Mandatory Vaccinations?

[Unveiled Artist]

Side effects have been well documented. It is typically the reverse when it comes to news stations. They often hype up potential side effects rather than downplay them.

Why would they downplay it?

CDC has been quoting side affects allegedly from specific vaccines. They've even hold J&J because of it.

I wouldn't say the side affects are potential. If they are caused by the vaccine (which I think they are in some fashion) why should that matter to the vaccinated?

Why discredit harsh side affects when you say the risk is so rare that you don't mind taking the chance?

Make sure people know it is safe and crush misinformation. The FDA should also approve at least one soon as they are able.

We all have safe information from FDA, CDC, WHO, etc. Just because something is fact doesn't mean its best for people in every person's situation. Just because medicine X works 99% doesn't mean its in everyone's best interest (equally) that one should take it.

Why can't the vaccinated acknowledge that there are harsh side affects and that they are rare without needing to discredit the facts just because an unvaccinated person said it?

Edit.
i.e. Yes. "People have died and been affected by heart problems and blood clots 'and' I choose to take the vaccine because it's such a rare occurrence, I don't mind taking the risk."

It's an honest statement and acknowledges that there are cons to the vaccine while at the same time saying you took responsibility for that choice. Nothing wrong with that. Facts don't change just because we don't agree or like the person who said it. It is what it is.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Why would they downplay it?

CDC has been quoting side affects allegedly from specific vaccines. They've even hold J&J because of it.

I wouldn't say the side affects are potential. If they are caused by the vaccine (which I think they are in some fashion) why should that matter to the vaccinated?

Why discredit harsh side affects when you say the risk is so rare that you don't mind taking the chance?

Because even the worst of the side effects don't seem to be that major. There seems to be one case that is being talked about already in this thread though its validity is in question. So for as far as we know there aren't major side effects that cause any long term harm.

We all have safe information from FDA, CDC, WHO, etc. Just because something is fact doesn't mean its best for people in every person's situation. Just because medicine X works 99% doesn't mean its in everyone's best interest (equally) that one should take it.

Why can't the vaccinated acknowledge that there are harsh side affects and that they are rare without needing to discredit the facts just because an unvaccinated person said it?

Edit.
i.e. Yes. "People have died and been affected by heart problems and blood clots 'and' I choose to take the vaccine because it's such a rare occurrence, I don't mind taking the risk."

It's an honest statement and acknowledges that there are cons to the vaccine while at the same time saying you took responsibility for that choice. Nothing wrong with that. Facts don't change just because we don't agree or like the person who said it. It is what it is.

It is what it is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because even the worst of the side effects don't seem to be that major. There seems to be one case that is being talked about already in this thread though its validity is in question. So for as far as we know there aren't major side effects that cause any long term harm.

There are long term very serious side affects CDC has taken highly into consideration as they tests these vaccines and their efficiency.

Why can't vaccinated people acknowledge that there are severe side affects to vaccines that CDC is looking into "and" know that the risk they are taking is better than they believe they would of catching COVID?

Why do they need to discredit worse side affects to acknowledge and choose what they feel is right for them (assuming they compared the knowledge instead of going off of one side)?

If you feel uncomfortable answering the question, let me know. I'm actually serious.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Why do they need to discredit worse side affects to acknowledge and choose what they feel is right for them (assuming they compared the knowledge instead of going off of one side)?

I don't think we are discrediting legitimate side effects.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think we are discrediting legitimate side effects.

When we list side affects like blood clots and such, provaxxers counteract and downplay the severity of these side affects rather than acknowledge that they are serious, CDC is taking it seriously, and they took the vaccine with that risk(s) involved.

Unless it's just that an unvaccinated person said it, but yes, they do discredit legitimate side affects (meaning not just fevers, sore throat, and sores).

Edit.
Unless maybe they are slightly uncomfortable they may have made the wrong decision?
I honestly wouldn't take anything for granted in this situation.

