Covid Vaccines

[Michael O]

Is it my responsibility to get vaccinated .... Leaving morality out of it, ...

This isn't really specifically about Covid, but how do you define "responsibility" in some way that excludes value judgments about your obligations (even to yourself) - ie, morality?

 

[rich01]

This isn't really specifically about Covid, but how do you define "responsibility" in some way that excludes value judgments about your obligations (even to yourself) - ie, morality?

Let me turn it around. How do you determine what is in society's best interest?

I believe that if every individual does what is in his or her best interest, while not infringing on the rights of others, that should result in what is best for society. The way human culture has developed, what is in my best interest, is usually also in the best interest of those around me. If you have money and I have food, then each of our interests overlaps - you give me some of your money and I give you some of my food. Originally it might have been if you were the best hunter, then I would do something for you in compensation. There is a natural give and take.

The Covid-19 vaccines present a different type of problem. There is a risk in getting the vaccine and there is a risk in not getting the vaccine. It seems to me that many of those who have decided that the risk is greater in not getting the vaccine, believe that everyone else must come to the same conclusion. Others look at the same data and say I am under 50, I have no serious health problems, the odds of me getting seriously ill or dying are pretty small. I think it is in my best interest to not get vaccinated because I believe for me, the risks of the vaccine are greater than the risks of covid-19. Should this person increase his risk by getting vaccinated for some unknown person who he could possibly infect if he was ever to get covid-19? What is the give and take that is fair? Who decides what is fair? Doesn't each individual have the right to decide for him or herself?

This was the same assessment the government, including NIH and the CDC made. They vaccinated the elderly and those with comorbidities first. Then they moved down in age to those at less risk. When you look at the people who have died from Covid-19, most are old and have, I believe, at least 6 comorbidities. Those are also, with the exception of people who have had transplants, those for whom the vaccines are least effective. Effective isn't exactly the right word, but someone who is 80 and is vaccinated, has about the same level of protection as someone 50 who is not vaccinated.

And finally, there is still the possibility of currently unknown, long-term side effects.

This is a difficult challenge and unfortunately, our leaders turned it into a political contest. Doctors and scientists who have differing opinions on the science surrounding covid-19 are being defamed and their posts and videos are deleted. Dissenting opinions are treated as misinformation, regardless of the credentials and credibility of the person expressing them. Yet, the government still has no early treatment program for Covid-19 after 1 1/2 years and a huge problem with breakthrough cases increasing.

 

[Michael O]

Let me turn it around. How do you determine what is in society's best interest?

Stopped reading because I knew you wouldn't answer my question.

 

[pellicle]

Maybe you should educate yourself on what a perfect vaccine and an imperfect vaccine are.

With respect to that above reply to me, I suggest you look in the mirror and repeat those words

 

[cldlhd]

Let me turn it around. How do you determine what is in society's best interest?

I believe that if every individual does what is in his or her best interest, while not infringing on the rights of others, that should result in what is best for society. The way human culture has developed, what is in my best interest, is usually also in the best interest of those around me. If you have money and I have food, then each of our interests overlaps - you give me some of your money and I give you some of my food. Originally it might have been if you were the best hunter, then I would do something for you in compensation. There is a natural give and take.

The Covid-19 vaccines present a different type of problem. There is a risk in getting the vaccine and there is a risk in not getting the vaccine. It seems to me that many of those who have decided that the risk is greater in not getting the vaccine, believe that everyone else must come to the same conclusion. Others look at the same data and say I am under 50, I have no serious health problems, the odds of me getting seriously ill or dying are pretty small. I think it is in my best interest to not get vaccinated because I believe for me, the risks of the vaccine are greater than the risks of covid-19. Should this person increase his risk by getting vaccinated for some unknown person who he could possibly infect if he was ever to get covid-19? What is the give and take that is fair? Who decides what is fair? Doesn't each individual have the right to decide for him or herself?

This was the same assessment the government, including NIH and the CDC made. They vaccinated the elderly and those with comorbidities first. Then they moved down in age to those at less risk. When you look at the people who have died from Covid-19, most are old and have, I believe, at least 6 comorbidities. Those are also, with the exception of people who have had transplants, those for whom the vaccines are least effective. Effective isn't exactly the right word, but someone who is 80 and is vaccinated, has about the same level of protection as someone 50 who is not vaccinated.

And finally, there is still the possibility of currently unknown, long-term side effects.

