Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine

[Unveiled Artist]

Yet you continue to post the same argument.

I have nothing new. I was just curious if people had nuetral position. The OP didn't bring up arguments.

Pro/antivaxxers need not have replied. They can't help it.

 

[ChristineM]

I have nothing new. I was just curious if people had nuetral position. The OP didn't bring up arguments.

Pro/antivaxxers need not have replied. They can't help it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There ya go.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Over here in Belgium, the vaccination process is planned out in detail. A priority has been set. First the elderly and those at risk. Then those older then 65. Then those older then 50. Then those older then 35 (I'm in that group and got my first shot a week or two ago). Etc.

When "your turn" comes up, you get an invitation with a couple of options for scheduling. If none of the options suite you, or if you refuse alltogether, you go to the back of the line and get reinvited at the very end of the process.

I'm assuming it's similar in other countries.

It's different here (Ontario, Canada). Here, when your priority group becomes eligible for vaccination, you're able to make an appointment. You aren't assigned scheduling options - you can go on your local health unit's website, see all the available times at clinics near you, and pick any of the times you want.

If you don't sign up for an appointment time as soon as you're eligible, that's okay... you can still book any time. It's just that the longer you wait, the more other people will also be trying to book appointments, so it may be harder to find a convenient appointment time.

 

[ChristineM]

It's different here (Ontario, Canada). Here, when your priority group becomes eligible for vaccination, you're able to make an appointment. You aren't assigned scheduling options - you can go on your local health unit's website, see all the available times at clinics near you, and pick any of the times you want.

If you don't sign up for an appointment time as soon as you're eligible, that's okay... you can still book any time. It's just that the longer you wait, the more other people will also be trying to book appointments, so it may be harder to find a convenient appointment time.

Much the same in france. Online enter your department number, it returns a list of vaccination centres, select whichever is convenient, turn up at the time, get vaccinated. They then schedule your second shot at your convenience within a window.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm neutral about taking the vaccine. I can care less who does and does not. (Aka not an antivaxxer)

If you say so.

I'm not neutral about the attitude attached to it-telling people they are putting people in intentional danger because of the unvaccinated

Even though this is true? They are putting people in intentional danger.

Replace it with any topic.

You'll see a pattern I comment more on the attitude, emotions, and insults. The vaccine, only when someone asks me a direct question that's not emotionally charged.

Is it that you think it's unreasonable for people to get upset about life-or-death issues, or is it that you don't think COVID-19 is a life-or-death issue?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Much the same in france. Online enter your department number, it returns a list of vaccination centres, select whichever is convenient, turn up at the time, get vaccinated. They then schedule your second shot at your convenience within a window.

Scheduling second shots varies depending where you are in the province. I have friends in the Toronto area who told me they got scheduled for their second shot when they got their first, but I had to go online and book an appointment after my health unit said I was eligible for a second shot.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you say so.


Even though this is true? They are putting people in intentional danger.


Is it that you think it's unreasonable for people to get upset about life-or-death issues, or is it that you don't think COVID-19 is a life-or-death issue?

That doesn't make sense.

If I go near you, the only thing you have to go by is I'm unvaccinated. The only way you "are" in danger is if I had COVID. You can perceive you're in danger (which is justified)...you can assume or be concerned that I may be (hence potential) danger to you.... but you are not in danger unless there is more factors involved more than just being unvaccinated.

When a doctor sees if a person is in danger to others, he may assume because that person has not vaccinated but he wouldn't make a diagnosis to say his patient is in danger to others until he actually checked me out and diagnose me.

You need more factors before saying "are." Potential yes. Actuality, no.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you say so.


Even though this is true? They are putting people in intentional danger.


Is it that you think it's unreasonable for people to get upset about life-or-death issues, or is it that you don't think COVID-19 is a life-or-death issue?

Something else. What doctor would tell his patient he is in danger to others if he has nothing to go off of other than that person not being vaccinated?

What medical proof can he provide to show others are in danger if the patient does not have symptoms to warrant a diagnosis?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That doesn't make sense.

If I go near you, the only thing you have to go by is I'm unvaccinated. The only way you "are" in danger is if I had COVID. You can perceive you're in danger (which is justified)...you can assume or be concerned that I may be (hence potential) danger to you.... but you are not in danger unless there is more factors involved more than just being unvaccinated.

When a doctor sees if a person is in danger to others, he may assume because that person has not vaccinated but he wouldn't make a diagnosis to say his patient is in danger to others until he actually checked me out and diagnose me.

You need more factors before saying "are." Potential yes. Actuality, no.

