Secret vaccinations

[Crwth]

It is an easy question with an easy answer. It only seems a difficult question to people who refuse to accept the answer.

The polarization of society on any given issue proves the issue to be about control.

Touche!

 

[Crwth]

not so far fetched at all!

we have a healthcare relative that got the vaccine & is keeping it secret from spouse

that spouse is a conspiracy theory person who believes the vaccine will take away belief in God!

Well, of COURSE there are some who do it - otherwise the OP would be fake news.

My question was "How many...?" It's an issue, if you will, of statistical relevance, not mere possibility.

 

[The Barbarian]

The polarization of society on any given issue proves the issue to be about control.

Time was, there were debates about criminalizing drunk driving. "Control" was the issue then, too. Still is for some extreme libertarians:

Legalize Drunk Driving
Legalize Drunk Driving | Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

This seems ludicrous to most people, because we have been made aware of the danger of DWI. But it's similar to going unvaccinated, in that the hazards, while highly elevated by drunkeness, are by no means certain. Most people who have driven while legally intoxicated, have never hurt anyone thereby.

Same arguments. Does society have the right to tell people that they must not put others at unnecessary risks if they want to use public spaces? Or does our personal freedom override those concerns?

 

[Crwth]

Time was, there were debates about criminalizing drunk driving. "Control" was the issue then, too. Still is for some extreme libertarians:

Legalize Drunk Driving
Legalize Drunk Driving | Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

This seems ludicrous to most people, because we have been made aware of the danger of DWI. But it's similar to going unvaccinated, in that the hazards, while highly elevated by drunkeness, are by no means certain. Most people who have driven while legally intoxicated, have never hurt anyone thereby.

Same arguments. Does society have the right to tell people that they must not put others at unnecessary risks if they want to use public spaces? Or does our personal freedom override those concerns?

Yep - it's still about control. Always has been, always will be.

 

[DamianWarS]

If you've had a loved relative who died in the pandemic, and you know that unvaccinated people are the incubators of more dangerous variants, it's hard to blame you for speaking out. ...

I have had a grandmother and grandfather (different sides of the family) die in the pandemic. my grandfather was not allowed any visitors including his own wife and a nurse had to sit with him as he took his last breath, he took a turn very quickly and no one thought of saying goodbye to him when he was admitted, and the door was closed after he was admitted. My father tried to connect with him several times but he was unresponsive, he was admitted on a Saturday and died on Monday. my grandmother, on the other hand, was released from the hospital for home care with her husband (my other grandfather) who was also released with her. She died in that home care and my other grandfather recovered. My family and I live/work in Asia and have had 6 canceled trips for a respite time back in our home country (Canada) so we have missed these opportunities to have our last moments or even memorial moments. Our last visit was just over 3 years ago. I myself have just recovered from covid 1 week ago (minor symptoms). I am a foreigner in the country I'm living in and not allowed to get vaccinated as the vaccines are reserved for nationals, not foreign nationals. So currently I want to get vaccinated but don't have the means to and flights are closed right now so we can't leave which has been on an off since the pandemic started. Currently, the community I live in with about 50 homes is in the midst of its own epidemic (which is how I got covid). Being a foreigner I don't have the luxury to be controversial, I follow the local laws but the culture as well even if that culture may respond differently than I would or my home country does. (provided it doesn't violate Christ)

... Forcing someone to have a vaccination is not justifiable under most circumstances, but it's perfectly legal to make vaccination a requirement to hold jobs where the public is exposed.

If you want to drive drunk, and you have your own road, it's your call. If you want to drive drunk on public roads, then there's a problem.

yet, there is no forcing and no laws, and not a lot of requirements with regards to vaccination unlike driving drunk, in spite of context where you can imagine it happening

No one has the right to demand that misinformation not be exposed.

you should be free to expose and correct misinformation but if someone doesn't want the vaccine don't bully them to get it. if someone wants to drink and drive, go ahead and wrestle them to the ground and take their keys by force.

It's the libertarian dilemma. When does individual freedom end and one's responsibility to not endanger others begin?

Not an easy question. But it seems clear enough to me that businesses, governments, and public venues have the responsibility and the right to insist that no one expose others to unnecessary risks on their property.

