Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 205 Posts

·
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
·
16,510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I've been vaccinated but lots have not. If you are an anti-vaxer you are not alone. I would like to hear your reasons for not wanted to be vaccinated. Now's your chance. This is an open forum. You are free to express your position here. After that, anyone can comment.
======================

Edit done one day later: I had a long edit but lost it. Will try to reproduce some of it.

Although I favor science I have had a strong emotional reaction to this issue so I'm trying to work it off. I'm surprised and pleased for so many replies as I'm used to reading and hearing only one side of the issue.

This issue is about far more than science when it comes to taking vaccines. Lots of feelings are involved and you are right. It's all about how it is presented. One bad story and that gets the publicity. People remember the bad story and no longer trust the best thing to do.

It reminds me of what I recently read on taking the polio vaccine decades ago. There was a bad reaction to the vaccine. The reaction was worse than polio itself. This got the publicity. What about science? Science would say to take the vaccine and take the risk. It's worth it. The problem is bad publicity. The bad feeling is recalled and not the good reason. Feeling over logic wins out time after time. There are two fixes for this. They are different, separate fixes:

(1) Explain using logic why one behavior is better than the other. This is very difficult as who can follow all that complex reasoning covering so many aspects?
(2) Replace the bad stories generating bad feelings with positive stories generating good feelings adequate to overcome the negative feelings.

If something as serious as Covid is going to risk killing and maiming millions, as it turns out it has, is it worthwhile for governments together with scientific organizations to hire publicists who can get the job done right? In the USA the guy the news people say has the top scientific reputation is Dr. Anthony Fauci. Yet when I first heard him he kept using this word I was not sure what is meant. I finally looked up the word (I forget what it was) and it didn't help much. Just because this guy is sincere and many trust him, I wouldn't hire him alone for the job. Get someone who can tell a story that speaks to feeling. That sells better.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,478 Posts
My grandmother didn't take her vaccination in her teens because she was an anti-vaxxer and prefered alternative meds, and she ended up with scoliosis, or a really curved spine.

I didn't want to spread the disease to other such as children and the weak and vulnarable! Now that the sick and elderly has been vaccinated the only people left are the children and the few anti vaxxers (we have allmost none here). I would hate it if covid mutated into an even vorse mutation then Delta and attacked this groop! In some countries they have stated to vaccinate the children too, I wish it was here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigApplePi

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,888 Posts
I and most of my family and relatives are vaccinated, but my aunt refuses to get the Covid vaccine. She had a negative reaction to a flu shot a few years ago, so she's using that as an excuse. She's not a die-hard anti-vaxxer. I don't know for sure if it's simply fear of the unknown or if she's really given up, probably a bit of both.
 

·
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
·
16,510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Tales of anti-vaxers. Where are you all? There should be plenty of you.
 

·
Registered
ISFP
Joined
·
4,349 Posts
Perhaps you need a better title. Try asking X10E, they reel in the crowd.

I would have counted as an anti-vaxer however I intend to get it, but just haven’t yet. I want the freedom to leave.
 

·
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
·
16,510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Perhaps you need a better title. Try asking X10E, they reel in the crowd.
I didn't give it much thought. My emotions just want to know how anti-vaxers defend themselves.

I would have counted as an anti-vaxer however I intend to get it, but just haven’t yet. I want the freedom to leave.
"freedom to leave"? Leave what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,004 Posts
I don’t take the flu vaccines. So I have heard so many people have taken them and gotten sick anyway. I did take the coronavirus vaccine so I could drink more of that yellow beer, however.
 

·
Registered
ISFP
Joined
·
4,349 Posts
"freedom to leave"? Leave what?
The country. Some places don’t allow you entry unless you’ve been vaccinated. Some places will charge you absurd amounts of money to quarantine yourself before you’re allowed to actually do anything.

Getting vaccinated here will likely open doors for me in the near future.
 

