Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[Guardian]

Negatory. Gonna need examples on your argument.

[bennynova]

4 hours ago, Prozac said:

Except vaccines work best when the majority of the population is vaccinated. Even with the less than perfect effectiveness of the current vaccines, a highly vaccinated population will give COVID far less opportunity to spread and perhaps more importantly, to mutate. Also, even young, healthy adults are highly likely to catch this bug at some point. The vaccine may well mean the difference between a case of the sniffles or an extended stay in the hospital with potential “long covid” complications down the road. Seems like a win-win to me. But what seems to be the unequivocal opinion of the nay sayers is: it’s all about me. I don’t feel vulnerable & fuck those who are (or may be going home to family members who are). I guess that’s where we’re at as a country these days. Not willing to make even small changes in our behavior for the greater good. It’s a bit depressing. 

A majority of the population has been vaccinated for 6 months.   
 

this thing has gone to 15 days to stop the spread.... to a year of shutdown.    Now they told everyone things would get back to normal once 50%-60% had the vaccine.  Now they want 100%!   It will never be enough.  This is about control.    

[bennynova]

If you aren’t vaccinated 3 times, then you aren’t fully vaccinated.   That’s coming next!     

[tac airlifter]

25 minutes ago, bennynova said:

If you aren’t vaccinated 3 times, then you aren’t fully vaccinated.   That’s coming next!     

Careful, I postulated that a few pages ago and Waingro apoplectically shit his pants.

[glockenspiel]

5 hours ago, Prozac said:

Except vaccines work best when the majority of the population is vaccinated. Even with the less than perfect effectiveness of the current vaccines, a highly vaccinated population will give COVID far less opportunity to spread and perhaps more importantly, to mutate. Also, even young, healthy adults are highly likely to catch this bug at some point. The vaccine may well mean the difference between a case of the sniffles or an extended stay in the hospital with potential “long covid” complications down the road. Seems like a win-win to me. But what seems to be the unequivocal opinion of the nay sayers is: it’s all about me. I don’t feel vulnerable & those who are (or may be going home to family members who are). I guess that’s where we’re at as a country these days. Not willing to make even small changes in our behavior for the greater good. It’s a bit depressing. 

Translation…

“Take your medicine so mine works.”

[pawnman]

10 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Great question, I think you hit the heart of the philosophical disagreement.

Simply answered- if COVID is not a danger to me, I shouldn’t be subjected to restrictions intended to protect those who are endangered.  As one (of many) examples: Why am I wearing a mask instead of the person afraid of catching it?

As a society, what other issue do we approach this way?  If I am afraid of catching something, I protect myself.  I don’t demand you change your behavior.  The times we force vaccinations on everyone (public school) it’s for diseases which are equally dangerous to all.  

 

What other issue do we approach this way? Pretty much every other disease we vaccinate people for. 

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, Negatory said:

I mean, this gets deeper than this simplification. There’s plenty of counter examples in our society. Is public education a transactional relationship? How about fire departments? What about the military, even? I find the libertarian views you’re describing to be a little overly idealistic. If society was purely transactional you wouldn’t be able to have a lot of things you enjoy in America.

Every example you gave is transactional. US taxpayers agree to an exchange via elected representatives wherein they give money via tax dollars in exchange for security. Sure there are elements of public service in all of those occupations, but service is voluntary and never expected. 

A vaccine mandate isn't transactional. It's society telling a large subset of people that they will take a vaccine and they will get nothing in exchange of inherent value to them. Your uphill battle here is you are trying to convince a large subset of healthy people who would likely be unaffected by COVID that the vaccine has value to them. So you will sit here and provide mountains of data saying "look how dangerous COVID is!" But the baseline truth is for many people, it is not. And so they will continue to be able to pick through that data and say "hey... You're wrong." 

[FLEA]

Heres those institutions doing a phenomenal job of creating trust again. 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants-55-years-process-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/

[arg]

9 hours ago, Prozac said:

  for the greater good. 

Shouldn't you use quotations when you quote Hildebeast, Brandon, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin...........

[brabus]

21 hours ago, Prozac said:

For you and the rest of the crowd who keep harping on the point that COVID disproportionately affects people with comorbidities, please help me understand the point you are trying to make:

Is it that there really is no crisis since only fat and elderly people are at risk?

Is it that healthy people should skip vaccination and/or other mitigation strategies?

Is it that there is some sort of media conspiracy intent on hiding the truth from us?

I guess my questions boil down to: Should we, as a nation/society, adopt a different strategy based on the fact that comorbidities are at a higher risk level? 

