EmilyD

1. "Maybe" wouldn't work.

2. Of course personal choice only affects that one person! (??) And taking away that person's freedom to choose is unconstitutional.

3. Religious people have a serious commitment to their faith and their belief. To force them to forego those sacred beliefs would be considered sacrilegious. They would not do it. Then what? They get arrested?? Besides, it is against the First Amendment that says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Mandating a v*****e that goes against their faith would be prohibiting their free exercise of their religions.

4. Medical problems should not be taken lightly or ignored by people who are giving the injections. In most cases, those people (think of an employee at a CVS) don't have access to the person's medical history, and don't pass out the information sheets from the pharmaceutical companies that list the warnings to consider when taking the injection. People who have had serious medical problems would be much more susceptible to even more problems if they were forced to be inoculated. For instance, people with pulmonary weakness (have had pneumonia, lung disease, serious smoker), heart disease (such as people who have had bypass surgery...all of them have c*********d oxygen supply to their bodies since their repaired hearts no longer function at 100% capacity), cancer, diabetes, obesity, blood disease, etc.

Mercury is one very good reason to reject this unapproved, untested, gene-manipulation inoculation. M-RNA is another very big concern. No one (no one!!!) knows how it will affect humans down the road!

5. I don't believe, and I doubt many Americans do either, that these people who have a great risk of dying or having their quality of life greatly reduced if they are forced to put a toxic drug cocktail into their bodies should be punished by forcing them to live apart. It would be too much like Hitler's concentration camps. If this were the Bubonic Plague, I might think differently, but it's not. Far from it.

6. If it is ok for the government to mandate everyone be inoculated, yet not be held financially responsible if something goes wrong, seems Draconian to me. I suppose that goes along with culling the herd that Bill Gates and others condone. Who needs sick people and old people who are just a drain on society anyway. (/sarc.)

It might be a small percentage of people who have adverse reactions and/or die, or it might be a large percentage....we don't know that now, and won't know it for several years. Experts say it is standard procedure to test a v*****e for 5-7 years to prove its safety and effectiveness. M-RNA has been tested with 100% unsuccessful results since 1987. (Every single lab animal that has been used in testing it have died so far!) Those currently being v******ted are guinea pigs in a huge clinical trial. I believe that to be a fact, not my opinion.

7. It's nice to think the pharmaceutical companies should take responsibility, but the bottom line is they don't. In fact, they will bend over backwards to avoid it...and they have all kinds of disclaimers to prove it. I believe that if people are allowed to sue them, they will go out of business, hearing how many people have already had serious reactions and/or died. (BTW, if a person is likely to die before a lawsuit is finished, their families take over...that's standard practice when a sick person who might die sues someone.)

8. A "social contract"?? Where is that found? Where can I find this "general agreement"? If the government starts to regulate mandates, then our country's fundamental legal structure....the Constitution....will become invalid. Government by the people for the people will be gone, and all of us will be controlled by the whims of whoever the "Dictator Du Jour" is. If the government is granted control over our personal choices, it will become a slippery slope where that control will expand and expand until approval for all our personal choices will be mandated. Once they discover they can control us (which they've already started doing by mandating lockdowns and mask wearing), they won't stop just there. Mandating this by decree will lead to so many more problems for Americans than they are already facing. Also, can they mandate a drug that has not been approved by the FDA? I suppose they will pull wh**ever strings are necessary to get that done before it should be (or override it somehow), in order to proceed with the mandated decree.

Added: C***d has a 98% recovery rate. It's variants will most likely have that stat as well. Mandating people to be v******ted for something they have a 98% chance of getting over by just staying at home, relaxing and letting it ride it's course, is excessive...even extreme. My opinion is that something else is at work here, and it's not rocket science to figure it out. In one word: Control. The government is becoming larger and larger, and moving away from the "by the people for the people" concept that our country was founded upon. Mandating this injection would be the beginning of the end of America as we know it.

EmilyD

Number 1 is totally false. People have died from the shot. My brother, as a lot of people here on OPP know already, died from the M*****a shot on May 22. And he is not the only one who has died from the v*****e shots. That number is not being reported by the media, so it is not generally known, but people I know who work in the medical industry say it's larger than they want the public to know about. It is in the thousands right now, but they can't say how many because their administrators won't allow them to, and deaths are not being reported as a result of the shot.

So that is one lie.

Number 2 is totally false, also. C***d has a 98% recovery rate as opposed to a less than 1% death rate. Saying someone "will probably die" from it is an incredibly large exaggeration, and mostly false. They most probably WILL NOT die from it.

So that is another lie.

