Covid Vaccines Required

[Paidiske]

Quote function's gone weird, but you said:

"This is an example of a particular-universal barrier violation. If all other vaccines did lower death rates, then it still wouldn't be the case that this one does."

The evidence is that this one does. So that objection is irrelevant.

"Let's all quickly remember the lockdowns, which according to the RAND Corporation's working paper killed more people (and continue to kill people) than they saved."

Evidence for your claims about lockdowns killing more people than they saved, please? For what it's worth, I was critical of some aspects of how lockdowns were done (at least where I was at the time) and could see a moral argument for non-compliance in some cases, but that seems to me to be a completely separate issue to vaccines.

"These same authorities, mind you, who broke federal law by unilaterally altering the data methods for COVID pandemic statistics? Under the legal information quality standards, the death rate is around 24 times less (according to some studies, it's hard to tell exactly due to the seeming incapacity of the government health bureaucrats to maintain consistent and comparable data sets over time.) And why, even after more than a year, has there been a failure to submit the proper oversight paperwork? I guess verifying information quality isn't necessary when dealing with a pandemic?"

It sounds as if America is experiencing some bureaucratic issues, but I'm not in America and I'm not relying on American data to form my thinking.

"Do you actually criticize this coercion when it occurs though?"

Yes. Somewhere in my post history here, pre-dating Covid, you'll even find a thread I started which criticised coercion of the flu shot.

"Why should I accept a value calculus of 'risk mitigation to save lives with biological life as the sole accepted value?'"

I'm not suggesting it's the sole accepted value, but I'm not seeing what value you're aiming to protect by being anti-vaccination. Vaccination, freely chosen, is not a human rights issue. In fact, lack of access to vaccination is seen as a breach of human rights under international agreements.

"And so why should I listen to a faux moral obligation which is so blatantly antihuman as to require the severing of what is most critical of all in life."

What are you seeing being severed by vaccination, precisely?

"But you continually 'go with what you've got in your heart' by offering your moral opinions rather than presenting an ethical case."

I may not be presenting my case in the structures and with all the jargon of a formal philosophical argument, but the ethical case is there. Vaccinations prevent death. Whether we take a basic human goods approach, a consequentialist approach, or even an Aristotelian virtue ethics approach, it's difficult to justify vaccine refusal on ethical grounds.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

I am curious the stance from the priest knowing the second factor. Is one morally obligated to put themselves in danger to protect others? Obviously I survived the flu shot but what if the Covid one does me in?

Generally, assuming protection or rescue is actually occurring, putting oneself in danger to protect others is heroic, and act of great charity, but there is no inherent obligation in many situations. A father would have an obligation to do so for his family, because he is a father. This obligation does not extend to all people because he is not a father to all people. But acting as a father in defense is less charitable than protecting a stranger.

Getting the vaccine isn't inherently an act of charity, despite the universal claims made by propagandists, but if motivated by charity to get it, it could be charitable.

Like organ donation, which is a great charity, but can by no means be an obligation. In organ donation, there is also more moral issues going on than just the act of charity, as there are limits brought in by other values. For this reason, it would traditionally be unethical to offer your heart for donation, due to the significance of the heart as being made in image of God. But that's a big topic for another thread.

In the same way there isn't an obligation to defend yourself with lethal force - priests are never permitted to do so, for example. Even though self defense can be charitable in preventing another from engaging a severe sin.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Or should we not have a multi-faceted impact calculus, but just listen blindly to the government as being the sole arbiter of values?

This. This is all that most have.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Why should I accept a value calculus of 'risk mitigation to save lives with biological life as the sole accepted value?' Is it wrong to value human rights and correct deference to Holy Things over mere biological life?

"Give me liberty or give me death!" springs to mind. That ain't selling very well these days, is it?

 

[expos4ever]

So people who are not getting the stab are not the problem ...the problem is "Fear" perpetuated by this administration.

Well, it certainly does seem to be a problem - a big problem - for the people not getting the stab:

Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. are among unvaccinated people, according to government data analyzed by the Associated Press.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

The evidence is that this one does. So that objection is irrelevant

Whose evidence? And by what standard should I accept it? Bias enters at the moment the phenomenon is observed. The observation itself suffers from perception bias and then the phenomenon is interpreted into fact. A fact is a supposedly falsifiable statement that may either be true or false. Evidence is a collection of facts said to support an end. The choice of evidence is based on value judgements. Should I accept evidence for public health decisions if handed to me by, say, the Third Reich?

Nevertheless, there is no rigorous or systematic study of 'adverse reactions' for the vaccine in question. Reliance on an absence of solid systematic research on risks is faulty.

My objection is relevant because the claim must be made of comparing this vaccines to suitably tested vaccines.

Not to mention, of course, the very negative study of Pfizer's vaccine's impact on fertility.

Evidence for your claims about lockdowns killing more people than they saved, please? For what it's worth, I was critical of some aspects of how lockdowns were done (at least where I was at the time) and could see a moral argument for non-compliance in some cases, but that seems to me to be a completely separate issue to vaccines.

