movielover said:
The pandemic appears to have been a fraud.
You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
BearGoggles said:The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
It is not an either or situation, and each vax is a marginal additional risk of myocarditis (and for that matter other complications). Forcing repeated vax shots - for people who have natural immunity from recent covid - is exposing those people to 100% unnecessary additional risks with LITERALLY zero benefit. Full stop. And that was the exact policy that was in place and you are defending.
And since you are so confident of the safety, can you please provide links to studies showing the long term effects of REPEATED covid vaccinations? Any such studies specific to teens/young adults? You can't - because they don't exist today. And they certainly didn't exist in 2020-22 when people were being told to shut up and get vaxxed.
Yes - our society has licensing requirements that are tied to the safety of the activity being licensed. But if I choose not to get a driver's license, the only thing I can't do is drive. I can take the subway/bus. I can walk. I can join the military. I can work from home. It may make certain things more difficult - but not having a driver's license doesn't LEGALLY prevent me doing anything (other than driving). So your attempted analogy fails in the context of vax mandate coercion.
Your final paragraph and conception of "choice" is just a fallacy that avoids grappling with the real issue. If a person comes to your house and says "give me your money or I'll break your leg", you would have a choice to make. So to you, no problem. After all, you have a choice. And, apparently, you'd be lying to claim otherwise (your words).
I'd be willing to bet you're pro-choice when it comes to abortion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You likely oppose laws that outlaw abortion (I do). By your logic, there should be no problem with those pro-life laws. After all, the women had a choice not to get pregnant and can give the baby up for adoption. She should just suck it up and make a choice. Right?
Through all of this back and forth, there are many points you have refused to address, hiding behind the semantics of "force" and false notions of choice.
So I'm going to ask you again - if the science on this is so clear and beyond dispute, why do the WHO and most of Europe not recommend vaxing for people under 25? Maybe the science and medical ethics are not as clear as you think.
movielover said:
They work for small companies, are retired, independent contractors, strong willed, used forged documents (easily done), religious exemptions, illegal immigrants (get a pass), etc.
I entered businesses where vaxx status wasn't checked, but they would take your temperature. This was common.
CalConor said:movielover said:
They work for small companies, are retired, independent contractors, strong willed, used forged documents (easily done), religious exemptions, illegal immigrants (get a pass), etc.
I entered businesses where vaxx status wasn't checked, but they would take your temperature. This was common.
So they chose not to get vaccinated and the government didn't force them? Gotcha. Thanks. Glad we could clear that up after 5 pages of bull**** lol
movielover said:
Reading comprehension problem?
It seems that when asked hard question you dodge and instead use buzz words like "tin foil" and "conspiracy" and "anti vaxxer".CalConor said:BearGoggles said:The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
It is not an either or situation, and each vax is a marginal additional risk of myocarditis (and for that matter other complications). Forcing repeated vax shots - for people who have natural immunity from recent covid - is exposing those people to 100% unnecessary additional risks with LITERALLY zero benefit. Full stop. And that was the exact policy that was in place and you are defending.
And since you are so confident of the safety, can you please provide links to studies showing the long term effects of REPEATED covid vaccinations? Any such studies specific to teens/young adults? You can't - because they don't exist today. And they certainly didn't exist in 2020-22 when people were being told to shut up and get vaxxed.
Yes - our society has licensing requirements that are tied to the safety of the activity being licensed. But if I choose not to get a driver's license, the only thing I can't do is drive. I can take the subway/bus. I can walk. I can join the military. I can work from home. It may make certain things more difficult - but not having a driver's license doesn't LEGALLY prevent me doing anything (other than driving). So your attempted analogy fails in the context of vax mandate coercion.
Your final paragraph and conception of "choice" is just a fallacy that avoids grappling with the real issue. If a person comes to your house and says "give me your money or I'll break your leg", you would have a choice to make. So to you, no problem. After all, you have a choice. And, apparently, you'd be lying to claim otherwise (your words).
I'd be willing to bet you're pro-choice when it comes to abortion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You likely oppose laws that outlaw abortion (I do). By your logic, there should be no problem with those pro-life laws. After all, the women had a choice not to get pregnant and can give the baby up for adoption. She should just suck it up and make a choice. Right?
Through all of this back and forth, there are many points you have refused to address, hiding behind the semantics of "force" and false notions of choice.
So I'm going to ask you again - if the science on this is so clear and beyond dispute, why do the WHO and most of Europe not recommend vaxing for people under 25? Maybe the science and medical ethics are not as clear as you think.
This is all getting a little boring and off topic, so I'm going to check out. That said, I guess the question remains, if the government forced us to get vaccinated, then how do you explain the 20 percent of the population that didn't take a single dose?
BearGoggles said:It seems that when asked hard question you dodge and instead use buzz words like "tin foil" and "conspiracy" and "anti vaxxer".CalConor said:BearGoggles said:The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
It is not an either or situation, and each vax is a marginal additional risk of myocarditis (and for that matter other complications). Forcing repeated vax shots - for people who have natural immunity from recent covid - is exposing those people to 100% unnecessary additional risks with LITERALLY zero benefit. Full stop. And that was the exact policy that was in place and you are defending.
And since you are so confident of the safety, can you please provide links to studies showing the long term effects of REPEATED covid vaccinations? Any such studies specific to teens/young adults? You can't - because they don't exist today. And they certainly didn't exist in 2020-22 when people were being told to shut up and get vaxxed.
Yes - our society has licensing requirements that are tied to the safety of the activity being licensed. But if I choose not to get a driver's license, the only thing I can't do is drive. I can take the subway/bus. I can walk. I can join the military. I can work from home. It may make certain things more difficult - but not having a driver's license doesn't LEGALLY prevent me doing anything (other than driving). So your attempted analogy fails in the context of vax mandate coercion.
Your final paragraph and conception of "choice" is just a fallacy that avoids grappling with the real issue. If a person comes to your house and says "give me your money or I'll break your leg", you would have a choice to make. So to you, no problem. After all, you have a choice. And, apparently, you'd be lying to claim otherwise (your words).
I'd be willing to bet you're pro-choice when it comes to abortion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You likely oppose laws that outlaw abortion (I do). By your logic, there should be no problem with those pro-life laws. After all, the women had a choice not to get pregnant and can give the baby up for adoption. She should just suck it up and make a choice. Right?
Through all of this back and forth, there are many points you have refused to address, hiding behind the semantics of "force" and false notions of choice.
So I'm going to ask you again - if the science on this is so clear and beyond dispute, why do the WHO and most of Europe not recommend vaxing for people under 25? Maybe the science and medical ethics are not as clear as you think.
This is all getting a little boring and off topic, so I'm going to check out. That said, I guess the question remains, if the government forced us to get vaccinated, then how do you explain the 20 percent of the population that didn't take a single dose?
Most notably, you have no explanation for the WHO and most of Europe support my position on vaxxing youth and/or why the US won't adjust its policy. You have no answer for what "choice" you'd make between giving up all your money or receiving a broken leg. Or abortion.
If 20% of the overall population can escape government coercion because of their particular life situation and strong convictions, that doesn't mean we just ignore the substantial percentage who unquestionably were coerced. You're making a strange - and morally bankrupt - argument that we should just ignore an injustice because it only affects "some" people. Approximately 14% of the US population is black - so should we just ignore violations of their civil rights? Or what about Jews - only 2.5% - we just ignore antisemitism?
mbBear said:Wow, what a great way to start the New Year, a thread hijacked and turned into something no one wants! And look, those of us who lost loved ones during the COVID being told it wasn't real.... good times ..movielover said:
The pandemic appears to have been a fraud.
The abortion analogy does not fail. "My body my choice" is the common mantra we hear from the people most in favor of vax mandates.CalConor said:BearGoggles said:It seems that when asked hard question you dodge and instead use buzz words like "tin foil" and "conspiracy" and "anti vaxxer".CalConor said:BearGoggles said:The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
It is not an either or situation, and each vax is a marginal additional risk of myocarditis (and for that matter other complications). Forcing repeated vax shots - for people who have natural immunity from recent covid - is exposing those people to 100% unnecessary additional risks with LITERALLY zero benefit. Full stop. And that was the exact policy that was in place and you are defending.
And since you are so confident of the safety, can you please provide links to studies showing the long term effects of REPEATED covid vaccinations? Any such studies specific to teens/young adults? You can't - because they don't exist today. And they certainly didn't exist in 2020-22 when people were being told to shut up and get vaxxed.
Yes - our society has licensing requirements that are tied to the safety of the activity being licensed. But if I choose not to get a driver's license, the only thing I can't do is drive. I can take the subway/bus. I can walk. I can join the military. I can work from home. It may make certain things more difficult - but not having a driver's license doesn't LEGALLY prevent me doing anything (other than driving). So your attempted analogy fails in the context of vax mandate coercion.
Your final paragraph and conception of "choice" is just a fallacy that avoids grappling with the real issue. If a person comes to your house and says "give me your money or I'll break your leg", you would have a choice to make. So to you, no problem. After all, you have a choice. And, apparently, you'd be lying to claim otherwise (your words).
I'd be willing to bet you're pro-choice when it comes to abortion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You likely oppose laws that outlaw abortion (I do). By your logic, there should be no problem with those pro-life laws. After all, the women had a choice not to get pregnant and can give the baby up for adoption. She should just suck it up and make a choice. Right?
Through all of this back and forth, there are many points you have refused to address, hiding behind the semantics of "force" and false notions of choice.
So I'm going to ask you again - if the science on this is so clear and beyond dispute, why do the WHO and most of Europe not recommend vaxing for people under 25? Maybe the science and medical ethics are not as clear as you think.
This is all getting a little boring and off topic, so I'm going to check out. That said, I guess the question remains, if the government forced us to get vaccinated, then how do you explain the 20 percent of the population that didn't take a single dose?