This is a difficult challenge and unfortunately, our leaders turned it into a political contest. Doctors and scientists who have differing opinions on the science surrounding covid-19 are being defamed and their posts and videos are deleted. Dissenting opinions are treated as misinformation, regardless of the credentials and credibility of the person expressing them. Yet, the government still has no early treatment program for Covid-19 after 1 1/2 years and a huge problem with breakthrough cases increasing.

Saying that doing what is best for you is almost always also what's best for society is far too simplistic. You can literally spend the entire day pointing out the scenarios where that isn't true.
I believe that it would be safe as for me to drive to work at 120 mph because I would get there a lot faster. My logic is that I would be on the road for a much shorter amount of time But the government has decided that driving 120 mph puts others at risk therefore they're forcing me to drive at a speed that makes me feel unsafe.....
At my workplace you don't have to be vaccinated but if you're not you have to wear a mask and socially distance.
Why do you want the government to come up with short term treatment for COVID-19?

 

[pellicle]

Yet, the government still has no early treatment program for Covid-19 after 1 1/2 years and a huge problem with breakthrough cases increasing.

They do, it's called vaccination

 

[dick0236]

Frankly, any person, regardless of age, who has had a valve replacement is STUPID not to get the vaccine........IMO. You post-op valvers who spent some time in an ICU post-op wanna go back there again?

 

[Chuck C]

I would have thought you would have done some research and looked at the scientific information on Ivermectin including the recent meta-analysis by Dr. Tess Lawrie. Here are some links to trials, interviews, and treatment protocols by real doctors who treat real people, not bureaucrats with an agenda.

https://ivmmeta.com/https://journals.lww.com/americanth...mectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspxhttps://worldivermectinday.org/https://covid19criticalcare.com/
I would highly recommend any of you who are not locked into your position listen to this interview of Dr. Pierre Kory, President of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) by Dr. Bret Weinstein.

https://odysee.com/@crotacheese75:e/DarkHorse-Podcast-with-Pierre-Kory-And-Bret-Weinstein:b

Hi Rich.

I think it is possible that Ivermectin will prove to do some good in combating Covid-19. But, as I mentioned above, more data is needed. Also, those promoting ivermectin as a front-line treatment are relying heavily on a few studies, many of which have been identified as flawed and some of which have actually been retracted. Other published studies have found no benefit with ivermectin treatment.

I’m not at all anti-ivermectin and if the ongoing trials show that it is effective then let’s get it out there. What I do have an issue with is that many in the anti-vaxx community have jumped on the ivermectin bandwagon and present it as an alternative to the vaccine, as if it needs to be one or the other, while promoting false information about the vaccine. If the ongoing trials on ivermectin show it to be effective and the doubt is removed, then it can be vaccine + ivermectin to combat Covid. It does not make any sense that it needs to be one or the other. They are not mutually exclusive.

There may be some issues with your sources of information. You are relying heavily on the interview between Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory of the FLCCC. There are some concerns about these individuals and the FLCCC.

The National Council Against Health Fraud Archive, in their quackwatch.org section, address the FLCCC and their ivermectin claims and list the reasons why these claims should be viewed with skepticism.

Consumer Health Digest #21-10 | Quackwatch

The physician interviewing Kory is Bret Weinstein who has been flagged as a spreader of misinformation about the Covid-19 vaccine:

“Science-Based Medicine, described Weinstein as a prominent "COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation"”

Bret Weinstein - Wikipedia

Fact checking Weinstein’s vaccine claims:

Fact Check-COVID-19 vaccines are not ‘cytotoxic’

Again, this is not to say that they are wrong about ivermectin. I believe that they have made demonstrably false claims about the vaccines, but this does not mean that they are wrong that ivermectin is the panacea cure the world is hoping for. It may or may not be and hopefully we will have the data to clarify this. But, I think the sources of your information need to be taken with a huge dose of skepticism.

 

[Michael O]

They do, it's called vaccination

You misspelled "bleach".

 

[dick0236]

You misspelled "bleach".

Huh???? What in the hell has "bleach" got to do with this post? The last I heard was only that dumb ass trump suggested bleach as a cure for Covid.

 

[pellicle]

Huh???? What in the hell has "bleach" got to do with this post?

I suspect that what is being referred to is the opinion of an exPresident who suggested bleach in the early days of the pandemic (as you mention) as a humours analogy (with similar efficacy) to the other suggestions being discussed.

