Curious question to the unvaccinated

[oldbadger]

Sounds like a plan to me,

As long as the vaxxers don't kill the one's choosing to not be vaccinated

No. Covid is beginning to do that. True.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not "antivax", as in I'm not opposed to vaccines. I just don't trust the technology these vaccines use as well as there being evidence of corruption with the companies that make them (very obvious with Moderna, which has a creepy history). I would get vaccinated against it if they would put out a regular vaccine (dead or weakened virus).

I have a friend with a similar outlook who has told me she would have no hesitation about getting the Chinese Sinopharm vaccine, which uses old-school technology (an inactivated virus). Am I correct in assuming you would have no issue taking that one given its underlying technology, then?

 

[Martin]

Life styles, situations and moral issues are simply excuses. for not doing what is clearly the responsible thing to do.

Of course you can pass on the infection with out knowing it. In fact that is the most common way that it is spread. In the early stages of the infection, when you are most infectious, and if you are asymptomatic, you will have no reason to suspect that you are infectious.

With some people it's all about rights, and very little about responsibilities.
"I insist on my freedoms, and I don't much care if that adversely effects the people around me."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have a friend with a similar outlook who has told me she would have no hesitation about getting the Chinese Sinopharm vaccine, which uses old-school technology (an inactivated virus). Am I correct in assuming you would have no issue taking that one given its underlying technology, then?

Sure. The source would make me question it, but I'd be open to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That sounds like a recipe for fear.

You keep saying that to everyone who explains to you in a reasonable way the risk that you're imposing on those around you.

It creates the impression that you're unwilling to participate in a real dialogue.

If you said Expert X says people have been sneaking bullets into unloaded guns and thousands have been shot because of it, of course you guys will fear if you be shot to. The danger is from your perception not objective. It's situational. Some people live with barely any gun stores if any while others live with a gun store on every corner. Feeling in danger would make more sense in a neighborhood where guns are sold than there would be if they were not.

I think that's why people should have some barrier between themselves and people they disagree with in this topic. We really don't know who have loaded guns and if I treated everyone as if they were going to kill me, I'd probably be in a mental house somewhere.

You don't get it.

Let me ask. If they didn't refuse but couldn't get vaccinated would you still have the same concerns of not catching and spreading the virus?

Unless the concern applies to All unvaccinated who you say are endangering you, it seems more like disagreeing with their decisions not about the virus itself.

It varies.

Certainly, when someone could get vaccinated but doesn't, this is a sign that they're irresponsible with regard to the pandemic. I wouldn't expect their poor judgment to be only about vaccines. I would expect that there's a good chance that they've been irresponsible in other ways.

In this area, most of the vaccine refusers are members of COVID-denialist churches who have been refusing all sorts of public health measures throughout the pandemic. Vaccine refusal comes as a package deal with a bunch of other foolish behaviour.

Certainly anyone who I encounter at work doesn't have the excuse that they don't need to be vaccinated because they aren't around other people.

The people around here who can't be vaccinated are mostly kids, since kids under 12 can't be vaccinated right now... but I'm generally not in contact with other people's kids.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

With some people it's all about rights, and very little about responsibilities.
"I insist on my freedoms, and I don't much care if that adversely effects the people around me."

I'm not sure what to call it. An attitude that's all about rights would still acknowledge the rights of others.

They tend to jump from stance to stance depending on what they think supports the end goal they have in mind.

I mean, take someone like @Xavier Graham SA - he said that he doesn't want to be vaccinated because he mistrusts the government. Well, the alternative to getting vaccinated here - in many jobs - is having a government-issued swab stuck up your nose twice a week, with your test results being logged in a government database.

I'd love to hear how his anti-government stance tells him that that is a better option than getting vaccinated.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You keep saying that to everyone who explains to you in a reasonable way the risk that you're imposing on those around you.

It creates the impression that you're unwilling to participate in a real dialogue.



You don't get it.


It varies.

Certainly, when someone could get vaccinated but doesn't, this is a sign that they're irresponsible with regard to the pandemic. I wouldn't expect their poor judgment to be only about vaccines. I would expect that there's a good chance that they've been irresponsible in other ways.

In this area, most of the vaccine refusers are members of COVID-denialist churches who have been refusing all sorts of public health measures throughout the pandemic. Vaccine refusal comes as a package deal with a bunch of other foolish behaviour.

Certainly anyone who I encounter at work doesn't have the excuse that they don't need to be vaccinated because they aren't around other people.

The people around here who can't be vaccinated are mostly kids, since kids under 12 can't be vaccinated right now... but I'm generally not in contact with other people's kids.

