5 ms·

> It's incredible the tolerance for antisocial behavior these days. Protecting one's body and exercising one's individual rights is not antisocial behavior. Ju

by qiskit 5y ago

> It's incredible the tolerance for antisocial behavior these days. Protecting one's body and exercising one's individual rights is not antisocial behavior. Just want to make that crystal clear. And nobody has the right to force you to inject anything into your body. Especially the government. Erich Fromm wrote the masses have a slavish need for authority and most people are incapable of being true free individuals. I really didn't believe until covid. You saw bits of it during the start of iraq war, but not to this degree.

ASalazarMX 5y ago
How do you protect others from your decision? Surely you're not planning to live alone to protect others, specially vulnerable people, from a preventable risk? Your rights stop where the rights of others begin.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  > Your rights stop where the rights of others begin. Which is why nobody has the right to force you to get penetrated and injected with something against your will.
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    Can you at least agree that others also have a right to not be sick because of your selfish decisions? Before the vaccines, people were dying because hospitals were saturated, it's clearly turned for the better after them, because people can still get infected and spread it, but their viral charge is mild. COVID can't be eradicated because there are animal reservoirs, but having people stubbornly refuse to vaccinate means they are like we were at the start of the pandemic, forming a permanent human reservoir breeding new mutations, because politics.
colinmhayes 5y ago
Wrong. American fetishization of individualism is a sickness that is literally rotting our society by causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. Causing people to die is pretty much the absolute most anti social thing someone can do. Sure, no one has the right to force you to take a vaccine, but society absolutely has the right to completely exclude you if you are making decisions that are causing people to die.
- native_samples 5y ago
  The vaccine does not and has never stopped infection or spread. Therefore there is quite simply no collectivist argument for vaccination even if we accept the premise that everyone should be forced to blindly trust authorities against their will, which we should not (perhaps military service is an exception to that, but it's not due to philosophical objections to individualism given that said military is usually deployed in defence of it). In fact, when raw rate data is published (e.g. by England) what you see is that vaccination starts to actually increase the risk of infection after some months, not decrease it! This article has an in-depth analysis of the UK data along with animations of their graphs so you can see the evolution over time: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/03/06/covid-deaths-continue-to-decline-in-the-unvaccinated-but-not-in-the-vaccinated-ukhsa-data-show/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/03/06/covid-deaths-continue-to... The cause appears to be a form of immune imprinting, in which the vaccine trains the immune system to make antibodies against the original Wuhan strain spike, then Omicron comes along with a very different spike but otherwise looking kinda similar and the immune system misfires. It builds antibodies as it was trained to, instead of ones that will work, and then it takes a while to notice what's going on. In that time period you've become more badly infected than an unvaccinated person would have done. It turns out that this has happened many times before with vaccines; it's not a given that vaccines definitely cause lower rates of infection or sickness. This would appear incompatible with initially high effectiveness, but when examined closely that appears to be a set of nasty statistical artifacts (invalid assumptions underlying TNCC study design + immortal time bias). Therefore it might not actually be real. The UK data shows evidence that these problems exist in their data, and the UK HSA is unusually thorough. Data from Alberta that they published and then swiftly deleted when it was realized what it meant, also backed this theory up. Certainly the trials couldn't show benefits even for 3rd doses pre-Omicron, so they had to be approved on the basis of elevated antibody levels rather than clinical outcomes (which is backwards - putting the cart before the horse). The fact that most countries had by far their largest waves after vaccinating most of their population is suggestive that the negative effectiveness might actually have been there from the start, but hidden.

by qiskit 5y ago

ASalazarMX 5y ago

How do you protect others from your decision? Surely you're not planning to live alone to protect others, specially vulnerable people, from a preventable risk? Your rights stop where the rights of others begin.

torstenvl 5y ago
> Your rights stop where the rights of others begin. Which is why nobody has the right to force you to get penetrated and injected with something against your will.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  Can you at least agree that others also have a right to not be sick because of your selfish decisions? Before the vaccines, people were dying because hospitals were saturated, it's clearly turned for the better after them, because people can still get infected and spread it, but their viral charge is mild. COVID can't be eradicated because there are animal reservoirs, but having people stubbornly refuse to vaccinate means they are like we were at the start of the pandemic, forming a permanent human reservoir breeding new mutations, because politics.

colinmhayes 5y ago

Wrong. American fetishization of individualism is a sickness that is literally rotting our society by causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. Causing people to die is pretty much the absolute most anti social thing someone can do. Sure, no one has the right to force you to take a vaccine, but society absolutely has the right to completely exclude you if you are making decisions that are causing people to die.

native_samples 5y ago
The vaccine does not and has never stopped infection or spread. Therefore there is quite simply no collectivist argument for vaccination even if we accept the premise that everyone should be forced to blindly trust authorities against their will, which we should not (perhaps military service is an exception to that, but it's not due to philosophical objections to individualism given that said military is usually deployed in defence of it). In fact, when raw rate data is published (e.g. by England) what you see is that vaccination starts to actually increase the risk of infection after some months, not decrease it! This article has an in-depth analysis of the UK data along with animations of their graphs so you can see the evolution over time: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/03/06/covid-deaths-continue-to-decline-in-the-unvaccinated-but-not-in-the-vaccinated-ukhsa-data-show/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/03/06/covid-deaths-continue-to... The cause appears to be a form of immune imprinting, in which the vaccine trains the immune system to make antibodies against the original Wuhan strain spike, then Omicron comes along with a very different spike but otherwise looking kinda similar and the immune system misfires. It builds antibodies as it was trained to, instead of ones that will work, and then it takes a while to notice what's going on. In that time period you've become more badly infected than an unvaccinated person would have done. It turns out that this has happened many times before with vaccines; it's not a given that vaccines definitely cause lower rates of infection or sickness. This would appear incompatible with initially high effectiveness, but when examined closely that appears to be a set of nasty statistical artifacts (invalid assumptions underlying TNCC study design + immortal time bias). Therefore it might not actually be real. The UK data shows evidence that these problems exist in their data, and the UK HSA is unusually thorough. Data from Alberta that they published and then swiftly deleted when it was realized what it meant, also backed this theory up. Certainly the trials couldn't show benefits even for 3rd doses pre-Omicron, so they had to be approved on the basis of elevated antibody levels rather than clinical outcomes (which is backwards - putting the cart before the horse). The fact that most countries had by far their largest waves after vaccinating most of their population is suggestive that the negative effectiveness might actually have been there from the start, but hidden.