 

[Chuck C]

Huh???? What in the hell has "bleach" got to do with this post? The last I heard was only that dumb ass trump suggested bleach as a cure for Covid.

I’m certain Michael was being humorous. There is irony that those who would not dare inject the vaccine are open to injecting bleach.

 

[cldlhd]

Hi Rich.

I think it is possible that Ivermectin will prove to do some good in combating Covid-19. But, as I mentioned above, more data is needed. Also, those promoting ivermectin as a front-line treatment are relying heavily on a few studies, many of which have been identified as flawed and some of which have actually been retracted. Other published studies have found no benefit with ivermectin treatment.

I’m not at all anti-ivermectin and if the ongoing trials show that it is effective then let’s get it out there. What I do have an issue with is that many in the anti-vaxx community have jumped on the ivermectin bandwagon and present it as an alternative to the vaccine, as if it needs to be one or the other, while promoting false information about the vaccine. If the ongoing trials on ivermectin show it to be effective and the doubt is removed, then it can be vaccine + ivermectin to combat Covid. It does not make any sense that it needs to be one or the other. They are not mutually exclusive.

There may be some issues with your sources of information. You are relying heavily on the interview between Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory of the FLCCC. There are some concerns about these individuals and the FLCCC.

The National Council Against Health Fraud Archive, in their quackwatch.org section, address the FLCCC and their ivermectin claims and list the reasons why these claims should be viewed with skepticism.

Consumer Health Digest #21-10 | Quackwatch

The physician interviewing Kory is Bret Weinstein who has been flagged as a spreader of misinformation about the Covid-19 vaccine:

“Science-Based Medicine, described Weinstein as a prominent "COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation"”

Bret Weinstein - Wikipedia

Again, this is not to say that they are wrong about ivermectin. I believe that they have made demonstrably false claims about the vaccines, but this does not mean that they are wrong that ivermectin is the panacea cure the world is hoping for. It may or may not be and hopefully we will have the data to clarify this. But, I think the sources of your information need to be taken with a huge dose of skepticism.

Exactly, why is he acting like a vaccine

Huh???? What in the hell has "bleach" got to do with this post? The last I heard was only that dumb ass trump suggested bleach as a cure for Covid.

Well technically drinking bleach would cure it , I mean the person infected would die and then so with the virus. Let's not forget the insertion of the tremendously powerful light bulbs. Then again let's try to forget it

 

[Michael O]

Huh???? What in the hell has "bleach" got to do with this post? The last I heard was only that dumb ass trump suggested bleach as a cure for Covid.
[/QUOTE]
Bad effort at being humorous.

 

[pellicle]

@rich01
and to follow on from this:

I think it is possible that Ivermectin will prove to do some good in combating Covid-19. But,

there is therefore no reason to avoid vaccination which is proven to work (yes even on COVID).

As always prevention is better than cure.

Also you win no friends by posturing with terms like " I would highly recommend any of you who are not locked into your position listen to "

it implies a level of smug putdown to those of us who are thinking critically.

Now, if you are not the one locked into a path of thinking I ask you to read this blog post:

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2021/07/done-my-research.html
where it says:

Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?​

​

Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?​

​

Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?​

Did you perform those steps?

During that time were you seeking to prove your position or dispassionately looking to see the outcomes?

Have you done Science Degree? If not what do you think they do in those three years? Once someone has a Science degree they are then in a position to begin learning more about a field. One such thing is critical analysis. These could include being:

• inquisitive and curious, always seeking the truth
• fair in their evaluation of evidence and others’ views
• sceptical of information
• perceptive and able to make connections between ideas
• reflective and aware of their own thought processes
• open minded and willing to have their beliefs challenged
• using evidence and reason to formulate decisions
• able to formulate judgements with evidence and reason

all of the above should be applied equally to both sides of the evidence, not just used against what you don't like and ignored for what you agree with.

So from a perspective of critical analysis please tell me why you are against vaccination.

 

[pellicle]

Bad effort at being humorous.

the target however did receive and absorb the quanta

 

[rich01]

Hi Rich.

I think it is possible that Ivermectin will prove to do some good in combating Covid-19. But, as I mentioned above, more data is needed. Also, those promoting ivermectin as a front-line treatment are relying heavily on a few studies, many of which have been identified as flawed and some of which have actually been retracted. Other published studies have found no benefit with ivermectin treatment.

