Mandatory Vaccinations?

[Unveiled Artist]

It was a couple, and they were a little hurt. There wasn't a fight, but nobody was happy, not those asking others to stay home, and not those being asked. I hope that they aren't still angry. I don't know what the future of the relationship is at this time.

I can see why they'd be hurt. You can't really force people to welcome you for some of the choices you make for yourself if they feel it may harm others. I know for me it wouldn't be because he or she wasn't vaccinated. I mean if we never knew of this virus and we invited friends to our home it would probably be the same as if we knew it exist. So, there are risks but in this case it sounds less about the virus and more about fear of the unknown (in my opinion).

I'm assuming that all unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected at any given moment than vaccinated people in any given locale.

How high is the level of risk you place on them when you find out they're not vaccinated?

I mean, vaccination isn't an issue for me. However, if I knew someone was sick or high risk area, I'd probably want them to social distance and/or wear a mask. But it would be overstepping my boundaries to not be around them because they "may" have COVID. I mean, I can't think of two or three years ago I'm hanging out with my friend and then a year ago, I dump her cause she decided not to get vaccinated (though she did but in this example). I'd be upset if she told me I couldn't go in her home. Maybe she's irresponsible, I don't know; but, I do know that it depends. I'm in the States so maybe population is different over there than here in Virginia. Then you have states where there are barely any infections because of such a little population.

So, I'd need more data before I stop inviting people to my home.

Perhaps. But in both locations, the unvaccinated are more likely to be infected at any given time.

More likely but that doesn't explain the risk factor level. It could be 1% in one place and 99% somewhere else. Seems like you're putting everyone in one box.

Sorry to hear about your health issues.

Eh. Thank you. Had it for so far twenty years. You do get my point though?

It does where I live. Mexico is not as far along in its vaccine rollout as the States.

Oh. That would mean you're generalizing, no?

I can see why you'd want to be around people vaccinated there if the risk is high. If the risk is low to none, maybe your views would be a bit more relaxed?

No unvaccinated person is invited to dinner at my home at this time. Do you think it should be otherwise?

Well, if you're in a high risk area, I understand. But for me, in US VA, no. I wouldn't tell someone not to come in my home. If I were taking care of a older loved one, I'd be a bit more cautious who I invite. Though, since I'm personally not in a high risk area, I'd invite the same people over today as I would have five years ago. Even if I let them know not to come over cause (say) I'm taking care of family and very precautious at least its not in the manner of telling them they may be plagued-and definitely not because they weren't vaccinated.

If I knew my friend had COVID, I wouldn't ask if she got vaccinated or not or ask her for a passport to prove she is over the disease so I can invite her in. I'd just let her know I'm uncomfortable and maybe taking care of a loved one and we can hang out somewhere else. If she's really sick I'd visit her of course, help her out, not run away from her as if she has some sort of plague that "will" kill the entire town. Unless I was OCD before the pandemic, I've never been like that without good factual cause.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It was a couple, and they were a little hurt. There wasn't a fight, but nobody was happy, not those asking others to stay home, and not those being asked. I hope that they aren't still angry. I don't know what the future of the relationship is at this time.



I'm assuming that all unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected at any given moment than vaccinated people in any given locale.



Perhaps. But in both locations, the unvaccinated are more likely to be infected at any given time.



Sorry to hear about your health issues.



It does where I live. Mexico is not as far along in its vaccine rollout as the States.



No unvaccinated person is invited to dinner at my home at this time. Do you think it should be otherwise?

Im still waiting on whether unvaccinated people should be segregated from vaccinated people.

It's one thing to not invite unvaccinated people to your home or group setting purely because they could be infectious, but to "save" vaccinated people from catching the virus (which you still could), where would you put us?

 

[InChrist]

The flu shot that comes out every year is obviously developed in less than a year. This is because it is just a variation on last years vaccine. The COVID vaccines are similar.

The vaccines you are referring to that take up to 12 years to develop do not take 12 years to test.

Yet, there are those in the scientific and medical fields who have concerns because the history of coronavirus vaccine testing has shown a propensity to produce antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which could make vaccinated individuals more susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or variants.

Results of the study
COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).


Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
Error - Cookies Turned Off

 

[Friend of Mara]

Experimental or approved?

Either. Having a 90% better world is better than a 0% better world.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Because young adult men may have a nearly 30 times greater chance of getting heart inflammation by a C.O.V.I.D-19 mRNA vaccine than being killed by C.O.V.I.D.-19, they might wish to reconsider having to get vaccinated at a young adult age.

We are talking about a handful of cases that we don't even know were caused by the vaccine. And so far zero have died. My advice to all young men in this exact age range is still to get the vaccination.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Im still waiting on whether unvaccinated people should be segregated from vaccinated people.

It's one thing to not invite unvaccinated people to your home or group setting purely because they could be infectious, but to "save" vaccinated people from catching the virus (which you still could), where would you put us?

I have much less worry about you getting vaccinated people sick than I do about you getting a child sick who's too young to be vaccinated right now.

