Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine

[Unveiled Artist]

Your choice, i have made mine.

So they unknowingly contract covid, visit their dear mother and pass it on to them, mother died of covid. To me, knowing the risks of this disease amounts to murder. You can call it whatever makes you feel better about it...

What if you were one of the rare cases and caught COVID despite vaccination, how would you assess that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Feel free to take the risk.

We're all at risk of catching a lot of diseases. It's good to lower the risk by taking care of one's health and not doing things that would increase chances of getting sick.

Being at A risk is different than being at a high risk.

Least doctors think so.

(I.e. I'm at risk if getting lung cancer just as a person who smokes. My risk is near to none causes don't smoke and don't have common risk factors to increase my chance of getting cancer. I'm still at a risk but I see no sense of going to get cancer treatments cause I am at A risk)

 

[Martin]

It's not. It has less to do with the vaccine and more to do with people's right to choose without provaxxers trying to justify it by appeal to ignorance or flat rejection.

How does being unvacinated tell you the motives of that unvaccinated person?

Should people have a right to choose when it comes to speed limits on roads?
When you drive too fast, it's not just yourself you're putting at risk.

 

[Martin]

We're all at risk of catching a lot of diseases. It's good to lower the risk by taking care of one's health and not doing things that would increase chances of getting sick.

Being at A risk is different than being at a high risk.

Least doctors think so.

(I.e. I'm at risk if getting lung cancer just as a person who smokes. My risk is near to none causes don't smoke and don't have common risk factors to increase my chance of getting cancer. I'm still at a risk but I see no sense of going to get cancer treatments cause I am at A risk)

Lung cancer is not an infectious disease. Public health measures like vaccination are about protecting the whole population, and not just individuals.
Personal risk is not the only factor here.

 

[Martin]

What if you were one of the rare cases and caught COVID despite vaccination, how would you assess that?

Vaccines are not 100% effective, which is another argument for getting as many people vaccinated as possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My question at the moment is what if what I said you believed was true, how does that change anything?

Not sure if I understand your question, actually...

I can't imagine why any provaxxer at all don't take the government views into consideration-especially in the states. They can make good decisions that out weigh the cons even if some of the conspiracies where true. Devaluing conspiracies' doesn't prove one is right just most likely it was pushed aside because of cognitive dissonance. Especially if you already have the vaccine-anything that makes sense on the other side-even when experts say it, would cause a bit of a pause. Physiological and psychological survival response to what we thought was safe and we were thrown off guard by perceived danger.

For starters, I don't listen to politicians when it comes to medical information about covid, vaccination, treatment, social measures to stop the spread, etc....

I listen to medical professionals.

Whatever the politicians have to say about it - either they are repeating what the experts told them, or they are only giving their (unprofessional) opinion, or they are trying to win votes.

I don't care what politicians, bakers, butchers, car mechanics, librarians, anonymous posters on the internet, joe from around the corner, pastors, priests, imams, farmers, .... have to say about MEDICAL subjects.

What matters is what medical professionals, who aren't affiliated with the companies that make the vaccines, have to say.


Case in point...
Last year in October / November, "politicians" were letting go of a bunch of social measures. The social bubble was expanded from 2 to 10. Some business could re-open. And some other stuff.
Every single medical professional said it was "too soon" and a "recipy for disaster". Their literal words were "gratz politics - you just blew up christimas by ensuring we'll be in the middle of a third wave then".


Sure enough, within 2 to 3 weeks, cases skyrocketed again.
I didn't take part in the "letting go" of measures. I continued living like I did before, with a small social bubble and I stayed away from the re-opened businesses. Why? Because the professionals said it was a bad idea and too soon. And big surprise (not really): they were right.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People are not statistics....what if you are the one who gets the adverse reaction and it’s irreversible?

What if you cross the streets and get run over by a truck?
What if you go out during bad weather and get struck by lightning?
What if you are sitting quietly in your garden and a meteorite falls on your head?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What if you were one of the rare cases and caught COVID despite vaccination, how would you assess that?

Again...
A vaccine doesn't make you "not get infected".
You still get infected. The vaccine simply teaches your immune system to respond right away, making sure the virus doesn't get to reproduce out of control.

