3 ms·

Come back to me when you have a mandate for new vaccine with less than a decade safety record required for adults to simply exist in society The child vaccine

by syshum 5y ago

Come back to me when you have a mandate for new vaccine with less than a decade safety record required for adults to simply exist in society The child vaccine requirement analogy is flawed for at-least 3 reasons 1. We have all kinds of things we apply to children we do not to adults. They are children after all. For example kids are banned from smoking, but adults can. 2. It only applies if attend a public school, parents can opt out by sending their child to a religious school, private school, or home school. 3. You assume people that oppose government mandates for COVID support government mandates for children. Many of us do not, I think parents should vaccinate their children, I do not believe it is the role of government to mandate that no more than I believe it is the role of government to mandate the COVID vaccination That is basically what it is comes down to is do you believe the government is your master, your parent, or king. Or do you believe in personal freedom and autonomy It clear what choice you have made

nemothekid 5y ago
>1. We have all kinds of things we apply to children we do not to adults. They are children after all. For example kids are banned from smoking, but adults can. So the government is allowed to be "your master, your parent, or king" of children but not for adults? Be consistent. >2. It only applies if attend a public school, parents can opt out by sending their child to a religious school, private school, or home school. What's the argument here? If you don't want to get vaxxed, then don't use public resources. Not sure how this is a flawed argument. >3. You assume people that oppose government mandates for COVID support government mandates for children. Anyone who is 100% ok with mandating vaccines for children but not for adults is simply not being logically consistent. This is the same "point" as (1). >do you believe the government is your master, your parent, or king. Or do you believe in personal freedom and autonomy I'm sorry, you are right. I forgot that America was anarchist state. I hope you will join me in fighting for me rights to operate my vehicle whenever I want. Why should the government tell me I'm not allowed to drive when I've had a couple beers? Is the government my parent? I know I can drive well when drunk and the other guys who have killed others were just idiots. Why does the government infringe on my autonomy to drive by forcing me to get a license? Why do I have to be put into a government database? I paid for my car after all. What's next? Will Biden require me to get a license to operate my toaster?
- syshum 5y ago
  >>Why should the government tell me I'm not allowed to drive when I've had a couple beers? You use this also has hyperbolic statement as if there is not arguments to abolish drunk driving laws[1], which often are abused by the police as a pretext for other actions they are barred from performing.. [1]https://reason.com/2010/12/31/abolish-drunk-driving-laws/ https://reason.com/2010/12/31/abolish-drunk-driving-laws/ >>What's the argument here? If you don't want to get vaxxed, then don't use public resources. Not sure how this is a flawed argument What are you considering public resources here? I am fine with an employer on their own requiring a mandate as a condition of employment, I am even fine with a business requiring vaccine before they provide services. I am not fine with government requiring these businesses to do this Do you see the difference? I am not talking about "public resources" I am talking about the government interfering with private business transactions. >>I'm sorry, you are right. I forgot that America was anarchist state. Ohh I can only dream of that... >>What's next? Will Biden require me to get a license to operate my toaster? I am sure people like you would desire that
ceejayoz 5y ago
> Come back to me when you have a mandate for new vaccine with less than a decade safety record required for adults to simply exist in society For which vaccine was a year's safety record not sufficient to detect side effects? Which one needed a decade to discover side effects?
- mrandolph 5y ago
  The anthrax vaccine was one, for example: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2002/11/gao-military-anthrax-shots-caused-many-reactions-prompted-some-pilots-quit https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2002/11/gao-mili...
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    No; the side effects of that vaccine did not take a decade to surface. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_vaccine_adsorbed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_vaccine_adsorbed > Rates of events that resulted in seeking medical advice or taking time off work were 7.9% after the first dose; 5.1% after the second dose; 3.0% after the third dose; and 3.1% after the fourth dose. A decade of monitoring wasn't necessary to spot them; they were deemed fairly normal, and the vaccination program restarted. I'm looking for an example of a vaccine where a year is not enough time for side effects to surface, that would justify the claimed need for a ten year study before being mandated. > Although many individuals have expressed health concerns after receiving anthrax vaccine, a congressionally directed study by the Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences) concluded that this anthrax vaccine is as safe as other vaccines. The Academy considered more than a dozen studies using various scientific designs, and heard personally from many concerned US military service members.

by syshum 5y ago

nemothekid 5y ago

>1. We have all kinds of things we apply to children we do not to adults. They are children after all. For example kids are banned from smoking, but adults can. So the government is allowed to be "your master, your parent, or king" of children but not for adults? Be consistent. >2. It only applies if attend a public school, parents can opt out by sending their child to a religious school, private school, or home school. What's the argument here? If you don't want to get vaxxed, then don't use public resources. Not sure how this is a flawed argument. >3. You assume people that oppose government mandates for COVID support government mandates for children. Anyone who is 100% ok with mandating vaccines for children but not for adults is simply not being logically consistent. This is the same "point" as (1). >do you believe the government is your master, your parent, or king. Or do you believe in personal freedom and autonomy I'm sorry, you are right. I forgot that America was anarchist state. I hope you will join me in fighting for me rights to operate my vehicle whenever I want. Why should the government tell me I'm not allowed to drive when I've had a couple beers? Is the government my parent? I know I can drive well when drunk and the other guys who have killed others were just idiots. Why does the government infringe on my autonomy to drive by forcing me to get a license? Why do I have to be put into a government database? I paid for my car after all. What's next? Will Biden require me to get a license to operate my toaster?

syshum 5y ago
>>Why should the government tell me I'm not allowed to drive when I've had a couple beers? You use this also has hyperbolic statement as if there is not arguments to abolish drunk driving laws[1], which often are abused by the police as a pretext for other actions they are barred from performing.. [1]https://reason.com/2010/12/31/abolish-drunk-driving-laws/ https://reason.com/2010/12/31/abolish-drunk-driving-laws/ >>What's the argument here? If you don't want to get vaxxed, then don't use public resources. Not sure how this is a flawed argument What are you considering public resources here? I am fine with an employer on their own requiring a mandate as a condition of employment, I am even fine with a business requiring vaccine before they provide services. I am not fine with government requiring these businesses to do this Do you see the difference? I am not talking about "public resources" I am talking about the government interfering with private business transactions. >>I'm sorry, you are right. I forgot that America was anarchist state. Ohh I can only dream of that... >>What's next? Will Biden require me to get a license to operate my toaster? I am sure people like you would desire that

ceejayoz 5y ago

> Come back to me when you have a mandate for new vaccine with less than a decade safety record required for adults to simply exist in society For which vaccine was a year's safety record not sufficient to detect side effects? Which one needed a decade to discover side effects?

mrandolph 5y ago
The anthrax vaccine was one, for example: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2002/11/gao-military-anthrax-shots-caused-many-reactions-prompted-some-pilots-quit https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2002/11/gao-mili...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  No; the side effects of that vaccine did not take a decade to surface. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_vaccine_adsorbed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_vaccine_adsorbed > Rates of events that resulted in seeking medical advice or taking time off work were 7.9% after the first dose; 5.1% after the second dose; 3.0% after the third dose; and 3.1% after the fourth dose. A decade of monitoring wasn't necessary to spot them; they were deemed fairly normal, and the vaccination program restarted. I'm looking for an example of a vaccine where a year is not enough time for side effects to surface, that would justify the claimed need for a ten year study before being mandated. > Although many individuals have expressed health concerns after receiving anthrax vaccine, a congressionally directed study by the Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences) concluded that this anthrax vaccine is as safe as other vaccines. The Academy considered more than a dozen studies using various scientific designs, and heard personally from many concerned US military service members.