Right now, nobody under 12 can be vaccinated here. I hear they're working on approvals to reduce that age, but we'd still be talking about first doses around the age of 6 months at the earliest.

I'm more concerned with protecting kids from a deadly disease than I am with reducing the inconvenience of your reckless decision.

 

[Deeje]

Links to support the claim?

Since this is a vaccination of the whole world's population, I believe we have a red flag already. I am skeptical of its origins and quite frankly I don't trust orthodox medicine, which places emphasis on profit over efficacy and safety.

The authorities will tell us that the risks outweigh the benefits.....but what if you are the one whose health is put at risk by the vaccine rather than the virus? Can your experience then be waved away as inconsequential?

I thought this was interesting as an aside from all the medical jargon....this is from the legal side of things.....

"No-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme must be introduced
No-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme must be introduced
22 April 2021 • By Jerome Doraisamy

(No-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme must be introduced)

A scheme to cover lost income, medical expenses, and personal care needs for those who get vaccinated must be implemented as an urgent priority, says a national plaintiff firm.

In a statement, Shine Lawyers national medical law practice leader Clare Eves argued that the introduction of a no-fault compensation scheme for those who are “unlucky enough” to develop serious adverse side effects from taking a COVID-19 vaccine will help avoid “complex and expensive litigation”.

This is not a radical idea, Ms Eves submitted, but instead it is one already being embraced by governments around the world, and looking after those who do suffer from the jab will help strengthen public acceptance of the vaccine.

“While the risk of an adverse event arising from the COVID-19 vaccine is extremely rare, the recent death of a woman who developed blood clots after getting the AstraZeneca jab will force many in the community to question its safety. We believe anyone who is vaccinated for the benefit of society should be compensated for taking that – albeit statistically small – risk, if something goes wrong,” she said.

“That’s why Shine Lawyers is calling for the implementation of a no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme to cover lost income, medical expenses, and personal care needs. At least 25 countries including the USA, UK, and New Zealand already have a no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme. Australia, on the other hand, is lagging behind.”

As it currently stands, Ms Eves continued, any Australian who sustains a vaccine-related injury won’t receive any compensation for the suffering they may experience and must pay for the associated costs themselves.

“Getting Australians vaccinated is vital in order to regain precious freedoms, boost the economy and reconnect to the world but there has to be a strong level of trust between the government and the community,” she noted.

“A no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme in Australia would cement that trust and there are a number of ways to pay for it.”

New Zealand’s scheme, she pointed out, is funded through taxation and levies, while the US is using a flat-rate tax per vaccine dose. In Asia and Europe, she continued, pharmaceutical companies also contribute.

“Any scheme in Australia should protect doctors from liability if a patient has an adverse reaction to the vaccine but civil action should still be allowed where there has been negligence by a health professional,” Ms Eves surmised.

“A scheme of this kind should have been introduced well ahead of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout but it’s better late than never.”
www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/lawreform/ALRC/1989/2.pdf - refer 10.37).

It is hard to imagine a scheme coming into play at this late stage and actually meeting people's needs, but it will be something…perhaps. In creating any scheme we should look overseas for lessons...the US National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 1986 purported to establish a no-fault scheme there (although they have a separate scheme that applies to COVID-19 vaccine injury). That scheme, reportedly, has evolved into a scheme that is now far from 'no fault'. The US Act also gives immunity to vaccine manufacturers (excluding fraud). This immunity is seen by many advocates in that space as one of the largest mistakes of the legislation, as liability for product failure is seen as being conducive to higher standards of safety. During the pandemic, we've seen governments across the world, including ours, give indemnities to vaccine manufacturers. This, too, is concerning. Immunity has also been seen as having the potential to twist medical R&D toward vaccine development over therapies when therapies ought to be the preferred treatment. The US Act also purported to establish a system of vaccine monitoring however the US government is under attack as never having met the standards of monitoring established by the legislation. Many lessons!

'Giving immunity from prosecution to vaccine manufacturers across the world!'.......imagine!

Also, hasn't the virus been proven to be deadly....dealier?

As far as I am aware the "deadlier" strains are NOT covered by the current vaccines, which were developed for the initial virus outbreak and have been rushed through without long term studies ever being done. The variants are now sweeping the world and like the FluVax, the newer and more deadly strains are not included in the current jab.

I'll take my chances with the virus....you can't undo damage from a poorly tested vaccine.

Incidentally, the US Vaccine Compensation Injury Scheme has paid out over four billion dollars in compensation to families of mostly young children brain affected by adverse vaccine reactions, left either permanently damaged or who have died. Does any amount of money compensate for the permanent injury or loss of a child?
You tell me.

 

[Deeje]

I have much less worry about you getting vaccinated people sick than I do about you getting a child sick who's too young to be vaccinated right now.

Right now, nobody under 12 can be vaccinated here. I hear they're working on approvals to reduce that age, but we'd still be talking about first doses around the age of 6 months at the earliest.