·
Registered
Stealth Warship
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
I didn't give it much thought. My emotions just want to know how anti-vaxers defend themselves.
Defend themselves from what, precisely?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,478 Posts
Defend themselves from what, precisely?
Spreading the disease to others, for example the sick and week, by not getting the vaccine
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThisNameWorks

·
Registered
Stealth Warship
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Spreading the disease to others, for example the sick and week, by not getting the vaccine
The validity of there being some some implicit allegation aside, @BigApplePi asked for a defence, allow me to lay one out - (I assume you believe ideally people have the right to state their defence and have the right to have it impartially considered not just upon its own immediate merits but also upon its precedent for society? If not - fair enough but it definitely puts you on the wrong side of history by any standards I can see):

You are considering an ethical matter which mediates a relationship between the state and / or "collective" and the individual - in that, you have implicitly proposed these following core components:

A. A positive obligation.
B. A notion of failure to act.
C. Invasive medical procedure on someone's person.
D. Implication of direct guilt from failure to act to potential if not actual harm caused.
E. Removal of burden of proof of any stringent standard that any such harm has been caused.

And I can extend from this although I won't say you implied it:

F. That on the basis of such guilt there is just cause for punitive measures to be taken:

For example:

i. Prohibition from attendance of public spaces.
ii. Prohibition from using public transport.
iii. Prohibition from certain or all forms of employment.

Now I want you to consider:

i. That I am the most evil, sociopathic person you could possibly imagine - the exact sort of person you want as far away from having any sort of influence or power over your life as possible - but I actually have that power - I can place you under house arrest or forbid you from using any sort of public space, transport or acquire any sort of employment by dictat.

ii. And you have given me these core components as acceptable moral, legal precedent.

I want you to think - is there anything I can't apply those core components to which you might find actually you don't really want me to?

How comfortable do you feel on the basis you've accepted that you can distinguish one setting from another in application of those principles and stop me from doing so?

It's worth considering, I hope you'll agree...!
 

·
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
·
16,510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Defend themselves from what, precisely?
Why would anti-vaxers take the anti-vaxer position when they face such a high probability of a bad disease? Post your answer here for a debate. It seems it's too easy to lose the debate so they just exist in isolated pockets. It also crosses my mind it's less that they take (in the USA) a red-state Republican Trump position, than that those red states are more in rural areas where the news of Covid cases doesn't rear its ugly head so much ... until it's too late.

If you live in a country where a vaccine is not available, that would explain it. But in the USA it is readily available without cost.
 

·
Registered
Stealth Warship
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Why would anti-vaxers take the anti-vaxer position when they face such a high probability of a bad disease? Post your answer here for a debate. It seems it's too easy to lose the debate so they just exist in isolated pockets. It also crosses my mind it's less that they take (in the USA) a red-state Republican Trump position, than that those red states are more in rural areas where the news of Covid cases doesn't rear its ugly head so much ... until it's too late.

If you live in a country where a vaccine is not available, that would explain it. But in the USA it is readily available without cost.
I already did post an answer.

I tagged you in it in fact.

Here:

You are considering an ethical matter which mediates a relationship between the state and / or "collective" and the individual - in that, the following core components have been proposed:

A. A positive obligation.
B. A notion of failure to act.
C. Invasive medical procedure on someone's person.
D. Implication of direct guilt from failure to act to potential if not actual harm caused.
E. Removal of burden of proof of any stringent standard that any such harm has been caused.

And I can extend from this:

F. That on the basis of such guilt there is just cause for punitive measures to be taken:

For example:

i. Prohibition from attendance of public spaces.
ii. Prohibition from using public transport.
iii. Prohibition from certain or all forms of employment.

Now I want you to consider:

i. That I am the most evil, sociopathic person you could possibly imagine - the exact sort of person you want as far away from having any sort of influence or power over your life as possible - but I actually have that power - I can place you under house arrest or forbid you from using any sort of public space, transport or acquire any sort of employment by dictat.

ii. And you have given me these core components as acceptable moral, legal precedent.