Essentially, all I'm saying is I disagree that people are irresponsible. I've heard you guys' explanations why and how, and get it from a logical standpoint but not a moral one. I understand how these views apply to individual people and how people read facts to determine what they will and will not do. The majority here are most likely vaccinated. I've talked with a couple who weren't one lady quite older than me said she only had one life to live and won't give into panic. It's very rare that I'd have a conversation out of nowhere so its pretty much a forgone conclusion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sure. The source would make me question it, but I'd be open to it.

I don't have any issues with mRNA vaccines given the available evidence on their safety and effectiveness, but as I said in another thread recently, I hope we get anti-COVID medications at some point so that we have even more tools to counter the pandemic. A pill to reduce the effects and transmissibility of the virus (which exists for HIV, for example) would be immensely helpful in addition to the vaccines.

 

[Rival]

***THREAD MOVED TO GENERAL DEBATES***​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Essentially, all I'm saying is I disagree that people are irresponsible.

I know you disagree. I think you're wrong.

I've heard you guys' explanations why and how, and get it from a logical standpoint but not a moral one.

I don't know what you mean by this.

I understand how these views apply to individual people and how people read facts to determine what they will and will not do.

Questions like "what behaviours will help or hinder the spread of the pandemic" aren't really matters of opinion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know what you mean by this.

Questions like "what behaviours will help or hinder the spread of the pandemic" aren't really matters of opinion.

Meaning, for example, I understand how certain behaviors help or hinder the spread of the pandemic but morally, making vaccine mandates and telling people they are contributing to the pandemic because of their choice (rather than just being unvaccinated) is what I disagree with.

But essentially, to backpaddle, this was supposed to ask unvaccinated people how they felt about the situation per question in the OP. All of this stuff is on two other threads.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Let me ask. Do you feel a person's risk of dying should be measured the same despite their circumstances?

What makes two people on the opposite sides of the world at the same level of risk?

The question is only whether the risk of acting (taking the vaccine) is greater or less than the risk of inaction. This is a deflection. Does it matter if my risk of becoming infected is half or double yours in our decisions whether to act or not? In every case, the risk of not acting is greater except in those with medical contraindications. If my risk of dying from the virus is 1000 times greater than the risk of being unvaccinated, and with your lifestyle, it is only 200 times greater, we still both benefit from vaccination.

Essentially, all I'm saying is I disagree that people are irresponsible.

You may disagree, but that is probably because nobody wants to see themselves as irresponsible. But others do. Here's a typical example of that difference in thinking:

Somebody who doesn't want a vaccine wrote this, a variation of "I'm waiting for full FDA approval" or "I don't want to be a guinea pig"

Him: "Experimental is experimental."

My answer: "Avoiding the vaccine doesn't remove you from the experiment. It just puts you in the control group, which is doing much worse than the treated group (the vaccinated). In actual clinical trials, when the control and treated groups separate out this much this soon, the trial is discontinued under the assumption that it is no longer ethical to give placebo: "Ethically, clinical trials must sometimes be stopped early when the results show no justification for exposing human subjects to additional potential risk by continuing the trial. The 3 ethics scenarios are based on safety, benefit, and futility concerns. " You're still in the experiment, and still getting the placebo."

I'm sure he doesn't think he's being irresponsible or antisocial, either. But I do.

One other point. The comment I left earlier on this thread contained a new insight for me, namely, that we seem to have two very different kinds of people in this debate, one that speaks in terms of social responsibility, and one that seems to have no sense of being part of a collective, people who only speak of their rights. The first group is never talking about rights, and the second is never talking about responsibility. The first thinks in terms of the common good, the second in terms of self alone.

I've already decided that there is no place in my life for a Trump supporter or a Republican voter. They're morally corrupt, and their judgment is horrible. I have no interest in having such a person in my life.

The insight is that I need to add the willfully unvaccinated to that list, not because they can't process information well, but because of the way they view others in relation to themselves. This is a person that I would not feel comfortable trusting not to betray me. I wouldn't expect them to think in terms of responsibility to me or anybody else.

I wouldn't want them on the board of our bridge club, because I wouldn't trust them to see the club membership as a community that they have a duty to. I wouldn't let such a person dog sit for us, either. I would want somebody with a sense of duty, someone who would care for my dog and take care of my house like I would.

You might see that as inappropriate. You might see these litmus tests as too simplistic, not nuanced enough. But really, if all one can think about at a time like this is himself, he should be expected to think that way about everything: how does this affect me?

I think also that, but not only that. I have a second duty as well, and a willingness to find a balance. In this case, both self- and societal interest tell me to take the vaccine, so no compromise was necessary.

But I want to be with other people that think like that, not what I see out there now in the antivaxxers.