I'm more concerned with protecting kids from a deadly disease than I am with reducing the inconvenience of your reckless decision.

Children do not get the virus nearly as badly as adults. You are likely to do more damage to the kids with vaccinations than allowing them to gain natural immunity at home in isolation from others.

I have a cousin in England whose daughter caught the virus from her parents, only one of whom was sick enough to require hospitalization. Her symptoms were very mild and she recovered quite quickly.

 

[Deeje]

You didn't answer my question: what testing do you think was skipped for any of the vaccines on the market?

Please be specific, and please don't sidestep it this time.

The long term studies......short term studies do not identify problems that may develop down the track. They take years not months to achieve long term safety findings.

Once you have that stuff in your bloodstream, its too late then for the indemnified manufacturers to say "sorry, we didn't get around to testing that"....

 

[RestlessSoul]

So a 90% effectiveness rate isn't good enough? Are you not a fan of condoms because they are only 99% effective?

That’s not the reason I’m not a fan.

 

[Friend of Mara]

That’s not the reason I’m not a fan.

The quote that I quoted you on that you just quoted from that I had quoted on a few quotes ago...blah blah blah was someone saying "do you think that vaccines are 100% effective" and your response was "Thats why i'm not a fan of vaccines".

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have much less worry about you getting vaccinated people sick than I do about you getting a child sick who's too young to be vaccinated right now.

Right now, nobody under 12 can be vaccinated here. I hear they're working on approvals to reduce that age, but we'd still be talking about first doses around the age of 6 months at the earliest.

I'm more concerned with protecting kids from a deadly disease than I am with reducing the inconvenience of your reckless decision.

Very public spirited of you, but your concern appears to be misplaced.

“Later [in our research] it became clear that children had a very low risk of developing severe infection or complications of Covid-19…”

- The British Medical Journal, March 2021.

“Our evidence indicates that children continue to be mostly, but not entirely, saved the worst outcome of the pandemic.”

- The Lancet, March 10th 2021

 

[RestlessSoul]

The quote that I quoted you on that you just quoted from that I had quoted on a few quotes ago...blah blah blah was someone saying "do you think that vaccines are 100% effective" and your response was "Thats why i'm not a fan of vaccines".

No, don’t think so. You’ve got the wrong guy.

 

[Friend of Mara]

No, don’t think so. You’ve got the wrong guy.

Yup. My bad.

 

[fantome profane]

No-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme must be introduced

Sounds like socialism to me,


And I agree it is a good idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Very public spirited of you, but your concern appears to be misplaced.

“Later [in our research] it became clear that children had a very low risk of developing severe infection or complications of Covid-19…”

- The British Medical Journal, March 2021.

“Our evidence indicates that children continue to be mostly, but not entirely, saved the worst outcome of the pandemic.”

- The Lancet, March 10th 2021

There were a number of outbreaks in schools here until the schools were closed and the students switched to online learning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Children do not get the virus nearly as badly as adults.

My province has had 33 hospitalizations for people 19 and under so far.

You are likely to do more damage to the kids with vaccinations than allowing them to gain natural immunity at home in isolation from others.

I think the polite term for this would be a rectally sourced statistic.

And let's just be clear what you mean when you say "gain natural inmunity:" you're talking about letting people get sick and let whatever happens happen.

I have a cousin in England whose daughter caught the virus from her parents, only one of whom was sick enough to require hospitalization. Her symptoms were very mild and she recovered quite quickly.

Oh! Why didn't you tell me that you have an anecdote of a single person? That changes everything.

In a similar vein, I know someone who was perfectly fine after a car crash. Those must not be a problem at all either, right?

Give your head a shake. Do you recognize the irrationality in what you're arguing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The long term studies......short term studies do not identify problems that may develop down the track. They take years not months to achieve long term safety findings.

Actually, for vaccines, any problems that may continue to be issues long-term typically show signs within 2-8 weeks of the vaccine being administered.

But you know what we have been finding has serious long-term effects? COVID-19:

COVID-19 (coronavirus): Long-term effects

Do you understand how it's hypocritical to worry about imagined long-term effects of a vaccine while ignoring the very real long-term effects of the disease the vaccine prevents?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey @Deeje - don't think that I've forgotten that you've refused to back up your claim:

The current vaccines are not well tested and some have already proven to be deadly......I'll wait for more testing thank you....what you do is up to you.

So one more time:

What testing do you think was skipped for any of the vaccines on the market?

Edit: Here's why this is important: if you were merely misinformed but sincere, I would expect you to tell us whatever you believed to be true about how the COVID-19 vaccines were tested.

OTOH, the way that you keep sidestepping and ignoring the question sure makes it seem like you either don't have an answer or know that your answer won't stand up to scrutiny.

While I already have very little respect for you, what respect is left would take a major hit if I thought you were deliberately lying.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You know, with all the vaccine hesitancy in the U.S., it's beginning to seem to me like a least one phrase of the national anthem needs a re-write. "And the home of the ?????"