Most notably, you have no explanation for the WHO and most of Europe support my position on vaxxing youth and/or why the US won't adjust its policy. You have no answer for what "choice" you'd make between giving up all your money or receiving a broken leg. Or abortion.
If 20% of the overall population can escape government coercion because of their particular life situation and strong convictions, that doesn't mean we just ignore the substantial percentage who unquestionably were coerced. You're making a strange - and morally bankrupt - argument that we should just ignore an injustice because it only affects "some" people. Approximately 14% of the US population is black - so should we just ignore violations of their civil rights? Or what about Jews - only 2.5% - we just ignore antisemitism?
I'm not addressing the WHO and European positions because it has no bearing to my argument, which is only that Americans weren't forced to get vaccinated. I'm not addressing your abortion questions because it's a faulty analogy. And I don't see asking people to take a safe vaccine during a global pandemic as a violation of civil rights. 7 million people died of COVID. I guess you think more should die because you and your Ayn Rand fanclub don't feel like you need to contribute to the greater good? What about their civil rights? Should we just ignore them?
Your WHO information is wrong. It isn't that they don't recommend adolescents to be vaccinated. What they are saying as of October 2024, is that countries must prioritize those individuals who are most at risk. They do not rule out covid vaccination. Just that prioritization must be considered.BearGoggles said:The abortion analogy does not fail. "My body my choice" is the common mantra we hear from the people most in favor of vax mandates.CalConor said:BearGoggles said:It seems that when asked hard question you dodge and instead use buzz words like "tin foil" and "conspiracy" and "anti vaxxer".CalConor said:BearGoggles said:The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
It is not an either or situation, and each vax is a marginal additional risk of myocarditis (and for that matter other complications). Forcing repeated vax shots - for people who have natural immunity from recent covid - is exposing those people to 100% unnecessary additional risks with LITERALLY zero benefit. Full stop. And that was the exact policy that was in place and you are defending.
And since you are so confident of the safety, can you please provide links to studies showing the long term effects of REPEATED covid vaccinations? Any such studies specific to teens/young adults? You can't - because they don't exist today. And they certainly didn't exist in 2020-22 when people were being told to shut up and get vaxxed.
Yes - our society has licensing requirements that are tied to the safety of the activity being licensed. But if I choose not to get a driver's license, the only thing I can't do is drive. I can take the subway/bus. I can walk. I can join the military. I can work from home. It may make certain things more difficult - but not having a driver's license doesn't LEGALLY prevent me doing anything (other than driving). So your attempted analogy fails in the context of vax mandate coercion.
Your final paragraph and conception of "choice" is just a fallacy that avoids grappling with the real issue. If a person comes to your house and says "give me your money or I'll break your leg", you would have a choice to make. So to you, no problem. After all, you have a choice. And, apparently, you'd be lying to claim otherwise (your words).
I'd be willing to bet you're pro-choice when it comes to abortion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You likely oppose laws that outlaw abortion (I do). By your logic, there should be no problem with those pro-life laws. After all, the women had a choice not to get pregnant and can give the baby up for adoption. She should just suck it up and make a choice. Right?
Through all of this back and forth, there are many points you have refused to address, hiding behind the semantics of "force" and false notions of choice.
So I'm going to ask you again - if the science on this is so clear and beyond dispute, why do the WHO and most of Europe not recommend vaxing for people under 25? Maybe the science and medical ethics are not as clear as you think.
This is all getting a little boring and off topic, so I'm going to check out. That said, I guess the question remains, if the government forced us to get vaccinated, then how do you explain the 20 percent of the population that didn't take a single dose?
Most notably, you have no explanation for the WHO and most of Europe support my position on vaxxing youth and/or why the US won't adjust its policy. You have no answer for what "choice" you'd make between giving up all your money or receiving a broken leg. Or abortion.
If 20% of the overall population can escape government coercion because of their particular life situation and strong convictions, that doesn't mean we just ignore the substantial percentage who unquestionably were coerced. You're making a strange - and morally bankrupt - argument that we should just ignore an injustice because it only affects "some" people. Approximately 14% of the US population is black - so should we just ignore violations of their civil rights? Or what about Jews - only 2.5% - we just ignore antisemitism?
I'm not addressing the WHO and European positions because it has no bearing to my argument, which is only that Americans weren't forced to get vaccinated. I'm not addressing your abortion questions because it's a faulty analogy. And I don't see asking people to take a safe vaccine during a global pandemic as a violation of civil rights. 7 million people died of COVID. I guess you think more should die because you and your Ayn Rand fanclub don't feel like you need to contribute to the greater good? What about their civil rights? Should we just ignore them?
The WHO/Europe argument does have direct bearing because it shows the majority thinking is that repeated vaccination of people under 25 - the people you think should have been forced to get vaxxed multiple times - is not recommended. That is the "greater good" you claim, but it is not supported by most "scientists."
Your appeal to the "greater good" sounds great . . . but who gets to decide the greater good and on what basis? You reject any cost benefit analysis because . . . lots of people died from covid. And you fail to recognize that vaxxed people still get covid and therefore still spread it, so the benefits you claim are even more suspect.
Lots of people - particularly old people and those that are immunocompromised - die from influenza. Why isn't the flu shot mandated? People get cancer (and die) from HPV. Why isn't the HPV vax mandated?
The US and many other "Western" countries have declining birth rates. It would be for the greater good to reverse that as declining population creates a lot of socioeconomic problems. So should we go full Handmaids Tale and force women to become breeders? After all, the greater good and all.
You have provided no overriding principle for when an individual should be forced to comply for the "greater good." Or when they shouldn't. That is what makes your position both untenable and tyrannical.
philly1121 said:
CalConor, its a bit of wasted time to try and offer some education to these people. I do it only to show how they have completely given themselves over to false narratives in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Taking the Ukraine Biden Conspiracy as an example. However, they always ask for data, its showed to them, and they don't believe it anyway. As in this example, they are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Taking one or two adverse reactions to the covid vaccine and then blow it completely out of proportion. There have been numerous studies showing that incidences of myocarditis and pericarditis are rare. There is a definite link - but its so rare it doesn't even justify the waste of bandwidth. One study is below:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M22-2274 A quick perusal of the data shows:
14 December 2020 through 31 May 2022 (persons 1839 years) and 20 August 2022 (persons 517 years), 320 potential cases of myocarditis/pericarditis were identified 1 to 98 days after 6,992,340 vaccine doses as part of primary series COVID-19 vaccination, with 224 (70%) verified. Of these, 137 (61%) occurred 0 to 7 days after vaccination; 18 were after the first dose (of 3 562 311 doses administered) and 119 were after the second dose (of 3 430 029 doses administered).
Taking the potential number, just for kicks and giggles, that's a .004% incidence rate. Now I ask - what is the big deal here? Four one-thousands of a percent incidence rate and all of us sudden this is a liberty issue?
It goes on, in all age groups, incidence per million doses 0 to 7 days after vaccination was numerically higher in male than in female persons and after dose 2, although confidence intervals were wide and overlapped across sex for some age groups. Incidence was highest for male adolescents ages 12 to 15 years and 16 to 17 years following dose 2. So, it is true, higher incidence rate for adolescent males than females. But, the incidence is low.
What's the bottom line? The study reads, "In this population-based surveillance, we found that myocarditis/pericarditis 0 to 7 days after mRNA vaccination in persons aged 5 to 39 years occurred in approximately 1 in 200 000 doses after the first dose and 1 in 30 000 doses after second dose of the primary series, and 1 in 50 000 doses after the first booster. The incidence varied markedly by age and sex, however, with a disproportionate number of cases occurring in male persons, notably among adolescents after dose 2 and first boosters.
As always with these people, they offer false narratives, conspiracy theories and blow up tweets shared by MTG or Lauren Boobert or our dear A-a-ron who offer nothing except their own opinion because they watch Youtube. The truth is, the research and clinical guidance for this vaccine are fairly wide. Studies have shown the vaccine has efficacy and safety.
Post the link to that study. I gave you a link to the data points posted. As for c-troponin, no. This was a claim made by Buergin in 2023. Buergin N, Lopez-Ayala P, Hirsiger JR, Mueller P, Median D, Glarner N et al (2023) Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster vaccination. Eur J Heart Fail 25:18711881. This claim has been debunked and discredited. One such review of Buergin's work stated:Cal88 said:philly1121 said:
CalConor, its a bit of wasted time to try and offer some education to these people. I do it only to show how they have completely given themselves over to false narratives in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Taking the Ukraine Biden Conspiracy as an example. However, they always ask for data, its showed to them, and they don't believe it anyway. As in this example, they are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Taking one or two adverse reactions to the covid vaccine and then blow it completely out of proportion. There have been numerous studies showing that incidences of myocarditis and pericarditis are rare. There is a definite link - but its so rare it doesn't even justify the waste of bandwidth. One study is below:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M22-2274 A quick perusal of the data shows:
14 December 2020 through 31 May 2022 (persons 1839 years) and 20 August 2022 (persons 517 years), 320 potential cases of myocarditis/pericarditis were identified 1 to 98 days after 6,992,340 vaccine doses as part of primary series COVID-19 vaccination, with 224 (70%) verified. Of these, 137 (61%) occurred 0 to 7 days after vaccination; 18 were after the first dose (of 3 562 311 doses administered) and 119 were after the second dose (of 3 430 029 doses administered).
Taking the potential number, just for kicks and giggles, that's a .004% incidence rate. Now I ask - what is the big deal here? Four one-thousands of a percent incidence rate and all of us sudden this is a liberty issue?
It goes on, in all age groups, incidence per million doses 0 to 7 days after vaccination was numerically higher in male than in female persons and after dose 2, although confidence intervals were wide and overlapped across sex for some age groups. Incidence was highest for male adolescents ages 12 to 15 years and 16 to 17 years following dose 2. So, it is true, higher incidence rate for adolescent males than females. But, the incidence is low.
