Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine

[Brickjectivity]

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 don't see this as an issue which has sides, except that there are exceptions to who gets injections. The injections themselves are not a conspiracy, nor are they poisons. There could some people who shouldn't get an injection. There can be mismanaged injections, mismanaged responses to a pandemic; but injections are not poisons. That is not even a side. Injections are medicinal.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't see this as an issue which has sides, except that there are exceptions to who gets injections. The injections themselves are not a conspiracy, nor are they poisons. There could some people who shouldn't get an injection. There can be mismanaged injections, mismanaged responses to a pandemic; but injections are not poisons. That is not even a side. Injections are medicinal.

I don't understand. Anti/pro vaxxers have their sides, reasons, and objections of why the other is right or wrong. Provaxxers more than antivaxxers it seems. There are those neutral to the topic-they have no personal investment in it either way whether they choose to take the vaccine or not.

This has more to do with choice and how much one is invested in the vaccine-argument rather than taking the injections themselves with or without excuse.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

It's a simple question: who is neutral to the idea of the vaccine argument?

Anything you're adding to this is an opinion, whether accusation, fact, or not is irrelevant.

The emotional investment isn't warranted in this discussion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

... the sadly oblivious and the pathetically irresponsible.

Not sure how this says whether you're neutral or not as the question says. I know provaxxers hate antivaxxers, but I'm wondering who is neutral about the whole thing not rehash how provaxxers hate antivaxxers (and those who they assume are).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Do you believe some are neutral about the argument or is it a for or against only?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Evangelical (spell check) there are side affects.

What is wrong with that to provaxxers?

Experts know this.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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?

I think it is important people make up their own mind, personally i have not taken a stance for or against it.
I do care deeply for every human being, but are also aware we have a free choice what each one of us should do.

 

[Vinayaka]

Around 99% of new cases and deaths are within the unvaccinated population. Still, I support free choice.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't understand. Anti/pro vaxxers have their sides, reasons, and objections of why the other is right or wrong. Provaxxers more than antivaxxers it seems. There are those neutral to the topic-they have no personal investment in it either way whether they choose to take the vaccine or not.

This has more to do with choice and how much one is invested in the vaccine-argument rather than taking the injections themselves with or without excuse.

I see. Should we also think there are two sides as to whether the virus ought to spread or not? Maybe we should vote on it.

Around 99% of new cases and deaths are within the unvaccinated population. Still, I support free choice.

So do I.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think it is important people make up their own mind, personally i have not taken a stance for or against it.
I do care deeply for every human being, but are also aware we have a free choice what each one of us should do.

Yes -- and I hope that we are also aware that our free choices will have consequences, and take that basic fact into consideration.

But if it is your contention that the only thing that matters, when you make your "free choices," is you, you, only you, nothing but you and forget everybody else --- well then, I guess you know who you are and what you care about.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you believe some are neutral about the argument or is it a for or against only?

What does it mean to be "neutral" about the argument? To me, it can only mean "I don't understand anything about vaccines, how they work, what they do, how they have changed the world, how they can protect people in the future -- and really I can't be bothered learning." Well, I suppose in that case you could be neutral.

But if you spend even a little time trying to really understand all of those points, I cannot see how one can remain neutral.

But to me, this is a tragedy. One of things that evolution did was to give us a big brain that CAN ACTUALLY LEARN. That cost us a lot in muscles and teeth. And it would be a shame not to use the thing that makes us most unique in the fauna of this planet.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes -- and I hope that we are also aware that our free choices will have consequences, and take that basic fact into consideration.

Every action, word or thought we do every day affect our life.

Being neutral means, has not yet taken a stance for or against it.
If you have taken a stance, good for you. No complaince from me

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Around 99% of new cases and deaths are within the unvaccinated population. Still, I support free choice.

I see. Should we also think there are two sides as to whether the virus ought to spread or not? Maybe we should vote on it.

So do I.

