The covid vaccine is not the mark of the beast.

[expos4ever]

What I fear is: " Show your papers, or you aren't allowed to shop for food, or bank, or travel."
Only it won't be papers, it will be a card first, then eventually a microchip under the skin with all your medical and other information.

Please explain precisely why you consider it unreasonable to present evidence of vaccination to enter a grocery store, or a bank, or travel.

To me, it would be unreasonable if you did not have ready access to a safe, free vaccine. But I believe you do. I do not see how your objection is reasonable, given the public health risk unvaccinated people present.

You aren't allowed to enter a grocery store with no shoes are you? Do you consider this an infringement on your rights? If not, how, exactly, does requiring proof of vaccination fundamentally differ from requiring a pair of shoes when it comes to gaining access to a food store? Vaccines are free (at least in my country) and as easy to get as a pair of shoes. Shoes are not free.

The point is this: no one is putting a roadblock in front of you - you are, by refusing to do the socially responsible thing.

 

[Jaxxi]

I'm getting a little sick of hearing about this but yeah, the covid vaccine is not the mark of the beast. For one, the mark of the beast is supposed to be a MANDATORY mark that you receive on your right HAND or FOREHEAD. My wife and I both got our COVID vaccinations this morning and we were both injected in the ARM. Not to mention, participation in getting our vaccines was COMPLETELY voluntary. If you refuse to take the mark of the beast, the government will KILL you. Plus the covid vaccine is in the ARM not the hand or forehead.

Another thing I noticed. Before the nurse injected both of us she asked which arms we wanted to get injected into. So we could even chose what side of our body we could be injected into. Umm... last I checked the mark of the beast is not voluntary. They do not say "do you want it on your left hand or your right?" They just stick the mark in.

And the biggest clincher for me? God promised to protect his people from the coming tribulation. So even if the covid vaccine IS the mark of the beast... God willingly allowed me, one of his children to get injected.

Last I checked God never and could never go back on his promises. But everybody just acts like God doesn't even exist.

Don't be stupid. Do your part in eliminating this epidemic, get vaccinated if you can. And even when you're vaccinated still wear a mask. The vaccinations don't turn you into superman.. When we are smart during this epidemic we can lower the global death toll. But if we're not even going to read scripture and just automatically assume the two solutions to this global epidemic is evil and cursed and from Satan.... we're going to see another black death.... literally.

That does not mean that the vaccine is safe. It literally takes 10-15 years to develop a safe vaccine and no one can tell me what the long term side effects might be for this injection. I do not understand why everyone is so pushy about it. No one cared that I didn't get my flu shot and the flu kills. It is a personal choice. I don't have to get the vaccine. I do not trust it. I don't have to trust it. If everyone else is vaccinated then I am not hurting anyone.

 

[expos4ever]

That does not mean that the vaccine is safe. It literally takes 10-15 years to develop a safe vaccine and no one can tell me what the long term side effects might be for this injection. I do not understand why everyone is so pushy about it. No one cared that I didn't get my flu shot and the flu kills. It is a personal choice. I don't have to get the vaccine. I do not trust it. I don't have to trust it. If everyone else is vaccinated then I am not hurting anyone.

I believe people are "pushy" about it since we are facing a once-in-a-century type global pandemic! In the US alone, around 600,000 people are dead! Being "pushy" seems more than reasonable, in my opinion.

There are many reasons why the comparison to flu is not fair:

1. The long-term consequences of Covid are unknown; by contrast, we know that if you survive a bout with the flu, there are no long-term consequences.
2. Covid 19 is more contagious than the flu.
3. Unlike the flu, we have no "innate" immunity to Covid-19 (or at least, it is not known with certainty that we do.
4. Covid 19 is far more deadly: over 500,000 Americans are dead from Covid 19. In a typical year, one-tenth this many American succumb to the flu.

As for "If everyone else is vaccinated then I am not hurting anyone", this is simply wrong thinking - if you are going to resist the vaccine, millions of others will as well. And that is a huge problem.

And yes, it is a personal choice - I am pretty sure no one will force you to get a vaccine. But your choices in life, at least in the near term may be limited. Airlines, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. have every right to deny you service.

 

[The Liturgist]

What, exactly, are you saying then? If restrictions on religious services are "unconstitutional", doesn't this mean they cannot be enforced?

Prohibitions of religious services are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. States can require reasonable safety precautions, but the excessive restrictions imposed by California were also found to be unconstitutional.

And if they cannot be enforced, then people die.

Nonsense. Studied have shown public health benefits in terms of improved mental health resulting from attending church services where reasonable public health measures are in place (that are the same as those in place elsewhere).

Let me be blunt - if your constitution does not allow reasonable public-health related restrictions to be applied, then your constitution needs to change.

