Biden Calls For Vax Mandate

[just-want-peace]

Take whatever position you choose, pro or anti, you can find SOME expert to validate your belief. So where is the truth?? Most likely somewhere between the two extremes.
So how can you, or I, as a layman in these matters draw a reasonable conclusion when it is so evident, at least IMHO, that politics is the loudest voice on this bug????
In spite of JonC's rejection of depending on guidance from the HS for each individual, I still propose that this is the only course a Christian can take, as an individual, as to whether or not to take the shot.
W/O HS guidance, again IMHO, all you can do is, as best you can, decide which side is the nearest to honesty - good luck with that!!

 

[Wingman68]

I am sure you know full well that doctors are overwhelmingly in favour of the vaccine. But, if you want supporting evidence, here is one recommendation from the highly reputable Johns Hopkins Medical School

Yes, we recommend that everyone who is eligible get vaccinated with one of the three currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines. We view all three vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna and Johnsons & Johnson) as highly efficacious for preventing serious disease, hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

I believe this bit about "who owns the sites" is misleading. We all know straight from the mouths of the experts (e.g. on TV interviews and print interview transcripts) that they (the experts) strongly recommend the vaccine. You seem to think that everything the experts say could have been distorted by some intervening third-party. Well, this is certainly not the case when an expert is being interviewed on TV and directly makes a recommendation for the vaccine.

Enjoy. Why do you even care about what we think? You’re good, according to your experts. I’m happy for you. Boosters coming right up, yay!

 

[Scott Downey]

I would never challenge the credibility of anti-vax source without at least doing a little research.

And let's be clear: not only is the credibility of the source a relevant matter, it is arguably the most important issue since, for obvious reasons, none of us are qualified to make our own case for the position to which we subscribe.


I politely suggest this is misleading way of characterizing this debate - and I see it often. Given that the weight of scientific evidence and opinion is massively on the pro-vax side, it suits the anti-vax position well to try to frame this issue as if it were simply a matter of differing "points of view".

The reality is that the hard evidence overwhelmingly supports the pro-vax point-of-view, at least right now.


Indeed, what happens 3 to 5 years from now does matter. And, as I suspect you know, the position of most qualified experts is that this risks down the road of not getting the vaccine far outweigh the risks of getting it.

And your last statement is also misleading. When people systematically misrepresent facts, this is indeed sin, no matter whether it happens on the pro-vax or the anti-vax side of the argument. So one cannot lie and distort facts and then claim "this is just my point of view".

'this is indeed sin"

That statement you just said exposes your own hypocritical can of worms, as you have claimed your right and true about what you affirm, and all your doing by your own admission is going along with what experts and the media say. But you cant know that your right and the other side wrong. Just making such an assertion shows the hypocrisy, cause what if your wrong...

 

[Scott Downey]

Take whatever position you choose, pro or anti, you can find SOME expert to validate your belief. So where is the truth?? Most likely somewhere between the two extremes.
So how can you, or I, as a layman in these matters draw a reasonable conclusion when it is so evident, at least IMHO, that politics is the loudest voice on this bug????
In spite of JonC's rejection of depending on guidance from the HS for each individual, I still propose that this is the only course a Christian can take, as an individual, as to whether or not to take the shot.
W/O HS guidance, again IMHO, all you can do is, as best you can, decide which side is the nearest to honesty - good luck with that!!

You cannot by anything you do extend the measure of your life.
If you did something and you lived longer, how do you not know God was working in your life to bring that about, because scripturally all things are of God in your life.
Example
Matthew 6:25-34
Do Not Be Anxious
“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? ...

John 21:22
Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!”

 

[SGO]

I am sure you know full well that doctors are overwhelmingly in favour of the vaccine. But, if you want supporting evidence, here is one recommendation from the highly reputable Johns Hopkins Medical School

Yes, we recommend that everyone who is eligible get vaccinated with one of the three currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines. We view all three vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna and Johnsons & Johnson) as highly efficacious for preventing serious disease, hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

I believe this bit about "who owns the sites" is misleading. We all know straight from the mouths of the experts (e.g. on TV interviews and print interview transcripts) that they (the experts) strongly recommend the vaccine. You seem to think that everything the experts say could have been distorted by some intervening third-party. Well, this is certainly not the case when an expert is being interviewed on TV and directly makes a recommendation for the vaccine.

Thank you for responding.

 

[Reynolds]

It is not surprising, in fact I suspect that it is to be expected, that vaccine-resistant strains will emerge. How is this an argument for not taking the vaccine?

It's a great argument. Do you take the flu shot that was offered two years ago? Why not?
Maybe they should update the vaxes for the Delta strain. Maybe they can't.

 

[Andre]

The truth is never alone, other prominent virologists and doctors are raising these points.
Their is no vacuum of information out there, there are ideas and evidence in competition and people make conclusions, true or false, but you can not expect them to be the right decision as we can not know until the future happens.

I do not think this reasoning is correct - of course we can and do make decisions all the time even if we do not know everything that we would ideally like to know.

You appear to be suggesting a wait-and-see approach. That sounds reasonable, but it is not consistent with the hand of cards that nature has dealt us - there is a dangerous, insanely contagious virus out there right now.

And to suggest, as I think you are doing, that there is "competing evidence" is, I believe, really not true - the present evidentiary picture overwhelmingly supports the pro-vax position.