Without a vaccine, it takes your immune system time to "learn" to produce the right anti-bodies. This gives the virus time to reproduce out of control during the incubation period. And then you are mega-infectious to others.

What if you are the rare case where the vaccine doesn't do what it is supposed to do? Well, then no blame befalls you.

Incidentally, this is also why every medical professional says that having had the vaccine is NOT a free-pass to stop caring about the measures concerning social distance, masks, etc - at least not until the vast majority is vaccinated which brings about group immunity.

While the chance is much smaller after being fully vaccinated, you STILL could be a walking timebomb and "superspreader", if it doesn't work in you like it is supposed to.

 

[Martin]

What if you cross the streets and get run over by a truck?
What if you go out during bad weather and get struck by lightning?
What if you are sitting quietly in your garden and a meteorite falls on your head?

Actually pretty much everything we do comes with a small risk attached.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What if you were one of the rare cases and caught COVID despite vaccination, how would you assess that?

I don't think it's that rare tbh. Despite the moralising from some quarters, being vaccinated isn't a selfless act that protects others; vaccination protects the vaccinated from serious harm, should they contract the virus.

Going to work in a hospital every day during a pandemic; now that's a selfless act. So I'll do what the majority of healthcare professionals ask me to do, out of respect. But I won't join the chorus of blame some self righteous people direct at those less willing than me to get vaccinated. In that sense I'm neutral; I don't like being told what to do and I try to avoid telling others what they should do.

 

[ChristineM]

What if you were one of the rare cases and caught COVID despite vaccination, how would you assess that?

I would asses that as having caught covid. Stay isolated so as not to spread it and hope it does not need hospitalisation.

Now what was the point of the question?

 

[ChristineM]

We're all at risk of catching a lot of diseases. It's good to lower the risk by taking care of one's health and not doing things that would increase chances of getting sick.

Being at A risk is different than being at a high risk.

Least doctors think so.

(I.e. I'm at risk if getting lung cancer just as a person who smokes. My risk is near to none causes don't smoke and don't have common risk factors to increase my chance of getting cancer. I'm still at a risk but I see no sense of going to get cancer treatments cause I am at A risk)

Why are you trying to compare cigarette smoking with a virus?

I truly have never seen anyone try to justify their vaccination position as hard as you do. It seems you need the good will of others to bolster your decision.

You know what i think and what so many others think. I and they are not going to change to massage your ego. You have made your choice so live with it.

 

[Irate State]

It's not. It has less to do with the vaccine and more to do with people's right to choose without provaxxers trying to justify it by appeal to ignorance or flat rejection.

How does being unvacinated tell you the motives of that unvaccinated person?

May be the delivery of my comment wasn't clear, for that I apologise, in fact the intention was quite the opposite.
I tried to devoid the post of any feeling attached to the decision of getting or not the shots.
Let me try again: in discourse one can consider themselves neutral. But that translates into a direct action in the environment 1) you did got the shot in which case you are adding to numbers required to achieve herd immunity or 2) you didn't, in that case it translates into a non neutral action, cause it works against the aforementioned numbers.
All of this, of course, expressed without a shred of emotional charge or guilt-trippism.
Concerning the motives of people abstaining, that's for them to evaluate.

 

[Martin]

I don't think it's that rare tbh. Despite the moralising from some quarters, being vaccinated isn't a selfless act that protects others; vaccination protects the vaccinated from serious harm, should they contract the virus.

Going to work in a hospital every day during a pandemic; now that's a selfless act. So I'll do what the majority of healthcare professionals ask me to do, out of respect. But I won't join the chorus of blame some self righteous people direct at those less willing than me to get vaccinated. In that sense I'm neutral; I don't like being told what to do and I try to avoid telling others what they should do.

Actually vaccination also reduces onward infection (due to a reduced viral load in vaccinated peoole) so it's about protecting others, as well as oneself. The same principle applies to wearing face masks.

As for "moralising", this is inevitably a moral issue, since we need to consider the benefits of vaccination to other people, and society as a whole. It's not just about personal risk.
To me some anti-vaxers are narcissistic, only concerned with their own needs.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Should people have a right to choose when it comes to speed limits on roads? When you drive too fast, it's not just yourself you're putting at risk.

It's not the same.

