The covid vaccine is not the mark of the beast.

[Lawrence87]

I don't argue that you shouldn't get it if you are in a high risk category and would feel safer doing so. I am young, I don't have underlying health conditions, I have a reasonably good diet, I'm not obese, I am extremely unlikely to be hospitalised by this virus. If I was a 65 year old diabetic I might think differently.

Please support this claim. And, please, don't ask me to look up the data for you - you made the claim, you have the responsibility to back it up.

If you don't believe me you can look it up. It's been clearly stated in mainstream news sources here that the vaccines do not prevent you from transmitting the virus, and that they won't prevent a third wave.

But, again, this is not the point. What matters is whether the vaccines reduce the risk of serious disease. And they do. If you want evidence, just ask me.

If I felt particularly at risk that this would be serious for me then I would think differently. I am not in a high risk category therefore I am extremely unlikely to be hospitalised with Covid.

You are "confident"? How is that an argument? How do you know that you will not be one of those severely affected? And it is not all about you anyway - it could turn out that the vaccine reduces risk of transmission.

Other people matter too.

I am not in a high risk category therefore the risk that I am liable to go to hospital is low. I could just as equally get hit by a car or slip in the shower and crack my head open. I'm about as confident as I can be given the statistics that I will not be hospitalised if I get Covid.

I don't see what risk I pose to other people in not getting it. I won't be stopped from carrying and transmitting the virus if I got the vaccine. And I'm extremely unlikely to go to hospital if I do get it anyway, therefore I'd rather take my chances with my own immune system rather than being subjected to this vast scale clinical trial.

 

[Strong in Him]

If it is thoroughly tested why are they halting the rollout of one of these vaccines because it is giving people blood clots.

No idea.
But it has not been PROVED that the vaccine "is giving people blood clots". Blood clots can be caused by a number of things - like the pill. Just because someone has in injection and a short while later gets a blood clot, it does not prove that it was as a result of the injection and they wouldn't have got one otherwise.

It was the same principle with the MMR vaccine - a healthy child develops autism after having this vaccination and, hey presto, it must therefore be responsible for autism. But autism can't be diagnosed before the age of about 2, the age at which kids were being vaccinated - the markers, or whatever, for autism may have already been present.

I'll trust my immune system with a virus that I'm extremely likely to survive

Your choice.
You may get the virus, survive but be left with long Covid - which seems to be a condition similar to M.E. Having previously had M.E for 18 years, it is not something I would wish on anyone.

Then again, you may get the virus and be fine, or not get it at all. You'll just have to hope for the best.
Personally, having a vaccination didn't bother, or affect me in the slightest - and if my having it reassures other people and allows me to return sooner to my hospital voluntary work; it's more than worth it.

 

[Lawrence87]

No idea.
But it has not been PROVED that the vaccine "is giving people blood clots". Blood clots can be caused by a number of things - like the pill. Just because someone has in injection and a short while later gets a blood clot, it does not prove that it was as a result of the injection and they wouldn't have got one otherwise.

It was the same principle with the MMR vaccine - a healthy child develops autism after having this vaccination and, hey presto, it must therefore be responsible for autism. But autism can't be diagnosed before the age of about 2, the age at which kids were being vaccinated - the markers, or whatever, for autism may have already been present.



Your choice.
You may get the virus, survive but be left with long Covid - which seems to be a condition similar to M.E. Having previously had M.E for 18 years, it is not something I would wish on anyone.

Then again, you may get the virus and be fine, or not get it at all. You'll just have to hope for the best.
Personally, having a vaccination didn't bother, or affect me in the slightest - and if my having it reassures other people and allows me to return sooner to my hospital voluntary work; it's more than worth it.

My point about the blood clots is they started rolling out these vaccines with no mention that this was even a potential risk, and now certain places are halting the rollout because of it. Which suggests to me that the effects of these vaccines are as yet not fully known, so who knows what else they will discover about them. I personally am not willing to subject myself to such experimentation

 

[expos4ever]

If you don't believe me you can look it up.

Nope. Your claim, you have to provide the support.

 

[Lawrence87]

Nope. Your claim, you have to provide the support.

No I don't. I know what I heard. If you disagree that's up to you. I'm going by what the news is saying, that being that these vaccines will not convey immunity, nor will they prevent transmission, catching or carrying Covid. Even the letter you receive inviting you to the vaccine says as much.

This isn't a formal debate, I'm letting my views on this matter be known. If you want to see links, you can Google it.

 

[expos4ever]

If I felt particularly at risk that this would be serious for me then I would think differently. I am not in a high risk category therefore I am extremely unlikely to be hospitalised with Covid.