The irony here, is that those who will avoid vaccination (and who could reduce their risk to others by wearing a mask) are often those least likely to be willing to wear a mask to protect others.

our freedoms are defined in a vacuum of our laws and requirements that are in place. so focus on enforcing the ones in place, not the ones that aren't and never will be. if there is local legislation for a requirement for wearing masks then abide by it and call people out if they are not abiding by it. if there is no requirement and you think there should be then petition the people in charge. but don't try and enforce things just because you think they should be enforced. If you think there should be don't bully the unvaccinated, bully the system.

Ultimately Christ calls us to lay down our rights and freedoms to follow him so perhaps we can rethink a model that's about serving our mission as the top priority even over our freedoms. Go ahead and promote a cause but all defined under Christ and serving his cause first.

 

[timothyu]

There are numerous examples of politically-motivated attacks on doctors and others for promoting vaccinations.

Just as in the beginning the media was quick to pounce (suggesting an agenda) on those doctors who questioned the whole shebang.

 

[timothyu]

The former need exposing, the latter... well, it's best to just quit feeding the latter. CNN is a monstrous example of both.

All cable news was created for entertainment, not legitimacy. Most people like to have their ears tickled. Reality often goes over their heads.

 

[com7fy8]

The data shows that a person who is infected with the Delta variant sheds many more virus particles than one with other variants of the virus. This is why vaccinated people are less likely to infect others, even if they do carry the virus; vaccinated people shed fewer particles. And since there is always a minimum infectious dose of any virus, the infectivity of the Delta variant is related to how much virus is shed.

The number of attachment sites on the virus is probably less important than the number of particles in the air.

I checked around the Net; it does seem that you are correct. My idea about number of spikes on the virus was going by reporting before the Delta guy arrived.

So, thank you for taking the time!

The fact that infection with the Delta variant is no more likely to cause severe illness than infection with other variants suggest that the larger number of particles produced by the Delta variant is most important.

I read that if the virus does not kill quickly it can have better opportunity to spread itself . . . since it does not kill the person before spreading itself. So, Delta appears to produce many more of itself in a person and spread large numbers of itself, plus it is not a quick killer. So, that could be two reasons why it is effective at spreading itself.

Thanks

 

[timothyu]

Delta appears to produce many more of itself in a person and spread large numbers of itself, plus it is not a quick killer. So, that could be two reasons why it is effective at spreading itself.

If Delta was indeed smart it would kill no one, thus not killing itself in the process. Hopefully that smarter variant will not be far off.

 

[com7fy8]

If Delta was indeed smart it would kill no one, thus not killing itself in the process. Hopefully that smarter variant will not be far off.

Well, actually . . . a variant which has only the spike so it can't hurt anybody, doesn't spread to others, plus it makes people immune to all the other variants

The only thing about the spike only could be how individual immune systems might overreact.

 

[renniks]

Apparently, that's why people who want to be vaccinated, are trying to keep it a secret, so they won't be ostracized.

Probably lots of people pretending to be vaxed that aren't too. Who really cares?

 

[Jake Arsenal]

Time was, there were debates about criminalizing drunk driving. "Control" was the issue then, too. Still is for some extreme libertarians:

Legalize Drunk Driving
Legalize Drunk Driving | Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

This seems ludicrous to most people, because we have been made aware of the danger of DWI. But it's similar to going unvaccinated, in that the hazards, while highly elevated by drunkeness, are by no means certain. Most people who have driven while legally intoxicated, have never hurt anyone thereby.

Same arguments. Does society have the right to tell people that they must not put others at unnecessary risks if they want to use public spaces? Or does our personal freedom override those concerns?

Based on your arguments, I am unsure that we share a common definition of the word "freedom". Here is the definition of freedom according to the Merriam-webster dictionary: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. This is what I mean when I use the word freedom.

Ask yourself the following questions in regards to your own example:
Was it legal to cause property damage or harm/death to others before drunk driving laws were put into place?
Did outlawing the act of driving drunk stop people from driving drunk?
Did it stop drunk drivers from causing property damage or harm/death to others?
Have these laws been used against people who were clearly not intoxicated because of an arbitrary blood alcohol percentage point?

Instead of asking this:

Does society have the right to tell people that they must not put others at unnecessary risks if they want to use public spaces? Or does our personal freedom override those concerns?

You should be asking this: At what point does society NOT have the right to tell people what to do? At what point do a person's unimpeded freedoms begin in a "free society"?

