4 ms·

Not caution. Willingness to accept death should it come. I'm part of the natural world, and viruses are a natural way that keep population in balance. All these

Not caution. Willingness to accept death should it come. I'm part of the natural world, and viruses are a natural way that keep population in balance. All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline. I would probably reconsider if the odds where much worse than 1%.

justapassenger 5y ago
If you truly believe that viruses are here to keep our population in balance and we should be part of natural world, why would higher chances of dying affect your decision? Following your logic it just means that nature have much stronger reasons to decimate humanity. Shouldn’t you accept it?
mekkkkkk 5y ago
But the thing is that getting vaccinated isn't just a matter of individual safety. It's a way to minimize the spread throughout the whole of society. Even if the death rate would be only 1%, it's a whole lot of unnecessary death when dealing with a large population. Not to mention all the non-lethal yet life altering conditions that may follow full blown COVID. Regarding your naturalistic argument, I doubt that you have the same outlook when it comes to other aspects of life. There is no shortage of natural causes of death that we try to avoid in our everyday lives. Unless you are proposing that we use COVID as an opportunity to literally and explicitly cull the human population, I don't think that reasoning holds water.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  Here's an article of odds of dying from various things. https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-should-really-worry-about-cc761901565b https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-sho... Car Accidents are around 1/103. I've been to India car Pollution probably kills more. Will you give up driving to make the roads safer for others? How about just give up google, because apparently they paid for some of the GOF research labs.
ch4s3 5y ago
This doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me. > natural way that keep population in balance This is essentially a faith based belief, and not something rooted in personal risk as you previously mentioned. > All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline. Viral infections don't just kill you or you'll be fine. There are expensive (to society) effects of lots of people having diminished physical and cognitive capacity after infection. More over, by not being vaccinated you are imposing extra risk on anyone you contact who is unlucky enough to be in the narrow slice of people who are vaccinated but still susceptible to infection. I don't see how you can argue from a perspective of unknown vaccine risk and some sort of concept of needing a virus to kill "excess population." That just seems perverse to me.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  I don't need the virus to kill anyone. Its part of the natural world. Viruses are literarily part of our genetic code, and may have helped to evolve the placenta. We have evolved along side of them. They're not there to only harm us, they also benefit us. It doesn't matter what I think anyway. There's a limit to how much armour you can wear. There's always a cost. And lets say each vaccine harms you just a tiny bit, which they clearly do. How much is the accumulated damage from all the vaccines we currently take or will need to take into humanity's future vs a naturally evolved immunity.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    > And lets say each vaccine harms you just a tiny bit, which they clearly do I don’t think this is supported by evidence at all.
    - dukeofdoom 5y ago
      I have scarring from a TB vaccine on my arm the size of a dime. It's certainly not without effect to have an strong immune response to a foreign substance in your body. I'm not even going to mention the preservatives and other substances they put in them. The strongest hunch that something is off with an animal population, is a low fertility rate. You have negative, declining reproductive rate hovering around 1.6

justapassenger 5y ago

If you truly believe that viruses are here to keep our population in balance and we should be part of natural world, why would higher chances of dying affect your decision? Following your logic it just means that nature have much stronger reasons to decimate humanity. Shouldn’t you accept it?

mekkkkkk 5y ago

But the thing is that getting vaccinated isn't just a matter of individual safety. It's a way to minimize the spread throughout the whole of society. Even if the death rate would be only 1%, it's a whole lot of unnecessary death when dealing with a large population. Not to mention all the non-lethal yet life altering conditions that may follow full blown COVID. Regarding your naturalistic argument, I doubt that you have the same outlook when it comes to other aspects of life. There is no shortage of natural causes of death that we try to avoid in our everyday lives. Unless you are proposing that we use COVID as an opportunity to literally and explicitly cull the human population, I don't think that reasoning holds water.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
Here's an article of odds of dying from various things. https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-should-really-worry-about-cc761901565b https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-sho... Car Accidents are around 1/103. I've been to India car Pollution probably kills more. Will you give up driving to make the roads safer for others? How about just give up google, because apparently they paid for some of the GOF research labs.

ch4s3 5y ago

This doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me. > natural way that keep population in balance This is essentially a faith based belief, and not something rooted in personal risk as you previously mentioned. > All these vaccines are keeping more kindling for a bigger fire down humanity's timeline. Viral infections don't just kill you or you'll be fine. There are expensive (to society) effects of lots of people having diminished physical and cognitive capacity after infection. More over, by not being vaccinated you are imposing extra risk on anyone you contact who is unlucky enough to be in the narrow slice of people who are vaccinated but still susceptible to infection. I don't see how you can argue from a perspective of unknown vaccine risk and some sort of concept of needing a virus to kill "excess population." That just seems perverse to me.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
I don't need the virus to kill anyone. Its part of the natural world. Viruses are literarily part of our genetic code, and may have helped to evolve the placenta. We have evolved along side of them. They're not there to only harm us, they also benefit us. It doesn't matter what I think anyway. There's a limit to how much armour you can wear. There's always a cost. And lets say each vaccine harms you just a tiny bit, which they clearly do. How much is the accumulated damage from all the vaccines we currently take or will need to take into humanity's future vs a naturally evolved immunity.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  > And lets say each vaccine harms you just a tiny bit, which they clearly do I don’t think this is supported by evidence at all.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    I have scarring from a TB vaccine on my arm the size of a dime. It's certainly not without effect to have an strong immune response to a foreign substance in your body. I'm not even going to mention the preservatives and other substances they put in them. The strongest hunch that something is off with an animal population, is a low fertility rate. You have negative, declining reproductive rate hovering around 1.6