IMO we shouldn't fall in the trap of having to prove Graphene Oxide etc. There is more than enough data to show that vaccines have a horrible side effect profile, comparable to the disease in many cases. So a person should have the choice which set of side effects they would like to suffer. Their response is likely to be one of:
Individual level arguments:
The vaccine (1) reduces possibility of death/suffering (2) reduce viral load you spread to others (3) ends the pandemic.
Systemic level arguments:
(4) Hospitals will fill up and even accident victims won't get care. (5) The normie is a leftist telling you to "deal with it" or "f***-ing die".
For (1) you say I'm ok dying and suffering on my own terms. Not for you to decide for me. If not, why don't we ban adventure sports too?
For (2) you say if someone is worried about reducing the viral load they catch, they should be using an N-95 mask and faceshield, use hand sanitizer, follow decontamination procedures after returning from outside and stay under voluntary lockdown. In other words, they should be sacrificing their own liberties for their own security. They pay for their own security rather than you pay for theirs.
For (3) say the vaccine cannot stop infection, hence cannot stop the pandemic.
For (4) and (5) you say if an individual must take a risk for the sake of society, then the society has a reciprocal obligation to take care of the consequences the individual may face. However, this is no such recourse for COVID-19 vaccinations. In fact, the person is ostracized for speaking about the adverse reactions. If society is so hostile to the individual, then it is rational for the individual to be hostile to society as well to negotiate a better deal for himself. If they say COVID-19 is a risk too, you can say it is a risk I'm taking for myself (one party). Whereas the vaccine is a risk I'm taking for society (two parties). Hence, reciprocity becomes an issue.
In addition, people who smoke, eat unhealthy, drink too much, do drugs etc. are also filling up hospitals for an avoidable condition. Should we ban these things too? Should we mandate physical exercise like we mandate getting medical treatments (i.e. vaccines)? How about an obesity tax? Why single out unvaccinated people?
Profit.
EDIT: Added another argument I had overlooked.
IMO we shouldn't fall in the trap of having to prove Graphene Oxide etc. There is more than enough data to show that vaccines have a horrible side effect profile, comparable to the disease in many cases. So a person should have the choice which set of side effects they would like to suffer. Their response is likely to be one of:
Individual level arguments:
The vaccine (1) reduces possibility of death/suffering (2) reduce viral load you spread to others (3) ends the pandemic.
Systemic level arguments:
(4) Hospitals will fill up and even accident victims won't get care. (5) The normie is a leftist telling you to "deal with it" or "f***-ing die".
For (1) you say I'm ok dying and suffering on my own terms. Not for you to decide for me. If not, why don't we ban adventure sports too?
For (2) you say if someone is worried about reducing the viral load they catch, they should be using an N-95 mask and faceshield, use hand sanitizer, follow decontamination procedures after returning from outside and stay under voluntary lockdown. In other words, they should be sacrificing their own liberties for their own security. They pay for their own security rather than you pay for theirs.
For (3) say the vaccine cannot stop infection, hence cannot stop the pandemic.
For (4) and (5) you say if an individual must take a risk for the sake of society, then the society has a reciprocal obligation to take care of the consequences the individual may face. However, this is no such recourse for COVID-19 vaccinations. In fact, the person is ostracized for speaking about the adverse reactions. If society is so hostile to the individual, then it is rational for the individual to be hostile to society as well to negotiate a better deal for himself. If they say COVID-19 is a risk too, you can say it is a risk I'm taking for myself (one party). Whereas the vaccine is a risk I'm taking for society (two parties). Hence, reciprocity becomes an issue.
Profit.
EDIT: Added another argument I had overlooked.
IMO we shouldn't fall in the trap of having to prove Graphene Oxide etc. There is more than enough data to show that vaccines have a horrible side effect profile, comparable to the disease in many cases. So a person should have the choice which set of side effects they would like to suffer. Their response is likely to be one of:
Individual level arguments:
The vaccine (1) reduces possibility of death/suffering (2) reduce viral load you spread to others (3) ends the pandemic.
Systemic level arguments:
(4) Hospitals will fill up and even accident victims won't get care.
For (1) you say I'm ok dying and suffering on my own terms. Not for you to decide for me. If not, why don't we ban adventure sports too?