Attached is working paper, take note of the citations which lead to greater detail.

It sounds as if America is experiencing some bureaucratic issues, but I'm not in America and I'm not relying on American data to form my thinking.

But I am. And the data difference between 120,000 and 9800 or so deaths based on an illegal data method change is alarming. And it means that COVID statistics are not comparable with any other disease without the difficulty 'converting the units,' which means the lower number must be used for comparison.

Yes. Somewhere in my post history here, pre-dating Covid, you'll even find a thread I started which criticised coercion of the flu shot.

But we are now in a world of fanatical coercion for this vaccine, which is reason enough to refuse the shot. After all, why should I be a party to the system of coercion.

I'm not suggesting it's the sole accepted value, but I'm not seeing what value you're aiming to protect by being anti-vaccination. Vaccination, freely chosen, is not a human rights issue. In fact, lack of access to vaccination is seen as a breach of human rights under international agreements.

Yet, there is an easily demonstrated concerted effort to control the information ecology concerning the vaccine which calls into question whether anyone can freely choose to tale the vaccine. After all, how valid is a choice based on curated information that is designed to preclude certain choices?

As for international agreements, this coercion through information control is arguably also a violation of human rights... not to mention the plethora of unethical coercive propaganda... and threats of being a second class citizen in medical apartheid.

What are you seeing being severed by vaccination, precisely?

What has been severed by the entire pandemic response is what is highest and most critical of all.
First: The banning of participation in the divine life, especially in the banning of the public mass, which is the ban of the worship of God itself. For a Catholic cannot worship God outside the temple of God or without ordained priests. They are reduced to only being able to offer God veneration and are specifically cut off from special sources of grace, specifically the sacraments. This is especially true of the denial of baptism and last rites.

Second: Relationships are severed by lockdowns. Telecommunications can never be a substitute for in person contact and in person contact is a fundamental human right which continues to be denied.

(Especially in the prisons where all human contact has been cut off for more than a year and a small fortune must be paid for telecommunications (ballpark - a few hundred dollars a month per prisoner.) The pandemic continues to be used and companies like Securatel plan on using the pandemic to forever abolish in person contact for prisoners.)

The continuation of these evil and xenophobic policies in the vaccine is partially 'just the next thing.' A mark of accepting the evil which has occurred.

However, all the vaccines made use of fetal tissue either in development or production and that is the grave sin of the desecration of corpses, so perhaps what is severed by the vaccine is human decency.

I may not be presenting my case in the structures and with all the jargon of a formal philosophical argument, but the ethical case is there. Vaccinations prevent death. Whether we take a basic human goods approach, a consequentialist approach, or even an Aristotelian virtue ethics approach, it's difficult to justify vaccine refusal on ethical grounds.

J.L. Macie's infamous 'Argument by Disagreement' would show that it is easy to justify vaccine refusal. And I do disagree.

 

[Bobber]

My congregation have not sought my opinion on this point, but every single one of them whose view I am aware of is either already vaccinated or keen to be vaccinated. If anyone did seek my advice for themselves personally, I would advise them to seek their doctor's advice on a medical matter. As a general principle, though - and as someone with a degree in immunology - I have no problem with encouraging vaccination.

I have no problem with that. I don't even have a problem with you encouraging another to get a vaccine. What I do have a problem with is that your suggestion to them that they might be committing a sin by choosing not to take one. I'd say that'd be out of line as it would be seeking to put guilt on the conscience.

It's not a sin to doubt medical advice, but it might well be sin to refuse to do one's part to protect life.

Sorry that doesn't make sense. So if you doubt the medical advice but you should just throw caution to the wind and just do what they say anyway?

It's not a matter of "go with what you've got in your heart" - after all, our hearts are notoriously unreliable - what's in our hearts may well need discernment and even challenge.

Yes it is a matter of going with what you've got in your heart (and mind) and I never said one shouldn't allow what they're thinking to be challenged. Both need to take place not just one.

 

[bèlla]

I’m keeping an eye on things to see if the policy is implemented elsewhere. I think prayer and patience is best. If you can take classes online for a time do so and see what happens as the year unfolds.

~bella

 

[expos4ever]

As "Tucker Carlson Tonight" host Tucker Carlson noted, Dr. Robert Malone is "the single most qualified" expert on mRNA vaccines, but that the Big Tech companies are asserting themselves as more informed than him on the topic.

"A Norwegian study conducted of 100 nursing home residents who died after receiving Pfizer's Corona shots. They found that at least ten of those deaths were likely caused by the vaccine. 10%," said Carlson.

Tucker Carlson not being entirely truthful? Perish the thought. Here is the truth, as contrasted with the distorted information Carlson is peddling:

The vaccinations with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine started on December 27. By mid-February almost 30 000 residents at nursing homes had been vaccinated. During this same period, the Norwegian Medicines Agency received 100 reports about possible fatal side effects.