 

[Friend of Mara]

When we list side affects like blood clots and such, provaxxers counteract and downplay the severity of these side affects rather than acknowledge that they are serious, CDC is taking it seriously, and they took the vaccine with that risk(s) involved.

Unless it's just that an unvaccinated person said it, but yes, they do discredit legitimate side affects (meaning not just fevers, sore throat, and sores).

Edit.
Unless maybe they are slightly uncomfortable they may have made the wrong decision?
I honestly wouldn't take anything for granted in this situation.

I doubt it. At the end of the day we want the pandemic to end. We save more lives with more vaccination.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I doubt it. At the end of the day we want the pandemic to end. We save more lives with more vaccination.

That's true...

but regardless if a vaccinated or unvaccinated says it, they discredit unvaccinated opinions. It's hard to get people to get vaccinated "and" it's difficult for vaccinated to see the reasoning of unvaccinated when both parties attack each other's reasoning.

You'd have to accept that unvaccinated people have logic reasoning "as do" vaccinated...and that looking at both extreme side effects "and" the benefits of the vaccine helps make better decisions.

Also, I feel if two sides were assessed equally people would be more accepting but when it's one side it's based on bias. It causes a cult mentality that could be avoided without all the politics.

Saying one is protecting people as vaccinated people doesn't justify the hate that is caused because of it.

My question.... Was what should vaccinated people do to unvaccinated? They both have the same info... So that's not the issue.

 

[Friend of Mara]

[QUOTE="Unveiled Artist, post: 7238508, member: 55631]
Also, I feel if two sides were assessed equally people would be more accepting but when it's one side it's based on bias. It causes a cult mentality that could be avoided without all the politics.

[/QUOTE]
This is correct but for ironic reasons.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

[QUOTE="Unveiled Artist, post: 7238508, member: 55631]
Also, I feel if two sides were assessed equally people would be more accepting but when it's one side it's based on bias. It causes a cult mentality that could be avoided without all the politics.

This is correct but for ironic reasons.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean?

Genuine observation. Nothing icky behind it.

 

[Friend of Mara]

What do you mean?

Genuine observation. Nothing icky behind it.

I'm just saying it was a fairly accurate assessment.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm just saying it was a fairly accurate assessment.

Why irony?

 

[SkepticThinker]

When we list side affects like blood clots and such, provaxxers counteract and downplay the severity of these side affects rather than acknowledge that they are serious, CDC is taking it seriously, and they took the vaccine with that risk(s) involved.

Unless it's just that an unvaccinated person said it, but yes, they do discredit legitimate side affects (meaning not just fevers, sore throat, and sores).

Edit.
Unless maybe they are slightly uncomfortable they may have made the wrong decision?
I honestly wouldn't take anything for granted in this situation.

You know, actually being infected with COVID carries a pretty weighty risk of developing blood clots. If you were trying to make a comparison between blood clots "from" vaccines versus blood clots from COVID, you'd probably want to look into that. But I don't think I've ever seen you mention that.

Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19 - PubMed

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You know, actually being infected with COVID carries a pretty weighty risk of developing blood clots. If you were trying to make a comparison between blood clots "from" vaccines versus blood clots from COVID, you'd probably want to look into that. But I don't think I've ever seen you mention that.

Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19 - PubMed

Edit
Why can't side affects like heart problems to COVID both be considered serious without needing to discredit one severe illness over another?

It's not a defence against vaccines. I never encouraged people not to take them. Just why the imbalance?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But I don't think I've ever seen you mention that.

Can we just talk without all of this?

I don't ever remember me downplaying anyone's intelligence,choice, and ignorance of vaccinated "and" unvaccinated people.


Please show the same respect.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why can't both side affects like heart problems and COVID both be considered the serious without needing to discredit one severe illness over another?

It's not a defence against vaccines. I never encouraged people not to take them. Just why the balance?