For (2) you say if someone is worried about reducing the viral load they catch, they should be using an N-95 mask and faceshield, use hand sanitizer, follow decontamination procedures after returning from outside and stay under voluntary lockdown. In other words, they should be sacrificing their own liberties for their own security. They pay for their own security rather than you pay for theirs.
For (3) say the vaccine cannot stop infection, hence cannot stop the pandemic.
For (4) this is a good argument because it is true in cases of a dangerous pandemic. For this you say if an individual must take a risk for the sake of society, then the society has a reciprocal obligation to take care of the consequences the individual may face. However, this is no such recourse for COVID-19 vaccinations. In fact, the person is ostracized for speaking about the adverse reactions. If society is so hostile to the individual, then it is rational for the individual to be hostile to society as well to negotiate a better deal for himself. If they say COVID-19 is a risk too, you can say it is a risk I'm taking for myself (one party). Whereas the vaccine is a risk I'm taking for society (two parties). Hence, reciprocity becomes an issue.
Profit.
EDIT: Added another argument I had overlooked.
IMO we shouldn't fall in the trap of having to prove Graphene Oxide etc. There is more than enough data to show that vaccines have a horrible side effect profile, comparable to the disease in many cases. So a person should have the choice which set of side effects they would like to suffer. Their response is likely to be one of:
Individual level arguments:
The vaccine (1) reduces possibility of death/suffering (2) reduce viral load you spread to others (3) ends the pandemic.
Systemic level arguments:
(4) Hospitals will fill up and even accident victims won't get care.
For (1) you say I'm ok dying and suffering on my own terms. Not for you to decide for me. If not, why don't we ban adventure sports too?
For (2) you say if someone is worried about reducing the viral load they catch, they should be using an N-95 mask and faceshield, use hand sanitizer, follow decontamination procedures after returning from outside and stay under voluntary lockdown. In other words, they should be sacrificing their own liberties for their own security. They pay for their own security rather than you pay for theirs.
For (3) say the vaccine cannot stop infection, hence cannot stop the pandemic.
For (4) this is a good argument because it is true in cases of a dangerous pandemic. For this you say if an individual must take a risk for the sake of society, then the society has a reciprocal obligation to take care of the consequences the individual may face. However, this is no such recourse for COVID-19 vaccinations. In fact, the person is ostracized for speaking about the adverse reactions. If society is so hostile to the individual, then it is rational for the individual to be hostile to society as well to negotiate a better deal for himself. If they say COVID-19 is a risk too, you can say it is a risk I'm taking for myself (one party). Whereas the vaccine is a risk I'm taking for society (two parties). Hence, reciprocity becomes an issue.
Profit.
EDIT: Added another argument I had overlooked.
IMO we shouldn't fall in the trap of having to prove Graphene Oxide etc. There is more than enough data to show that vaccines have a horrible side effect profile, comparable to the disease in many cases. So a person should have the choice which set of side effects they would like to suffer. Their response is likely to be one of: the vaccine (1) reduces possibility of death/suffering (2) reduce viral load you spread to others (3) ends the pandemic.
For (1) you say I'm ok dying and suffering on my own terms. Not for you to decide for me. If not, why don't we ban adventure sports too?
For (2) you say if someone is worried about reducing the viral load they catch, they should be using an N-95 mask and faceshield, use hand sanitizer, follow decontamination procedures after returning from outside and stay under voluntary lockdown. In other words, they should be sacrificing their own liberties for their own security. They pay for their own security rather than you pay for theirs.
For (3) say the vaccine cannot stop infection, hence cannot stop the pandemic.
Profit.
IMO we shouldn't fall in the trap of having to prove Graphene Oxide etc. There is more than enough data to show that vaccines have a horrible side effect profile, comparable to the disease in many cases. So a person should have the choice which set of side effects they would like to suffer. They're response is likely to be one of: the vaccine (1) reduces possibility of death/suffering (2) reduce viral load you spread to others (3) ends the pandemic.
For (1) you say I'm ok dying and suffering on my own terms. Not for you to decide for me. If not, why don't we ban adventure sports too?
For (2) you say if someone is worried about reducing the viral load they catch, they should be using an N-95 mask and faceshield, use hand sanitizer, follow decontamination procedures after returning from outside and stay under voluntary lockdown. In other words, they should be sacrificing their own liberties for their own security. They pay for their own security rather than you pay for theirs.
