The Vaccine Coercers Are Moral Monsters

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  one month ago  •  41 comments

By:   Scott Morefield

The Vaccine Coercers Are Moral Monsters
Most people who choose to remain unvaccinated - like myself - do so not because we want to spread the virus to others or are against vaccinations in general, but because we have natural immunity and/or serious, data-driven questions about this particular vaccine. The moral case for choice, and against vaccine mandates, is as clear as day and as absolute as any case for good and against evil could ever be. If the Covid-19 vaccine mandaters aren’t evil people (I am beginning to believe most...

Leave a comment to auto-join group 437 River Street

437 River Street


This libertarian viewpoint about the evil of vaccine mandates under current circumstances and knowledge is right on.  The author made his choice and I made mine.  Where we are in total agreement is opposition to mandates.  He’s right that vax mandates are evil and that advocates and enforcers of them are supporting an evil act.  The author articulates well the case in opposition to coercion and force and in favor of all making an informed decision of their own free will either way.  It is time to make freedom, liberty, individual rights the arch enemy of the progressive left elites so that in order to achieve any of their agenda, be it lockdowns, masks, mandates, the economy, the environment they have to openly trample upon people’s  rights forcibly seizing them while demanding we shut up and obey each and every little step on the way.  It’s time to go scorched earth with them making them take rights and liberty to advance each goal and see we the people respond in the 2022 elections to right their overreaches and expose them for the threats to 1776 exceptional America that they truly are.  



5phszj.jpg



 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



f0ccf969-8b39-4c20-b7d7-906e00da59e9-500x250.jpg

Source: AP Photo/LM Otero

As a thought experiment, I  posted the following statement to Twitter last week:

“Unless you are 100% sure that this vaccine is 100% safe for 100% of those who take it (you aren’t), you have NO moral right to force or coerce it on ANYONE. In fact, choosing to do so is an evil action.”

To clarify, I added the below as a follow-up:

“You can strongly recommend it. You can explain why you think the benefits are worth the drawbacks and/or risks. What you can't do - if you want to stay on the right side of morality, that is - is impose a negative consequence for making the 'wrong' choice. THAT is coercion.”

By almost any standard, especially mine, the tweet did remarkably well, reaching hundreds of thousands of people and garnering hundreds of responses. And particularly interesting was the fact that it did so without being retweeted by any major accounts, at least as far as I could tell. That especially means that the issue, and the framing above, strongly resonated with people who are passionate enough about it to interact in some way.

If you have a few minutes, you can and should read through the comments. Though most agree with me, the ones that don’t tell you everything you need to know about where we are with the fight for bodily autonomy regarding Covid-19 vaccines in America today. The gist of most centered around the seeming assumption that the unvaccinated are automatically actively spreading the virus to everyone around them just by virtue of being unvaccinated. ‘Your right to swing your fist ends where someone else’s nose begins,’ or something, the logic typically went.

Except, as we are increasingly learning, whether someone is vaccinated or not has little to nothing to do with whether or not someone spreads or contracts this particular virus. Yes, possibly, your symptoms might be reduced and you may have a decreased chance of hospitalization or death - for the few months the vaccines actually ‘work’ - but this has absolutely nothing to do with anyone around you, who have all made their own decision about whether or not to take the vaccine. In other words, this decision is and should be a personal one and a personal one alone.

But what if it wasn’t? What if the vaccine actually did prevent the contraction and spread of Covid-19? Would the mandaters then have a point? Before we dig deeper into that question, consider this  thought experiment presented by a respondent on the thread cited above:

“It's found that spinal fluid of aboriginal men cures cancer of any stage. But, 1 in 1,000,000 extractions will cause immediate death. A law that forces them to donate is immoral.”

His conclusion: “You can't morally force anyone to take a risk of any degree for any cause.”

Indeed, it’s difficult to argue with any of that from a moral perspective. In that scenario, one could imagine plenty of freedom-respecting ways to incentivize “aboriginal men” to donate their spinal fluid, if said spinal fluid did cure cancer. And even minus incentivization or monetary compensation, many would doubtless choose to donate for the good of humanity. But one could also imagine a tyrannical government forcibly taking the spinal fluid, violating both the liberty and bodily autonomy of these men and subjecting them to a risk - even a minimal one - of death. Surely, a government that respects freedom and protects the rights of its citizens would never allow the latter scenario - something any of us could easily picture happening in a place like China or North Korea - to occur.