 

[Andre]

It's a great argument. Do you take the flu shot that was offered two years ago? Why not?
Maybe they should update the vaxes for the Delta strain. Maybe they can't.

I certainly do take the flu shot all the time. Especially since I am over 60.

I basically take every recommended vaccine - covid, flu, hep, you name it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Attacking the source is called an adhominem.

 

[Wingman68]

Dr. Christina Parks - Testimony For Bill To Against Vaccine Mandates

Should have posted this here, better late than never.

 

[Andre]

Andre, you can call it a lie if you want, here is another reference.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr on Twitter: "A preprint paper by the prestigious Oxford University Clinical Research Group, published Aug. 10 in The Lancet, found vaccinated individuals carry 251 times the load of COVID-19 viruses in their nostrils compared to the unvaccinated. https://t.co/8FMkRKlT0x" / Twitter

Between vaccinated and vaccinated, not between unvaccinated and vaccinated.
Frankly pretty good evidence the vaccines are failing.

The headline is a bald-faced lie.

Show me anywhere where a reputable source says anything like what the headline implies.

You are being lied to.

The study says "Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020." In other words, vaccines are more effective against older variants (unsurprisingly).

Sure, but that is not what the headline says - the headline implies that vaccinated people have more virus than non-vaccinated.

That is not true, in the sense that matters. It might be true that a vaccinated person who gets delta may carry a larger viral load than an unvaccinated person who has a non-delta case. But, of course, that is an obviously unfair comparison.

 

[xlsdraw]

I do not think this reasoning is correct - of course we can and do make decisions all the time even if we do not know everything that we would ideally like to know.

You appear to be suggesting a wait-and-see approach. That sounds reasonable, but it is not consistent with the hand of cards that nature has dealt us - there is a dangerous, insanely contagious virus out there right now.

And to suggest, as I think you are doing, that there is "competing evidence" is, I believe, really not true - the present evidentiary picture overwhelmingly supports the pro-vax position.

Who is this "nature" that you claim deals the cards?

 

[Andre]

Attacking the source is called an adhominem.

I won't get into the technical details of what constitutes an ad hominem because it is not necessary.

In the discussion we are having, it is perfectly legitimate to question the credibility of the source. Here is the reason: because none of us here are qualified to make actual technical arguments about the vaccine, we all have appeal to some sort of expert authority. This is why it is perfectly legitimate to question the credibility of sources.

If, on the other hand, we were talking about some other subject where we are indeed able to present our own arguments, then, and only then, would it be improper to ignore the argument and attack the source.

But, of course, covid is not such a case - we need to rely on experts.

And that is why their credibility is so relevant.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, we know that the vaccines are safe because highly trained medical experts tell us that they are. I do not care what the media says, I care what doctors say.

And doctors are virtually unanimous - the vaccines work and are safe.

bub you are just full of fallacies. The adhominem fallacy always attacking the source rather than the information and the bandwagon fallacy claiming that virtually all doctors agree with your position.

well there bub here is a stat for ya…… 97% of all doctors that agree agree with those who fund them.

 

[Andre]

Who is this "nature" that you claim deals the cards?

I am simply saying that covid has forced our hand - we simply do not have the luxury to "wait and see".

 

[Andre]

bub you are just full of fallacies. The adhominem fallacy always attacking the source rather than the information and the bandwagon fallacy claiming that virtually all doctors agree with your position

No.

If you actually presented your own case - arguing the medical details yourself, then, and only then, would your objection have merit.

But you, like me, appeal to experts. So their credibility is very much at issue.

 

[Andre]

well there bub here is a stat for ya…… 97% of all doctors that agree agree with those who fund them.

It is easy to simply claim that the pronouncements of doctors have been bought and paid for, but where is your evidence?

Are we being lied to when we are told that the vaccine greatly reduces the risk of severe illness and death?

Do you apply the same distrust of doctors in general and ignore all their recommendations?

 

[Reynolds]

I certainly do take the flu shot all the time. Especially since I am over 60.

I basically take every recommended vaccine - covid, flu, hep, you name it.

No, you missed my question. Would you today, take the flu shot formulated for the flu that was present two years ago.

I certainly do take the flu shot all the time. Especially since I am over 60.

I basically take every recommended vaccine - covid, flu, hep, you name it.

You missed my point.
Would you today, take the flu shot from two years ago?
Why we giving the Covid vax for 5 to 6 variants ago?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I do not think this reasoning is correct - of course we can and do make decisions all the time even if we do not know everything that we would ideally like to know.

You appear to be suggesting a wait-and-see approach. That sounds reasonable, but it is not consistent with the hand of cards that nature has dealt us - there is a dangerous, insanely contagious virus out there right now.

And to suggest, as I think you are doing, that there is "competing evidence" is, I believe, really not true - the present evidentiary picture overwhelmingly supports the pro-vax position.

you don’t have all the facts. While Delta is more contagious, yes true ... but it’s also less malevolent. Also, I believe Reynolds pointed this out, the current shots are for the original virus strain and now you are, as you pointed out, dealing with the Delta strain. So why are the Powers that Be using an older vaccine designed for the original strain when we are concerned with the Delta variant which is a new strain of virus?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, you missed my question. Would you today, take the flu shot formulated for the flu that was present two years ago.

You missed my point.
Would you today, take the flu shot from two years ago?
Why we giving the Covid vax for 5 to 6 variants ago?

Why are they still trying to sell 2020 car models when we are into 2021 & 2022 models... may I suggest supply & demand.