For (3) say the vaccine cannot stop infection, hence cannot stop the pandemic.
Profit.
IMO we shouldn't fall in the trap of having to prove Graphene Oxide etc. There is more than enough data to show that vaccines have a horrible side effect profile, comparable to the disease in many cases. So a person should have the choice which set of side effects they would like to suffer. They're response is likely to be one of: the vaccine (1) reduces possibility of death/suffering (2) reduce viral load you spread to others (3) ends the pandemic.
For (1) you say I'm ok dying and suffering on my own terms. Not for you to decide for me. If not, why don't we ban adventure sports too?
For (2) you say if someone is worried about reducing the viral load they catch, they should be using an N-95 mask and faceshield, use hand sanitizer, follow decontamination procedures after returning from outside and stay under voluntary lockdown. In other words, they should be sacrificing their own liberties for their own security. They pay for their own security rather than you pay for theirs.
For (3) say the vaccine cannot stop infection, hence cannot stop the pandemic.
Profit.
EDIT: The above are individual level arguments which are easily defeated. A better argument is a systemic level one: Hospitals will fill up and even accident victims won't get care. This is a good argument because it is true in cases of a dangerous pandemic.
For this you say if an individual must take a risk for the sake of society, then the society has a reciprocal obligation to take care of the consequences the individual may face. However, this is no such recourse for COVID-19 vaccinations. In fact, the person is ostracized for speaking about the adverse reactions. If society is so hostile to the individual, then it is rational for the individual to be hostile to society as well to negotiate a better deal for himself.
If they say COVID-19 is a risk too, you can say it is a risk I'm taking for myself (one party). Whereas the vaccine is a risk I'm taking for society (two parties). Hence, reciprocity becomes an issue.
IMO we shouldn't fall in the trap of having to prove Graphene Oxide etc. There is more than enough data to show that vaccines have a horrible side effect profile, comparable to the disease in many cases. So a person should have the choice which set of side effects they would like to suffer. They're response is likely to be one of: the vaccine (1) reduces possibility of death/suffering (2) reduce viral load you spread to others (3) ends the pandemic.
For (1) you say I'm ok dying and suffering on my own terms. Not for you to decide for me. If not, why don't we ban adventure sports too?
For (2) you say if someone is worried about reducing the viral load they catch, they should be using an N-95 mask and faceshield, use hand sanitizer, follow decontamination procedures after returning from outside and stay under voluntary lockdown. In other words, they should be sacrificing their own liberties for their own security. They pay for their own security rather than you pay for theirs.
For (3) say the vaccine cannot stop infection, hence cannot stop the pandemic.
Profit.
EDIT: The above are individual level arguments which are easily defeated. A better argument is a systemic level one: Hospitals will fill up and even accident victims won't get care. This is a good argument because it is true in cases of a dangerous pandemic.
Two ways to address this: (1) If an individual must take a risk for the sake of society, then the society has a reciprocal obligation to take care of the consequences the individual may face. However, this is no such recourse for COVID-19 vaccinations. In fact, the person is ostracized for speaking about the adverse reactions. If society is so hostile to the individual, then it is rational for the individual to be hostile to society as well to negotiate a better deal for himself.
If they say COVID-19 is a risk too, you can say it is a risk I'm taking for myself (one party). Whereas the vaccine is a risk I'm taking for society (two parties).
IMO we shouldn't fall in the trap of having to prove Graphene Oxide etc. There is more than enough data to show that vaccines have a horrible side effect profile, comparable to the disease in many cases. So a person should have the choice which set of side effects they would like to suffer. They're response is likely to be one of: the vaccine (1) reduces possibility of death/suffering (2) reduce viral load you spread to others (3) ends the pandemic.
For (1) you say I'm ok dying and suffering on my own terms. Not for you to decide for me. If not, why don't we ban adventure sports too?
For (2) you say if someone is worried about reducing the viral load they catch, they should be using an N-95 mask and faceshield, use hand sanitizer, follow decontamination procedures after returning from outside and stay under voluntary lockdown. In other words, they should be sacrificing their own liberties for their own security. They pay for their own security rather than you pay for theirs.
For (3) say the vaccine cannot stop infection, hence cannot stop the pandemic.
Profit.