The main point is unhealthy America is the primary reason we’ve experienced the amount of hospitalizations and deaths. Aside from Covid, unhealthy lifestyles are mostly PCFs in 5 of the top 10 causes of death in the US. This problem transcends Covid, and is the largest cause of strain on our healthcare system. Let’s fix that problem and stop fucking around with other things that primarily serve to line pockets and tamp down personal freedom. That’s the strategy we need to adopt. A good start would be pull funding from bullshit stuff and fund healthy eating options for low income/single parent families, develop a strategy to change America’s viewpoint on health, etc. But that’s hard, and it’s so much easier and convenient to bullshit the public and make tons of money/increase our power off their ignorance and willingness to listen to anything we say!

Secondary point: One size fits all is usually not a good plan - absolutely not should healthy people be punished due to the poor choices of countless Americans. 
 

CDC: Almost half of America is obese, increased > 12% in the last 20 years, 45% of 60+ are obese, 20% of children are obese. DFP identified, now let’s get to work solving how it happened and what we can do to fix it.

[glockenspiel]

Human compassion has been hijacked and most have no clue that it has. IMO, it is the most dangerous human emotion- even greater than fear because compassion grants moral high ground. Then there are no bounds to how much someone’s “cares about you”, then you start hearing things like, “for the greater good”, “do it for your neighbor”, etc. etc.

I don’t agree with everything she said, but these last few years remind me of this quote from the legend Ayn Rand:
I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

[brabus]

The bullshit meter really pegs when many people on this board have done immense things for the sake of others (including strangers) at risk to their lives, their family’s wellbeing, etc…only to then be accused of being selfish and not caring about others. Our neighbors who haven’t been in the mil, but go out of their way to help everyone, including strangers, with every day life things, for no personal gain - they’re called selfish by the mob. The glove does not fit, go find a new excuse to act like a self righteous asshole.

[M2]

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want...
 

Quote

Will Airmen, Guardians Be Separated for Refusing Vaccine? ‘Pretty Straightforward,’ Kendall Says

Will Airmen and Guardians who continue to refuse to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and don’t get an exemption from the rule be separated?

“It’s actually a pretty straightforward question,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said Nov. 18, all but outright stating that vaccine refusers will be booted from service.

Kendall, addressing the question during a virtual town hall on Facebook, did not explicitly say that every single person who refuses the vaccine without an exemption will be separated. But he made it clear that DOD leadership doesn’t see how those who refuse the vaccine can continue to serve.

“The bottom line is that willfully disobeying a lawful order is incompatible with military service. And to get a vaccination is a lawful order,” said Kendall. “The Secretary of Defense put that order out. We’re implementing it in the Air Force. There isn’t any question about it being a lawful order. We have to do a lot of things to take care of the health of the force, and people have been required to get vaccinations for a number of things”...

 

[FLEA]

15 minutes ago, M2 said:

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want...
 

Ill be honest, I've already moved passed the military mandate. That cause is lost and with 2G becoming the norm in Europe, the military will gain it's military neccesity argument. But I am finding it really problematic that society is moving into a civilian mandate to be employed and there are factions out there pushing a mandate for children to attend school. Because 2G is becoming the norm in Europe, I think its only a matter of time before the US goes the same way. 

[Blue]

10 minutes ago, FLEA said:

That cause is lost and with 2G becoming the norm in Europe, the military will gain it's military neccesity argument. 

2G?

[FLEA]

14 minutes ago, Blue said:

2G?

So the standard in Europe up until now has been 3Gs, which meant you had to be vaccinated, recently recovered from COVID, or be regularly tested. As of last week, much of Europe is turning from testing meaning leaving your house is effectively impossible unless you're vaccinated. They're essentially making vaccination mandatory. 

 

The below article adequately explains it: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.de/20211116/tell-us-how-have-you-found-the-2g-and-3g-covid-rules-as-a-visitor-to-germany/%3famp

Edited November 19, 2021 by FLEA

[Prozac]

18 hours ago, Muscle2002 said:

I agree with your sentiment, but we must acknowledge that making changes for the greater good works both ways. I loathe the idea of legislating health, but many of those espousing taking one for the team will not concede the point that personal choices to be unhealthy have already hurt our society far more than COVID has. Perchance we should create exercise and eating vegetable mandates.

Admittedly, the libertarian in me (sts) likes the Ron Swanson approach.

Ron Swanson on freedom to eat what you want

 

Exactly who doesn’t “concede the point that personal choices to be unhealthy have already hurt our society far more than COVID has”? I don’t think you’ll find a doctor or public health official who doesn’t agree that loosing some weight would help an overweight person overcome COVID or any number of diseases for that matter. Vaccination is far more expedient however. For the record, I wholeheartedly agree that this country should take a far more aggressive tack when it comes to advocating healthy lifestyles. But I seem to remember Michelle Obama being roundly criticized by the right for advocating things like more exercise for kids or healthier school lunch choices. We have to be willing to put our money where our mouth is on that one. 