First, despite your unsubstantiated claim to the contrary, it presently unknown whether the vaccine will reduce transmission. In fact, what limited evidence there is suggests that the vaccine might reduce transmission:

From the CDC:

A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.

As long as there is a reasonable possibility that the vaccine will reduce transmission, you have a moral obligation to get vaccinated for the sake of others.

Second, if everyone in a low-risk category reasoned like you, the number of you that would end up taxing the health-care system will still be too high - even if only a small percentage of you (even, say 0.1%) end up in the hospital, that would still add up to too many hospitalizations, given the large numbers of people in your "low-risk" category.

 

[expos4ever]

No I don't.

Unacceptable. It is universally acknowledged that the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

This is not up for debate - as the claimant, you are responsible to support your own assertions.

And we all know why you won't do it - because your claim is almost certainly false.

 

[friend of]

If "science", or anyone else, for that matter treated the same facts differently, when all other relevant variables have been controlled out of the analysis, then you might have a case

The BLM riots consisted of hundreds to thousands of maskless people within close enough proximity to breath on one another, breathing in each other's air. It doesn't matter that there was no roof above them and they were outside. Being inside while observing social distancing measures would do more to stem the proliferation of COVID than large groups of people within breathing proximity of one another, even while being outside. To say otherwise is propaganda.

 

[Toro]

So.... you are sick of hearing about it.... so you make a thread to counter it... which means those that believe it is will tell you more about how much they believe it is?



I mean, I dont believe its the mark either, but I dont understand the logic behind the thread.

 

[Aldebaran]

The Covid "vaccine" may not be the mark itself, but it sure sets a precedent and is useful as a trial run for the mark. Requiring people to get it or be denied services. Sure, that's not a widespread rule here yet, but it is in Israel. It could easily become global if the virus itself is hyped enough as being so dangerous that people can be scared into getting the shot so they won't die, and also be able to participate in society.
The actual mark will no doubt be foisted upon the global population through fear and intimidation just as the current shot is.

 

[Lawrence87]

Unacceptable. It is universally acknowledged that the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

This is not up for debate - as the claimant, you are responsible to support your own assertions.

And we all know why you won't do it - because your claim is almost certainly false.

This isn't a formal debate at a university campus. It's common knowledge that the Covid vaccine prevents severe infection but does not convey immunity you can still carry the infection and pass it on etc. You even said as much in your previous posts. You can Google it if you don't believe me.

I'm not going to get links, be a child and act like you 'won' if you want, but I am not claiming anything that is not mainstream knowledge. And I'm not going to Google anything for you.

 

[renniks]

Are you joking? There is no reason at all to fear "the media". That is nothing more than propaganda left over from the ex-president.

The media aren't to be feared, but blindly believing everything they say is unwise. Fearing what the government will do with the power of vaccine passports etc is just smart.

 

[friend of]

The media aren't to be feared, but blindly believing everything they say is unwise. Fearing what the government will do with the power of vaccine passports etc is just smart.

It's a virtue named "vigilance" and all Christians would be wise to practice it in these evil days.

 

[Strong in Him]

My point about the blood clots is they started rolling out these vaccines with no mention that this was even a potential risk, and now certain places are halting the rollout because of it. Which suggests to me that the effects of these vaccines are as yet not fully known, so who knows what else they will discover about them. I personally am not willing to subject myself to such experimentation

Well, like I said; your choice. No one is making you.

 

[The Liturgist]

You continue your strategy of illicitly trying to make this a one-dimensional problem - that religious freedom is the only consideration.

An eight-year old knows this is not the case.

Illicitly? That implies illegality - what I am doing is referring to the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, which “below the 49th parallel” to use a popular, if technically inaccurate, cliche, is the law of the land. The US Supreme Court ruled that worship services with reasonable precautions taken against the spread of the virus are legal, which is a balanced decision which both recognizes the grave threat that the virus posed, and continues to pose until the population has been inoculated with one of the excellent vaccines developed in response to the disaster, particularly to elderly persons, and the critical importance of preserving civil rights in the midst of the disaster.

Particularly with regards to church services, the importance of ensuring the continuation of these services is, in the United States, twofold: firstly, the freedom of worship as well as private belief is mandated by the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, and secondly, religious services have been shown in some studies to be effective at helping people cope with the extreme stress caused by the virus. The causes of this stress are of course obvious and scarcely need repeating, but church can help with the grief people feel over the loss of loved ones, fear of contracting the virus, and the fear and uncertainty caused by the economic disaster resulting from the lockdowns and other economic side effects of the virus itself.