What's the bottom line? The study reads, "In this population-based surveillance, we found that myocarditis/pericarditis 0 to 7 days after mRNA vaccination in persons aged 5 to 39 years occurred in approximately 1 in 200 000 doses after the first dose and 1 in 30 000 doses after second dose of the primary series, and 1 in 50 000 doses after the first booster. The incidence varied markedly by age and sex, however, with a disproportionate number of cases occurring in male persons, notably among adolescents after dose 2 and first boosters.
As always with these people, they offer false narratives, conspiracy theories and blow up tweets shared by MTG or Lauren Boobert or our dear A-a-ron who offer nothing except their own opinion because they watch Youtube. The truth is, the research and clinical guidance for this vaccine are fairly wide. Studies have shown the vaccine has efficacy and safety.
There are at least two other studies that found that the rate of myocarditis after the mRNA boosters among the most vulnerable cohort (teen/young males) was around 3% (1 in 35) or nearly 1,000 times higher than the stated rate on your study.
UCSF prof Vinay Prasad goes over this:
One of the main differences between these two studies and yours is that in the Swiss and Thai studies, they have actually measured on each patient their troponin level, which is a marker for heart damage, damage that would have otherwise gone unreported.
philly1121 said:Post the link to that study. I gave you a link to the data points posted. As for c-troponin, no. This was a claim made by Buergin in 2023. Buergin N, Lopez-Ayala P, Hirsiger JR, Mueller P, Median D, Glarner N et al (2023) Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster vaccination. Eur J Heart Fail 25:18711881. This claim has been debunked and discredited. One such review of Buergin's work stated:Cal88 said:philly1121 said:
CalConor, its a bit of wasted time to try and offer some education to these people. I do it only to show how they have completely given themselves over to false narratives in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Taking the Ukraine Biden Conspiracy as an example. However, they always ask for data, its showed to them, and they don't believe it anyway. As in this example, they are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Taking one or two adverse reactions to the covid vaccine and then blow it completely out of proportion. There have been numerous studies showing that incidences of myocarditis and pericarditis are rare. There is a definite link - but its so rare it doesn't even justify the waste of bandwidth. One study is below:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M22-2274 A quick perusal of the data shows:
14 December 2020 through 31 May 2022 (persons 1839 years) and 20 August 2022 (persons 517 years), 320 potential cases of myocarditis/pericarditis were identified 1 to 98 days after 6,992,340 vaccine doses as part of primary series COVID-19 vaccination, with 224 (70%) verified. Of these, 137 (61%) occurred 0 to 7 days after vaccination; 18 were after the first dose (of 3 562 311 doses administered) and 119 were after the second dose (of 3 430 029 doses administered).
Taking the potential number, just for kicks and giggles, that's a .004% incidence rate. Now I ask - what is the big deal here? Four one-thousands of a percent incidence rate and all of us sudden this is a liberty issue?
It goes on, in all age groups, incidence per million doses 0 to 7 days after vaccination was numerically higher in male than in female persons and after dose 2, although confidence intervals were wide and overlapped across sex for some age groups. Incidence was highest for male adolescents ages 12 to 15 years and 16 to 17 years following dose 2. So, it is true, higher incidence rate for adolescent males than females. But, the incidence is low.
What's the bottom line? The study reads, "In this population-based surveillance, we found that myocarditis/pericarditis 0 to 7 days after mRNA vaccination in persons aged 5 to 39 years occurred in approximately 1 in 200 000 doses after the first dose and 1 in 30 000 doses after second dose of the primary series, and 1 in 50 000 doses after the first booster. The incidence varied markedly by age and sex, however, with a disproportionate number of cases occurring in male persons, notably among adolescents after dose 2 and first boosters.
As always with these people, they offer false narratives, conspiracy theories and blow up tweets shared by MTG or Lauren Boobert or our dear A-a-ron who offer nothing except their own opinion because they watch Youtube. The truth is, the research and clinical guidance for this vaccine are fairly wide. Studies have shown the vaccine has efficacy and safety.
There are at least two other studies that found that the rate of myocarditis after the mRNA boosters among the most vulnerable cohort (teen/young males) was around 3% (1 in 35) or nearly 1,000 times higher than the stated rate on your study.
UCSF prof Vinay Prasad goes over this:
One of the main differences between these two studies and yours is that in the Swiss and Thai studies, they have actually measured on each patient their troponin level, which is a marker for heart damage, damage that would have otherwise gone unreported.
Buergin et al. have only cited papers in support of their claim which considered hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Buergin's study only looked at hospitalized patients. The conclusion from peer review of Buergin's study was that there was no noticeable increase in pre c-troponin levels pre vaccine and post vaccine. Troponin would be elevated in individuals but not at rates that contribute to myocarditis.
As for Vinny Prasad. This guy? I remember you or some other Rander offered his name up for "bucking against the medical community" for covid response. He compared the US pandemic response to the beginnings of the Third Reich. This dude has zero understanding of public health, public health response or strategy and probably is partly responsible for impacting immunization rates in children. This guy, 88?
Troponin is released when heart tissue is damaged:Quote:
Troponin would be elevated in individuals but not at rates that contribute to myocarditis.
Covid policies actually violated several precepts of the Nuremberg Code.Quote:
He compared the US pandemic response to the beginnings of the Third Reich.
Bobodeluxe said:
Why do I keep reading the title of this thread as "Aaron Rodger's Enema"?
The link is here:Cal88 said:philly1121 said:Post the link to that study. I gave you a link to the data points posted. As for c-troponin, no. This was a claim made by Buergin in 2023. Buergin N, Lopez-Ayala P, Hirsiger JR, Mueller P, Median D, Glarner N et al (2023) Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster vaccination. Eur J Heart Fail 25:18711881. This claim has been debunked and discredited. One such review of Buergin's work stated:Cal88 said:philly1121 said:
CalConor, its a bit of wasted time to try and offer some education to these people. I do it only to show how they have completely given themselves over to false narratives in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Taking the Ukraine Biden Conspiracy as an example. However, they always ask for data, its showed to them, and they don't believe it anyway. As in this example, they are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Taking one or two adverse reactions to the covid vaccine and then blow it completely out of proportion. There have been numerous studies showing that incidences of myocarditis and pericarditis are rare. There is a definite link - but its so rare it doesn't even justify the waste of bandwidth. One study is below:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M22-2274 A quick perusal of the data shows:
14 December 2020 through 31 May 2022 (persons 1839 years) and 20 August 2022 (persons 517 years), 320 potential cases of myocarditis/pericarditis were identified 1 to 98 days after 6,992,340 vaccine doses as part of primary series COVID-19 vaccination, with 224 (70%) verified. Of these, 137 (61%) occurred 0 to 7 days after vaccination; 18 were after the first dose (of 3 562 311 doses administered) and 119 were after the second dose (of 3 430 029 doses administered).
Taking the potential number, just for kicks and giggles, that's a .004% incidence rate. Now I ask - what is the big deal here? Four one-thousands of a percent incidence rate and all of us sudden this is a liberty issue?
It goes on, in all age groups, incidence per million doses 0 to 7 days after vaccination was numerically higher in male than in female persons and after dose 2, although confidence intervals were wide and overlapped across sex for some age groups. Incidence was highest for male adolescents ages 12 to 15 years and 16 to 17 years following dose 2. So, it is true, higher incidence rate for adolescent males than females. But, the incidence is low.
What's the bottom line? The study reads, "In this population-based surveillance, we found that myocarditis/pericarditis 0 to 7 days after mRNA vaccination in persons aged 5 to 39 years occurred in approximately 1 in 200 000 doses after the first dose and 1 in 30 000 doses after second dose of the primary series, and 1 in 50 000 doses after the first booster. The incidence varied markedly by age and sex, however, with a disproportionate number of cases occurring in male persons, notably among adolescents after dose 2 and first boosters.
As always with these people, they offer false narratives, conspiracy theories and blow up tweets shared by MTG or Lauren Boobert or our dear A-a-ron who offer nothing except their own opinion because they watch Youtube. The truth is, the research and clinical guidance for this vaccine are fairly wide. Studies have shown the vaccine has efficacy and safety.
There are at least two other studies that found that the rate of myocarditis after the mRNA boosters among the most vulnerable cohort (teen/young males) was around 3% (1 in 35) or nearly 1,000 times higher than the stated rate on your study.
UCSF prof Vinay Prasad goes over this:
One of the main differences between these two studies and yours is that in the Swiss and Thai studies, they have actually measured on each patient their troponin level, which is a marker for heart damage, damage that would have otherwise gone unreported.
Buergin et al. have only cited papers in support of their claim which considered hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Buergin's study only looked at hospitalized patients. The conclusion from peer review of Buergin's study was that there was no noticeable increase in pre c-troponin levels pre vaccine and post vaccine. Troponin would be elevated in individuals but not at rates that contribute to myocarditis.
As for Vinny Prasad. This guy? I remember you or some other Rander offered his name up for "bucking against the medical community" for covid response. He compared the US pandemic response to the beginnings of the Third Reich. This dude has zero understanding of public health, public health response or strategy and probably is partly responsible for impacting immunization rates in children. This guy, 88?
I'll post links to the Swiss study later tomorrow. That will give you time to fix your link above, which doesn't work. Not that it matters much, because that looks like a strawman in this topic.Troponin is released when heart tissue is damaged:Quote:
Troponin would be elevated in individuals but not at rates that contribute to myocarditis.
AI Overview
Elevated levels of troponin in the blood indicate heart muscle damage. Troponin is a protein that normally stays inside heart muscle cells, but when the cells are damaged, troponin leaks into the blood. The higher the troponin level, the greater the extent of the heart damage.
So what you're saying above is that, well, a bit of heart tissue damage is OK. It isn't.
