What's so hard about taking a cautious approach and proactively increase your chances of survival? I.e get to higher grounds (floods), evacuating(hurricanes), get vaccinated (covid + new diseases?), etc.
WHO's dubious approach and dubious rhetoric only made me suspicious. I'm still waiting for their investigation on where and how pandemic originated.
When the tide comes in while you're on the beach, do you stay and accept your fate? Or do you move?
I agree with you. Glasses and vaccine are great achievements of human civilization but I raised questions about freedom, biology and moral.
I'm not against vaccination I took many of them as a child and I have glasses which help and enhance me significantly but I'm not for mandatory vaccination or COVID passports that my European Union wants to enforce and I'm not for European Union limiting my human rights. We are going back to the days of Hitler where it was more important who you are "biologically" than looking at the fact that we are all humans and that we all have equal rights.
There is quite a bit of pseudoscience on the internet that people don't really need glasses, they can train their eyes to work without them. See, for instance, the so-called Bates method[0], which had been well-debunked already in the mid-20th-century but, like so many quack claims, got a new life from the web.
>Dr Murcia said: "Vaccination, plus hygiene measures, plus the interactions between viruses could lower the incidence of Sars-CoV-2 heavily, but the maximum effect will come from vaccination."
Vaccines are an end product of nature and evolution, too, and are much more reliable than hoping you always happen to get infected with rhinovirus near the same time you're exposed to SARS-CoV-2.
I agree with you but how safe is mRNA vaccine in the long term? I would rather take "classical" vaccine.
(But it's a good theory, who really knows, amirite?)
A) Don't do the thing you don't want to (Vaccination)
- or -
B) Don't do the thing that having a vaccination would let you do.
That's still freedom of choice - you're free to decide what you want more. Having constraints on you isn't removing your free will.
As it stands, I’ll go to war today and die to guarantee my and your and everyone’s right to refuse, should TPTB actually try anything that stupid. Shouldn’t be a problem though, the people in favor seem to be mostly bullies making noise. They tend to shut up when you let them know that their only path forward is to start, and then try to win, a war.
You may want to remove the link in your profile where you express skepticism that we'll hit millions of deaths worldwide, as it's going to make people question your already questionable viewpoints even more.
> skepticism that we’ll hit millions of deaths worldwide
Here’s the exact quote from the blog, in case any bystanders suspect that this person might not be arguing in good faith:
“Personally I don’t think that millions of healthy people will ever drop dead from one of these diseases in the space of a year, like they once did from a flu in 1918.”
> I’m just happy there really aren’t that many of you out there.
Should it come to the point where “dying for rights” is a real thing again (in America), I guess you’ll find out.
"Those who will give up liberty for security [from a virus] will lose both."
We are, in fact, losing them now, so yes, now is the time to be willing to die for them.
This is basically the default position of every liberal (not in the misapplied American parlance) for at least 150 years now and surely far longer.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”
John Stuart Mill, 1862
I think vaccines are a good one to be mandatory
Whether its in the form of tax penalties, barred admission from public services, vaccination "passport" campaigns, or what have you, there needs to be a cost to associated with the damage your personal decision does to our society. If refusing a vaccine is truly that important to you, you are welcome to pay the cost. But I suspect many anti-vaxxers are simply societal freeloaders whose "principles" will melt away when they actually cost them something.
Because society has accepted liability for vaccine injury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj... and https://www.medicallicenselawyers.com/blog/covid-19-vaccine-...), it seems to me that it would be good for society for me to make the best choice for myself about the vaccine. Since society will pay if I get hurt, it would be best for me to weigh that in the decision to get vaccinated.
We've had vaccines since 1796 [0] when Edward Jenner developed a vaccine for smallpox, a terrible disease that we fully eradicated thanks to vaccination. A disease that you and me don't have to worry about because of vaccines.
(Likewise for Cholera, Tetanus, Polio, Tuberculosis, Meningitis, etc)
Also, trains, cars, planes, cameras, lightbulbs and every invention of Edison are newer technologies than vaccines.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_vaccines