And as I said before, I regard the idea that the vaccine is the mark of the beast to be entirely wrong, dangerous and pernicious. As a clergyman, it is my duty to work to promote in my congregation the following of medical advice, so in all cases where a parishioner’s licensed medical doctors recommend receiving the vaccine, I believe it should be taken as a matter of priority.

 

[The Liturgist]

My point about the blood clots is they started rolling out these vaccines with no mention that this was even a potential risk, and now certain places are halting the rollout because of it. Which suggests to me that the effects of these vaccines are as yet not fully known, so who knows what else they will discover about them. I personally am not willing to subject myself to such experimentation

If I were you, I would talk to my doctor about the risks and benefits. Of course I am lucky enough to have several doctors who I trust, ironically because I am unlucky enough to suffer a chronic hereditary illness. I do recognize that not everyone has physicians they feel like they can trust. But it is a medical fact some people are naturally more at risk of blood clots than others, so it really is something that should be discussed with a trusted, properly licensed MD or DO. But if they give the green light for vaccination, I think getting vaccinated is a very good idea, because even if you fall outside the high risk symptoms area, it is still a nasty affliction, much more uncomfortable than the cold, with a long asymptomatic period in which you might unknowingly infect other people close to you who are more at risk.

 

[The Liturgist]

It was the same principle with the MMR vaccine - a healthy child develops autism after having this vaccination and, hey presto, it must therefore be responsible for autism.

Indeed, the correlation is causation fallacy. While correlation can point to causation, by itself it is not inherently indicative of such.

 

[Lawrence87]

If I were you, I would talk to my doctor about the risks and benefits. Of course I am lucky enough to have several doctors who I trust, ironically because I am unlucky enough to suffer a chronic hereditary illness. I do recognize that not everyone has physicians they feel like they can trust. But it is a medical fact some people are naturally more at risk of blood clots than others, so it really is something that should be discussed with a trusted, properly licensed MD or DO. But if they give the green light for vaccination, I think getting vaccinated is a very good idea, because even if you fall outside the high risk symptoms area, it is still a nasty affliction, much more uncomfortable than the cold, with a long asymptomatic period in which you might unknowingly infect other people close to you who are more at risk.

As I understand it, were I to be vaccinated I could still pass on the virus, as the vaccines do not convey immunity but rather are a defence against severe effects. So the argument for these vaccines comes down they are for your own good.

However, I don't think the case for this is entirely clear. I feel like there was a lot of political motivation for these vaccines to be rolled out quickly without enough time to fully assess any potential side effects. This is bolstered by the fact that there are certain places that have halted the roll out of one of the vaccines due to the potential link to blood clots. Now my apprehension isn't based on being convinced that there is a huge risk of me personally getting a blood clot, but rather that this fiasco is indicative of inadequate testing, and highlights for me that these vaccines haven't existed for long enough for the potential side effects to be known. Therefore I do not wish to volunteer myself as a guinea pig. Who knows what unforeseen consequences they might have. For something that does not convey immunity, for a virus which is extremely unlikely to prove fatal, I do not think it is worth being experimented upon for.

 

[expos4ever]

This isn't a formal debate, I'm letting my views on this matter be known. If you want to see links, you can Google it.

This is indeed not a formal debate. But when you make a claim, and then refuse to support, it is as good as admitting one of the following:

"I am recycling information without checking it"
"I am guessing"
"I made this up"

You are, of course, free to do as you like. But let's not pretend that an objective reader will see view your claims with extreme suspicion, and rightly so, when you refuse to defend your claims.

By comparison, I have presented evidence to support my position on this matter, namely that you are incorrect in asserting that the vaccine will not prevent transmission; instead the situation is one where is it is not known whether the vaccine will prevent transmission. Again, for readers just joining in:

From the CDC:

A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.

 

[Lawrence87]

This is indeed not a formal debate. But when you make a claim, and then refuse to support, it is as good as admitting one of the following:

"I am recycling information without checking it"
"I am guessing"
"I made this up"

You are, of course, free to do as you like. But let's not pretend that an objective reader will see view your claims with extreme suspicion, and rightly so, when you refuse to defend your claims.

By comparison, I have presented evidence to support my position on this matter, namely that you are incorrect in asserting that the vaccine will not prevent transmission; instead the situation is one where is it is not known whether the vaccine will prevent transmission. Again, for readers just joining in:

From the CDC:

A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.

"Potentially less likely" in other words they don't know. Precisely my point I am not willing to be a guinea pig for something that they have no idea about.

Also potentially less likely does not mean it does convey immunity. It means it might. In any case that statement doesn't fill me with confidence. What other things might it potentially do or not do? Since they clearly are working all this out as they go about injecting millions of people. You can queue up to find out if you want, but I'm not going to.