Sorry to write to you like this and describe antivaxxers in such terms, but I think I'm correct, and I wanted to share this perspective for others to consider. I offer this thread and every other one where antivaxxers post as evidence that what I've written is correct. There isn't a scintilla of interest about others expressed in any of their comments - just leave me alone, it's my right. If you disagree, please rebut the conclusion with evidence. Show me that it is wrong to view antivaxxers as indifferent to the needs of others if you can.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Meaning, for example, I understand how certain behaviors help or hinder the spread of the pandemic but morally, making vaccine mandates and telling people they are contributing to the pandemic because of their choice (rather than just being unvaccinated) is what I disagree with.

You disagree with others considering your actions to be a reflection of your character?

But essentially, to backpaddle, this was supposed to ask unvaccinated people how they felt about the situation per question in the OP. All of this stuff is on two other threads.

Yes, and that sparked a larger related conversation... which often happens in a thread.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The question is only whether the risk of acting (taking the vaccine) is greater or less than the risk of inaction.

This is a deflection. Does it matter if my risk of becoming infected is half or double yours in our decisions whether to act or not?

In every case, the risk of not acting is greater except in those with medical contraindications. If my risk of dying from the virus is 1000 times greater than the risk of being unvaccinated, and with your lifestyle, it is only 200 times greater, we still both benefit from vaccination.

That's another way to ask it yes. Some people feel their risk is lower to catch COVID so they have less reason to take the vaccine than someone at a higher risk. For example, younger people would statistically have a less reason to take the vaccine than an older person would even though they both are at a risk of catching COVID thereby vaccinating.

Can you clarify:
Does it matter if your risk of being infected is doubled in our decisions to vaccinate or not?
Does it matter our infection risk levels regarding taking the vaccine or not?

I believe our actions are influenced by the level of risk we are in. I wouldn't take the vaccine if I'm at a 10% chance of catching COVID (made up number) but if I were at a 90% chance that would be different. (Meaning the higher the risk of catching it, the more likely I am to spread it).

You may disagree, but that is probably because nobody wants to see themselves as irresponsible. But others do. Here's a typical example of that difference in thinking:

Somebody who doesn't want a vaccine wrote this, a variation of "I'm waiting for full FDA approval" or "I don't want to be a guinea pig"

Which makes sense. I've never participated in clinical trials for that very reason but don't know if I'd express it that way. I think the idea is that its been made too fast for it to be fully approved. I know it went through the same steps as it would without emergency approval but the point is there's a lot we still don't know and some people are very cautious of that. They see their risk of catching COVID isn't high enough to warrant that jump.

I mean, to shift the shoe on the other foot, I mentioned couple of times people vaccinate because of irrational fear. They may not know all the information but didn't want to potentially spread the virus to others so they vaccinated.

Unless talking about magnetisms and changing DNA I really don't see it illogical in either direction.

Him: "Experimental is experimental."

My answer: "Avoiding the vaccine doesn't remove you from the experiment. It just puts you in the control group, which is doing much worse than the treated group (the vaccinated). In actual clinical trials, when the control and treated groups separate out this much this soon, the trial is discontinued under the assumption that it is no longer ethical to give placebo: "Ethically, clinical trials must sometimes be stopped early when the results show no justification for exposing human subjects to additional potential risk by continuing the trial. The 3 ethics scenarios are based on safety, benefit, and futility concerns. " You're still in the experiment, and still getting the placebo."

How I read this I would say yes, the vaccinated are still in the control group even though they're not in a clinical trails. So, yes, it's experimental just unvaccinated people aren't part of that experiment. Unless I'm reading it wrong?

I'm sure he doesn't think he's being irresponsible or antisocial, either. But I do.

One other point. The comment I left earlier on this thread contained a new insight for me, namely, that we seem to have two very different kinds of people in this debate, one that speaks in terms of social responsibility, and one that seems to have no sense of being part of a collective, people who only speak of their rights. The first group is never talking about rights, and the second is never talking about responsibility. The first thinks in terms of the common good, the second in terms of self alone.

It's in part cultural: individuals vs collectivism.
Individualism & Collectivism - AFS-USA

Individualism values personal independence. Within individualist cultures, people are more likely to “see themselves as separate from others, define themselves based on their personal traits, and see their characteristics as relatively stable and unchanging.” An individualist’s sense of self is defined more by who they are on the “inside,” minimizing the influence of factors, contexts, and people “outside” the individual. Individualists tend to communicate in direct styles—they say what they mean, prioritizing that information is conveyed explicitly and unambiguously. European and “Western” cultures are typically more individualist.

Collectivism values personal interdependence. In collectivist cultures, people are more likely to “see themselves as connected to others, define themselves in terms of relationships with others, and see their characteristics as more likely to change across different contexts.” A collectivist’s sense of self is defined more by who they are with other people, or by their membership in a group. Maintaining social harmony, getting along with others, and meeting social expectations are more important in collectivist cultures. They tend to communicate in indirect styles—collectivists imply what they really mean, but might say otherwise to avoid conflict or embarrassment. Asian and African cultures tend to be more collectivist, for example.