Just so long as you recognize and accept that your "free choice" can and will have consequences -- sometimes devastating -- for those who took no part at all in that choice.

If you're good with that, fine. I could not be good with that. I care about others, not just my own rights.

 

[sun rise]

We've been over this topic before. I have nothing to add to what I wrote in an earlier thread..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We've been over this topic before. I have nothing to add to what I wrote in an earlier thread..

Then why did you add this?

 

[Vinayaka]

Just so long as you recognize and accept that your "free choice" can and will have consequences -- sometimes devastating -- for those who took no part at all in that choice.

If you're good with that, fine. I could not be good with that. I care about others, not just my own rights.

I think the stats demonstrate that those of us who are vaccinated are pretty good. You could be right though. There is a slightly higher chance of that segment still getting it when the unvaccinated segment remains high.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Just so long as you recognize and accept that your "free choice" can and will have consequences -- sometimes devastating -- for those who took no part at all in that choice.

If you're good with that, fine. I could not be good with that. I care about others, not just my own rights.

You do realise that being vaccinated doesn’t prevent you from potentially catching and spreading the disease? I was asked - not told, thankfully, but asked, and I did what I was asked - to get a test the other day because a woman at a function I attended last week had tested positive. She’d had both jabs, as have I.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Around 99% of new cases and deaths are within the unvaccinated population. Still, I support free choice.

Just so long as you recognize and accept that your "free choice" can and will have consequences -- sometimes devastating -- for those who took no part at all in that choice.

If you're good with that, fine. I could not be good with that. I care about others, not just my own rights.

The reasons I got vaccinated were:

• Cheap (free for me)
• I wanted to stop wearing masks
• I didn't want to kill old people by infecting them
• There was a slight chance I could get sick, too.
• I understood that the vaccine was not a poison and that its preservatives were not poisons.
• I understood that if it were a poison then many conscientious scientists such as my friends on RF would complain about it.
• I didn't worry too much about a 1 in a zillion chance that I could have an allergic reaction or some other rare reaction.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see. Should we also think there are two sides as to whether the virus ought to spread or not? Maybe we should vote on it.

True. I would hope those who choose not to take it are not putting people at risk by not taking care of themselves, not social distancing with people they don't know, and making sure they go to the doctors when they are ill. They could just in case, but the vote would need to depend on certain factors like population, for instance. For example, we know the virus spreads more when there are more people in a given area than there isn't. So, the issue would be less about whether it spreads and more about reducing the conditions of the spread-vaccine is one way, so it's not wrong just long as there's no gun at ones head.

But, originally, I wanted to know who was neutral. We have some antivaxxers here and others don't take the vaccine and are neutral about it. Since provaxxers have the majority, I was wondering if people are neutral in the argument. It is what it is.

 

[Brickjectivity]

True. I would hope those who choose not to take it are not putting people at risk by not taking care of themselves, not social distancing with people they don't know, and making sure they go to the doctors when they are ill. They could just in case, but the vote would need to depend on certain factors like population, for instance. For example, we know the virus spreads more when there are more people in a given area than there isn't. So, the issue would be less about whether it spreads and more about reducing the conditions of the spread-vaccine is one way, so it's not wrong just long as there's no gun at ones head.

But, originally, I wanted to know who was neutral. We have some antivaxxers here and others don't take the vaccine and are neutral about it. Since provaxxers have the majority, I was wondering if people are neutral in the argument. It is what it is.

Unveiled, I personally talked to someone who told me with absolute seriousness that the injections were a conspiracy to place biochips into our bodies. They were lying, of course. Worse, maybe they actually believed that. It was an old friend I've never mentioned before in any forum. Had I absolutely zero background in science I might have been tempted to take them seriously, however that is not a side. There is no side when there is a plague. This is a situation where there are lies and truths. I won't accept that there is any weight or any strength to any suggestion that the coronavirus is part of a conspiracy. That is fabulous nonsense.