I hope that is not hard for you to understand. But if it is, get someone to explain the statistics to you. 98% is a good statistic for recovery from a v***s. Less than 1% death rate is also a good statistic for consequences of contracting a v***s.

You should stop spreading lies.

Radiance3

=======================
Raw Story is not credible. It is a political tool of the LEFT to destroy their political enemy, the right. Raw Story is not news. It is a deceptive information to cause harm and damage to the righteous conservative people. Beware of deceptions.

Radiance3

==================
Ad blocker covers your post. I am not buying papers that lie and deceive. Washington Post is a democrat political tool. It is not conservative. Washington Post is an MSM that reports f**e news to deceive and destroy the political opponent of the left. It is not a good source of credible information. Please don't be deceived.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

Bunch of r****t, forcing B***k A******ns to be v******ted against their will. Put's me in mind of s***ery

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

OK. Point taken.

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

Oho noo, the WAshington POst initials are of general use. WAPO! Bad try at controversy.

Old Thinker

I don't think herd immunity discriminates between conservatives and dems... that implies that they don't go to the same public places, etc... what a farce, but then what would you expect from the WAPO?

Old Thinker

I don't think your very good at math... if one in ten get the v***s that would be only ten out of a hundred of the 58% unv******ted with a 98% recovery rate... minimal v**es in my opinion.... dems are paranoid and know they are in trouble in 2022..

3507

Yeah; but I'm going to guess the numbers differently. Half of the unv******ted population might get the v***s. Within that group (unv******ted, having the v***s), 2% of that group might die from the v***s within eight years, and another 50% of that group might get "long C***d" but not die until they had lived long enough to v**e for at least eight more years.

So the end times 'er comin' but they are slo' arrivin'.

3507

Not a v*****e? Not approved by the FDA? What sort of unliberal rag have you been reading?

3507

"Maybe" meant that I didn't have a firm answer yet for whether there should be such a mandate. I'm not very familiar with mandates, although I've thought some about having to register for the draft when I was 18. That was a mandate, or something as severe as a mandate. Did it interfere with my "personal choice"?

On #2 you don't seem to get the point. The situation (getting v******ted or not) does NOT affect only that one person, unless he or she is living in isolation from other people. To understand this you need to know that the C***d v***s is contagious.

If your definition of "personal choice" implies that only the one person is affected, then, by that definition, getting the v*****e or not getting it would _not_ be a "personal choice"; because, it does _not_ affect only that one person; it affects anybody who might later catch the v***s from that person. And then it affects anybody who might catch the v***s from _those_ people. And so on.

It doesn't affect those other people immediately, today; but it does affect them, later.

We cannot predict exactly who or exactly how many will catch the v***s, or from whom. It's not deterministic like that. It's a probabilistic situation, and we have to manage the risk to all those people. It's similar to how we can't allow people to go out on the highway and do a lot of unsafe driving: that's because it endangers other people. Unv******ted people who aren't isolating themselves are increasing the risks to the health of millions of other people, because they are increasing the chances of each person to eventually catch the v***s, from the first individual or from others he or she will infect, and so on.

That's as far as I read; I didn't look at your #3, etc.

Your earlier post was good (in my opinion), if I may say so. You asked interesting and relevant questions. Even the short statements which weren't questions were good, or at least I found them plausible.

EmilyD

Your argument that personal choice does not matter because C***d can be spread to more than one person doesn't hold water. Both people who get the shot and those who don't have the ability to contract and spread C***d to others. There are many other reasons beside spreading the v***s to be considered for both sides of the issue that people should seriously research before making this very important decision. Therefore, personal choice DOES matter.

I am going to say this again because people who argue that the shot is the only way to go seem to (conveniently?) forget that C***d has a recovery rate of 98% - meaning most people (98% of them) who contract the v***s will recover from it. Something to note here: the argument that people who contract C***d could have long-term side effects that would impact their quality of life also holds true for people who have received the shot. BUT...long-term side effects are not known for the v*****e yet, so the consequences of the shot could be more OR less than the consequences of long-term C***d.

I highly recommend everyone thoroughly research the consequences of making the decision to get the injection or not get it. That is what is meant by personal choice.

Saying that you didn't bother to read the rest of my post beyond #2 tells me you think that only your opinion is the important one. You have posted much longer posts than mine, so I know that length of my post isn't the issue...or at least it shouldn't be.

Wolfman888

Good one, less.

No, I got my shot early and am in the pink; thanks for caring !

Hope you and yours did as well and you aren't spending all your free time

at funerals.

Wolfman888

There is so much unt***h in this rant that no one should even respond to it.