Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine

[Unveiled Artist]

Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine argument?

Meaning you're not for or against it, but just choose what's best for you and others with no overarching opinion either way?

I don't feel anti/pro are needed. Maybe just those who take it and those who don't.

Does one need a side to make a decision and how is that justification true?

 

[ChristineM]

Helping to save other peoples lives is always important

 

[Spirit of Light]

Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine argument?

Meaning you're not for or against it, but just choose what's best for you and others with no overarching opinion either way?

I don't feel anti/pro are needed. Maybe just those who take it and those who don't.

Does one need a side to make a decision and how is that justification true?

I am neutral to it, not judging those who choose to take it or those who choose to not take it.
It is not up to me to tell others what is right or wrong to them

 

[Rival]

I am. Folks have the right not to take it. I'm on board with that.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I have a somewhat neutral stance although I'm not a denier that the reason things are getting a lot better in the US is because a portion of the US has been vaccinated.

 

[Secret Chief]

To work, requires the greatest number of people to have it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I definitely don't think it should be required.. if that's what you mean by neutral.
I've been saying all along : let people make their own minds.
And there have been some very adverse effects to it.

 

[stvdv]

Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine argument?

Meaning you're not for or against it, but just choose what's best for you and others with no overarching opinion either way?

I don't feel anti/pro are needed. Maybe just those who take it and those who don't.

Does one need a side to make a decision and how is that justification true?

I choose what is best for me
Others choose what is best for them

I do not choose what is best for others
Others do not choose what is best for me

 

[JoshuaTree]

I nagged my at risk elderly siblings to take it after reviewing as much info as i could, hate to think it should be mandatory though. I took j&j to lessen chance of autoimmune reactions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Helping to save other peoples lives is always important

Both sides do. I don't believe you have to be pro/anti to care and help others, right?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I definitely don't think it should be required.. if that's what you mean by neutral.
I've been saying all along : let people make their own minds.
And there have been some very adverse effects to it.

^This.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I nagged my at risk elderly siblings to take it after reviewing as much info as i could, hate to think it should be mandatory though. I took j&j to lessen chance of autoimmune reactions.

It's always good to take care of yourself and loved ones when choices like this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine argument?

... the sadly oblivious and the pathetically irresponsible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I definitely don't think it should be required.. if that's what you mean by neutral.
I've been saying all along : let people make their own minds.
And there have been some very adverse effects to it.

I don't either. I'd say neutral focus is you're not emotionally invested in the vaccine in either way.. just make a decision one way or the other and do your thing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Helping to save other peoples lives is always important

You said it, Lady!!!!

See my posts:

Mandatory Vaccinations?
Mandatory Vaccinations?
Mandatory Vaccinations?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am neutral to it, not judging those who choose to take it or those who choose to not take it.
It is not up to me to tell others what is right or wrong to them

Have you considered fully whether there might be some very negative consequences for many, many people because of the decisions we make as individuals? Or don't you care?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am. Folks have the right not to take it. I'm on board with that.

Even if it means that not taking it SIGNIFICANTLY raises their chances of infecting and possibly killing another person -- a person not involved in your decision?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I definitely don't think it should be required.. if that's what you mean by neutral.
I've been saying all along : let people make their own minds.
And there have been some very adverse effects to it.

List them, if you wouldn't mind -- and then compare how many of these effects have occurred, compared to the 2 BILLION does given so far.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not religious -- very far from it. But I do consider myself a humanist, and I live my life according to the precepts of humanism (as I understand them). In particular:

"The social system is interwoven with our human nature. We need to relate to others in order to lead our lives, profit from our capabilities, and be happy. Society is nothing but a necessary, beneficial and even vital agreement between everyone. An agreement not imposing arbitrary constraints on us, but protecting all from abuse, and providing for the well-being, and development, and the most fruitful life of all of its members.

It is a magnificent reality that each of us is a fabulous organism, with possibilities that seem boundless. Knowing how much we are worth, knowing how important each one of us is to all the rest, and all the rest to each of us, knowing we are both nature and nurture, knowing our reciprocal dependence on the rest of nature, seeing that all the other people know such vital facts, and using our capacity to solve problems by understanding them, we will improve on the way all of us lead our lives, and we will reach--as individuals, as nations, and as a species--superlative levels of well-being."​

Therefore, I get the vaccine - and therefore I would strongly, strongly urge others to, as well.

 

[exchemist]

Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine argument?

Meaning you're not for or against it, but just choose what's best for you and others with no overarching opinion either way?

I don't feel anti/pro are needed. Maybe just those who take it and those who don't.

Does one need a side to make a decision and how is that justification true?

You really won't give this a rest, will you?

This is exactly what climate change deniers like to do with climate change: get the issue onto a false footing, in which the opinions of people who reject the science are treated as just as valid as the views of those who accept it. Which they are not.

And, just to make matters even worse, the suggestion is made that this is somehow about "what's best for you", thereby entirely missing the main point about the vaccination programme, which is about doing your bit to stop others from getting ill and to stop new variants arising.