Relating to the topic, individuals would work towards a common goal through individual contribution. Each person puts in their own ideas and resolutions and all come up with a long-term solution without devaluing each person's opinions. It's respect. The common good is still there with every individual contributing in his on piece. Gives a sense of accomplishment and doing good for the whole when our individual ideas, actions, and so forth are valued both as a group and as the individual.

I'm not familiar with collectivism cultures since I was born and raised in America (excluding sub-cultures which are collectivist in part). I can see why people feel they have an inherent sense of common good and duty but its not a one size fit all... not universalism. But I don't agree that because not everyone is collectivist we think just about ourselves and not others. It's a gross stereotype and politics and media isn't really helping.

I've already decided that there is no place in my life for a Trump supporter or a Republican voter. They're morally corrupt, and their judgment is horrible. I have no interest in having such a person in my life.

The insight is that I need to add the willfully unvaccinated to that list, not because they can't process information well, but because of the way they view others in relation to themselves. This is a person that I would not feel comfortable trusting not to betray me. I wouldn't expect them to think in terms of responsibility to me or anybody else.

I don't know how to empathize with this (taking out the political reference). If there are vaccine mandates it would cause a huge problem and collectivist will say on one end they are for the common good but then when the number of deaths ideally goes down they wonder why so many "more" people don't have jobs, homes, and having heart attacks in their home because they were not vaccinated and had to give up their bed.

We have similar care for the economy, humanity, and the sick--our perspectives are different because of culture.

I wouldn't want them on the board of our bridge club, because I wouldn't trust them to see the club membership as a community that they have a duty to. I wouldn't let such a person dog sit for us, either. I would want somebody with a sense of duty, someone who would care for my dog and take care of my house like I would.

You might see that as inappropriate. You might see these litmus tests as too simplistic, not nuanced enough. But really, if all one can think about at a time like this is himself, he should be expected to think that way about everything: how does this affect me?

I don't know. I get what you're saying though. Politics aside, it's a gross generalization that those who don't want to vaccinate are thinking of oneself. It may feel that way given culture clashes but it isn't.

I think also that, but not only that. I have a second duty as well, and a willingness to find a balance. In this case, both self- and societal interest tell me to take the vaccine, so no compromise was necessary.

But I want to be with other people that think like that, not what I see out there now in the antivaxxers.

Sorry to write to you like this and describe antivaxxers in such terms, but I think I'm correct, and I wanted to share this perspective for others to consider. I offer this thread and every other one where antivaxxers post as evidence that what I've written is correct. There isn't a scintilla of interest about others expressed in any of their comments - just leave me alone, it's my right. If you disagree, please rebut the conclusion with evidence. Show me that it is wrong to view antivaxxers as indifferent to the needs of others if you can.

The thing is we have. I don't believe any evidence we give you will give you some insight. If anything, it's ask for the same thing and expecting a different response.

 

[an anarchist]

I'd love to hear how his anti-government stance tells him that that is a better option than getting vaccinated.

I’m not gonna let them test me lol it ain’t a better option

 

[an anarchist]

If you say so.

But most folks here disagree with you. 75% of all mature adults have received two Covid vaccinations.
You do it your way, we will do it ours.

I’m gonna have to end up living off the grid in the hills once all of the vaccine mandates are in place I’m sure.... know people who have taken off or are almost there

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I’m gonna have to end up living off the grid in the hills once all of the vaccine mandates are in place I’m sure.... know people who have taken off or are almost there

It probably leads to greater happiness and fulfillment, anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m not gonna let them test me lol it ain’t a better option

So is "find a different job" the option you'd go with?

(Or, for teachers or healthcare workers, "find a job in a completely different industry"?)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...s-requirement-health-care-education-1.6143378

 

[an anarchist]

So is "find a different job" the option you'd go with?

(Or, for teachers or healthcare workers, "find a job in a completely different industry"?)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...s-requirement-health-care-education-1.6143378

A doctor of mine set an wonderful example for me to follow. Early 2020, she closed up shop and went to live off the grid, just gardening and stuff like that. Something of that nature will be the only legitimate option for people who refuse the vaccine. It will be made impossible for us to participate in “regular” society. Everyone will either comply like a good citizen, or they will be shunned by their fellow Americans.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You disagree with others considering your actions to be a reflection of your character?

No. I understand what you guys mean logically but I disagree with it morally.

Yes, and that sparked a larger related conversation... which often happens in a thread.

Which is a pet peeve especially when we can all control which threads we reply in especially when it wasn't originally in debate. I guess people have itchy trigger fingers. But honestly, I never heard the point of view from unvaccinated outside of trying to defend themselves.