Lawmaker’s Misplaced Priorites Prove Insanity
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
16
[QUIZ] 23 February 2025 - The Jam
I just completed this quiz. My Score 30/100 My Time 94 seconds -
28
-
51
[QUIZ] 10 September - World Currencies Past and Present
I just completed this quiz. My Score 70/100 My Time 82 seconds -
282
Fun Quiz > Covid-19 mRNA Vax harm denial - At which stage are you?
Do you think it was ethical to have been put in that position? It seems that you would have taken the vaccine in any case, and that's fine, freedom of choice is essential, but don't you find it disturbing to think that you couldn't have refused if you had wanted to? At the time, I understood the situation for what it was. Initially, I was sceptical - I genuinely thought the global response to Covid-19 might be an overreaction. But as I delved deeper, I came to appreciate that authorities were working from a framework shaped by previous outbreaks like SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. The data and modelling from those events made it clear that early, decisive action – including isolation, quarantine, and travel restrictions – was the only responsible route, given what was then unknown. I’ve always believed in vaccination. It’s one of the cornerstones of modern public health, and I’m convinced it's a major reason most of us are even alive today. Epidemiological models consistently estimate that, without vaccines, the global population would be 3 to 4 billion fewer – a staggering difference, but one supported by historical case fatality rates and mortality statistics from vaccine-preventable diseases. So when it came to the pandemic, I placed my trust in the science. Vaccines were never going to be perfect – no vaccine ever is. But the principle is sound. And while early data showed that the Covid-19 vaccines might not have the high efficacy rates we’d hoped for – perhaps not even matching the typical 40-60% efficacy of seasonal flu vaccines – they still represented a significant reduction in risk, both for individuals and for the wider population. Where politics became relevant for me was not in the decision to get vaccinated myself – that was straightforward. It was in the expectation that others would do the same, especially in shared environments like travel or work. I found reassurance in knowing that those around me posed a reduced risk – to me, my family, my friends – because they, too, had been vaccinated. That mattered. Now, do I believe in freedom of choice? Absolutely. But I also believe that social media played a damaging role during the pandemic. Misinformation, often in the form of memes and unverified anecdotes, spread faster than any virus – and disproportionately influenced those without the tools or background to properly assess scientific claims. Sometimes, for the sake of public safety, society does need to make certain decisions for people. That’s why we have seatbelt laws and speed limits. So was it ethical to be put in a position where refusal would have been difficult? That depends on perspective. I didn’t feel coerced – I felt informed. But I do recognise that some felt backed into a corner, and I sympathise with that discomfort. Ultimately, I believe the ethical balance lies in doing what protects the most people, while striving to communicate truth with honesty, humility, and clarity – something that was, unfortunately, often lacking during the heat of it all. The same principle applied to my son's school. We were required to provide a full vaccination record as part of the enrolment process. Had there been gaps, I’ve no doubt the school would have had the right – and, arguably, the responsibility – to request that certain vaccines be administered before accepting him. That’s not about control; it’s about collective responsibility and protecting those who can’t protect themselves. So… do I like mandates like that? Not particularly. Do I think they're necessary? Yes, in many cases I do. As for whether it's ethical – that’s more complex. With the benefit of hindsight, the ethics become somewhat grey. But in the moment, with the information and urgency we were facing, I genuinely believed – and still largely believe – that requiring vaccination for international travel and for working in close-contact environments was an ethical stance. It was a proportionate response to a global crisis, aimed at minimising harm and keeping society functioning. -
282
Fun Quiz > Covid-19 mRNA Vax harm denial - At which stage are you?
I took the dare. I am apparently vaccine injured also, Bottom line "Vaccination Site Pain" Can I sue? -
282
Fun Quiz > Covid-19 mRNA Vax harm denial - At which stage are you?
Biden, Rachel Walensky, Fauci, Rachel Maddow and many more all pushed the message that "the virus stops at every vaccinated person" and it had a great impact on collective perception from the get-go. But they were used as basis for the previously discussed coercion. And they were challenged by several doctors, who were smeared and lost a large part of their income and status. A unilateral stance was adopted and pushed aggressively, with no room for nuance or contradiction – this would already be ethically questionable if the stance has turned out to be the right one, but that isn't even the case. It's more than the odd adverse event here and there. It's significant, and that is why Dr. Redfield now refuses to administer the mRNA shot. His status gives an additional aura of credibility to concerns which have been voiced by numerous health professionals for four years. It's time for the truth to come out, I hope RFK will be the catalysing agent for this.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts