[Serious] Good People

[Belacqua]

This is an individualistic society and that is the frame of reference I'm taking. I wouldn't know how to frame the question within a collectivist society.

It's a cultural shift, I think. Oddly, it seems to unite both the infamous '60s hippies and the post-Reagan "conservatives." 

Probably you remember the distinction between Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty cited by Kant and elaborated by Isaiah Berlin. Negative Liberty is freedom FROM -- freedom from external constraints, like government rules. Positive Liberty is freedom TO -- freedom to pursue our own goals as we see fit. Berlin wrote about how these things are often not compatible.

It looks to me as if post-Reagan "conservatives" have defined liberty entirely as Negative Liberty. Government, or other restriction, is always the problem. But before this, even when Americans thought of themselves as self-made cowboys, duty was a constant. Employers had a duty to their workers, neighbors to each other, etc. (Obviously this had its fractures -- whites felt little duty to blacks, for example.) 

Now I think duty is something that we praise military people for doing, but the idea that rich people have a duty to pay higher taxes or something seems abhorrent. Even "conservatives" don't feel a duty to stay married for the sake of the kids anymore. 

Anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers are probably extreme cases of this focus on Negative Liberty, with little or no feeling of duty. Maybe they feel some duty to an abstraction -- they feel they have to sound off on their idea of the constitution or the "American way" or something -- but not to the people next to them in line.

[John 6IX Breezy]

What is it about the Government of a country seeking to ensure that its citizens are "protected' against something which has a high chance of killing them that is having you look askance at the topic?

I would respond that the word protect here veils a deeper and more complex reality than the mention of the word allows. There is enough ambiguity about what protective measures are effective, and enough risks involved in participating, that to not respect others who do not wish to participate is unjustified. And even if such measures are indeed effective and risk free, one of the first things I was taught as an EMT was that consent is valuable in the medical field. I cannot force medical services on people without their consent, even if I know that failing to do so may result in death or injury. That is not my decision to override. The most I can do is make sure they are fully informed about the consequences.

[Peebothuhlu]

What is it about the Government of a country seeking to ensure that its citizens are "protected' against something which has a high chance of killing them that is having you look askance at the topic?

I would respond that the word protect here veils a deeper and more complex reality than the mention of the word allows. There is enough ambiguity about what protective measures are effective, and enough risks involved in participating, that to not respect others who do not wish to participate is unjustified. And even if such measures are indeed effective and risk free, one of the first things I was taught as an EMT was that consent is valuable in the medical field. I cannot force medical services on people without their consent, even if I know that failing to do so may result in death or injury. That is not my decision to override. The most I can do is make sure they are fully informed about the consequences.

"Ambiguity"?

What 'Ambiguity'?

This is a new and unencountered virus, is it not?

Some one comming into contact with said virus unvaccinated has zero inbuilt immunities to said virus, correct?

They are litteraly at the mercy of chance. That their systems can detect and cope with said virus right off the bat, with no sort of previous warning encounter such as people have had with the various strains of avian infuenza, correct?

As for 'Consent.

If a shark takes a leg off then medical proceedures are most certainly forces up a person's body.
So 'Consent' seems only to go as far as "Helping people not die.".

[John 6IX Breezy]

"Ambiguity"?

What 'Ambiguity'?

This is a new and unencountered virus, is it not?

Some one comming into contact with said virus unvaccinated has zero inbuilt immunities to said virus, correct?

They are litteraly at the mercy of chance. That their systems can detect and cope with said virus right off the bat, with no sort of previous warning encounter such as people have had with the various strains of avian infuenza, correct?

As for 'Consent.

If a shark takes a leg off then medical proceedures are most certainly forces up a person's body.
So 'Consent' seems  only to go as far as "Helping people not die.".

There are risks on either side of the aisle here. You are taking a risk by not getting vaccinated, and you are likewise taking a risk by being vaccinated. These risks are often not communicated; and its painfully obvious that many people that are in favor of vaccines, are simply hiding behind the label of "vaccine" as if it carried special powers. This isn't a traditional vaccine; it is perhaps only a vaccine in function but not in kind, the effects of which are still under investigation.

Take for example a recent issue that is being discussed about the spike proteins found both in the virus and the vaccine: Its uncertain whether the spike proteins in the vaccine can cause damage. Its uncertain what happens if the vaccines leaves the intermuscular tissue and enters the lungs. More importantly, its uncertain what the long terms effects of the vaccine are. (Note: The article I linked attempts to address these questions and argue why the vaccine is safe, but it does so because these are genuine concerns that we are stumbling across.) 

My point is this: These are question that are currently being asked and researched while people are already taking the vaccines. Pretending that we already know the answers, and that those hesitating to get vaccinated are ignorant, is the wrong approach.

[Peebothuhlu]

There are risks on either side of the aisle here. You are taking a risk by not getting vaccinated, and you are likewise taking a risk by being vaccinated. These risks are often not communicated; and its painfully obvious that many people that are in favor of vaccines, are simply hiding behind the label of "vaccine" as if it carried special powers. This isn't a traditional vaccine; it is perhaps only a vaccine in function but not in kind, the effects of which are still under investigation.

Take for example a recent issue that is being discussed about the spike proteins found both in the virus and the vaccine: Its uncertain whether the spike proteins in the vaccine can cause damage. Its uncertain what happens if the vaccines leaves the intermuscular tissue and enters the lungs. More importantly, its uncertain what the long terms effects of the vaccine are. (Note: The article I linked attempts to address these questions and argue why the vaccine is safe, but it does so because these are genuine concerns that we are stumbling across.) 

My point is this: These are question that are currently being asked and researched while people are already taking the vaccines. Pretending that we already know the answers, and that those hesitating to get vaccinated are ignorant, is the wrong approach.

Risks on both sides?

Wait?

What 'Both sides'?

Where's the 'Other side'?

Has the Virus formed its own political party all of a sudden?

Do you acknowledge that if a person contracts this cirus they have litterally/effectivly 'Chance' to survive it?

Their body/immune system will have NO warnings or defenses against it?

I don't think I'm being hyperbolic and I am pretty sure my comments are not 'Incorrect', either.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The sentence immediately following my "both sides" comment, answered those questions, did it not?

[Peebothuhlu]

The sentence immediately following my "both sides" comment, answered those questions, did it not?

After a year of virus statistics.

What are the percentages of complications and deaths from the vaccines?

What are the perceptnages of complications and beaths from the virus?

plesse add what ever 'Other side' you think I may have missed as well.

Also, you do acknowledge a 'Pristine' body's complete lack of innitial ability to combat the contracting of said virus, don't you?

[John 6IX Breezy]

The risks on both sides refers to the risks of being vaccinated, and the risks of not being vaccinated. As to the percentages you are asking for, all that matters is that the answer is not zero. Anything above zero is sufficient to be respectful of those who do not wish to accept that risk.

[Peebothuhlu]

The risks on both sides refers to the risks of being vaccinated, and the risks of not being vaccinated. As to the percentages you are asking for, all that matters is that the answer is not zero. Anything above zero is sufficient to be respectful of those who do not wish to accept that risk.

The risk of being struck by a falling space rock is also 'Not zero'.

Do you know of or wish to find the actual infromation regarding virus morbitiy versus vaccine side effects?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Also, you do acknowledge a 'Pristine' body's complete lack of innitial ability to combat the contracting of said virus, don't you?

I don't know what you mean by this question. Your body has a general innate immune system that provides some broad protection against any infection. But beyond that every pathogen you've ever encountered (and survived) activated the same steps in the adaptive immune system. So I agree with your statement in a very trivial sense.