jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana

I am rethink about getting a flue shot anymore, can’t trust the government, nor medical practitioners anymore. They may try to inject the vaccine in with your flu vaccine.

jSmitty45 Loc: Fl born, lived in Texas 30 yrs, now Louisiana

Whispering slo Joe!

Holdenbeach4u Loc: Holden Beach , NC

Holdenbeach4u Loc: Holden Beach , NC

Holdenbeach4u Loc: Holden Beach , NC

This Coronavirus shots are the biggest scam of this world . No flu shot since
1994. If you keep your body off medication and exercise some and get into shape you can do ok . So many people have been brainwashed concerning these shots . These shots will hurt your body on the long run.
Let’s look at what Spike Protien will destroyed your body in due time .

Wonttakeitanymore

Our tax dollars at work! Don’t open the door! Put a Trump sticker on the door, that should keep the scavengers away!

1alpha7

And they called/call Trump a Nazi.

Kateri Loc: Florida

I agree and will do the same

3507

I'll break that up into two topics:

(1):

95% survival rate is not good enough! Only 95%, as a disease survival rate of humans, is bad. If a person's chances of survival on a carnival ride were 95%, would you let your children ride on it? If they did a variety of such kinds of things, for a total of twenty events for each child, with 95% survival rate for each event, then they'd probably all be dead.

Whatever the survival rate is (95% or whatever it is), it should be compared with what the alternatives are. To put it simply, supposing that 95% of people infected with Covid will completely recover from it, and supposing that 50% of people who get vaccinated for Covid die from the vaccination, then you'd be better off not getting vaccinated.

More realistically, SUPPOSE that (these are just my ballpark guesses from the general trends I've heard in the news): 1% of people who get infected with Covid will die from it, and an additional 15% of those people who get infected with Covid will develop severe long term health problems from it;

and,

suppose that 0.00001% of people who get vaccinated will die from the vaccine, and suppose that the vaccine were to reduce the chance that the vaccinated person will get a Covid infection, from 10% (for the unvaccinated person) to 0.2% (for the vaccinated person).

I've just made up those numbers but I think they're reasonable ballpark guesses according to what I hear in the news. (It's more complicated, in part because the chance of infection depends on the period of time.)

Given this set of numbers, you'd have _much_ better chances as a vaccinated person than as an unvaccinated person.

A survival rate is an oversimplification, when looking at the effect of Covid. Even if the _survival_ rate is much higher, suppose 99.9%, that's still 1 death in every 1,000 infected people, and those thousand are spreading the disease to many thousands more; and the risk of getting severe long-term health degradation is much higher than the risk of death. Then also there's the problem of what happens to the whole health care system when the hospitals are overwhelmed. Some Covid wards have already been overwhelmed. Even some of the nurses who have to take care of Covid patients are traumatized -- some nurses have told us what they're seeing; it's been in the news from time to time during the past year.

In addition to all that, there are these new variants of Covid. The "D" variant is much worse than the original -- which is what one should expect, when a virus is left to mutate like that in a large population: after a while, some mutation that's hardier (and therefore more dangerous) than the others will develop -- that's survival of the fittest among mutations. Viruses mutate much faster than humans do, because the virus generations are much shorter than humans'.

(2):

It seems to me that a "my body, my choice" topic could develop along more than one line of discussion.

The main line of discussion that relates to the pandemic, and ALSO, in this case, relates to a "my body, my choice" discussion, has to do with collective effort.

"Collective effort": When I say collective effort I mean a coordinated response by a large group of people together. It might be hundreds of millions of people.

("My body, my choice" is often said regarding abortion. I'm using "my body, my choice" in a different sense, and negatively. Here I'm thinking about vaccination, a pandemic, and collective effort. There's a difference between abortion and a pandemic. I don't want to get side-tracked here into specifics about abortion. Or at least, not yet. It might be a difficult topic, requiring effort, if we do go there later.)

I've already brought up that subtopic "collective effort", in this thread. To put it simply, if everyone got vaccinated, that would be a collective effort to stop the virus. They _could_ theoretically all be getting vaccinated just to save their individual selves; but for a large enough proportion of the population to actually get vaccinated, it would require a coordinated response: a collective effort, NOT just "every man for himself" but rather there would have to be some idea of "do this for the good of the population as a whole". Either the mass of people would think such an idea, or the government that leads them would think such an idea, or both.

Having read or scanned as far as this post from you, so far I haven't seen sufficient response about collective effort, although it's very relevant to vaccination. And the original post was largely about vaccination.