I want you to think - is there anything I can't apply those core components to which you might find actually you don't really want me to?

How comfortable do you feel on the basis you've accepted that you can distinguish one setting from another in application of those principles and stop me from doing so?

It's worth considering, I hope you'll agree...!


Before I go any further I think it's worth you giving me an answer on how you feel about the precedent which is set by it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigApplePi

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,478 Posts
Why would anti-vaxers take the anti-vaxer position when they face such a high probability of a bad disease? Post your answer here for a debate. It seems it's too easy to lose the debate so they just exist in isolated pockets. It also crosses my mind it's less that they take (in the USA) a red-state Republican Trump position, than that those red states are more in rural areas where the news of Covid cases doesn't rear its ugly head so much ... until it's too late.

If you live in a country where a vaccine is not available, that would explain it. But in the USA it is readily available without cost.
Do you understand what he is saying? 🤔
I need to spend an hour or two in the dictionary. But google translate will probably make it looks like its about elephants and tea roses
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigApplePi

·
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
·
16,510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
already did post an answer.

I tagged you in it in fact.
I suspect you memorized me as Hal. I'm not HAL but correct me if I've misread you.

You are considering an ethical matter which mediates a relationship between the state and / or "collective" and the individual -
I didn't quote you in its entirety but this is the main one in my mind other than shear ignorance about Covid danger. Anti-vaxers have an argument when they want freedom of choice. What right does the state have to tell them what to do? That is a valid argument. They are allowed to be angry at the state. What defeats this argument?

Your post is long and I may not have answered your Q.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Electra

·
Registered
Stealth Warship
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
I suspect you memorized me as Hal. I'm not HAL but correct me if I've misread you.
Oh yeah sorry about that, ha, weird - apologies! I'm making loads of stupid mistakes like that today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,130 Posts
Here are 2 major things to say:

I. People who categorize other people as "anti-vaxxers" just because they don't want to receive an anti-COVID-19 vaccine should be categorized as complete idiots.
Being anti-COVID-19 vaccine does not mean that you are anti-vaxxer, just as barking from time to time does not mean that you are a dog.

I think that over 80% of the people who are classified as "anti-vaxxers" because they do not agree with this vaccine, have received all childhood vaccines + agree to receive any other vaccine if needed, only this one does not.

II. The reason why many people do not agree with this vaccine is simple: very few people understand its usefulness, what the vaccine is, how it works AND ESPECIALLY THERE IS ZERO CREDIBILITY FOR THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THAT INFORMATION.

This is also the case among health specialists, not only among the general population.
Why? The reason is very simple.

There are several factors that contributed to this, but the main ones are the following:

1. Lack of effective management of vaccination campaigns.

ACTUALLY THEY WERE SUCH BIG FAILURES THAT...IF I WERE A COORDINATOR OF A VACCINATION CAMPAIGN, I WOULD'VE FEEL ASHAMED TO CALL MYSELF A "MANAGER" ANYMORE.

I have no idea about ASIA, OCEANIA or AMERICA, but I know that in EUROPE at least, you can SAFELY say that it was some 12-year-old children who managed the respective campaigns.
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION, CONFUSING AND NOT CONVEYED AS IT SHOULD BE.

I've seen very few scientists advertising or talking about it. People with public reach.
If you can believe it, the person with the greatest reach to the public in terms of information about these vaccines was an ESFJ DOCTOR. Far from everything that "SCIENTIST" means.

What do you think should have been?
People with good reputation and social skills to inform COHERENTLY and CONCRETELY, properly. DEPENDING ON EVERYONE'S UNDERSTANDING.
A man with IQ 140 is not convinced by the same techniques as one with IQ 120 or as one with IQ 100 or as one with IQ 80 or as one with IQ 40. DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS require DIFFERENT TACTICS.

Everything had to be targeted by population segments.

And a very important aspect is the following: People are not in doubt because they have not been informed, but because they have been misinformed.

