This is an endless argument. The vaccine can do no wrong for some and anything bad is just part of the "benefits outweigh the risks" argument. Anyway with a contrary argument gets labelled as an antivaxxer spreading misinformation and often falls in the "debunked" category. Where did this line of thinking originate from - think about it.
The whole situation with vaccine safety (long and short term) and duration of effectiveness is clear as mud to me but those with the vaccine goggles see otherwise - this is a big problem in my opinion. Lockdowns and economic impact are decisions of the government and they want you to blame the unvaccinated so they don't get the blame.
For all you who are pro vaccine coercion, how would you feel if government and employers were saying that since those people who are old or have comorbidities are at higher risk, we are going to be monitoring your health and you must obey or suffer the consequences - i.e. you have to have healthy blood tests, low blood pressure, normal BMI, show proof that you are eating healthy, exercising, getting enough sleep, have low stress (going to counselling if needed) etc., etc. I am sure if you looked at the numbers and percentages that a perfectly healthy unvaccinated 30 year old is less likely to die or suffer adverse effects from covid than a fully vaxxed 60 year old with comorbidities - would you agree?
If it was truly about people not dying then why is the government and media only focusing on the vaccine and nothing else? Logically, there would be focus and education on many things including proper sleep, lower stress, proper exercise and diet (including vitamin and mineral supplements and other supplement alternatives, low cholesterol, blood pressure etc., but this is not the case - why not? The flu is contagious and kills people every year, but there has never been any push or societal pressure to take the flu jab or be vilified if you don't take it - why not?
I am not denying that the vaccine offers life-saving antibodies, I am just questioning the long- term safety as well as the duration of this protection. I question the idea of mass vaccination versus use for just specific populations based on age and health status. Does the benefit truly outweigh the risk, if there is virtually no risk? How's this for an analogy - the lifetime risk for dying in a car accident is about 1/100 (google it). So, that's a 99% chance you won't die, similar to covid for the vast majority of us. IF the insurance companies were pushing this experimental drug that was marketed to improve your reflexes and mental clarity to avoid an accident and claimed a reduction of about 90% effective (Like mRNA jabs) - would you take it? For simplicity, lets say these drugs were showing rare but in some cases adverse side effects including death, blood clotting, myocarditis etc, just like our mRNA jabs. Lets also say that the insurance companies are saying that you should take it to not only protect yourself, but others as well - its your civic duty. As well, every time you renew your insurance, you have take the drug again - its not one and done because the protection fades over time. Oh yeah, one more thing - taking the drug doesn't guarantee you won't be in a car accident, just reduces the likelihood that you won't be in a fatal accident.
Lets also say that you have no issues with clarity or your reflexes, you've never been at fault in a car accident before and you feel there is no reason to question your driving ability - would you still take this experimental medicine being pushed by the insurance companies? What if they offered cheaper insurance in exchange for taking the medicine - would you do it then? For many of you, I am guessing that you would not take this experimental medicine to help with your driving because even though it may help, you feel you are a safe enough driver and don't want to take a chance with an experimental drug - what would you do?
The whole situation with vaccine safety (long and short term) and duration of effectiveness is clear as mud to me but those with the vaccine goggles see otherwise - this is a big problem in my opinion. Lockdowns and economic impact are decisions of the government and they want you to blame the unvaccinated so they don't get the blame.
For all you who are pro vaccine coercion, how would you feel if government and employers were saying that since those people who are old or have comorbidities are at higher risk, we are going to be monitoring your health and you must obey or suffer the consequences - i.e. you have to have healthy blood tests, low blood pressure, normal BMI, show proof that you are eating healthy, exercising, getting enough sleep, have low stress (going to counselling if needed) etc., etc. I am sure if you looked at the numbers and percentages that a perfectly healthy unvaccinated 30 year old is less likely to die or suffer adverse effects from covid than a fully vaxxed 60 year old with comorbidities - would you agree?
If it was truly about people not dying then why is the government and media only focusing on the vaccine and nothing else? Logically, there would be focus and education on many things including proper sleep, lower stress, proper exercise and diet (including vitamin and mineral supplements and other supplement alternatives, low cholesterol, blood pressure etc., but this is not the case - why not? The flu is contagious and kills people every year, but there has never been any push or societal pressure to take the flu jab or be vilified if you don't take it - why not?
I am not denying that the vaccine offers life-saving antibodies, I am just questioning the long- term safety as well as the duration of this protection. I question the idea of mass vaccination versus use for just specific populations based on age and health status. Does the benefit truly outweigh the risk, if there is virtually no risk? How's this for an analogy - the lifetime risk for dying in a car accident is about 1/100 (google it). So, that's a 99% chance you won't die, similar to covid for the vast majority of us. IF the insurance companies were pushing this experimental drug that was marketed to improve your reflexes and mental clarity to avoid an accident and claimed a reduction of about 90% effective (Like mRNA jabs) - would you take it? For simplicity, lets say these drugs were showing rare but in some cases adverse side effects including death, blood clotting, myocarditis etc, just like our mRNA jabs. Lets also say that the insurance companies are saying that you should take it to not only protect yourself, but others as well - its your civic duty. As well, every time you renew your insurance, you have take the drug again - its not one and done because the protection fades over time. Oh yeah, one more thing - taking the drug doesn't guarantee you won't be in a car accident, just reduces the likelihood that you won't be in a fatal accident.
Lets also say that you have no issues with clarity or your reflexes, you've never been at fault in a car accident before and you feel there is no reason to question your driving ability - would you still take this experimental medicine being pushed by the insurance companies? What if they offered cheaper insurance in exchange for taking the medicine - would you do it then? For many of you, I am guessing that you would not take this experimental medicine to help with your driving because even though it may help, you feel you are a safe enough driver and don't want to take a chance with an experimental drug - what would you do?
Comment