I’m not at all anti-ivermectin and if the ongoing trials show that it is effective then let’s get it out there. What I do have an issue with is that many in the anti-vaxx community have jumped on the ivermectin bandwagon and present it as an alternative to the vaccine, as if it needs to be one or the other, while promoting false information about the vaccine. If the ongoing trials on ivermectin show it to be effective and the doubt is removed, then it can be vaccine + ivermectin to combat Covid. It does not make any sense that it needs to be one or the other. They are not mutually exclusive.

There may be some issues with your sources of information. You are relying heavily on the interview between Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory of the FLCCC. There are some concerns about these individuals and the FLCCC.

The National Council Against Health Fraud Archive, in their quackwatch.org section, address the FLCCC and their ivermectin claims and list the reasons why these claims should be viewed with skepticism.

Consumer Health Digest #21-10 | Quackwatch

The physician interviewing Kory is Bret Weinstein who has been flagged as a spreader of misinformation about the Covid-19 vaccine:

“Science-Based Medicine, described Weinstein as a prominent "COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation"”

Bret Weinstein - Wikipedia

Again, this is not to say that they are wrong about ivermectin. I believe that they have made demonstrably false claims about the vaccines, but this does not mean that they are wrong that ivermectin is the panacea cure the world is hoping for. It may or may not be and hopefully we will have the data to clarify this. But, I think the sources of your information need to be taken with a huge dose of skepticism.

We each have our sources. I trust mine. I don't think there is anything left to discuss.

 

[rich01]

@rich01
and to follow on from this:

there is therefore no reason to avoid vaccination which is proven to work (yes even on COVID).

As always prevention is better than cure.

Also you win no friends by posturing with terms like " I would highly recommend any of you who are not locked into your position listen to "

it implies a level of smug putdown to those of us who are thinking critically.

Now, if you are not the one locked into a path of thinking I ask you to read this blog post:

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2021/07/done-my-research.html
where it says:

Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?​

​

Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?​

​

Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?​

Did you perform those steps?

During that time were you seeking to prove your position or dispassionately looking to see the outcomes?

Have you done Science Degree? If not what do you think they do in those three years? Once someone has a Science degree they are then in a position to begin learning more about a field. One such thing is critical analysis. These could include being:

• inquisitive and curious, always seeking the truth
• fair in their evaluation of evidence and others’ views
• sceptical of information
• perceptive and able to make connections between ideas
• reflective and aware of their own thought processes
• open minded and willing to have their beliefs challenged
• using evidence and reason to formulate decisions
• able to formulate judgements with evidence and reason

all of the above should be applied equally to both sides of the evidence, not just used against what you don't like and ignored for what you agree with.

So from a perspective of critical analysis please tell me why you are against vaccination.

There was no smug putdown. Several members made it clear I was wrong and they were right. I was addressing those members who made it clear they were not open to any meaningful discussion.

 

[rich01]

@rich01
and to follow on from this:

there is therefore no reason to avoid vaccination which is proven to work (yes even on COVID).

As always prevention is better than cure.

Also you win no friends by posturing with terms like " I would highly recommend any of you who are not locked into your position listen to "

it implies a level of smug putdown to those of us who are thinking critically.

Now, if you are not the one locked into a path of thinking I ask you to read this blog post:

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2021/07/done-my-research.html
where it says:

Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?​

​

Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?​

​

Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?​

Did you perform those steps?

During that time were you seeking to prove your position or dispassionately looking to see the outcomes?

Have you done Science Degree? If not what do you think they do in those three years? Once someone has a Science degree they are then in a position to begin learning more about a field. One such thing is critical analysis. These could include being:

• inquisitive and curious, always seeking the truth
• fair in their evaluation of evidence and others’ views
• sceptical of information
• perceptive and able to make connections between ideas
• reflective and aware of their own thought processes
• open minded and willing to have their beliefs challenged
• using evidence and reason to formulate decisions
• able to formulate judgements with evidence and reason

all of the above should be applied equally to both sides of the evidence, not just used against what you don't like and ignored for what you agree with.

So from a perspective of critical analysis please tell me why you are against vaccination.

I never said I was against vaccination. I said if I had it to do over, I probably would not get vaccinated. I believe by taking Ivermectin, I am better protected against Covid-19 than I would be by any of the vaccines and with no side effects.

 

[pellicle]

I never said I was against vaccination. I said if I had it to do over, I probably would not get vaccinated

ok ... to me they are the same ...

I believe by taking Ivermectin, I am better protected against Covid-19 than I would be by any of the vaccines and with no side effects.

ok ... so what do you based that on (using the same criteria I laid out above).