One would think if you're honestly weighing out the risks/pros and cons, you might want to consider the numbers when it comes to blood clots that result from being infected with COVID versus the number of blood clots that are the result of being vaccinated. Turns out, the risk of blood clots from being infected with COVID is far greater than it is from being vaccinated. That's where the "balance" you speak of comes into the picture. For some reason, you are focusing on one (blood clots from vaccines) but not even considering the other (blood clots from having COVID), which carries the far greater risk.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can we just talk without all of this?

I don't ever remember me downplaying anyone's.imtelligence,choice, and ignorance about this topic.


Please show the same respect.

Sorry, what?
Why do you think my comment "downplays anyone's intelligence, choice and ignorance about this topic?" How is my comment disrespectful?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One would think if you're honestly weighing out the risks/pros and cons, you might want to consider the numbers when it comes to blood clots that result from being infected with COVID versus the number of blood clots that are the result of being vaccinated. Turns out, the risk of blood clots from being infected with COVID is far greater than it is from being vaccinated. That's where the "balance" you speak of comes into the picture. For some reason, you are focusing on one (blood clots from vaccines) but not even considering the other (blood clots from having COVID), which carries the far greater risk.

This doesn't address my question.

Why discredit one illness in favor of another?

For example lung cancer "will" kill you faster than covid "might."

While COVID might kill a person before (I don't know) pituitary cancer would.

Notice I balanced both sides not discrediting the severity of rare side effects and COVID.

Why discredit?

If a vaccinated person mentioned this I'd assume people would say "hmm. That makes sense."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry, what?
Why do you think my comment "downplays anyone's intelligence, choice and ignorance about this topic?" How is my comment disrespectful?

Its saying why focus on X but willingfully be ignorant of Y.

Just be mindful I'm not heavily invested over the vaccination topic itself. It's not a huge thing on my mind. So, any reaction someone has over what I say is pretty much on them.

Constructive criticism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This doesn't address my question.

Why discredit one illness in favor of another?

I don't understand this question. Who is doing that?

We're talking about blood clots, COVID and vaccines and drawing comparisons between the probability of getting a blood clot from a vaccine or getting a blood clot after being infected with COVID.

For example lung cancer "will" kill you faster than covid "might."

Is lung cancer a side effect of COVID or the vaccine?
No.

While COVID might kill a person before (I don't know) pituitary cancer would.

Is COVID or the COVID vaccine known to cause pituitary cancer?
No.

Notice I balanced both sides not discrediting the severity of rare side effects and COVID.

I don't see how you've balanced any "sides" in those examples.

Why discredit?

Why discredit? I'm sorry but your examples don't seem to make sense in the context of this discussion where we are comparing side effects of COVID versus its vaccine.

If a vaccinated person mentioned this I'd assume people would say "hmm. That makes sense."

I'm not sure why they would say that given that lung cancer and pituitary cancer aren't caused by COVID and or the vaccine.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your opinion about me shouldnt discredit some of the facts I'm saying. They're not meant to defend against the vaccine.

We're talking about blood clots, COVID and vaccines and drawing comparisons between the probability of getting a blood clot from a vaccine or getting a blood clot after being

Let's use heart problems. That side effect is just as serious as COVID. The severity depends on the person.

Blood clots is a killer but hopefully not if one makes it to the hospital on time. Even people on RF had COVID. So, I personally wouldn't downplay other illness....but this has nothing to do with vaccines.

Is lung cancer a side effect of COVID or the vaccine?
No.

You get my point? discrediting one illness over another

I don't see how you've balanced any "sides" in those examples

Because it seems you're more focused on my being unvaccinated and talking about side effects than just reading the info without bias to intentions.

Why discredit? I'm sorry but your examples don't seem to make sense in the context of this discussion where we are comparing side effects of

The whole point was in the first comment of mine you commented on.

Disagreeing doesnt mean I'm wrong or ignorant.

I'm not sure why they would say that given that lung cancer and pituitary cancer aren't caused by C

It was in reference to discrediting not what anyone said