 

[timothyu]

"When people started criticizing the Canadian Museum for Human Rights for following Manitoba's public health order requiring full vaccination for entry, its CEO saw an opportunity for an important conversation about what is — and isn't — discrimination."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mani...uirement-discrimination-explanation-1.6124044

 

[The Barbarian]

Based on your arguments, I am unsure that we share a common definition of the word "freedom". Here is the definition of freedom according to the Merriam-webster dictionary: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. This is what I mean when I use the word freedom.

Yep. That's it. As in "do what you will, but don't impose on anyone else." You see, both clauses are necessary for freedom.

Ask yourself the following questions in regards to your own example:
Was it legal to cause property damage or harm/death to others before drunk driving laws were put into place?

Nope. The law basically made it illegal to even endanger other people by driving drunk. Sort of the way we don't let people randomly fire shots from a pistol in cities. It generally doesn't hit anyone, but it endangers people.

Did outlawing the act of driving drunk stop people from driving drunk?

It's a funny thing; some people, realizing that they'll go to jail if they get caught doing certain things, will avoid doing those things. So yes.

Did it stop drunk drivers from causing property damage or harm/death to others?

Turns out, it did. The more rigorous the enforcement, the better it worked. There are always fools who don't care about other people, and who are not deterred by laws. That's what prisons are for.

Have these laws been used against people who were clearly not intoxicated because of an arbitrary blood alcohol percentage point?

Turns out, we all have pretty much the same nervous systems. And they are significantly impaired at pretty close to the same blood alcohol levels. I'm one of those guys who gets quiet and deliberate when I drink. People won't realize that I'm impaired, but I am. Tested that. And yeah, I'm just more careful, not fully sober.

Instead of asking this:

Barbarian asks:
Does society have the right to tell people that they must not put others at unnecessary risks if they want to use public spaces? Or does our personal freedom override those concerns?

You should be asking this: At what point does society NOT have the right to tell people what to do?

Ar the point where there is no compelling public interest in doing so, specifically when it abuses or endangers others. Hence, if a guy wants to look at inappropriate content, it's his business, and no one else's. If he wants to force others into sex, or to involve minors, then society has a right to tell him not to do that.

At what point do a person's unimpeded freedoms begin in a "free society"?

Where it doesn't harm or endanger others or impede their freedoms.

 

[The Barbarian]

Probably lots of people pretending to be vaxed that aren't too. Who really cares?

 

[The Barbarian]

"When people started criticizing the Canadian Museum for Human Rights for following Manitoba's public health order requiring full vaccination for entry, its CEO saw an opportunity for an important conversation about what is — and isn't — discrimination."

"Discrimination is defined in law as treating a person differently on the basis of some characteristic that goes to the root of who they are as a human being (where there is no reasonable cause to do so)," she wrote in the statement, which was posted on the museum's Facebook page.


Those characteristics include age, ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, gender identity and disability, she wrote.


"We have to be careful about equating a choice not to get vaccinated with these protected characteristics when looking at what can be considered discriminatory."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mani...uirement-discrimination-explanation-1.6124044

 

[renniks]

You can die either way. From the virus, from the vaccine or from the virus with the vaccine.
Wait until they start saying you're no more protected with it than without it and telling you you need a new jab.... it's coming. The pharmaceutical companies have keep making money, you know.

 

[The Barbarian]

I read that if the virus does not kill quickly it can have better opportunity to spread itself

Yes. Viruses, when they are fully evolved to use humans as hosts, often do not even noticeably harm us. So long as it can use a few of our cells to reproduce and then infect new hosts, it's perfect for the virus. Such viruses tend to be the most successful ones.

In some cases, they can become incorporated into our DNA and even be recruited to form new genes:

Nat. Rev. Genet. 2012 Mar 16;13(4):283-96. doi: 10.1038/nrg3199.
Endogenous viruses: insights into viral evolution and impact on host biology

 

[renniks]

Where it doesn't harm or endanger others or impede their freedoms.

With that attitude we would have never had freedom... because going to war with England certainly endangered people.

 

[The Barbarian]

You can die either way. From the virus, from the vaccine or from the virus with the vaccine.

Or you could be hit by a meteorite. One of those. But the smart money is on getting vaccinated. Do you see why?

Wait until they start saying you're no more protected with it than without it and telling you you need a new jab.... it's coming.

Wouldn't be surprised. I take a flu shot annually, because the influenza virus also evolves. Go figure. Still, it works for me.