The Supreme Court ruling expressly allowed reasonable restrictions, but it prohibited outright bans on worship as unconstitutional, by an overwhelming majority, and it also found that the restrictions imposed by the State of California were excessive, arbitrary and capricious.

I would also note that if our constitution needed to change, then so too would yours, since both the US and Canada grant sweeping quasi-legislative authority to nine unelected justices in our respective Supreme Courts. Although your justices are admittedly more impressively vested in their scarlet ermine robes.

 

[The Liturgist]

This sounds all well and good in an ideal world, but we do not live in such a world.

I think you know all too well that if people are told they need to see their doctors before getting a Covid shot, this will dissuade millions from getting the vaccine they need to get, for their own sake and the sake of others - they either cannot afford a doctor's visit or they do not, or will not, make the time.

Notice the guidance here in Canada:

For some people, the decision to get vaccinated will require consideration of risks versus benefits.

You should consult your doctor or a health professional if you:

• are immunocompromised due to a disease or treatment, such as chemotherapy
• have an autoimmune condition
• are pregnant or breastfeeding
• have a severe allergy to an ingredient in the COVID-19 vaccine

The key point: people only need to consult their doctor in these cases.

At the risk of seeming cynical, suggesting that most people need to see a doctor before getting a Covid vaccine seems to smack of "vaccine suppression" - a calculated maneuver to effectively resist what is a no-brainer: almost everyone should get vaccinated.

It’s nothing of the sort. The reason why I encourage people to see their doctor, is that their doctor can effectively screen them based on their medical history, since many people may not be aware that a specific condition they have could have left them immunocompromised, for example, and additionally, in the US many people are having a very difficult time signing up to receive the vaccine, and doctors are able to offer guidance and help patients navigate the process. Additionally, if a patient is not automatically in a high priority group due to age or occupation, but has a disease the doctor is aware of that qualifies them for the high priority group, a doctor can ensure they receive the vaccine on an expedited basis.

In the US there are a large number of general practitioners and when I or an elderly relative who lives with me, who I take care of, need to see the doctor, we are usually able to make an appointment in 48 hours or less. Last Monday I had a health issue and was able to see my general practitioner that same day. Some people are members of poor quality HMOs or see doctors with longer wait times, and some people live in countries like the UK where the ease of access to doctors that characterizes things in the US does not hold up.

 

[expos4ever]

Nonsense. Studied have shown public health benefits in terms of improved mental health resulting from attending church services where reasonable public health measures are in place (that are the same as those in place elsewhere).

I do not follow you here. I am saying that if people congregate in church buildings without masks (and maybe even with masks), people will die needlessly.

Am I wrong in assuming that you believe the church should not be subject to whatever local restrictions are in place regarding people gathering? Correct me if I am wrong, please.

If you agree that churches should be treated like any other institution, then we are in agreement. But I doubt there is any evidence they are being treated more restrictively, at least when accounts for the details of the distinctions between what goes on in religious gatherings vs what goes on in, say, a hair salon.

 

[The Liturgist]

I do not follow you here. I am saying that if people congregate in church buildings without masks (and maybe even with masks), people will die needlessly.

That’s a stretch. There is a Russian Orthodox church in Nevada which has attracted large crowds every Sunday since it was permitted to reopen, and which has no social distancing in place whatsoever, and there have been no incidents of illness stemming from it. Indeed, throughout the entire Coronavirus scenario, churches have accounted for only a handful of mass-infection incidents, with recreational events, many of them illegal, and political rallies, accounting for far more such events.

It also seems increasingly probable that the uptick in infections seen in the US over the summer months was not due to the end of the lockdown, but rather the anti-police protests.

Am I wrong in assuming that you believe the church should not be subject to whatever local restrictions are in place regarding people gathering? Correct me if I am wrong, please.

If you agree that churches should be treated like any other institution, then we are in agreement. But I doubt there is any evidence they are being treated more restrictively, at least when accounts for the details of the distinctions between what goes on in religious gatherings vs what goes on in, say, a hair salon.

Well, the US Supreme Court, which does not share my religious opinions or biases, but is rather, like its Canadian counterpart, ostensibly impartial, found otherwise in an 8-1 ruling which crossed party lines. Both justices appointed by Republicans and by Democrats agreed the restrictions imposed on churches in California were excessive, unwarranted and a violation of the US constitution.

 

[renniks]

Please explain precisely why you consider it unreasonable to present evidence of vaccination to enter a grocery store, or a bank, or travel.

To me, it would be unreasonable if you did not have ready access to a safe, free vaccine. But I believe you do. I do not see how your objection is reasonable, given the public health risk unvaccinated people present.

You aren't allowed to enter a grocery store with no shoes are you? Do you consider this an infringement on your rights? If not, how, exactly, does requiring proof of vaccination fundamentally differ from requiring a pair of shoes when it comes to gaining access to a food store? Vaccines are free (at least in my country) and as easy to get as a pair of shoes. Shoes are not free.

