Also, I didn't "omit" anything. I provided a link for you to read. I like to believe that people have fully functioning cognitive abilities and can go read things for themselves.

 

[JustOneWay]

It is exactly what it says.



So wait. You'll accept a completely made up computer modeling study on how many lives were saved from vaccines without question, but when this study suggests that net harms will result in repeated vaccination of healthy, young people, that's where you decide to scrutinize? So any pro-vaccine study is to be accepted without criticism but any study that calls into question its safety and/or efficacy is to be immediately questioned? Doesn't sound very "science-y".



Sadly, some colleges are STILL mandating boosters, which will almost certainly result in net harms.

Like this poor girl, who is now dead thanks to vaccine mandates.

'Brutal, unnecessary': Mum blames vaccine mandate for daughter's death

Single mother Debra Hamilton has shared the tragic story of her daughter Natalie Boyce who died almost a year ago.

www.skynews.com.au

Also, I didn't "omit" anything. I provided a link for you to read. I like to believe that people have fully functioning cognitive abilities and can go read things for themselves.

No, you omitted it - then claimed that it already caused a net harm. Either post evidence that net harm WAS done, or fix your mistake. Or just do nothing, I don't really care.

I said nothing about any computer model, and you know this. I did not accept nothing, I simply pointed out your mistake.

 

[probinson]

No, you omitted it

It was in the link I posted.

then claimed that it already caused a net harm.

I did not. I said, "...likely resulted in a net harm."

Either post evidence that net harm WAS done, or fix your mistake.

Do you know what the word "likely" means?

I said nothing about any computer model, and you know this.

Do you believe vaccines saved "millions" of lives? If you do, then you implicitly believe the computer model that says that. By the way, in case you missed it, here's what that computer model said would have happened if we didn't vaccinate people in the US.

Do you believe this computer model's output? You do if you believe "millions" of lives were saved by COVID vaccines.

 

[Bradskii]

What's really fascinating is your inability and/or refusal to acknowledge the nuance in my position.

Your 'nuance' was an inability to accept that a heart surgeon knew better what was was good for a heart recipient than the recipient did. Because, hey - she could read a table.

Maybe she should have Googled the risk of having the VAD implant she had 3 years ago. Check out the risks for that: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10....l after,heart failure, and multiorgan failure.

The in-hospital mortality after LVAD surgery was 27%. The main causes of death included sepsis, right heart failure, and multiorgan failure.

Her own words on the vaccine 'I wanted to minimise risk as much as possible'. But she said it was perfectly fine to do something that had a 27% of killing her. But a much smaller chance than 0.002% of even contracting anything from the vaccine she deemed a bridge too far.

I'm afraid that people who ranted against vaccines on some ideological crusade will have to share the blame if this unfortunate woman succumbs to her illness. As is likely.

 

[probinson]

Your 'nuance' was an inability to accept that a heart surgeon knew better what was was good for a heart recipient than the recipient did.

Um, you seem to be conflating different things. We were talking about vaccine mandates and the indiscriminate application of those mandates to populations that would derive varying level of benefits from them. Try to keep up.

Because, hey - she could read a table.

I'm genuinely curious. If a doctor tells you something, but you see data that is contradictory to what that doctor is saying, should you just ignore that data, or do you believe it's reasonable to expect an explanation from the doctor? You seem to be saying that the doctor should be trusted just because they're a doctor. That's a dangerous position to take.

I'm afraid that people who ranted against vaccines on some ideological crusade will have to share the blame if this unfortunate woman succumbs to her illness. As is likely.

If she succumbs to her illness, the medical establishment that denied her a life-saving transplant will be to blame. In their attempt to "protect" her with the vaccine, they will likely ultimately kill her. It's odd that you can't see this. But I guess that's what propaganda does to people.

 

[Bradskii]

We were talking about vaccine mandates and the indiscriminate application of those mandates to populations that would derive varying level of benefits from them.

Nice to get back on track rather than have this thread become a throwback to the anti-vax 'debates' from a year or so back.

I'm genuinely curious. If a doctor tells you something, but you see data that is contradictory to what that doctor is saying, should you just ignore that data, or do you believe it's reasonable to expect an explanation from the doctor?

Too right it's an expectation. It's always good to ask an expert in your particular case what's best for you. And always a good idea to listen to the advice you receive. Otherwise it's something of a waste of time asking. In the woman's case, it's not just a waste of time. Ignoring the advice will kill her.

But I guess that's what propaganda does to people.

I think that tells us what we need to know. As if it wasn't crystal clear a long time back in this thread.