“Of these 100 reported cases, we believe it is highly likely that the vaccination led to death occurring earlier than it would have otherwise for ten nursing home patients”, Torgeir Bruun Wyller says to NRK.

So, of course, you are being lied to in the sense that other relevant details are being concealed by the redoubtable Mr. Carlson.

As the official report shows, only 10 deaths out of 30,000 people vaccinated - that is 1 in 3000 - are suspcious.

I wonder how many of these elderly 30,000 patients would have died from covid if not vaccinated?

A lot more than 10.

Think, people, think.

 

[expos4ever]

I don't think taking an experimental drug is really smart when the thing it protects against has a 99% survival rate.

Misleading, of course. What you are not telling us, and what needs to be said, is that even with a 99% survival rate, health care systems will be, and indeed have been, overwhelmed by this pandemic, putting all sorts of other people at risk.

Besides, this 99% figure is a psychological trick. Sure, 99% sounds like almost 100%. But would you get on a plane if you knew that one out of every 100 planes blows up in the sky? No, you would not.

In the USA, this 99% figure still translates into over 600,000 human lives gone.

 

[sesquiterpene]

Nevertheless, there is no rigorous or systematic study of 'adverse reactions' for the vaccine in question.

Absolute nonsense. The safety of each of the vaccines available in the US has been rigorously and systematically studied in Phase 3 clinical trials involving tens of thousands of brave volunteers. Here's one. How is it you're unaware of this?

Not to mention, of course, the very negative study of Pfizer's vaccine's impact on fertility.

Which study is that?

 

[expos4ever]

It will never be got rid of completely. The cat is out of the bag. Why do you support such coercion for a utopian pipe dream?

Even if the virus cannot be eradicated, why not do what we can with these highly effective vaccines?

 

[Fr. Appletree]

Absolute nonsense. The safety of each of the vaccines available in the US has been rigorously and systematically studied in Phase 3 clinical trials involving tens of thousands of brave volunteers. Here's one. How is it you're unaware of this?
Which study is that?

What you link isn't a study. It's an FDA briefing. If yours so in the know, how'd you make that mistake? Maybe you could go to some of the studies it cites and see how, for example, in the methodologies they excluded males and females who participate in fertile sex. Were these studies repeated to include those participating in fertile sex acts? If not, that's a hole in the science. I'm sure someone as savvy as you though, could separate out those that required participates not to have fertile sex and those that did. You do understand rhetoric significance of methodologies have on the extent of possible conclusions, right?
I'll look into looking up the study I mentioned later, but if you're savvy I'm sure you can find it.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

Even if the virus cannot be eradicated, why not do what we can with these highly effective vaccines?

A. Because not getting vaccinated is a reaction to unethical coercion. I'd rather get a bullet than a vaccine based on what the VDH has been pushing.

B. Efficacy based on what?

 

[sesquiterpene]

What you link isn't a study. It's an FDA briefing. If yours so in the know, how'd you make that mistake?

It's a briefing document about Pfizer's study where they rigorously and systematically examine the side effects of their vaccine - exactly the type of study you claimed didn't exist. If you want a published paper try here, but the FDA conducted their own review of the data, which is more rigorous than peer-review typically is. Where's your paper again?

 

[sesquiterpene]

B. Efficacy based on what?

What, are you going to pretend efficacy studies don't exist either?

 

[Fr. Appletree]

It's a briefing document about Pfizer's study where they rigorously and systematically examine the side effects of their vaccine - exactly the type of study you claimed didn't exist. If you want a published paper try here, but the FDA conducted their own review of the data, which is more rigorous than peer-review typically is.

Oh, you think a briefing with broad strokes constitutes a systematic study. Did the briefing cover that myocarditis would be over represented?? I never claimed studies did not exist. I claimed they were not rigorous or systematic - that means sufficiently. So read what I said again, brosky, with some literacy. I don't accept it as meeting my standard of evidence.

Where's your paper again?

As said above. My phone only had so much saved on it. I don't, like you, keep a repository of documents on hand at all times to claim superiority in some online argument. Don't push it or I won't give it to you, because I owe you nothing. Lol.

How about you answer to the methodological issues which result in category violation? Do those words mean anything to you? Do you understand that kind of X is not the same kind of Y? What applies to one population doesn't inherently apply to another. Basic philosophy of science, right there.

 

[expos4ever]

And just as an aside, Sodafox, as being someone unvaccinated you would not carry any moral burden if someone around you would suffer infection.

That's funny, I almost thought you were serious for a second.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

What, are you going to pretend efficacy studies don't exist either?

That's almost slanderous. Do you pretend that only naive realism exist? Do you believe only your theory of rationality exists? Do you lack theory of mind entirely and are so rigid in deriestic thinking that you have special epistemological access to the world - how arrogant.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

That's funny, I almost thought you were serious for a second.

Just as a heads-up, I'm blocking you for that assertion. I am serious.