Prashad is a UCSF prof with impeccable credentials, top of his med school class at Chicago, MPH at John Hopkins, but according to your expert opinion, "this dude has zero understanding of public health, public health response or strategy". Here are his credentials:
https://profiles.ucsf.edu/vinayak.prasadCovid policies actually violated several precepts of the Nuremberg Code.Quote:
He compared the US pandemic response to the beginnings of the Third Reich.
And your argument makes you look like a simpleton. It amounts to "I didn't feel my rights were being violated - because I agreed with the policy in question - so I guess no one's rights were violated."philly1121 said:Your WHO information is wrong. It isn't that they don't recommend adolescents to be vaccinated. What they are saying as of October 2024, is that countries must prioritize those individuals who are most at risk. They do not rule out covid vaccination. Just that prioritization must be considered.BearGoggles said:The abortion analogy does not fail. "My body my choice" is the common mantra we hear from the people most in favor of vax mandates.CalConor said:BearGoggles said:It seems that when asked hard question you dodge and instead use buzz words like "tin foil" and "conspiracy" and "anti vaxxer".CalConor said:BearGoggles said:The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
It is not an either or situation, and each vax is a marginal additional risk of myocarditis (and for that matter other complications). Forcing repeated vax shots - for people who have natural immunity from recent covid - is exposing those people to 100% unnecessary additional risks with LITERALLY zero benefit. Full stop. And that was the exact policy that was in place and you are defending.
And since you are so confident of the safety, can you please provide links to studies showing the long term effects of REPEATED covid vaccinations? Any such studies specific to teens/young adults? You can't - because they don't exist today. And they certainly didn't exist in 2020-22 when people were being told to shut up and get vaxxed.
Yes - our society has licensing requirements that are tied to the safety of the activity being licensed. But if I choose not to get a driver's license, the only thing I can't do is drive. I can take the subway/bus. I can walk. I can join the military. I can work from home. It may make certain things more difficult - but not having a driver's license doesn't LEGALLY prevent me doing anything (other than driving). So your attempted analogy fails in the context of vax mandate coercion.
Your final paragraph and conception of "choice" is just a fallacy that avoids grappling with the real issue. If a person comes to your house and says "give me your money or I'll break your leg", you would have a choice to make. So to you, no problem. After all, you have a choice. And, apparently, you'd be lying to claim otherwise (your words).
I'd be willing to bet you're pro-choice when it comes to abortion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You likely oppose laws that outlaw abortion (I do). By your logic, there should be no problem with those pro-life laws. After all, the women had a choice not to get pregnant and can give the baby up for adoption. She should just suck it up and make a choice. Right?
Through all of this back and forth, there are many points you have refused to address, hiding behind the semantics of "force" and false notions of choice.
So I'm going to ask you again - if the science on this is so clear and beyond dispute, why do the WHO and most of Europe not recommend vaxing for people under 25? Maybe the science and medical ethics are not as clear as you think.
This is all getting a little boring and off topic, so I'm going to check out. That said, I guess the question remains, if the government forced us to get vaccinated, then how do you explain the 20 percent of the population that didn't take a single dose?
Most notably, you have no explanation for the WHO and most of Europe support my position on vaxxing youth and/or why the US won't adjust its policy. You have no answer for what "choice" you'd make between giving up all your money or receiving a broken leg. Or abortion.
If 20% of the overall population can escape government coercion because of their particular life situation and strong convictions, that doesn't mean we just ignore the substantial percentage who unquestionably were coerced. You're making a strange - and morally bankrupt - argument that we should just ignore an injustice because it only affects "some" people. Approximately 14% of the US population is black - so should we just ignore violations of their civil rights? Or what about Jews - only 2.5% - we just ignore antisemitism?
I'm not addressing the WHO and European positions because it has no bearing to my argument, which is only that Americans weren't forced to get vaccinated. I'm not addressing your abortion questions because it's a faulty analogy. And I don't see asking people to take a safe vaccine during a global pandemic as a violation of civil rights. 7 million people died of COVID. I guess you think more should die because you and your Ayn Rand fanclub don't feel like you need to contribute to the greater good? What about their civil rights? Should we just ignore them?
The WHO/Europe argument does have direct bearing because it shows the majority thinking is that repeated vaccination of people under 25 - the people you think should have been forced to get vaxxed multiple times - is not recommended. That is the "greater good" you claim, but it is not supported by most "scientists."
Your appeal to the "greater good" sounds great . . . but who gets to decide the greater good and on what basis? You reject any cost benefit analysis because . . . lots of people died from covid. And you fail to recognize that vaxxed people still get covid and therefore still spread it, so the benefits you claim are even more suspect.
Lots of people - particularly old people and those that are immunocompromised - die from influenza. Why isn't the flu shot mandated? People get cancer (and die) from HPV. Why isn't the HPV vax mandated?
The US and many other "Western" countries have declining birth rates. It would be for the greater good to reverse that as declining population creates a lot of socioeconomic problems. So should we go full Handmaids Tale and force women to become breeders? After all, the greater good and all.
You have provided no overriding principle for when an individual should be forced to comply for the "greater good." Or when they shouldn't. That is what makes your position both untenable and tyrannical.
The "rugged individualism" argument is an often cited one. And its probably the reason things are so dysfunctional in this country than in others. Its interesting that guys like 34 and 88 often decry Euro politics - but seem to emulate how the WHO handles public health. lol The greater good is quite reasonably to vaccinate enough people so that herd immunity is established. THIS is how you establish herd immunity. Not through the uncontrolled transmission of this virus.
The declining birthrate is NOT a Western phenomenon. This is happening globally. It is more noticeable in Western countries but declines in birthrate are also happening in developing countries.
"to comply for the greater good" this is so absurd. When libertarians and Ayn Rander's get a health code violation - they scream tyranny. But where is it? Even during the height of covid - I was free to go up and down Shaw Ave in Fresno. Heck, I even went to Vegas in December 2020. Had a great time. Tables were open. Drinks were consumed. My first time at Hells Kitchen. It was brilliant. But did I feel my liberties were being intruded upon? My rights? Did I feel tyranny? Nope. What i did get was an awesome suite at the Mirage and a half full casino that was super clean. What's the problem?
People like Goggles whine and complain that their rights are being violated when they really aren't. And if there is any new mandate from the government - oh, well - fascism! Perhaps they can look at mandates for car insurance. Drivers licenses. Business licenses. Age restrictions for cigarette purchases. Minimum age for alcohol. The right to vote. All that "governmental regulation" that we kinda take for granted. No one is trampling on your rights Goggles. Your liberties are intact. Even if you had to wear a mask. Your argument makes you look like a delicate swan.
It ain't the hall of fame and it ain't the waiver wire.bearister said:
Will Aaron Rodgers' legacy be tainted* by the Jets' failure? - ESPN
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/43259483/new-york-jets-aaron-rodgers-hall-fame-legacy
*What's taint?
Maybe you ought to read below the table you saw. Prioritization is the factor:BearGoggles said:And your argument makes you look like a simpleton. It amounts to "I didn't feel my rights were being violated - because I agreed with the policy in question - so I guess no one's rights were violated."philly1121 said:Your WHO information is wrong. It isn't that they don't recommend adolescents to be vaccinated. What they are saying as of October 2024, is that countries must prioritize those individuals who are most at risk. They do not rule out covid vaccination. Just that prioritization must be considered.BearGoggles said:The abortion analogy does not fail. "My body my choice" is the common mantra we hear from the people most in favor of vax mandates.CalConor said:BearGoggles said:It seems that when asked hard question you dodge and instead use buzz words like "tin foil" and "conspiracy" and "anti vaxxer".CalConor said:BearGoggles said:The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
It is not an either or situation, and each vax is a marginal additional risk of myocarditis (and for that matter other complications). Forcing repeated vax shots - for people who have natural immunity from recent covid - is exposing those people to 100% unnecessary additional risks with LITERALLY zero benefit. Full stop. And that was the exact policy that was in place and you are defending.
And since you are so confident of the safety, can you please provide links to studies showing the long term effects of REPEATED covid vaccinations? Any such studies specific to teens/young adults? You can't - because they don't exist today. And they certainly didn't exist in 2020-22 when people were being told to shut up and get vaxxed.
Yes - our society has licensing requirements that are tied to the safety of the activity being licensed. But if I choose not to get a driver's license, the only thing I can't do is drive. I can take the subway/bus. I can walk. I can join the military. I can work from home. It may make certain things more difficult - but not having a driver's license doesn't LEGALLY prevent me doing anything (other than driving). So your attempted analogy fails in the context of vax mandate coercion.
Your final paragraph and conception of "choice" is just a fallacy that avoids grappling with the real issue. If a person comes to your house and says "give me your money or I'll break your leg", you would have a choice to make. So to you, no problem. After all, you have a choice. And, apparently, you'd be lying to claim otherwise (your words).
I'd be willing to bet you're pro-choice when it comes to abortion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You likely oppose laws that outlaw abortion (I do). By your logic, there should be no problem with those pro-life laws. After all, the women had a choice not to get pregnant and can give the baby up for adoption. She should just suck it up and make a choice. Right?
Through all of this back and forth, there are many points you have refused to address, hiding behind the semantics of "force" and false notions of choice.
So I'm going to ask you again - if the science on this is so clear and beyond dispute, why do the WHO and most of Europe not recommend vaxing for people under 25? Maybe the science and medical ethics are not as clear as you think.
This is all getting a little boring and off topic, so I'm going to check out. That said, I guess the question remains, if the government forced us to get vaccinated, then how do you explain the 20 percent of the population that didn't take a single dose?
Most notably, you have no explanation for the WHO and most of Europe support my position on vaxxing youth and/or why the US won't adjust its policy. You have no answer for what "choice" you'd make between giving up all your money or receiving a broken leg. Or abortion.
If 20% of the overall population can escape government coercion because of their particular life situation and strong convictions, that doesn't mean we just ignore the substantial percentage who unquestionably were coerced. You're making a strange - and morally bankrupt - argument that we should just ignore an injustice because it only affects "some" people. Approximately 14% of the US population is black - so should we just ignore violations of their civil rights? Or what about Jews - only 2.5% - we just ignore antisemitism?
I'm not addressing the WHO and European positions because it has no bearing to my argument, which is only that Americans weren't forced to get vaccinated. I'm not addressing your abortion questions because it's a faulty analogy. And I don't see asking people to take a safe vaccine during a global pandemic as a violation of civil rights. 7 million people died of COVID. I guess you think more should die because you and your Ayn Rand fanclub don't feel like you need to contribute to the greater good? What about their civil rights? Should we just ignore them?
The WHO/Europe argument does have direct bearing because it shows the majority thinking is that repeated vaccination of people under 25 - the people you think should have been forced to get vaxxed multiple times - is not recommended. That is the "greater good" you claim, but it is not supported by most "scientists."
Your appeal to the "greater good" sounds great . . . but who gets to decide the greater good and on what basis? You reject any cost benefit analysis because . . . lots of people died from covid. And you fail to recognize that vaxxed people still get covid and therefore still spread it, so the benefits you claim are even more suspect.
Lots of people - particularly old people and those that are immunocompromised - die from influenza. Why isn't the flu shot mandated? People get cancer (and die) from HPV. Why isn't the HPV vax mandated?
The US and many other "Western" countries have declining birth rates. It would be for the greater good to reverse that as declining population creates a lot of socioeconomic problems. So should we go full Handmaids Tale and force women to become breeders? After all, the greater good and all.
You have provided no overriding principle for when an individual should be forced to comply for the "greater good." Or when they shouldn't. That is what makes your position both untenable and tyrannical.
The "rugged individualism" argument is an often cited one. And its probably the reason things are so dysfunctional in this country than in others. Its interesting that guys like 34 and 88 often decry Euro politics - but seem to emulate how the WHO handles public health. lol The greater good is quite reasonably to vaccinate enough people so that herd immunity is established. THIS is how you establish herd immunity. Not through the uncontrolled transmission of this virus.
The declining birthrate is NOT a Western phenomenon. This is happening globally. It is more noticeable in Western countries but declines in birthrate are also happening in developing countries.
"to comply for the greater good" this is so absurd. When libertarians and Ayn Rander's get a health code violation - they scream tyranny. But where is it? Even during the height of covid - I was free to go up and down Shaw Ave in Fresno. Heck, I even went to Vegas in December 2020. Had a great time. Tables were open. Drinks were consumed. My first time at Hells Kitchen. It was brilliant. But did I feel my liberties were being intruded upon? My rights? Did I feel tyranny? Nope. What i did get was an awesome suite at the Mirage and a half full casino that was super clean. What's the problem?
People like Goggles whine and complain that their rights are being violated when they really aren't. And if there is any new mandate from the government - oh, well - fascism! Perhaps they can look at mandates for car insurance. Drivers licenses. Business licenses. Age restrictions for cigarette purchases. Minimum age for alcohol. The right to vote. All that "governmental regulation" that we kinda take for granted. No one is trampling on your rights Goggles. Your liberties are intact. Even if you had to wear a mask. Your argument makes you look like a delicate swan.
Look at your posts - you engage in an awful lot of name calling and demagoguing. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "tin foiler", "delicate swan" or the like. That is a sign of a person who is both close minded and unable to respond to actual arguments.
The fact that you seemingly make no distinction between an unnecessary forced vaccination/medical procedure and customary licensing requirements/regulations - all while refusing to engage with the abortion choice analogy - also reveals a lot.
And you're just wrong about the WHO recommendations which very clearly state revaccinations are not recommended children or adolecents or healthy adults (under 50). No reference to "prioritization".
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice
Grrrrah76 said:
It started that way and then it went off the rails. A bit surprised that some members didn't turn it into a fire Wilcox post.
This is just more "I didn't feel my rights were being violated - because I agreed with the policy in question - so I guess no one's rights were violated."philly1121 said:Maybe you ought to read below the table you saw. Prioritization is the factor:BearGoggles said:And your argument makes you look like a simpleton. It amounts to "I didn't feel my rights were being violated - because I agreed with the policy in question - so I guess no one's rights were violated."philly1121 said:Your WHO information is wrong. It isn't that they don't recommend adolescents to be vaccinated. What they are saying as of October 2024, is that countries must prioritize those individuals who are most at risk. They do not rule out covid vaccination. Just that prioritization must be considered.BearGoggles said:The abortion analogy does not fail. "My body my choice" is the common mantra we hear from the people most in favor of vax mandates.CalConor said:BearGoggles said:It seems that when asked hard question you dodge and instead use buzz words like "tin foil" and "conspiracy" and "anti vaxxer".CalConor said:BearGoggles said:The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
It is not an either or situation, and each vax is a marginal additional risk of myocarditis (and for that matter other complications). Forcing repeated vax shots - for people who have natural immunity from recent covid - is exposing those people to 100% unnecessary additional risks with LITERALLY zero benefit. Full stop. And that was the exact policy that was in place and you are defending.
And since you are so confident of the safety, can you please provide links to studies showing the long term effects of REPEATED covid vaccinations? Any such studies specific to teens/young adults? You can't - because they don't exist today. And they certainly didn't exist in 2020-22 when people were being told to shut up and get vaxxed.
Yes - our society has licensing requirements that are tied to the safety of the activity being licensed. But if I choose not to get a driver's license, the only thing I can't do is drive. I can take the subway/bus. I can walk. I can join the military. I can work from home. It may make certain things more difficult - but not having a driver's license doesn't LEGALLY prevent me doing anything (other than driving). So your attempted analogy fails in the context of vax mandate coercion.
Your final paragraph and conception of "choice" is just a fallacy that avoids grappling with the real issue. If a person comes to your house and says "give me your money or I'll break your leg", you would have a choice to make. So to you, no problem. After all, you have a choice. And, apparently, you'd be lying to claim otherwise (your words).
I'd be willing to bet you're pro-choice when it comes to abortion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You likely oppose laws that outlaw abortion (I do). By your logic, there should be no problem with those pro-life laws. After all, the women had a choice not to get pregnant and can give the baby up for adoption. She should just suck it up and make a choice. Right?
Through all of this back and forth, there are many points you have refused to address, hiding behind the semantics of "force" and false notions of choice.
So I'm going to ask you again - if the science on this is so clear and beyond dispute, why do the WHO and most of Europe not recommend vaxing for people under 25? Maybe the science and medical ethics are not as clear as you think.
This is all getting a little boring and off topic, so I'm going to check out. That said, I guess the question remains, if the government forced us to get vaccinated, then how do you explain the 20 percent of the population that didn't take a single dose?
Most notably, you have no explanation for the WHO and most of Europe support my position on vaxxing youth and/or why the US won't adjust its policy. You have no answer for what "choice" you'd make between giving up all your money or receiving a broken leg. Or abortion.
If 20% of the overall population can escape government coercion because of their particular life situation and strong convictions, that doesn't mean we just ignore the substantial percentage who unquestionably were coerced. You're making a strange - and morally bankrupt - argument that we should just ignore an injustice because it only affects "some" people. Approximately 14% of the US population is black - so should we just ignore violations of their civil rights? Or what about Jews - only 2.5% - we just ignore antisemitism?
I'm not addressing the WHO and European positions because it has no bearing to my argument, which is only that Americans weren't forced to get vaccinated. I'm not addressing your abortion questions because it's a faulty analogy. And I don't see asking people to take a safe vaccine during a global pandemic as a violation of civil rights. 7 million people died of COVID. I guess you think more should die because you and your Ayn Rand fanclub don't feel like you need to contribute to the greater good? What about their civil rights? Should we just ignore them?
The WHO/Europe argument does have direct bearing because it shows the majority thinking is that repeated vaccination of people under 25 - the people you think should have been forced to get vaxxed multiple times - is not recommended. That is the "greater good" you claim, but it is not supported by most "scientists."
Your appeal to the "greater good" sounds great . . . but who gets to decide the greater good and on what basis? You reject any cost benefit analysis because . . . lots of people died from covid. And you fail to recognize that vaxxed people still get covid and therefore still spread it, so the benefits you claim are even more suspect.
Lots of people - particularly old people and those that are immunocompromised - die from influenza. Why isn't the flu shot mandated? People get cancer (and die) from HPV. Why isn't the HPV vax mandated?
The US and many other "Western" countries have declining birth rates. It would be for the greater good to reverse that as declining population creates a lot of socioeconomic problems. So should we go full Handmaids Tale and force women to become breeders? After all, the greater good and all.
You have provided no overriding principle for when an individual should be forced to comply for the "greater good." Or when they shouldn't. That is what makes your position both untenable and tyrannical.
The "rugged individualism" argument is an often cited one. And its probably the reason things are so dysfunctional in this country than in others. Its interesting that guys like 34 and 88 often decry Euro politics - but seem to emulate how the WHO handles public health. lol The greater good is quite reasonably to vaccinate enough people so that herd immunity is established. THIS is how you establish herd immunity. Not through the uncontrolled transmission of this virus.
The declining birthrate is NOT a Western phenomenon. This is happening globally. It is more noticeable in Western countries but declines in birthrate are also happening in developing countries.
"to comply for the greater good" this is so absurd. When libertarians and Ayn Rander's get a health code violation - they scream tyranny. But where is it? Even during the height of covid - I was free to go up and down Shaw Ave in Fresno. Heck, I even went to Vegas in December 2020. Had a great time. Tables were open. Drinks were consumed. My first time at Hells Kitchen. It was brilliant. But did I feel my liberties were being intruded upon? My rights? Did I feel tyranny? Nope. What i did get was an awesome suite at the Mirage and a half full casino that was super clean. What's the problem?
People like Goggles whine and complain that their rights are being violated when they really aren't. And if there is any new mandate from the government - oh, well - fascism! Perhaps they can look at mandates for car insurance. Drivers licenses. Business licenses. Age restrictions for cigarette purchases. Minimum age for alcohol. The right to vote. All that "governmental regulation" that we kinda take for granted. No one is trampling on your rights Goggles. Your liberties are intact. Even if you had to wear a mask. Your argument makes you look like a delicate swan.
Look at your posts - you engage in an awful lot of name calling and demagoguing. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "tin foiler", "delicate swan" or the like. That is a sign of a person who is both close minded and unable to respond to actual arguments.
The fact that you seemingly make no distinction between an unnecessary forced vaccination/medical procedure and customary licensing requirements/regulations - all while refusing to engage with the abortion choice analogy - also reveals a lot.
And you're just wrong about the WHO recommendations which very clearly state revaccinations are not recommended children or adolecents or healthy adults (under 50). No reference to "prioritization".
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice
Healthy children and adolescents ages 6 months to 17 years belong to the low-priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccinating them post-pandemic has limited public health impact. However, countries can consider vaccinating this group based on disease burden, cost-effectiveness, programmatic factors and other public health priorities.
Children and adolescents at higher risk of severe COVID-19 (those who are immunocompromised, with severe obesity or with comorbidities) and never received COVID-19 vaccination should get one dose.
Here's the link: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-vaccines Scroll down and hit the + button - Can children and asolescents get vaccinated against covid-19?
Tell me Goggles, how were your liberties infringed? Tell us. Tell us how you felt the weight of the beginnings of the Third Reich being pressed upon you. And no, it is not hyperbole to repeat something like that when another poster on here thinks pandemic regulations bordered on Nazi fascism.
As far as forced vaccinations - do we not live in a free market? If a hospital mandates that nurses must take the vaccine for the purposes of containment - that nurse has a choice. Let me repeat - a choice. They can take the jab or they can leave. Is that not as free market as it gets? But let's get real here, hospital workers already had vaccine mandates. Residential care workers have vaccine mandates.
further, there was no database or vaccine passport created which would have tracked who took the jab. So, how could taking the jab be compulsory? For private sector people? Had to be 100 or more employees OR undergo weekly testing. And in every instance both federal and private, there were medical and religious exemptions to any vax mandate.
I did not make the abortion argument so I don't feel like I have to respond to that analogy.
As far as my responses - its funny because one doesn't need to look beyond the Ukraine thread to see how truth and facts are ignored. Several times I have offered 34, 003, 88 to say, "job done. Yep. The Ukraine/Hunter Biden conspiracy was all a lie, but it worked and we got our guy elected". Nope. They can't bring themselves to do it.
And in terms of this thread, though Rodgers is beloved by many (including me) for his contributions to Cal and our football legacy, he is absurdly uninformed about the world. Does anyone really want this guy in front of a camera on ABC talking about 9/11? Sunscreen? Does anyone even want him on Newsmax? lol More to the point, it is also quite absurd when people talk about vaccine mandates like they were the second coming of fascism. Or that their liberties were violated.
One last bit of data. The US military required vaccination. The number of military personnel that refused numbered around 17,000. That's about .8% of the total military personnel. Did you know that only around 8,000 of those were actually discharged? And of those 8,000 - only 50 sought to rejoin. Republicans argued that vaccine mandates would hurt recruitment. Nope. Defense Department surpassed their recruitment and retention goals in the first 10 months of 2023.
I'm trying to find the harm to individual liberties here.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Where is the harm?BearGoggles said:This is just more "I didn't feel my rights were being violated - because I agreed with the policy in question - so I guess no one's rights were violated."philly1121 said:Maybe you ought to read below the table you saw. Prioritization is the factor:BearGoggles said:And your argument makes you look like a simpleton. It amounts to "I didn't feel my rights were being violated - because I agreed with the policy in question - so I guess no one's rights were violated."philly1121 said:Your WHO information is wrong. It isn't that they don't recommend adolescents to be vaccinated. What they are saying as of October 2024, is that countries must prioritize those individuals who are most at risk. They do not rule out covid vaccination. Just that prioritization must be considered.BearGoggles said:The abortion analogy does not fail. "My body my choice" is the common mantra we hear from the people most in favor of vax mandates.CalConor said:BearGoggles said:It seems that when asked hard question you dodge and instead use buzz words like "tin foil" and "conspiracy" and "anti vaxxer".CalConor said:BearGoggles said:The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
It is not an either or situation, and each vax is a marginal additional risk of myocarditis (and for that matter other complications). Forcing repeated vax shots - for people who have natural immunity from recent covid - is exposing those people to 100% unnecessary additional risks with LITERALLY zero benefit. Full stop. And that was the exact policy that was in place and you are defending.
And since you are so confident of the safety, can you please provide links to studies showing the long term effects of REPEATED covid vaccinations? Any such studies specific to teens/young adults? You can't - because they don't exist today. And they certainly didn't exist in 2020-22 when people were being told to shut up and get vaxxed.
Yes - our society has licensing requirements that are tied to the safety of the activity being licensed. But if I choose not to get a driver's license, the only thing I can't do is drive. I can take the subway/bus. I can walk. I can join the military. I can work from home. It may make certain things more difficult - but not having a driver's license doesn't LEGALLY prevent me doing anything (other than driving). So your attempted analogy fails in the context of vax mandate coercion.
Your final paragraph and conception of "choice" is just a fallacy that avoids grappling with the real issue. If a person comes to your house and says "give me your money or I'll break your leg", you would have a choice to make. So to you, no problem. After all, you have a choice. And, apparently, you'd be lying to claim otherwise (your words).
I'd be willing to bet you're pro-choice when it comes to abortion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You likely oppose laws that outlaw abortion (I do). By your logic, there should be no problem with those pro-life laws. After all, the women had a choice not to get pregnant and can give the baby up for adoption. She should just suck it up and make a choice. Right?
Through all of this back and forth, there are many points you have refused to address, hiding behind the semantics of "force" and false notions of choice.
So I'm going to ask you again - if the science on this is so clear and beyond dispute, why do the WHO and most of Europe not recommend vaxing for people under 25? Maybe the science and medical ethics are not as clear as you think.
This is all getting a little boring and off topic, so I'm going to check out. That said, I guess the question remains, if the government forced us to get vaccinated, then how do you explain the 20 percent of the population that didn't take a single dose?
Most notably, you have no explanation for the WHO and most of Europe support my position on vaxxing youth and/or why the US won't adjust its policy. You have no answer for what "choice" you'd make between giving up all your money or receiving a broken leg. Or abortion.
If 20% of the overall population can escape government coercion because of their particular life situation and strong convictions, that doesn't mean we just ignore the substantial percentage who unquestionably were coerced. You're making a strange - and morally bankrupt - argument that we should just ignore an injustice because it only affects "some" people. Approximately 14% of the US population is black - so should we just ignore violations of their civil rights? Or what about Jews - only 2.5% - we just ignore antisemitism?
I'm not addressing the WHO and European positions because it has no bearing to my argument, which is only that Americans weren't forced to get vaccinated. I'm not addressing your abortion questions because it's a faulty analogy. And I don't see asking people to take a safe vaccine during a global pandemic as a violation of civil rights. 7 million people died of COVID. I guess you think more should die because you and your Ayn Rand fanclub don't feel like you need to contribute to the greater good? What about their civil rights? Should we just ignore them?
The WHO/Europe argument does have direct bearing because it shows the majority thinking is that repeated vaccination of people under 25 - the people you think should have been forced to get vaxxed multiple times - is not recommended. That is the "greater good" you claim, but it is not supported by most "scientists."
Your appeal to the "greater good" sounds great . . . but who gets to decide the greater good and on what basis? You reject any cost benefit analysis because . . . lots of people died from covid. And you fail to recognize that vaxxed people still get covid and therefore still spread it, so the benefits you claim are even more suspect.
Lots of people - particularly old people and those that are immunocompromised - die from influenza. Why isn't the flu shot mandated? People get cancer (and die) from HPV. Why isn't the HPV vax mandated?
The US and many other "Western" countries have declining birth rates. It would be for the greater good to reverse that as declining population creates a lot of socioeconomic problems. So should we go full Handmaids Tale and force women to become breeders? After all, the greater good and all.
You have provided no overriding principle for when an individual should be forced to comply for the "greater good." Or when they shouldn't. That is what makes your position both untenable and tyrannical.
The "rugged individualism" argument is an often cited one. And its probably the reason things are so dysfunctional in this country than in others. Its interesting that guys like 34 and 88 often decry Euro politics - but seem to emulate how the WHO handles public health. lol The greater good is quite reasonably to vaccinate enough people so that herd immunity is established. THIS is how you establish herd immunity. Not through the uncontrolled transmission of this virus.
The declining birthrate is NOT a Western phenomenon. This is happening globally. It is more noticeable in Western countries but declines in birthrate are also happening in developing countries.
"to comply for the greater good" this is so absurd. When libertarians and Ayn Rander's get a health code violation - they scream tyranny. But where is it? Even during the height of covid - I was free to go up and down Shaw Ave in Fresno. Heck, I even went to Vegas in December 2020. Had a great time. Tables were open. Drinks were consumed. My first time at Hells Kitchen. It was brilliant. But did I feel my liberties were being intruded upon? My rights? Did I feel tyranny? Nope. What i did get was an awesome suite at the Mirage and a half full casino that was super clean. What's the problem?
People like Goggles whine and complain that their rights are being violated when they really aren't. And if there is any new mandate from the government - oh, well - fascism! Perhaps they can look at mandates for car insurance. Drivers licenses. Business licenses. Age restrictions for cigarette purchases. Minimum age for alcohol. The right to vote. All that "governmental regulation" that we kinda take for granted. No one is trampling on your rights Goggles. Your liberties are intact. Even if you had to wear a mask. Your argument makes you look like a delicate swan.