The point is this: no one is putting a roadblock in front of you - you are, by refusing to do the socially responsible thing.

Spoken like someone who is just fine with the government making your medical choices for you. Some people still believe in basic freedoms. You wouldn't understand.

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you feel the same way about voter id? Assuming you are in favour of laws requiring voters to provide id, please explain how this is any less of a "precedent".

Voter I.D. is a security measure. It also doesn't endanger anyone like the substance they rushed into production.

You also appear to assume that "services" are a right. I doubt many experts on such matter would agree. Do you really think people have a "right" to travel by air, or eat at a restaurant, or go to basketball game?

Or have a wedding cake made to celebrate a homosexual "wedding"?

Please explain to us exactly how people are being "intimidated" into getting vaccinated. When has Dr. Fauci, or any other other health authority, threatened people in any way. Examples please.

Israel is already going the route of requiring people to get a vaccine ID to allow them to do things. That's one way to intimidate people into getting it. "Get it or you can't buy groceries until you do" is rather intimidating.

The real source of fear is not those who promote vaccination - it is those who resist it and, in so doing, are gambling with other people's lives as well as their own.

What you said there is an example of the divide-and-conquer technique.

 

[Aldebaran]

So you're satisfied with the so-called "UK variant" of COVID-19 that is easily transmitted and killing people around the world? People should be vaccinated against the worst health crisis people have seen in 100 years!

Then allow companies to actually create a vaccine rather than a substance that was rushed through with "emergency authorization" with side effects that are unknown until tested on millions of people.

 

[expos4ever]

Spoken like someone who is just fine with the government making your medical choices for you. Some people still believe in basic freedoms. You wouldn't understand.

Evasive and a strawman.

First, you avoid my specific questions which, of course, are very difficult for you to address.

Second, nothing in my post would lead a reasonable person to infer that I am happy about the government making medical decisions for me.

 

[Dorothea]

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.

Given that it does not convey immunity, then I think the choice is down to me. Just like it's my choice if I wanted to drink a litre of vodka or drive a car... The point about the blood clots is more to highlight that they clearly haven't sufficiently tested these vaccines if they are only just discovering the risks, who knows what other risks there might be...

Considering animal trials were skipped (the ones done for SARS back in the early 2000s didn't have good results with the animals -- the majority died), that doesn't seem like the trials and testing were rigorous enough.

 

[2BeholdHisGlory]

I remember when the U.S death rates from COVID (which were a mixture of people who died WITH it but not necessarily FROM it) and it was upwards around 200,000. All the while the regular flu somehow fell off the face of the U.S. and the fear inappropriate content had many people freaking out over such numbers when more people in the U.S die from medical malpractice each year. No one shut down the hospitals and began to hyperventilate over those numbers. The numbers are on the low end there but depending on which studies anywhere between 250,000 and upwards of 400,000 died from medical malpractice.

The percentage of people dying from this are so small and are in the groups who are at their end of life who have other illness that will eventually be taking them sooner rather then later. Its unfortunate, we can't live for ever, when you are not well and something comes in the weaker in health will likely not make it. So make them your priority. Given the age of the people (for the most part) which were of the older groups New York did nothing to protect them but everyone else who was likely not going to get anything beyond a positive test (and be asymptomatic). It would have served the population better to secure the elderly, most are on social security (so isolating them) wouldnt cause jobs lost for them or negatively affect the economy like it did.

Locking down the world and destroying businesses, and economies doesn't seem sane. I thought it was rather drastic but seemed a litttle reasonable to ask for a couple of weeks to "flatten the curve" (as they say) for hospitals sake if it were possible that the hospitals would be overwhelmed. But now after the fact it appears to be more like inflating a crisis into a huge power grab on steriods. I had not found anything logical about the fear inappropriate content, the lockdowns, mandates and all the rest of it with the excepton of how those things can be used for other agendas.

On another note, why can't those who are afraid of getting the COVID (with actual symptoms) opt in for the vaccine (or whatever it is) and leave people alone who are not afraid and who don't wish to opt in, and everyone takes the risks they are willing to take without infriging on anyone elses rights to take what risks they are comfortable with? Everyone can go to a store and they can sell and everyone can go and buy (some with their vaccine) and others without their vaccine and both can do their thing, and chose their protections and risks?

I don't understand what the problem is with that, unless someone can make me understand better?

 

[Ceallaigh]

The Bible says the mark will be in the head or hand (which really probably means thought and deed) so as long as you're not poked in those areas, you'll be okay. If you want to be extra cautious, you could always ask them to give it to you in your backside.

