Who has a neutral stance in this vaccine

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Assumptions aren't facts.

I compared it for the context and point not because of the content and nature of severity between the two.

 

[ChristineM]

Assumptions aren't facts.

I compared it for the context and point not because of the content and nature of severity between the two.

Ahh. Strawman then, ok

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Yeah, it's either a take it or not take it. I was thinking neutral as in regards to a person's emotional attachment to the vaccine argument rather than their decision and intention to vaccinate or not. For example, if I didn't mention why I'm unvaccinated, the provaxxers would put intentions they get from antivaxxers they come across or see on television. The only unvaccinated people are antivaxxer and have issues with provaxxers is antivaxxers on television-so far I know. We have a couple of antivaxxers here on RF but not all of us are.

How does one know the intentions, though, if one takes the vaccine or not?

If someone does, I don't know if they do so cause they are afraid, their loved one has COVID, they were in the hospital, age, and just in case. So, I can't judge whether their individual decision is valid or not. I can just say the arguments I disagree with without person-to-person investment in their decisions. When you have personal investment in people's decisions-whether for or against-it's not neutral. When you're more focused on the topic without siding either way, it's neutral.

I hope I got your clarification correct.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

(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)

@ChristineM

Here's the connection:

I'm at risk of getting COVID just as a person who next to me. My risk of getting COVID are near to none because I don't put myself in a high risk position for that possibility to be assumed. I am still at a risk of catching COVID, but I see no sense in taking the vaccine just because I am at A risk and not at a high risk or actually being sick. It's fine to take it just in case for whatever reason to back it up.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ahh. Strawman then, ok

They're not facts. Strawmen or not, it doesn't invalidate that your assumptions are not facts.

Not sure why the sarcasm but my point still remains.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

It has long been clear that some people are more than capable of such remarkably stupid rhetorical questions and, worse, function in society informed by this "logic." I can only hope that such folk stay far away from my grandkids and thereby lessen the chance they be reduced to statistics

 

[ChristineM]

@ChristineM

Here's the connection:

I'm at risk of getting COVID just as a person who next to me. My risk of getting COVID are near to none because I don't put myself in a high risk position for that possibility to be assumed. I am still at a risk of catching COVID, but I see no sense in taking the vaccine just because I am at A risk and not at a high risk or actually being sick. It's fine to take it just in case for whatever reason to back it up.

You go to the shops i presume, you pass people in the street o presume.

Amd if you do catch it you will unwittingly pass it on to other people.

However you have made your choice. Its up to you to live with it.


Edit. I have just read of your new job, dealing with the public. I do hope i goes well for you but it seems you are at rather more risk than you claim

 

[ChristineM]

They're not facts. Strawmen or not, it doesn't invalidate that your assumptions are not facts.

Not sure why the sarcasm but my point still remains.

No sarcasm intended, just evidenced posts
I am sure you are not sure. Ir explans much.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You go to the shops i presume, you pass people in the street o presume.

Amd if you do catch it you will unwittingly pass it on to other people.

However you have made your choice. Its up to you to live with it.


Edit. I have just read of your new job, dealing with the public. I do hope i goes well for you but it seems you are at rather more risk than you claim

You know, that didn't cross my mind. Third day. I don't go off of presumingly or just in case. We wear masks. The customers dont need to if they're vaccinated. We can't ask them so I assume people won't work there cause we can't ask each other who'se vaccinated. Liability issues.

With my health, I don't budge unless taking advise from my doctor and/or loved ones. I've had a good amount of health issues to take something just on case. I'm healthy in most respects but my reasons are solid. Probably the ones that affect my decision is it's not FDA approved, still experimental, and side affects. I've never voluntarily taken any vaccines and never will.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No sarcasm intended, just evidenced posts
I am sure you are not sure. Ir explans much.

I get your position. Sarcasm (strawman comment etc), sends red flags. So times I try to skip the savrasm but when it deflects a person's points, I memtion it.

Usually, if I were vaccinated and had ill opinions of unvaccinated people cause of the majority Id assess other factors that may increase his risk to catch COVID...if not, I wouldn't be concerned. It's not my nature to do that and being part of the majority is peer pressure. Herd mentality. It is what it is. Of course France (and getmany and india, etc) and united states are all different and population is little some places than others. Depends on the governor how they approach it not just by vaccinating people. The emphasis varies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

The same as before getting vaccinated.
Quarantine and wait it out.

 

[ChristineM]

You know, that didn't cross my mind. Third day. I don't go off of presumingly or just in case. We wear masks. The customers dont need to if they're vaccinated. We can't ask them so I assume people won't work there cause we can't ask each other who'se vaccinated. Liability issues.

With my health, I don't budge unless taking advise from my doctor and/or loved ones. I've had a good amount of health issues to take something just on case. I'm healthy in most respects but my reasons are solid. Probably the ones that affect my decision is it's not FDA approved, still experimental, and side affects. I've never voluntarily taken any vaccines and never will.

Lucky i am not American and bound by the idiotic FDA approval scheme. I know of Americans suffering because the FDA wont approve long approved and completely effacious European medicines, at least two on this forum.

Talking of ill health, in the last 3 years i have almost died 4 times, once under a surgeons knife and 3 times as a result, having a 2nd, 4 hour op to put right the problem. I was advised by my doctor to have the vaccine because i would have less chance of dying if i caught covid.

No, ill health is not an excuse to avoid vaccine. In fact the vaccine is beneficial (if you call less chance of dying beneficial). This disease targets weak points, hence the initial claims of covid doesn't kill you but contributing factors do.