The point is, you don't drive fast. People who aren't unvaccinated aren't walking around touching everyone and sneezing in people's face when they have a cold or intentionally spread germs. They're not speeding.

Not taking the vaccine, not carrying a gun, and not speeding etc doesn't harm anyone. The only way I can see it potentially harming people (though being unvaccinated and carrying a gun aren't against the law like speeding) is if one has COVID (vaccinated or not), one is using their gun for illegal purposes, and people are speeding.

That, and you can trade your car in or just stop driving. Vaccinations aren't like that.

Can you tell me how unvaccinated people are in danger of others if they have nothing to spread?

(Similar to how one is speeding without a car and how one is in danger without a gun).

When does possibility turn to fact?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Lung cancer is not an infectious disease. Public health measures like vaccination are about protecting the whole population, and not just individuals.
Personal risk is not the only factor here.

You get the point?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Vaccines are not 100% effective, which is another argument for getting as many people vaccinated as possible.

Yes. Though, my question was if the person does get COVID, how do they assess that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not sure if I understand your question, actually...

I was asking her what if she had COVID despite being vaccinated, how would she assess that.

For starters, I don't listen to politicians when it comes to medical information about covid, vaccination, treatment, social measures to stop the spread, etc....

I listen to medical professionals.

Whatever the politicians have to say about it - either they are repeating what the experts told them, or they are only giving their (unprofessional) opinion, or they are trying to win votes.

I don't care what politicians, bakers, butchers, car mechanics, librarians, anonymous posters on the internet, joe from around the corner, pastors, priests, imams, farmers, .... have to say about MEDICAL subjects.

What matters is what medical professionals, who aren't affiliated with the companies that make the vaccines, have to say.


Case in point...
Last year in October / November, "politicians" were letting go of a bunch of social measures. The social bubble was expanded from 2 to 10. Some business could re-open. And some other stuff.
Every single medical professional said it was "too soon" and a "recipy for disaster". Their literal words were "gratz politics - you just blew up christimas by ensuring we'll be in the middle of a third wave then".

Sure enough, within 2 to 3 weeks, cases skyrocketed again.
I didn't take part in the "letting go" of measures. I continued living like I did before, with a small social bubble and I stayed away from the re-opened businesses. Why? Because the professionals said it was a bad idea and too soon. And big surprise (not really): they were right.

For me, I listen to my own medical professional. Medical professionals on television and authoritative things online are generalizing. So, for example, they can tell you to take a certain pill because it works but you won't know unless you speak to your own doctor first. It's dangerous to just "take something" without assessing whether it's good for your health. If you're "just" doing it for others, than if you get sick, I guess it's a sacrifice so others won't potentially get sick?

The government I can see listening to them to an extent. I'm not sure how you can separate them from the medical professionals in a pandemic since they both have to keep the peace, make the rules, and such. For example, the government authorized mask mandates...medics didn't do that. Which is weird because before mask mandates, no one wore masks even though we knew the virus was around. Why not? If we don't want to possibly spread viruses, why not wear masks all the time even without the pandemic?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Again...
A vaccine doesn't make you "not get infected".
You still get infected. The vaccine simply teaches your immune system to respond right away, making sure the virus doesn't get to reproduce out of control.

Without a vaccine, it takes your immune system time to "learn" to produce the right anti-bodies. This gives the virus time to reproduce out of control during the incubation period. And then you are mega-infectious to others.

What if you are the rare case where the vaccine doesn't do what it is supposed to do? Well, then no blame befalls you.

Incidentally, this is also why every medical professional says that having had the vaccine is NOT a free-pass to stop caring about the measures concerning social distance, masks, etc - at least not until the vast majority is vaccinated which brings about group immunity.

While the chance is much smaller after being fully vaccinated, you STILL could be a walking timebomb and "superspreader", if it doesn't work in you like it is supposed to.

Yes. We can still get infected. If you are, then what?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would asses that as having caught covid. Stay isolated so as not to spread it and hope it does not need hospitalisation.

Now what was the point of the question?

A lot of people feel vaccine=100% immunity. The small rare case of side affects and having COVID, although experts take this seriously, many provaxxers brush it under the rug. I was wondering how much do you put faith in the vaccine if you were to develop COVID.