5 ms·

There are one million reasons why that's a no-no. Here is one: the difference between medicine and poison is dosage. Each individual requires its own dosage.

There are one million reasons why that's a no-no. Here is one: the difference between medicine and poison is dosage. Each individual requires its own dosage. This idea is talking about a forced universal. But nobody has the right to poison an individual, not to mention a minority, in the name of the good for everybody. It would be a false good forced with an illegitimate right. In other words, necessary fraud. And we didn't even started about the side effects.

fsh 5y ago
The article is about animals.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- yucky 5y ago
  People are animals. Things spread from other animals to humans all the time.
  - fsh 5y ago
    This is addressed in the article.
    - yucky 5y ago
      It's really not though. Unless we're pretending zoonotic transmission is easily predictable, which is laughable.
yonaguska 5y ago
That's an interesting point that should have been considered with the covid vaccines. Previous infection should have had some bearing on the dosage one was compelled to take. As should adverse reactions to the first dose. A vaccine injured friend is still trying to get an exemption in the state of California for work. She wants to work in healthcare, and had a severe adverse reaction to the second shot, but no doctor will give her an exemption for fear of being investigated by medical boards.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Do you have some evidence that those with prior infection would be better off with a different dosage? Few have serious adverse reactions unless she is describing feeling ill for a day as a severe reaction. If she is unable to take needed preventative measures wouldn't it be more reasonable if they hired someone who can?
  - yonaguska 5y ago
    Severe reaction was acquiring POTS and being unable to engage in light to strenuous activity for around 9 months. This was after the second shot. Regardless of previous infection, shouldn't the reaction to a previous dosage be enough to determine that maybe increasing the dosage is not a good idea? And is natural immunity not enough of a preventative measure? Natural immunity has been proven to be more robust than vaccine acquired immunity, with natural immunity plus one shot being touted as superior to simply being double or even triple jabbed. Of course many of the more controversial doctors have been saying that risk of adverse effects increase 4-fold if you have previously been exposed to the virus. But that's not acceptable to discuss. > If she is unable to take needed preventative measures wouldn't it be more reasonable if they hired someone who can? When staffing shortages regularly kill people, I hate to even dignify this with a response.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      You said > Previous infection should have had some bearing on the dosage one was compelled to take. But then backed it up with no evidence that this was actually so. Basically nobody cares about your intuitive reasoning about how the human body works because that's worth in an area as complex as your body less than nothing. The correct answer would have been a study that showed people with prior infection responded better to a different dosage. Natural immunity alone is a worst case situation because covid without vaccination is far more likely to kill you and far more likely to cause permanent damage to heart and lungs. It's less meaningful to talk about the benefits without also talking about the costs. You also have worse immunity than if you had also got vaccinated and worse costs than if you had got vaccinated prior to infection. Covid infection -> Vaccination. All of the costs above then even greater immunity. Vaccination -> Covid infection Lesser costs same immunity as above. Vaccination alone. Best possible scenario none of the costs above in exchange for slightly worse immunity. Remember the whole point of immunity is to avoid paying some or all costs of the infection. Getting it by paying full costs defeats the purpose its like going to a war zone and saying screw it I'll just get shot right away and get it over with and shooting yourself in the chest. Regarding one shot being better two than people with prior covid infections. I have seen exactly one pre print study to that effect. I do not believe that this is the scientific consensus. The recommendations from actual doctors and scientists is to get your two shots regardless of whether you have had covid or not. I would stick with that.
pm90 5y ago
This is kinda wishful thinking. There's already a lot of things that we force all of humanity to be subject to without consent, including lethal contagions that may arise from any part of the world. A better solution would be to tightly regulate this sort of thing so that random research teams aren't allowed to just do this, but there are checks and balances, e.g. a plan coordinated by the UN/WHO or something.
- sebastianconcpt 5y ago
  Can you explain who watches the watchmen problem isn't wishful thinking or could possibly end well? i.e: not recurring to censorship and propaganda and social behavioral engineering?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

fsh 5y ago

The article is about animals.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
yucky 5y ago
People are animals. Things spread from other animals to humans all the time.
- fsh 5y ago
  This is addressed in the article.
  - yucky 5y ago
    It's really not though. Unless we're pretending zoonotic transmission is easily predictable, which is laughable.

yonaguska 5y ago

That's an interesting point that should have been considered with the covid vaccines. Previous infection should have had some bearing on the dosage one was compelled to take. As should adverse reactions to the first dose. A vaccine injured friend is still trying to get an exemption in the state of California for work. She wants to work in healthcare, and had a severe adverse reaction to the second shot, but no doctor will give her an exemption for fear of being investigated by medical boards.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Do you have some evidence that those with prior infection would be better off with a different dosage? Few have serious adverse reactions unless she is describing feeling ill for a day as a severe reaction. If she is unable to take needed preventative measures wouldn't it be more reasonable if they hired someone who can?
- yonaguska 5y ago
  Severe reaction was acquiring POTS and being unable to engage in light to strenuous activity for around 9 months. This was after the second shot. Regardless of previous infection, shouldn't the reaction to a previous dosage be enough to determine that maybe increasing the dosage is not a good idea? And is natural immunity not enough of a preventative measure? Natural immunity has been proven to be more robust than vaccine acquired immunity, with natural immunity plus one shot being touted as superior to simply being double or even triple jabbed. Of course many of the more controversial doctors have been saying that risk of adverse effects increase 4-fold if you have previously been exposed to the virus. But that's not acceptable to discuss. > If she is unable to take needed preventative measures wouldn't it be more reasonable if they hired someone who can? When staffing shortages regularly kill people, I hate to even dignify this with a response.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    You said > Previous infection should have had some bearing on the dosage one was compelled to take. But then backed it up with no evidence that this was actually so. Basically nobody cares about your intuitive reasoning about how the human body works because that's worth in an area as complex as your body less than nothing. The correct answer would have been a study that showed people with prior infection responded better to a different dosage. Natural immunity alone is a worst case situation because covid without vaccination is far more likely to kill you and far more likely to cause permanent damage to heart and lungs. It's less meaningful to talk about the benefits without also talking about the costs. You also have worse immunity than if you had also got vaccinated and worse costs than if you had got vaccinated prior to infection. Covid infection -> Vaccination. All of the costs above then even greater immunity. Vaccination -> Covid infection Lesser costs same immunity as above. Vaccination alone. Best possible scenario none of the costs above in exchange for slightly worse immunity. Remember the whole point of immunity is to avoid paying some or all costs of the infection. Getting it by paying full costs defeats the purpose its like going to a war zone and saying screw it I'll just get shot right away and get it over with and shooting yourself in the chest. Regarding one shot being better two than people with prior covid infections. I have seen exactly one pre print study to that effect. I do not believe that this is the scientific consensus. The recommendations from actual doctors and scientists is to get your two shots regardless of whether you have had covid or not. I would stick with that.

pm90 5y ago

This is kinda wishful thinking. There's already a lot of things that we force all of humanity to be subject to without consent, including lethal contagions that may arise from any part of the world. A better solution would be to tightly regulate this sort of thing so that random research teams aren't allowed to just do this, but there are checks and balances, e.g. a plan coordinated by the UN/WHO or something.

sebastianconcpt 5y ago
Can you explain who watches the watchmen problem isn't wishful thinking or could possibly end well? i.e: not recurring to censorship and propaganda and social behavioral engineering?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]