Back to this particular genre of vaccines, which currently boast the scariest side-effect profile in modern vaccine history and more associated deaths than all other vaccines combined, not to mention heart issues and other life-altering side effects. Even if one in a million dropped dead after taking this vaccine (it’s WAY more than that), do YOU want to be the one to choose which child has to be without a parent, or which parents have to lose their child? 

I worded my tweet the way I did - demanding 100% certainty - knowing that this number is impossible to ever reach with even the best vaccination program. Granted, if the side effect profile were better, if the disease were scarier, and if the vaccines actually did prevent transmission and contraction, perhaps a case could be made by moral people for mandates. I would disagree based on what I’ve laid out above, but the case could be made and I might have some respect for those making it. 

However, if all those factors were present, the mandates wouldn’t be needed nor likely called for. Minus those medically unable to take them along with a small number of hard-core anti-vaxxers, uptake would easily top 90%, more than enough for herd immunity, assuming herd immunity could be obtained by a vaccine against a cold virus.

Most people who choose to remain unvaccinated - like myself - do so not because we want to spread the virus to others or are against vaccinations in general, but because we have natural immunity and/or serious, data-driven questions about this particular vaccine. The moral case for choice, and against vaccine mandates, is as clear as day and as absolute as any case for good and against evil could ever be. If the Covid-19 vaccine mandaters aren’t evil people (I am beginning to believe most are), they are certainly engaging in an evil act. As such, they should be opposed using every non-violent measure at our disposal.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    one month ago

Cartoons of the day:

1-1.jpghttps://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/1-1-300x214.jpg 300w, 600w" >

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2  seeder  XXJefferson51    one month ago
SoIHqyVI_x96.jpg
Scott Morefield
@SKMorefield
Unless you are 100% sure that this vaccine is 100% safe for 100% of those who take it (you aren’t), you have NO moral right to force or coerce it on ANYONE. In fact, choosing to do so is an evil action.
 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2    one month ago
Scott Morefield
@SKMorefield
·
Dec 1
Replying to
You can strongly recommend it. You can explain why you think the benefits are worth the drawbacks and/or risks. What you can't do - if you want to stay on the right side of morality, that is - is impose a negative consequence for making the 'wrong' choice. THAT is coercion
 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
3  Thrawn 31    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3    one month ago

No, he’s not.  He described who truly are the asses in his seed.  He’s exactly right.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4  Greg Jones    one month ago

"Unless you are 100% sure that this vaccine is 100% safe for 100% of those who take it (you aren’t), you have NO moral right to force or coerce it on ANYONE. In fact, choosing to do so is an evil action.”

That's not how vaccines or the science of medicine work. But mandates are illegal and immoral.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one month ago

That is his and my bottom line.  What you responded to is in post #2 and his most important follow up context is in post 2.1.  It’s all about recommending, persuading, being informed about the risks, and making a free will voluntary decision.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one month ago
But mandates are illegal and immoral.

Vaccine Mandates in Schools Aren’t New. They’ve Been Used Since 1850

The first vaccine mandate in U.S. schools was enacted in Massachusetts in the 1850s to prevent smallpox transmission. By the 1900s, nearly half of all states had the same requirement.

“Initially when mandates were started, the idea was to prevent epidemic spread of diseases, and to essentially control epidemics,” Shen said. “Through the decades, it evolved to increasing vaccination coverage that was deemed important for public health in the absence of an epidemic.”

According to the CDC , by 1963, 20 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had mandates requiring a variety of vaccines to enter school. But enforcement was uneven.

By the late 1960s, there was a renewed focus on vaccinating school children because of measles outbreaks across the country.

“We knew that transmission in schools was a really big problem,” Shen said. “When we took a look at jurisdictions that were strictly enforcing mandates that excluded unvaccinated kids, it showed that mandates were really effective because the states that strictly enforced the school entry requirements had lower incident rates.”

In 1977, the U.S. federal government set up the 'Childhood Immunization Initiative'   aimed at increasing vaccination rates in children against the seven diseases for which vaccines are routinely given in childhood, including:

  • diphtheria
  • measles
  • mumps
  • pertussis
  • poliomyelitis
  • rubella
  • tetanus

This is when all 50 states widely adopted mandatory school vaccinations.

Today, all states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories have vaccination requirements for children to attend school and childcare facilities. State laws establish vaccination requirements, as well as mechanisms for enforcement and rules for exemption.

Most school requirements adhere to the CDC vaccine schedule   for children, including vaccination against measles, meningitis, polio, chickenpox, whooping cough, and hepatitis. Some states also require vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) and an annual flu shot.

Those who keep lying about vaccines and claiming their freedoms are at stake are Nucking Futs. And trying to blame an immunologist who is merely the messenger is beyond ignorant, it's pure unadulterated childish stupidity.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2    one month ago

None of those are federal mandates or corporate ones, nor are they adults.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5  Tacos!    one month ago
“Unless you are 100% sure that this vaccine is 100% safe for 100% of those who take it

100%? How can you prove anything is 100%? That’s an impossible - and made up - standard. So let’s not pretend it’s a reasonable standard. It’s not.

Yes, people have died after being vaccinated. Why? Because people die. They have heart attacks. They get in car accidents. They’re old.  There is no evidence that anyone has died as a direct result of receiving either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines. And at this, point, they have vaccinated billions of people!

How much more of a sample size do you need?

No clear evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths in the US

By almost any standard, especially mine, the tweet did remarkably well, reaching hundreds of thousands of people and garnering hundreds of responses.

Congratulations! You’re winning Twitter. What a fuckin’ hero!

consider this  thought experiment presented by a respondent on the thread cited above:

“It's found that spinal fluid of aboriginal men cures cancer of any stage. But, 1 in 1,000,000 extractions will cause immediate death. A law that forces them to donate is immoral.”

His conclusion: “You can't morally force anyone to take a risk of any degree for any cause.”

Indeed, it’s difficult to argue with any of that from a moral perspective

It’s actually really easy to argue against that nonsense. Three reasons:

First: It’s an inappropriate analogy. Why? Because cancer is not CONTAGIOUS! You. Fucking. Moron!

Second: The aboriginal men in this example are not spreading cancer.

Third: Look at the odds. I bet you thought 1 in 1,000,000 was an impressive standard. Well, it’s not. 1 in a Million? How about 8 BILLION? That’s how many vaccine doses have been administered. EIGHT BILLION.

I’m so weary of these bullshit, selfish, deluded arguments against doing the right thing. Grow a fucking pair and get vaccinated.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago

Make the right persuasive argument to him as to why based on the risk and benefit of doing so and perhaps you will win him over to making the free will choice to do just that.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    one month ago
Make the right persuasive argument to him as to why based on the risk and benefit of doing so and perhaps you will win him over

Clearly not. He is presenting falsehoods as facts, arguing impossible straw men, and denying scientific findings to make his “argument.”

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    one month ago

It’s easier of course to silence all dissent and simply coerced and compel the unwilling to yield and bend to our will over their objection and lord over them our power to do so to them to remind them of their place in society free of such inconvenience as rights and freedom.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1.2    one month ago
It’s easier of course to silence all dissent

What horseshit! Is that what you’re going to do now? Invent some fantasy of oppression? “They’re taking away our free speech!”

I didn’t say anything at all about silencing dissent. If that’s all you’ve got, it says a lot.

simply coerced and compel the unwilling to yield and bend to our will over their objection

All sorts of laws do that. Mature adults understand that. That’s why you can’t drive drunk or do a million other things.

to remind them of their place in society

More fantasy nonsense. This has nothing to do with anyone’s “place in society.” What happened to your alleged civil liberty argument?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6  Tacos!    one month ago
assuming herd immunity could be obtained by a vaccine against a cold virus.

OMG so much ignorance. Or lies. It’s not a cold virus. Holy shit!

This is Bob. Bob isn't vaccinated and apparently has superpowers which enables him to infect and kill vaccinated people while preserving his own life.

Have people never heard of Typhoid Mary? For crying out loud, get educated! We have outstanding evidence that people get infected with the coronavirus, have no symptoms, and spread the disease. This is real. Why in God’s name would you go around denying this?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago

Like I said in introduction of the article, this is a traditional libertarian / civil liberties point of view article.  He and I both came to opposing free will choices whether to get the vaccination or not.  I will never lift a finger to compel him to make for him the choice I made for me.  I will though move Heaven and earth to put every obstacle I legally can to prevent another from compelling him to make my choice on him against his will. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    one month ago
Like I said in introduction of the article, this is a traditional libertarian / civil liberties point of view article.  He and I both came to opposing free will choices whether to get the vaccination or not.

You are inaccurately characterizing the argument. Your argument and his are not civil libertarian arguments. A civil libertarian argument would involve only some right you think you have and government improperly infringing on it. In its coldest form, you might make the argument that you don’t owe society anything in terms of getting vaccinated. The value of the vaccine itself would be irrelevant. You would argue that in spite of the fact that vaccinations are safe and our best tool against the pandemic, you choose not to get vaccinated and you don’t need a good reason.

By way of analogy, I don’t have to explain to the government why I want to express my opinion about the president. I don’t have to justify owning a firearm. I don’t need a good reason to refuse police entrance into my home without a warrant. I don’t have to explain to a court why I wish to remain silent and it can’t be held against me. That’s what civil libertarianism is about.

Just because you label yourself a civil libertarian doesn’t mean you are actually behaving like one.

Instead, the argument offered here is based on lies - that the vaccine kills; that you can’t spread the disease if you’re asymptomatic; that all kinds of mandates or social pressure, including getting vaccinated are automatically equivalent and immoral. In other words, that the constant urging to get vaccinated is somehow irresponsible and unreasonable. That you are somehow being put in danger, and for no good reason. That’s a lie.

Vaccines were available for months before any government started trying to coerce anyone into getting one. Nevertheless, self-proclaimed civil libertarians refused the vaccine, largely along with spreading lies about how useless and dangerous they supposedly are. That has nothing to do with taking a stance against government overreach. It couldn’t because such overreach hadn’t even been tried yet.

Now that the government is increasing the pressure, we hear the same bullshit argument: i.e. vaccines aren’t necessary, don’t work anyway, and are dangerous. Lie, lie, and lie. The argument about civil liberties is - to put it nicely - disingenuous.

All of this focus on the vaccine itself implies strongly that if you understand the need for the vaccine, its efficacy, and its safety, then you already know that getting vaccinated is the right thing to do.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.1    one month ago

Did you notice that the instant the government initiated the mandates the resistance levels to the vaccine grew dramatically. That’s the way of things in a free nation.  The harder government pushes to compel compliance the more the resistance to said effort is.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.2    one month ago
Did you notice that the instant the government initiated the mandates the resistance levels to the vaccine grew dramatically.

What about the resistance before the mandates? You won’t address that.

Furthermore, so what if it’s a mandate? If it’s the right thing to do, then do it. You don’t do all sorts of things - from murdering people to defecating in public - just to make a statement about civil liberties. You do right because it’s right. If it also happens to be a law, then so be it.

This is just more proof of how bogus these “liberty” claims are. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    one month ago
"I will though move Heaven and earth to put every obstacle I legally can to prevent another from compelling him to make my choice on him against his will."

What will YOU do to accomplish this?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.5  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.3    one month ago

Before the mandates it was simply a matter of friendly principled persuasion and it was working. The control freaks simply wouldn’t leave well enough alone and their mandates simply stiffened the resolve of the resisters to resist.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.5    one month ago
Before the mandates it was simply a matter of friendly principled persuasion and it was working.

Don’t gaslight me. If it was working, these fake civil libertarians would have been vaccinated long ago.

Show me the people who were all set to get vaccinated and then changed their minds because government overreach made them mad on principle. (That’s rhetorical. We both know there aren’t any such people.)

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.6    one month ago

So you are implying that once the mandates happened, people who hadn’t yet done it all just said yes sir and marched of to get the jab? I don’t believe it.  I think that the mandates slowed the vaccination process down.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.7    one month ago

No, I didn’t say anything like that.

You have been making the claim that persuasion (of vaccine resistant people) absent mandates was working. That’s not logical. If it had been working, there would be no need for mandates.

Additionally, you are claiming that people are now resisting the vaccine because of the government mandates and their resistance is some kind of principled stand based on civil liberties. I say that if that’s their reason, they are liars.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    one month ago
You have been making the claim that persuasion (of vaccine resistant people) absent mandates was working. That’s not logical. If it had been working, there would be no need for mandates.

persuasion was gradually building up the numbers and was ultimately going to work.,  There was no need for mandates.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.10  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    one month ago
Additionally, you are claiming that people are now resisting the vaccine because of the government mandates and their resistance is some kind of principled stand based on civil liberties. 

That is the truth.  Many who have Been vaccinated are opposing the mandates on liberty and freedom issues.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.9    one month ago
was ultimately going to work

Yeah? When? How do you know? How long do you think the rest of us should wait? How many more millions need to die while idiots “figure it out?” How many more mutations do we need to endure?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.10    one month ago

No. Show me the person who isn’t getting vaccinated because of a mandate.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.13  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.12    one month ago

I have family members who dug in deeper than ever before when they heard the feds were going to try to compel it.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.13    one month ago

What an incredibly stupid basis for making a medical decision that impacts both you and other people. It’s beyond stupid. It’s insane.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.15  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.14    one month ago

I’m not making judgements of my family members who are or are not vaccinated.  They have they’re reasons and I have mine pro and con.  The state and federal mandates were like throwing gasoline upon a small fire, if they were productive they would be acting like water on it instead.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.15    one month ago
I’m not making judgements of my family members who are or are not vaccinated.

I will. Not getting a vaccine because someone else wants you to do it is STUPID! And I would say so whether it was your family, my family, or anyone else. The MFing government has ZERO impact on the medical decisions I make for myself. It’s either the right thing to do or the wrong thing - based on medical reasons, not politics.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.17  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.16    one month ago

The government stepping in it simply stiffened the resolve never to get it where before there was possible wavering on the issue.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.18  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.17    one month ago

I have seen no evidence from you that there was such wavering or that government mandates stopped a single person from getting a vaccine even though I have asked for such evidence several times now.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.19  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.18    one month ago

How is the coercion working out for those on your side of the discussion?  How many have said, I was wrong to resist getting vaccinated and now that the government says I must, I will repent and get the jab in my arm immediately?  No one?  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.20  JBB  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.19    one month ago

Actually 95% get vaccinated when pushed...

Very few quit jobs rather than get the shot.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.21  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.19    one month ago
How many have said, I was wrong to resist getting vaccinated and now that the government says I must, I will repent and get the jab in my arm immediately?  No one?  

According to the poll linked below, quite a few, as it turns out. It’s not the main reason people get vaccinated, but social and government pressure are definitely having a positive impact.

KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: September 2021

The latest KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor probed some potential reasons for getting vaccinated among those who received the vaccine more recently (since June 1) to understand the role of various factors in motivating the recently vaccinated, including the emergence of the Delta variant, the FDA giving full approval to the Pfizer vaccine, and an increase in vaccine mandates. We find that the rise of Delta and associated hospitalizations and deaths was the biggest motivating factor overall, while vaccine mandates and FDA approval played a more minor role.

More than one-third of those recently vaccinated say the increase in cases due to the Delta variant (39%), reports of local hospitals filling with COVID-19 patients (38%), and knowing someone who got seriously ill or died from the disease (36%) were major reasons they decided to get vaccinated. Altogether, 35% say one of these was the main reason they got vaccinated. Others were motivated by mandates of various sorts, including one-third (35%) who say a major reason for getting vaccinated was to participate in certain activities that required it such as traveling or attending events, and one in five (19%) who say a major reason was that their employer required it. Smaller shares choose such mandates as the main reason they got vaccinated (13% and 8%, respectively). Fifteen percent of those vaccinated since June 2 say the FDA granting full approval to the Pfizer vaccine was a major factor in their decision, though just 2% of the recently vaccinated choose it as their main reason.

Among other reasons, 19% of the recently vaccinated say social pressure from family and friends was a major reason for getting vaccinated and 5% choose it as the main reason. Just 7% cite a financial incentive from their employer as a major reason and fewer than one percent choose it as the main reason.

I’m still waiting - as I will forever, probably - for data from you that people were actually considering getting vaccinated but then chose not to because mandates offended their philosophy of civil liberty.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.22  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.21    one month ago
Most people who choose to remain unvaccinated - like myself - do so not because we want to spread the virus to others or are against vaccinations in general, but because we have natural immunity and/or serious, data-driven questions about this particular vaccine. The moral case for choice, and against vaccine mandates, is as clear as day and as absolute as any case for good and against evil could ever be.
 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.23  Tacos!  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.22    one month ago

I consider that to be continued silence on the central claim that you are unable to support with evidence.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.24  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.23    one month ago
Still, other experts have warned that governments should factor in inevitable backlash when imposing requirements for Covid-19 vaccines and other immunizations. In situations where most of the population is already vaccinated, sweeping mandates could do more harm than good in the long run, argued Scott Gottlieb, the former Food and Drug Administration commissioner and Pfizer board member. 
 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.25  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.24    one month ago
“The risk is [that] organized opposition to this OSHA mandate starts to bleed into broader opposition to vaccination and vaccine mandates more generally, and mandates society long embraced become part of this new political fashion,”
 
 

Who is online


Steve Ott
GregTx
Mark in Wyoming
Drakkonis
Jack_TX
JohnRussell
Ed-NavDoc


38 visitors