 

[Aldebaran]

I remember when the U.S death rates from COVID (which were a mixture of people who died WITH it but not necessarily FROM it) and it was upwards around 200,000. All the while the regular flu somehow fell off the face of the U.S. and the fear inappropriate content had many people freaking out over such numbers when more people in the U.S die from medical malpractice each year. No one shut down the hospitals and began to hyperventilate over those numbers. The numbers are on the low end there but depending on which studies anywhere between 250,000 and upwards of 400,000 died from medical malpractice. The percentage of people dying from this are so small and are in the groups who are at their end of life who have other illness that will eventually be taking them sooner rather then later. Its unfortunate, we can't live for ever, when you are not well and something comes in the weaker in health will likely not make it. So make them your priority. Given the age of the people (for the most part) which were of the older groups New York did nothing to protect them but everyone else who was likely not going to get anything beyond a positive test (and be asymptomatic). It would have served the population better to secure the elderly, most are on social security (so isolating them) wouldnt cause jobs lost for them or negatively affect the economy like it did.

Locking down the world and destroying businesses, and economies doesn't seem sane. I thought it was rather drastic but seemed a litttle reasonable to ask for a couple of weeks to "flatten the curve" (as they say) for hospitals sake if it were possible that the hospitals would be overwhelmed. But now after the fact it appears to be more like inflating a crisis into a huge power grab on steriods. I had not found anything logical about the fear inappropriate content, the lockdowns, mandates and all the rest of it with the excepton of how those things can be used for other agendas.

On another note, why can't those who are afraid of getting the COVID (with actual symptoms) opt in for the vaccine (or whatever it is) and leave people alone who are not afraid and who don't wish to opt in, and everyone takes the risks they are willing to take without infriging on anyone elses rights to take what risks they are comfortable with? Everyone can go to a store and they can sell and everyone can go and buy (some with their vaccine) and others without their vaccine and both can do their thing, and chose their protections and risks?

I don't understand what the problem is with that, unless someone can make me understand better?

The "problem" they come up with in their reasonings is when they use their "divide and conquer" strategies, such as claiming that if you don't get vaccinated, then you're spreading the virus to other people and therefore you must be isolated from society (for society's sake). Pointing out that you can be vaccinated and yet still carry and spread the virus is a way to guilt people into continuing to mask up even after vaccinated, which gives them a way to control people even after they gave into the idea of being vaccinated. Those who refuse the vaccine will be labeled as the new threat, and it will become acceptable to treat them as such.

 

[2BeholdHisGlory]

The "problem" they come up with in their reasonings is when they use their "divide and conquer" strategies, such as claiming that if you don't get vaccinated, then you're spreading the virus to other people and therefore you must be isolated from society (for society's sake). Pointing out that you can be vaccinated and yet still carry and spread the virus is a way to guilt people into continuing to mask up even after vaccinated, which gives them a way to control people even after they gave into the idea of being vaccinated. Those who refuse the vaccine will be labeled as the new threat, and it will become acceptable to treat them as such.

It doesn't make any sense which makes it suspect. if you can still carry and spread it being vaccinated whats the point on getting vaccinated at all? Sounds a little retarded to make those who do not get vaccinated some sort of threat. I mean, "there you go, you are vaccinated and you can be a super spreader" and so what difference does this put between the vaccinated or the unvacinated"?

It just gets stranger every day.

 

[Isilwen]

It doesn't make any sense which makes it suspect. if you can still carry and spread it being vaccinated whats the point on getting vaccinated at all? Sounds a little retarded to make those who do not get vaccinated some sort of threat. I mean, "there you go, you are vaccinated and you can be a super spreader" and so what difference does this put between the vaccinated or the unvacinated"?

It just gets stranger every day.

It's so that if you do get it, your chances of it putting you in the hospital are minimized. The vaccine does also minimize your chance of getting Covid, but like all vaccines, there is still a chance you will contract what ever your vaccinated against.

 

[renniks]

Evasive and a strawman.

First, you avoid my specific questions which, of course, are very difficult for you to address.

Second, nothing in my post would lead a reasonable person to infer that I am happy about the government making medical decisions for me.

There's nothing difficult in understanding that you aren't concerned about freedom.

 

[pescador]

Historical examples? Ok, the trail of tears, Indian reservations, slavery ...
We should learn from all history, not just our own.
What I fear is: " Show your papers, or you aren't allowed to shop for food, or bank, or travel."
Only it won't be papers, it will be a card first, then eventually a microchip under the skin with all your medical and other information.

Reductio ad absurdum!

Be careful, as some of the "doctors and nurses" my be Martians. Don't be fooled by their white coats. They secretly want to devour your children!

 

[RDKirk]

So are liquor stores, but in my state they remained open.

I've never seen a liquor store that had dozens of people sitting for an hour or more, shoulder to shoulder in a confined space, inhaling and exhaling the maximum capacity of their lungs.