Look at your posts - you engage in an awful lot of name calling and demagoguing. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "tin foiler", "delicate swan" or the like. That is a sign of a person who is both close minded and unable to respond to actual arguments.
The fact that you seemingly make no distinction between an unnecessary forced vaccination/medical procedure and customary licensing requirements/regulations - all while refusing to engage with the abortion choice analogy - also reveals a lot.
And you're just wrong about the WHO recommendations which very clearly state revaccinations are not recommended children or adolecents or healthy adults (under 50). No reference to "prioritization".
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice
Healthy children and adolescents ages 6 months to 17 years belong to the low-priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccinating them post-pandemic has limited public health impact. However, countries can consider vaccinating this group based on disease burden, cost-effectiveness, programmatic factors and other public health priorities.
Children and adolescents at higher risk of severe COVID-19 (those who are immunocompromised, with severe obesity or with comorbidities) and never received COVID-19 vaccination should get one dose.
Here's the link: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-vaccines Scroll down and hit the + button - Can children and asolescents get vaccinated against covid-19?
Tell me Goggles, how were your liberties infringed? Tell us. Tell us how you felt the weight of the beginnings of the Third Reich being pressed upon you. And no, it is not hyperbole to repeat something like that when another poster on here thinks pandemic regulations bordered on Nazi fascism.
As far as forced vaccinations - do we not live in a free market? If a hospital mandates that nurses must take the vaccine for the purposes of containment - that nurse has a choice. Let me repeat - a choice. They can take the jab or they can leave. Is that not as free market as it gets? But let's get real here, hospital workers already had vaccine mandates. Residential care workers have vaccine mandates.
further, there was no database or vaccine passport created which would have tracked who took the jab. So, how could taking the jab be compulsory? For private sector people? Had to be 100 or more employees OR undergo weekly testing. And in every instance both federal and private, there were medical and religious exemptions to any vax mandate.
I did not make the abortion argument so I don't feel like I have to respond to that analogy.
As far as my responses - its funny because one doesn't need to look beyond the Ukraine thread to see how truth and facts are ignored. Several times I have offered 34, 003, 88 to say, "job done. Yep. The Ukraine/Hunter Biden conspiracy was all a lie, but it worked and we got our guy elected". Nope. They can't bring themselves to do it.
And in terms of this thread, though Rodgers is beloved by many (including me) for his contributions to Cal and our football legacy, he is absurdly uninformed about the world. Does anyone really want this guy in front of a camera on ABC talking about 9/11? Sunscreen? Does anyone even want him on Newsmax? lol More to the point, it is also quite absurd when people talk about vaccine mandates like they were the second coming of fascism. Or that their liberties were violated.
One last bit of data. The US military required vaccination. The number of military personnel that refused numbered around 17,000. That's about .8% of the total military personnel. Did you know that only around 8,000 of those were actually discharged? And of those 8,000 - only 50 sought to rejoin. Republicans argued that vaccine mandates would hurt recruitment. Nope. Defense Department surpassed their recruitment and retention goals in the first 10 months of 2023.
I'm trying to find the harm to individual liberties here.
In terms of the bolded, are you kidding? We all were carrying around paper or digital vaccine cards. You literally could not attend Cal (or other schools) without one, not to mention other forms of commerce/employment.
In terms of your final sentence, you're not finding harm because you simply dismiss any harm. You acknowledge that people lost their jobs and were involuntarily discharged from military service (in many cases prematurely ending long and distinguished careers), yet you inexplicably see "no harm." If you were wanting to make an honest argument, you'd acknowledge the harm and then explain why it was justified/required. But you can't even do that.
And, in that regard, you refuse to engage with the abortion analogy precisely because it will expose your hypocrisy - and really the hypocrisy of the entire left vax mandate militia who are very pro-choice when it comes to abortion. It seem you like government regulation/coercion when it suits you and oppose it when it doesn't (i.e., abortion restrictions) - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Regarding Rodgers, my original point was simply that he should be appreciated for his contributions to Cal and on the football field - nothing more. I wouldn't look to him or any other athlete for political or medical advise.
You're convincing nobody of anything with your inane drivel.philly1121 said:Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Where is the harm?BearGoggles said:This is just more "I didn't feel my rights were being violated - because I agreed with the policy in question - so I guess no one's rights were violated."philly1121 said:Maybe you ought to read below the table you saw. Prioritization is the factor:BearGoggles said:And your argument makes you look like a simpleton. It amounts to "I didn't feel my rights were being violated - because I agreed with the policy in question - so I guess no one's rights were violated."philly1121 said:Your WHO information is wrong. It isn't that they don't recommend adolescents to be vaccinated. What they are saying as of October 2024, is that countries must prioritize those individuals who are most at risk. They do not rule out covid vaccination. Just that prioritization must be considered.BearGoggles said:The abortion analogy does not fail. "My body my choice" is the common mantra we hear from the people most in favor of vax mandates.CalConor said:BearGoggles said:It seems that when asked hard question you dodge and instead use buzz words like "tin foil" and "conspiracy" and "anti vaxxer".CalConor said:BearGoggles said:The "research" you're referencing without citation appears to be from 2022 and I believe subsequent studies are not in full agreement. It also doesn't include people 18-25. But beyond that, your point might have value if there was evidence that taking the vax prevents a person from getting covid. But it doesn't (even though that is what we were originally falsely told with the same type of certainty you display in most of your thinking).CalConor said:BearGoggles said:You have interesting notions of liberty. In your world, if the government says do XXX or you'll lose your job or education (and by extension your home and entire life's work), with corresponding horrific impacts to your family, then its is not force. Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping fully endorse your message!CalConor said:BearGoggles said:People in the military. Doctors and other health professionals. Teachers. Anyone who wanted to get on a plane or engage in many other acts of commerce. Lots of other people.oski003 said:CalConor said:BearGoggles said:There is a poetic beauty in a person accusing others of parroting conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda and then asserting (with complete moral certitude) that no one was forced to get a vax.NVBear78 said:CalConor said:bear2034 said:The vax nazis were vax deniers in 2020 but politics eventually won them over.CalConor said:
Forced injections? Hey Alex Jones, who was forcing you or anyone else to get injections?
So... that non sequitur is meant to convey that nobody actually forced you or anyone else to get a vaccine? Cool. Thanks.
Nobody but the Biden Administration
Who was forced to get the vax?
Students.
I'm waiting for CalConor to tell us these people weren't "forced" because the consequence was not jail or a similar bad faith argument. What other good faith explanation is there for disputing this happened? Baffling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States#List_of_current_mandates
Words mean things, genius. Take off your tinfoil hat, go to a bookstore and pick up a dictionary. Scroll to the F section and read the definition of forced. Nobody forced you or anyone else to take the vaccine. Sure, being an antivaxxer during a global pandemic requires you to make some tough choices, but are you guys all about personal responsibility?
With Donald Trump taking office, do you want him operating with that type of administrative power? For example in the context of deportations? What if he adopts an emergency order saying it is illegal to buy or sell food or housing or medical services to illegal immigrants with penalties on the seller? The penalty to violators would be a fine - not jail - as well as making them ineligible for banking, medical services, government benefits, travel, etc. Are you ok with that? After all, the people have a choice - they can let illegal immigrants die.
The power of our government to coerce (yes "force") is overwhelming and all of us should be very leery of that. it called being a civil libertarian - which used to be the liberal way to think.
And you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your accusing me of wearing a tinfoil hat and being an "antivaxxer". I've explained that I'm not anti-vax and that I have personally taken the vax, including recently. At your request, I've provided evidence as to why the vax is bad for teens and young adults - which evidence you ignored while accusing me of being a tinfoiler.
Couple of things up front: First, Research indicates that the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than after vaccination. A study from Yale Medicine found that in males aged 12 to 17, the risk of myocarditis post-infection was 64.9 per 100,000, compared to 35.9 per 100,000 following vaccination. So, sorry, but not getting the vax would have put your son at higher risk.
Second, would you say the government forces you to get a drivers license? Because not having a license means you can't drive, which means you can't travel and will likely lose your job ( and by extension your home and entire life's work)?
Third, as I've said, I didn't love getting the vaccine. I wish there was more time to study it, but at the end of the day I, along with more than 5 billion other people, put our faith in the medical community. We were in a global pandemic that killed millions upon millions of people. At the time, the medical community and our leaders thought this was the best way to combat the pandemic. History will prove them right or wrong, but that's what we were working with at the time. If you felt so strongly that the vaccine was unsafe, you could have joined the 20 percent of the population who refused to take it. There were consequences for that choice, of course, but you're lying if you say you didn't have a choice.
It is not an either or situation, and each vax is a marginal additional risk of myocarditis (and for that matter other complications). Forcing repeated vax shots - for people who have natural immunity from recent covid - is exposing those people to 100% unnecessary additional risks with LITERALLY zero benefit. Full stop. And that was the exact policy that was in place and you are defending.
And since you are so confident of the safety, can you please provide links to studies showing the long term effects of REPEATED covid vaccinations? Any such studies specific to teens/young adults? You can't - because they don't exist today. And they certainly didn't exist in 2020-22 when people were being told to shut up and get vaxxed.
Yes - our society has licensing requirements that are tied to the safety of the activity being licensed. But if I choose not to get a driver's license, the only thing I can't do is drive. I can take the subway/bus. I can walk. I can join the military. I can work from home. It may make certain things more difficult - but not having a driver's license doesn't LEGALLY prevent me doing anything (other than driving). So your attempted analogy fails in the context of vax mandate coercion.
Your final paragraph and conception of "choice" is just a fallacy that avoids grappling with the real issue. If a person comes to your house and says "give me your money or I'll break your leg", you would have a choice to make. So to you, no problem. After all, you have a choice. And, apparently, you'd be lying to claim otherwise (your words).