2. The second main factor is the following: The companies that produce vaccines PRESENT ZERO CREDIBILITY.

We all know how corrupt and inhumane pharmaceutical companies are. N concrete cases (with the help of inside informants) have been demonstrated with concrete evidence in which pharmaceutical companies endangered lives for $.

What confidence can you have in such companies in a crisis situation?

That is, the fact that all vaccine manufacturers are interested in $$$ and less in "saving the world" is something that probably everyone agrees.

Have you seen any of those who worked to discover and produce a vaccine? Any interviews, anything? I read hundreds of articles on the subject and saw no one.

Major mistakes were made that I can't explain how they were possible except for 2 reasons:
1. Or they are totally unprofessional up there.
2. Or they just don't care.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,478 Posts
The validity of there being some some implicit allegation aside, @HAL asked for a defence, allow me to lay one out - (I assume you believe ideally people have the right to state their defence and have the right to have it impartially considered not just upon its own immediate merits but also upon its precedent for society? If not - fair enough but it definitely puts you on the wrong side of history by any standards I can see):

You are considering an ethical matter which mediates a relationship between the state and / or "collective" and the individual - in that, you have implicitly proposed these following core components:

A. A positive obligation.
B. A notion of failure to act.
C. Invasive medical procedure on someone's person.
D. Implication of direct guilt from failure to act to potential if not actual harm caused.
E. Removal of burden of proof of any stringent standard that any such harm has been caused.

And I can extend from this although I won't say you implied it:

F. That on the basis of such guilt there is just cause for punitive measures to be taken:

For example:

i. Prohibition from attendance of public spaces.
ii. Prohibition from using public transport.
iii. Prohibition from certain or all forms of employment.

Now I want you to consider:

i. That I am the most evil, sociopathic person you could possibly imagine - the exact sort of person you want as far away from having any sort of influence or power over your life as possible - but I actually have that power - I can place you under house arrest or forbid you from using any sort of public space, transport or acquire any sort of employment by dictat.

ii. And you have given me these core components as acceptable moral, legal precedent.

I want you to think - is there anything I can't apply those core components to which you might find actually you don't really want me to?

How comfortable do you feel on the basis you've accepted that you can distinguish one setting from another in application of those principles and stop me from doing so?

It's worth considering, I hope you'll agree...!
Everybody has the right to speak their oppinion in this democracy, including you.
No I don't have to have consider those points of yours, but I could have.
Are you afraid that someone will poison you, to hit the nail on the head, so to speak?
 

·
Premium Member
INTP (I thimk) 5w
Joined
·
16,510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I'm making loads of stupid mistakes like that today.
Apology accepted. Why don't they forgive me when I do the same???
 
  • Like
Reactions: Six

·
Registered
Stealth Warship
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Everybody has the right to speak their oppinion in this democracy, including you.
No I don't have to have consider those points of yours, but I could have.
Are you afraid that someone will poison you, to hit the nail on the head, so to speak?
The argument I presented there has nothing to do with poisoning - but given you haven't considered it, why would anyone expect you'd have discerend that?

If you're saying is there some some suspected intentional malign harm intended behind these vaccines - what are you implying?

A. That people are going to drop dead after taking it?
B. That people are going to become infertile after taking it?
C. That people are going to be programmed by nanobots from space as in accordance with the hidden lizard overlords' plot to enslave humanity?

I think we'd notice if suddenly people were dying or becoming unable to concieve after taking it - if we're assuming it happened instantaneously. Plus if you believe in our hidden lizard overlords - hypothetically I'd say why bother injecting us with nanobots at all given what a servile, credulous bunch of idiots history has shown people tend to be?

However.

Is this something that has been trialed for its long term consequences?

No.

You can't say that.

You know why?

Because it hasn't been.

Now maybe you're comfortable with that.

Maybe you'd be fine with having all sorts of medical experiments which haven't been long-term trialed taken out on you - it's your life.

But it seems a little odd to just roll something like that out across billions of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ENIGMA2019 and Fru2
1 - 20 of 205 Posts
Top