[Prozac]

9 hours ago, arg said:

Shouldn't you use quotations when you quote Hildebeast, Brandon, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin...........

You know, for most normal human beings capable of critical thought, there is a middle ground between Ayn Rand and Carl Marx. 

[Negatory]

11 hours ago, FLEA said:

Every example you gave is transactional. US taxpayers agree to an exchange via elected representatives wherein they give money via tax dollars in exchange for security. Sure there are elements of public service in all of those occupations, but service is voluntary and never expected. 

A vaccine mandate isn't transactional. It's society telling a large subset of people that they will take a vaccine and they will get nothing in exchange of inherent value to them.

I think we’ll agree to disagree. Plenty of things the US gov does only provides benefit to a portion of society.

The argument against your points will circle back to 2 things: 1) vaccine mandates in the past have been extremely effective with no issues, so prove this is different 2) you get value first by not having to use taxpayer money to take care of a lot of dying people and second by having a more effective healthcare system with excess capacity.

Also, I’d be careful with the it’s justified because “taxpayers agree via their representatives” argument. Because that’s exactly what’s happening now. Dems were elected and now are pushing policy. It doesn’t intrinsically make it right.

All this to say, I’ve already explained that this particular vaccine mandate doesn’t make sense to me because it doesn’t appreciably affect transmission/infection. I just take issue with not including nuance.

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

The bullshit meter really pegs when many people on this board have done immense things for the sake of others (including strangers) at risk to their lives, their family’s wellbeing, etc…only to then be accused of being selfish and not caring about others. Our neighbors who haven’t been in the mil, but go out of their way to help everyone, including strangers, with every day life things, for no personal gain - they’re called selfish by the mob. The glove does not fit, go find a new excuse to act like a self righteous asshole.

I’ll take that as directed at me. I see your point of view & I understand where you’re coming from. Try and understand mine: I, and many others are equally confused as to how a person who is willing to give their life to this country, and make all of the other sacrifices that come with military life, is not willing to accept a vaccine that is safe, effective, and the best tool we have (at the moment) to fight a disease that has killed almost three quarters of a million Americans. I know you aren’t selfish. I know that for most of you, military service is not just a “transactional relationship” (as alluded to by some of the more hardcore libertarian types here), but is truly service before self. But I soundly reject 99% of the objections out there. Religious objections, worries about long term side effects, efficacy arguments, and almost all the other “objections” simply don’t hold water. Getting a vaccination (and yes, probably at least a couple boosters) is the single most effective thing you can do to fight COVID. Regardless, I know you and most who serve are not selfish…..far from it, and I apologize for coming across as a self righteous asshole. 

[FLEA]

31 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I’ll take that as directed at me. I see your point of view & I understand where you’re coming from. Try and understand mine: I, and many others are equally confused as to how a person who is willing to give their life to this country, and make all of the other sacrifices that come with military life, is not willing to accept a vaccine that is safe, effective, and the best tool we have (at the moment) to fight a disease that has killed almost three quarters of a million Americans. I know you aren’t selfish. I know that for most of you, military service is not just a “transactional relationship” (as alluded to by some of the more hardcore libertarian types here), but is truly service before self. But I soundly reject 99% of the objections out there. Religious objections, worries about long term side effects, efficacy arguments, and almost all the other “objections” simply don’t hold water. Getting a vaccination (and yes, probably at least a couple boosters) is the single most effective thing you can do to fight COVID. Regardless, I know you and most who serve are not selfish…..far from it, and I apologize for coming across as a self righteous asshole. 

Let me rephrase what you just said.

"I soundly reject anything you have to say because I really just don't care, but I'm sorry if sound like an ass hole!"

Mmmmm, are you really sorry? Or do you just not want people thinking you're an asshole?

By the way, I never said military service was transactional, rather, the intrinsic benefit provided by the military to greater society is transactional. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by FLEA

[FLEA]

34 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I think we’ll agree to disagree. Plenty of things the US gov does only provides benefit to a portion of society.

The argument against your points will circle back to 2 things: 1) vaccine mandates in the past have been extremely effective with no issues, so prove this is different 2) you get value first by not having to use taxpayer money to take care of a lot of dying people and second by having a more effective healthcare system with excess capacity.

Also, I’d be careful with the it’s justified because “taxpayers agree via their representatives” argument. Because that’s exactly what’s happening now. Dems were elected and now are pushing policy. It doesn’t intrinsically make it right.