I'd be willing to bet you're pro-choice when it comes to abortion (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You likely oppose laws that outlaw abortion (I do). By your logic, there should be no problem with those pro-life laws. After all, the women had a choice not to get pregnant and can give the baby up for adoption. She should just suck it up and make a choice. Right?
Through all of this back and forth, there are many points you have refused to address, hiding behind the semantics of "force" and false notions of choice.
So I'm going to ask you again - if the science on this is so clear and beyond dispute, why do the WHO and most of Europe not recommend vaxing for people under 25? Maybe the science and medical ethics are not as clear as you think.
This is all getting a little boring and off topic, so I'm going to check out. That said, I guess the question remains, if the government forced us to get vaccinated, then how do you explain the 20 percent of the population that didn't take a single dose?
Most notably, you have no explanation for the WHO and most of Europe support my position on vaxxing youth and/or why the US won't adjust its policy. You have no answer for what "choice" you'd make between giving up all your money or receiving a broken leg. Or abortion.
If 20% of the overall population can escape government coercion because of their particular life situation and strong convictions, that doesn't mean we just ignore the substantial percentage who unquestionably were coerced. You're making a strange - and morally bankrupt - argument that we should just ignore an injustice because it only affects "some" people. Approximately 14% of the US population is black - so should we just ignore violations of their civil rights? Or what about Jews - only 2.5% - we just ignore antisemitism?
I'm not addressing the WHO and European positions because it has no bearing to my argument, which is only that Americans weren't forced to get vaccinated. I'm not addressing your abortion questions because it's a faulty analogy. And I don't see asking people to take a safe vaccine during a global pandemic as a violation of civil rights. 7 million people died of COVID. I guess you think more should die because you and your Ayn Rand fanclub don't feel like you need to contribute to the greater good? What about their civil rights? Should we just ignore them?
The WHO/Europe argument does have direct bearing because it shows the majority thinking is that repeated vaccination of people under 25 - the people you think should have been forced to get vaxxed multiple times - is not recommended. That is the "greater good" you claim, but it is not supported by most "scientists."
Your appeal to the "greater good" sounds great . . . but who gets to decide the greater good and on what basis? You reject any cost benefit analysis because . . . lots of people died from covid. And you fail to recognize that vaxxed people still get covid and therefore still spread it, so the benefits you claim are even more suspect.
Lots of people - particularly old people and those that are immunocompromised - die from influenza. Why isn't the flu shot mandated? People get cancer (and die) from HPV. Why isn't the HPV vax mandated?
The US and many other "Western" countries have declining birth rates. It would be for the greater good to reverse that as declining population creates a lot of socioeconomic problems. So should we go full Handmaids Tale and force women to become breeders? After all, the greater good and all.
You have provided no overriding principle for when an individual should be forced to comply for the "greater good." Or when they shouldn't. That is what makes your position both untenable and tyrannical.
The "rugged individualism" argument is an often cited one. And its probably the reason things are so dysfunctional in this country than in others. Its interesting that guys like 34 and 88 often decry Euro politics - but seem to emulate how the WHO handles public health. lol The greater good is quite reasonably to vaccinate enough people so that herd immunity is established. THIS is how you establish herd immunity. Not through the uncontrolled transmission of this virus.
The declining birthrate is NOT a Western phenomenon. This is happening globally. It is more noticeable in Western countries but declines in birthrate are also happening in developing countries.
"to comply for the greater good" this is so absurd. When libertarians and Ayn Rander's get a health code violation - they scream tyranny. But where is it? Even during the height of covid - I was free to go up and down Shaw Ave in Fresno. Heck, I even went to Vegas in December 2020. Had a great time. Tables were open. Drinks were consumed. My first time at Hells Kitchen. It was brilliant. But did I feel my liberties were being intruded upon? My rights? Did I feel tyranny? Nope. What i did get was an awesome suite at the Mirage and a half full casino that was super clean. What's the problem?
People like Goggles whine and complain that their rights are being violated when they really aren't. And if there is any new mandate from the government - oh, well - fascism! Perhaps they can look at mandates for car insurance. Drivers licenses. Business licenses. Age restrictions for cigarette purchases. Minimum age for alcohol. The right to vote. All that "governmental regulation" that we kinda take for granted. No one is trampling on your rights Goggles. Your liberties are intact. Even if you had to wear a mask. Your argument makes you look like a delicate swan.
Look at your posts - you engage in an awful lot of name calling and demagoguing. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "tin foiler", "delicate swan" or the like. That is a sign of a person who is both close minded and unable to respond to actual arguments.
The fact that you seemingly make no distinction between an unnecessary forced vaccination/medical procedure and customary licensing requirements/regulations - all while refusing to engage with the abortion choice analogy - also reveals a lot.
And you're just wrong about the WHO recommendations which very clearly state revaccinations are not recommended children or adolecents or healthy adults (under 50). No reference to "prioritization".
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice
Healthy children and adolescents ages 6 months to 17 years belong to the low-priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccinating them post-pandemic has limited public health impact. However, countries can consider vaccinating this group based on disease burden, cost-effectiveness, programmatic factors and other public health priorities.
Children and adolescents at higher risk of severe COVID-19 (those who are immunocompromised, with severe obesity or with comorbidities) and never received COVID-19 vaccination should get one dose.
Here's the link: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-vaccines Scroll down and hit the + button - Can children and asolescents get vaccinated against covid-19?
Tell me Goggles, how were your liberties infringed? Tell us. Tell us how you felt the weight of the beginnings of the Third Reich being pressed upon you. And no, it is not hyperbole to repeat something like that when another poster on here thinks pandemic regulations bordered on Nazi fascism.
As far as forced vaccinations - do we not live in a free market? If a hospital mandates that nurses must take the vaccine for the purposes of containment - that nurse has a choice. Let me repeat - a choice. They can take the jab or they can leave. Is that not as free market as it gets? But let's get real here, hospital workers already had vaccine mandates. Residential care workers have vaccine mandates.
further, there was no database or vaccine passport created which would have tracked who took the jab. So, how could taking the jab be compulsory? For private sector people? Had to be 100 or more employees OR undergo weekly testing. And in every instance both federal and private, there were medical and religious exemptions to any vax mandate.
I did not make the abortion argument so I don't feel like I have to respond to that analogy.
As far as my responses - its funny because one doesn't need to look beyond the Ukraine thread to see how truth and facts are ignored. Several times I have offered 34, 003, 88 to say, "job done. Yep. The Ukraine/Hunter Biden conspiracy was all a lie, but it worked and we got our guy elected". Nope. They can't bring themselves to do it.
And in terms of this thread, though Rodgers is beloved by many (including me) for his contributions to Cal and our football legacy, he is absurdly uninformed about the world. Does anyone really want this guy in front of a camera on ABC talking about 9/11? Sunscreen? Does anyone even want him on Newsmax? lol More to the point, it is also quite absurd when people talk about vaccine mandates like they were the second coming of fascism. Or that their liberties were violated.
One last bit of data. The US military required vaccination. The number of military personnel that refused numbered around 17,000. That's about .8% of the total military personnel. Did you know that only around 8,000 of those were actually discharged? And of those 8,000 - only 50 sought to rejoin. Republicans argued that vaccine mandates would hurt recruitment. Nope. Defense Department surpassed their recruitment and retention goals in the first 10 months of 2023.
I'm trying to find the harm to individual liberties here.
In terms of the bolded, are you kidding? We all were carrying around paper or digital vaccine cards. You literally could not attend Cal (or other schools) without one, not to mention other forms of commerce/employment.
In terms of your final sentence, you're not finding harm because you simply dismiss any harm. You acknowledge that people lost their jobs and were involuntarily discharged from military service (in many cases prematurely ending long and distinguished careers), yet you inexplicably see "no harm." If you were wanting to make an honest argument, you'd acknowledge the harm and then explain why it was justified/required. But you can't even do that.
And, in that regard, you refuse to engage with the abortion analogy precisely because it will expose your hypocrisy - and really the hypocrisy of the entire left vax mandate militia who are very pro-choice when it comes to abortion. It seem you like government regulation/coercion when it suits you and oppose it when it doesn't (i.e., abortion restrictions) - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Regarding Rodgers, my original point was simply that he should be appreciated for his contributions to Cal and on the football field - nothing more. I wouldn't look to him or any other athlete for political or medical advise.
When a company lays off employees, is their widespread agony or sadness on the right for those poor suckers that lost their jobs? Nah. Republicans will always say, go find another one. Or, if that's the only job you can find, then maybe get an education. Go to adult school. How about the 200-300 people that worked at Carrier Corp? They're losing their production jobs to Mexico. Feel sorry for them? No? So, why should I show any similar sympathy for these people that lost their jobs due to their own intransigence? In short, it was THEIR choice not to be vaccinated. So, no. I see no harm to those individuals who lost their jobs because of their own decisions. They can just look for other jobs or get retrained.
Ok, you want to pick a fight? Its not me that's the hypocrite, its you. It wasn't pro choice activists that co-opted "my body, my choice" argument. It was the right wing that did. And its bullsh*t. That argument goes out the door because the virus can be transmitted to others. Tell me how abortion is contagious? is there not a human rights argument for freedom of harm from others? That people wouldn't get the vaccine knowing that it could help them, only to transmit it knowingly or unknowningly to others?
And here is where your analogy falls apart is this - this application of "my body my choice" could be used for other public health or vaccination outcomes. And this is already happening. Now we have RFK Jr. wanting fluoride out of drinking water. You have his attorney wanting to stop the polio vaccine from being administered. Or in 2019 when RFK Jr sent a letter to the Prime Minister. He wrote: the measles vaccine might be inadvertently spreading the virus in children and theorised about whether it had provoked "the evolution of more virulent measles strains".
That created reluctance, skepticism in Samoa about the measles vaccine and children died. Alot of children died. So, let's stop with this crap of bodily autonomy when it comes to vaccines. And again, those people could apply for religious or medical exemptions or simply found another job. Pretty simple.