Now the same idea surfaces again, with a tie-in from "my body, my choice". (You'll see why, below.)

A collective effort might in some ways be a good thing, and in some ways be a bad thing. It might depend on the circumstances. But in general, collective effort (or a coordinated response by a large number of people together) is an important concept in a pandemic.

One example of a collective effort to defeat an enemy would be a whole population getting vaccinated to defeat a virus.

Another example of a collective effort to defeat an enemy would be a nation conscripting part of its population and sending them off to war.

In a collective effort, a whole army may be sent to a foreign country, or, in some other circumstance, might be deployed on our homeland to defend us against an attack.

And now finally, about that "My body, my choice":

What good was "My body, my choice" back in the early 70s when young men (including myself) were legally required to register for the military draft, one step in the process of risking young men's _bodies_ in a war that many of them didn't even approve of? Was it justified and the right thing to do, or not, that the government would have that legal requirement of the military draft at that time? A lot of people on OPP are old enough that they should know about that, and have thought about what it means, by now.

Given the political leaning and the tendency to make emphatic simple statements, among many OPP folks, I've been expecting some simple answers here. I want to see everyone's answers to that question "Was it justified and the right thing to do, or not, that the government would have that legal requirement of the military draft at that time?".

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

As far as the draft goes, I don't believe it was done justly. Too many deferments for people of means and other ways to avoid the draft. If a country such as ours wants to have a draft then as a Democratic Republic we must (should) hold our Representatives accountable. If they vote for a draft and the people are not behind it then they will lose their jobs. Since a draft directly affects those that are 18 and older it could even be determined by a vote. Your example is still apples to oranges. Putting an experimental vaccine into your body should be a personal choice between you and your doctor. You say 1% is too much. Too scary. Will 13% of deaths in the U.S. are directly related to heart disease. Does that mean you should have to be on a healthy, government approved diet? After all, would you allow your kids to eat an ice cream cone?

peg w

I think sending vacanatores door to door is not a bad idea. The government already sends census takers door to door. Right now between 10% to 20% of the 33 million people who came down with Covid are disabled. You do the math, its a lot of people to be long haulers. Also, there is north of 600, 000 dead people, and the Delta variant is now spreading like wildfire. Covid cases have doubled in the past week. So what are we to do? Sit on our hands?

1alpha7

Looks like Den Haag should open a new case... Covid19 extermination of millions of people around the earth.

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:[55]

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health; (Covid19 intentional spread by the CCP)
Answer to this CCP!

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Your figures are very suspect. The death by Covid numbers are also skewed. Love to see those disabled stats. Back it up. The Delta variant is highly concentrated in South America. Yet your idiot president is letting thousands come across the border and shipping them all over the country. Maybe what we are to do is close the border and live life without fear.

3507

That looks like it might be a question.

Ideally, they could be vaccinated. I haven't thought much about them. There seems to be enough to think about already, regarding just the citizens, and even that group (citizens) hasn't really been fully addressed yet.

3507

Wow. I'm surprised to read that. "_any_ decision making" -- about what to do in a pandemic, or just about encouraging people to get vaccinated, and informing them?

So here's what I'm thinking: When my children started public school they had to get some vaccinations. Isn't that the government making a decision about vaccinations?

So far I haven't seen anywhere that our gov't is requiring the general public to be vaccinated _for_Covid_. I think that some jobs do require it.

The original post was (factually) about informing people about Covid vaccination and making it easier for them to get vaccinated. (There was some spin about how bad that supposedly was.)

I don't see anything wrong with informing, making it easier to be vaccinated, and even encouraging people to be vaccinated. And it makes sense that a government should do that much. At least that much. It's a public health matter. What people in Town X do will have an affect on the health of people in Town Y. (That's because of contagion.). Similarly, what people in state A do will have an affect on the health of people in state B. It makes sense to have some kind of coordination at a high level. That (coordination) is exactly one of the main things governments are _for_ (one of their main purposes).

Without some government oversight of public health, the population is sicker.

The first example of a really bad situation (a possible counter-example to my own argument), that I think of, where government oversight is failing public health, is the drinking water situation in Flint, Michigan; and I think that might be a problem at the state level. I'm not sure whether it was because of _insufficient_ oversight by government.

There are other examples; it seems that usually the problem is that government is not providing enough oversight or isn't providing a high enough quality of oversight, or a powerful enough oversight. Removing or weakening the oversight usually just makes such problems worse. Now I'm thinking mainly about pollution. As regulation is weakened, corporations pollute more, and we become generally worse off.