All this to say, I’ve already explained that this particular vaccine mandate doesn’t make sense to me because it doesn’t appreciably affect transmission/infection. I just take issue with not including nuance.

I agree that government is working the way it should, just that one party is so in love with authoritarianism and the subjugation of free liberty that we are slowly losing any individual autonomy in society. 

Regarding your other points. Point 1.) Almost every vaccine mandate has had issues. So not sure how you're coming to that conclusion. Let's see, polio trials killed dozens of children, swine flu cause Gulliane Barre syndrome, anthrax led to gulf war syndrome. 2.) This isn't valuable to me, but copy, my elected representation really isn't holding weight right now. 

To your confusion, it's because the CDC effectively changed the definition of vaccine this year to mean a procedure that merely provides protection rather than immunity. 

 

[brickhistory]

25 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I’ll take that as directed at me. I see your point of view & I understand where you’re coming from. Try and understand mine: I, and many others are equally confused as to how a person who is willing to give their life to this country, and make all of the other sacrifices that come with military life, is not willing to accept a vaccine that is safe, effective, and the best tool we have (at the moment) to fight a disease that has killed almost three quarters of a million Americans. I know you aren’t selfish. I know that for most of you, military service is not just a “transactional relationship” (as alluded to by some of the more hardcore libertarian types here), but is truly service before self. But I soundly reject 99% of the objections out there. Religious objections, worries about long term side effects, efficacy arguments, and almost all the other “objections” simply don’t hold water. Getting a vaccination (and yes, probably at least a couple boosters) is the single most effective thing you can do to fight COVID. Regardless, I know you and most who serve are not selfish…..far from it, and I apologize for coming across as a self righteous asshole. 

Safe?  Based on what clinically sound studies?  We've chased this squirrel before.  This crash program did produce something that helps.  It is not a "vaccine."

Effective?  If you get the shot, you can still transmit the virus.  If you get the shot, you can still catch the virus and get sick.  At a not insignificant percentage either.

Best tool?  Maybe.  But too many other avenues of research/treatment have been shut down arbitrarily for me to accept the efficacy on blind faith and gubmint say-so.  The draconian 'mandate' isn't helping their case and makes me dig in my heels.  Especially given all the political exceptions - USPS, illegal aliens, attending 'peaceful protests,' etc, etc.  

This virus is either so deadly to all of the US or it's not.  The counters produced thus far are either ways to defeat the virus or they are not.  Exceptions literally and figuratively weaken the argument for a vaccinated population.

The FDA, yesterday, asked a federal court to grant it permission to answer FOIA requests in 2076.  

Yes, I'm skeptical.  I also do not want to lose the freedom of choice argument currently underway.  Otherwise, we all will continue to lose our freedoms.  As we have doing at an alarming rate since at least 2001.

All in the interests of "safety."

[FLEA]

7 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Safe?  Based on what clinically sound studies?  We've chased this squirrel before.  This crash program did produce something that helps.  It is not a "vaccine."

Effective?  If you get the shot, you can still transmit the virus.  If you get the shot, you can still catch the virus and get sick.  At a not insignificant percentage either.

Best tool?  Maybe.  But too many other avenues of research/treatment have been shut down arbitrarily for me to accept the efficacy on blind faith and gubmint say-so.  The draconian 'mandate' isn't helping their case and makes me dig in my heels.  Especially given all the political exceptions - USPS, illegal aliens, attending 'peaceful protests,' etc, etc.  

This virus is either so deadly to all of the US or it's not.  The counters produced thus far are either ways to defeat the virus or they are not.  Exceptions literally and figuratively weaken the argument for a vaccinated population.

The FDA, yesterday, asked a federal court to grant it permission to answer FOIA requests in 2076.  

Yes, I'm skeptical.  I also do not want to lose the freedom of choice argument currently underway.  Otherwise, we all will continue to lose our freedoms.  As we have doing at an alarming rate since at least 2001.

All in the interests of "safety."

By the way, we are some how supposed to believe the FDA had time to review all 326,000 requested pages in 6 months of 2020,but to review the exact same set of material for releasability they need 100X that. How does this make sense? 

There shouldn't even be a review. A review for what? This is the FDA, not security/defense material!? Just release it!

Edited November 19, 2021 by FLEA

[glockenspiel]

40 minutes ago, Prozac said:

But I soundly reject 99% of the objections out there. Religious objections, worries about long term side effects, efficacy arguments, and almost all the other “objections” simply don’t hold water.

 

Do you have a time machine?

also just because you are okay with knowingly benefiting from the use of murdered human babies, doesn’t mean that others have to be.

these “vaccines” do not prevent transmission and require a boost every  6 mo. 
 

seems to be holding water just fine.