The vaccines are not particularly experimental, they are older vaccines tweeked for covid, hence the reason they were approved (notice that) for use as fast as they were.

 

[ChristineM]

I get your position. Sarcasm (strawman comment etc), sends red flags. So times I try to skip the savrasm but when it deflects a person's points, I memtion it.

Usually, if I were vaccinated and had ill opinions of unvaccinated people cause of the majority Id assess other factors that may increase his risk to catch COVID...if not, I wouldn't be concerned. It's not my nature to do that and being part of the majority is peer pressure. Herd mentality. It is what it is. Of course France (and getmany and india, etc) and united states are all different and population is little some places than others. Depends on the governor how they approach it not just by vaccinating people. The emphasis varies.

As i said, no sarcasm, just evidence

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why can't children under 12 get the vaccine? I haven't found anything that answers that yet.

Because these vaccines, even under emergency use authorization, have to go through all the normal clinical trials to prove that they're safe and effective.

Those trials are underways for kids as young as 6 months now. All indications are that the trials are going well, but they're not complete yet, so the vaccines won't be approved for kids until the trials are complete.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pro/antivaxxers aren't nuetral. They have distinct sides whether they

People somewhere between these two sides aren't neutral either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

I don't know how it is in the US, but over here, the "professional faces" on TV, are actual university professors and lab leaders. Actual working epidemiologists and alike. The people that come on TV aren't mere "spokesmen" or "representatives" with media training and "some notion" of the subject matter.

No, instead they are the leading experts concerning this stuff. So a doctor, will simply repeat what that person says. Doctors aren't expert epidemiologists. Off course they might give personal advice based on your particular medical file. But that only concerns the small portion of the population which as exceptional underlying issues. Like if you have a severe cancer and are in treatment for it, it goes without saying that you might want to be careful with additional medicine for unrelated things.

However, I imagine that in such cases, the doctors themselves would have to go and look up information themselves also, to see what the best advice would be.

The default stance however, is on par with the leading experts in the field - who also happen to be on TV.

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.

As long as they agree with eachother.
When politicians however say X while the actual experts say Y, will you listen to the politicians or to the experts?

When Trump told people that injecting bleach, or whatever it was, you could almost see Fauci having a stroke. Trump was obviously exceptionally stupid, but it's a nice example. Him and the moron from Brazil are two well known examples who constantly contradicted the experts.

In summary... you can listen to the politicians if they agree with the experts.
If they don't agree, I'ld go with the experts any day of the week.

So you might as well not listen to politicians when it comes to this subject and go straight to the experts instead. Although I do keep track of which politician knowingly contradicts the experts. Just as a reminder on who NOT to vote for coming next election - because they are irresponsible a-holes who care more about votes and their fat paycheck then they care about the well-being of their citizens.

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?

First, the problem is not people getting sick. The problem is hospitals being overrun which results in people dying due to not getting proper health care.

Secondly, medical experts have no authority to mandate anything at all. They can only advice government.

Third, at least in Belgium, at the start of the pandemic medical experts advised against massive use of masks. After some time, they advised for them. This might sound as them "changing their mind", but that's not the actual reason. Mask were always a good idea. The reasons why at the start they advised against it (at least in belgium), were the following:

- Stock. There was not enough stock to provide all citizens with the necessary quantity. Everything they had was stockpiled for health workers. Citizens massively buying masks would have resulted in depleted stocks within a couple days. And health workers received priority, as they are literally in the line of fire every day and thus the most at risk. They are also the ones that need to treat sick people, so extra effort needs to be taken so that they don't become unavailable for work.

- At the start, there was a hard lockdown which lasted about a month. Pretty much all business was shut down. People weren't allowed to gather - not even outside. Access to supermarkets was limited to X amount of people per 10 square meter. So, assuming the rules were followed, masks wouldn't have had much effect anyway.


Those are the two primary reasons for why at the start, medical professionals advised against it. Once production was on the rise and more stock became available and the initial hard lock down was over, masks became an important aspect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I truly have never seen anyone try to justify their vaccination position as hard as you do. It seems you need the good

Indeed. It sure seems to me that @Unveiled Artist is anything but neutral on this issue.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The same as before getting vaccinated.
Quarantine and wait it out.

The way the argument is set it assumes privaxxers put the rare risk aside. So, if they do catch it, I wonder why the same view isn't seen in unvacinated. We didn't raise our risk catching it so if we do, we would do the same.

Unless provaxxers are taking for granted they are at risk too?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

People somewhere between these two sides aren't neutral either.

How not?

Someone can decide either way but choose to have no stake in the debate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Indeed. It sure seems to me that @Unveiled Artist is anything but neutral on this issue.

Only on RF when debates pop up.

Morally, I don't have emotional attachment either way. Rejection, things like that has emotional attachment.

Think of it like this. I'm an atheist and not angry at God to be one. I do find it weird one would be angry at God to be an atheist. I disagree but I have no stake on the matter.

I'm unvaccinated not because I reject vaccination. I do find it weird that people would not vaccinate out of rejection (and those that do out if fear). I disagree with provaxxers saying unvaccinated people putting people in danger, but I have no stake (emotional investment) in the area.

It is what it is.

I can speak of it calmly until a provaxxer already have opinions about me and use their "dislike" to discredit my opinion.

THAT is what I dislike. Sarcasm, attitude, redness, and insults.

Civil conversation about vaccinations, I'm cool. I move on.