It seems very presumptuous - and IMO hypocritical - to on the ome hand hold up the values and feeling of antivaxxers as sacrosanct, but on the other hand dismiss my values and feelings - rooted in actual facts - as not legitimate.

Do you understand that this is how you're coming across?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Something else. What doctor would tell his patient he is in danger to others if he has nothing to go off of other than that person not being vaccinated?

What medical proof can he provide to show others are in danger if the patient does not have symptoms to warrant a diagnosis?

I have no idea what you're getting at, but you seem to have some very odd assumptions about how public health works that I don't really feel like unpacking.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It seems very presumptuous - and IMO hypocritical - to on the ome hand hold up the values and feeling of antivaxxers as sacrosanct, but on the other hand dismiss my values and feelings - rooted in actual facts - as not legitimate.

Do you understand that this is how you're coming across?

I had to look up the word sacrosanct. I never heard it before.

You're saying it's presumptuous and hypocritical to hold values about antivaxxers as too important to interfere with, but on the other hand dismiss your values and feelings rooted in facts?

I don't see how you got that impression.

Why would I hold values of antivaxxers that are too important to interfere with? Meaning, I'm not taking their views into consideration of being false?

As for your values and feelings, I'm not sure how you got that impression. I didn't target you and didn't dismiss your values and feelings. I never said your values aren't rooted in facts.

Not sure where you got that either.

Can you clarify?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have no idea what you're getting at, but you seem to have some very odd assumptions about how public health works that I don't really feel like unpacking.

Just saying if I were next to you, you wouldn't be in danger. If I were asymptomatic, you would be. Being unvaccinated doesn't tell you if I'm asymptomatic or not.

So the danger is your perception justified or not, but not a fact until you know I have COVID.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You would have to prove I'm asymptomatic for your life to be in danger.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I had to look up the word sacrosanct. I never heard it before.

You're saying it's presumptuous and hypocritical to hold values about antivaxxers as too important to interfere with, but on the other hand dismiss your values and feelings rooted in facts?

I don't see how you got that impression.

When you argue things like that antivax nurses who deal directly with patients should be able to keep on working at their regular job as if there's no issue, you're implying that antivaxxer values are sacrosanct.

Why would I hold values of antivaxxers that are too important to interfere with? Meaning, I'm not taking their views into consideration of being false?

As for your values and feelings, I'm not sure how you got that impression. I didn't target you and didn't dismiss your values and feelings. I never said your values aren't rooted in facts.

Yes, you did. Most recently, you did it here and here and here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just saying if I were next to you, you wouldn't be in danger. If I were asymptomatic, you would be. Being unvaccinated doesn't tell you if I'm asymptomatic or not.

So the danger is your perception justified or not, but not a fact until you know I have COVID.

Like I said: you seem to have some very odd assumptions about how public health works that I don't really feel like unpacking.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When you argue things like that antivax nurses who deal directly with patients should be able to keep on working at their regular job as if there's no issue, you're implying that antivaxxer values are sacrosanct.

You're going back and forth. My opinion about the nurses was I didn't like the way the hospital fired them, and I had empathy that some may be homeless cause they lost their job.

Yes, you did. Most recently, you did it here and here and here.

Which one? Your feelings and values or the question meaning, I'm not taking their views into consideration of being false?

If it's feelings 195 doesn't mention your feelings. I just used you as an example to make a point. same with 193 and 194.

I didn't mention your values and feelings. I just used you as an example and analogy to make a point. Analogies don't work for everyone and I don't know if you're getting that you can't be in danger because of ignorance (meaning what you don't know not a negative connotation) and belief ("potential" danger).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just saying if I were next to you, you wouldn't be in danger. If I were asymptomatic, you would be. Being unvaccinated doesn't tell you if I'm asymptomatic or not.

So the danger is your perception justified or not, but not a fact until you know I have COVID.

Are you splitting semantic hairs about the difference between "danger" and "risk"? Is that what this is about?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're going back and forth. My opinion about the nurses was I didn't like the way the hospital fired them, and I had empathy that some may be homeless cause they lost their job.



Which one? Your feelings and values or the question meaning, I'm not taking their views into consideration of being false?

If it's feelings 195 doesn't mention your feelings. I just used you as an example to make a point. same with 193 and 194.

I didn't mention your values and feelings. I just used you as an example and analogy to make a point. Analogies don't work for everyone and I don't know if you're getting that you can't be in danger because of ignorance (meaning what you don't know not a negative connotation) and belief ("potential" danger).

I give up. It's like talking to a wall.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I give up. It's like talking to a wall.

No. I just think you're getting offended over all this. This kind of sums up how I feel about debates especially when they start off civil. This is me in a RF debate