How does one overcome the fear of getting a needle stabbed into one's flesh, to make this into a voluntary event? — Metaphysician Undercover

The same way they overcome any fear. Unless they are those who don't overcome any fear, and choose to hide under the bed. Personally, I stare at the needle as it goes in and embrace the sensation. I challenge it to overcome me. LOL! It can't, of course, because I'm not a pussy.

Your other post was pretty powerful. I was considering sharing it on facebook. And I rarely drop anything too loud on there. I made this thread to divert the mess into a controlled burn. But, I agree. We have over corrected on purpose.

I made this thread to divert the mess into a controlled burn. — Cheshire

I get it. To extrapolate, I do have questions, and questions can become misgivings, if you let them. It's just that once I make the call, I don't let them become misgivings. It's too late.

If some bad shit happens because I got the vax, then Baker, et al, can say "I told you so!" But here's the thing: they didn't tell me anything, because they don't know anything. All they did was speculate. They aren't smart enough and don't have the training to tell me anything. All they can do is question, wonder, speculate or regurgitate what others have said to make them scared. There is nothing wrong with that, I guess. But I don't live my life that way.

Again, if I were to take a deep dive on my questions, I could do so. I have several thoughts about what could go wrong, or what the motivation was behind pushing the vax, but I'm not going to give a loaded gun to a toddler.

Again, if I were to take a deep dive on my questions, I could do so. I have several thoughts about what could go wrong, or what the motivation was behind pushing the vax, but I'm not going to give a loaded gun to a toddler. — James Riley

The thread merely assumes any question is about the belief of certainty and no actionable concern. If testing the matter lets you think about something else afterwards. Then, by all means. Which is a more compelling case the threat of harm or the questionable motivations?

Which is a more compelling case the threat of harm or the questionable motivations? — Cheshire

If harm were separate from motivation, unintentional, a mistake, then I'd have fewer questions. Science is often wrong, and people are often Guinea Pigs, whether they volunteer or not. I think Doctors and health care workers have good intent, even when they fuck up. I'll roll with them. Doctors are behind the vax and all the politicians and Faux News types are behind it for them and their family. I don't know why they want their constituents to get sick. Though I'm cool with Darwin.

What would worry me, if I thought about it, is that harm and motivation were not separate. If I put on my tin foil hat and assume the $kajillionaires are as smart as me (but have the best science minds in the world to prove I'm right), then they know the human race is far beyond the Earth's carrying capacity. Trying to figure out a good way to thin the herd, when it's this late in the game, might involve a virus, or a vaccine, either one.

If I wanted to play that game, then I'll go back to school, major in the sciences, get an advanced degree in viral immunology, and read all the deep shit that makes 99.9999% of the population's eyes cross and go to sleep (or blather on the news and interwebs about shit that is over their pointed little heads). Then I could know if they are out to get me.

I could let the fear mongers spin me up, or get schooled. I pick the third: which is neither.

So, to answer your question, there is no compelling case for either, or it's over my head if their is.

I think Bob Frost was repairing a New England Wall with his neighbor. The only way to lock in a round rock was with a spell. He'd say something to the effect: "Stay put, until we turn our backs." LOL! Get the shot, turn your back and move on. That's what I say.

I could let the fear mongers spin me up, or get schooled. I pick the third: which is neither. — James Riley

I've met more than a few people that take it for granted that population reduction is something that the super wealthy desire. It has a pleasant intuitive fit like too many people in the boat. Less people, better boat viability. But, to me the amount of disruption caused would be more of a threat than the population itself. They already have access to resources as if people weren't around through their wealth. Their wealth is only significant if it's in demand, so getting rid of people would devalue their assets. Essentially, changing the rules to a game you are already winning.

Essentially, changing the rules to a game you are already winning. — Cheshire

Yeah, that's why I don't go down that road. On the other hand, I do remember lessons from biology and ecology about too much of a good thing. They are only winning so long as their prey base is healthy. They are what they eat and if what they eat is not fit, then they won't survive as the fittest. They eat Earth, along with the rest of us.

Does anyone have misgivings about the vaccine which don't pertain to altering public policy or threaten advocacy for the general participation of the public? — Cheshire

I actually do not understand this question. Can you whittle it down some?

I got the shots -- I was eager to get them. BTW, I definitely felt both of them, advances in technology or not. Was the injection a bad experience? No, I've had far, far worse--thinking of a long needle being jabbed into my jaw for a ghastly dental procedure.

The angle about the vaccine that I find really interesting is this: People have varying levels of risk aversion, ranging between total avoidance and ready acceptance. This goes for anything involving risk. This is the first time that I have been aware of political views playing a critical role in personal risk management. Conservatives, who are otherwise proactive in health care decisions, have decided THIS vaccine is risky. The vaccine doubters (and acceptors, for that matter) almost never possess the background to evaluate a good vs. poor vaccine.

But having voted for Trump seems to guide the amount of risk aversion they feel about this vaccine. They may wear masks compulsively, avoid crowded rooms, commercial venues, etc., keep their distance, and so forth -- but the vaccine is NO GO.

I can see how an uninformed person could be alarmed by discussions of the vaccine -- like, "RNA? What's that? I don't want that in my body." Some people are scared by technical terms.

I've met more than a few people that take it for granted that population reduction is something that the super wealthy desire. It has a pleasant intuitive fit like too many people in the boat. Less people, better boat viability. But, to me the amount of disruption caused would be more of a threat than the population itself. They already have access to resources as if people weren't around through their wealth. Their wealth is only significant if it's in demand, so getting rid of people would devalue their assets. Essentially, changing the rules to a game you are already winning. — Cheshire

If all those who are vaxxed were going to die within a couple years, as is claimed to be likely by Dr Peter McCullough and others then it would seem reasonable to think that our whole economic infrastructures and societies would catastrophically collapse. Is it plausible that the financial elites could want this to happen, and plan it? I agree with you in thinking not, not unless they are far more stupid (and powerful) than we give them credit for.

I actually do not understand this question. Can you whittle it down some? — tim wood

It's more of a context for discussion. I'm trying to create a more of a space than a target. I think some people had/have doubts. Telling a person what they can not doubt is wrong in a way. So long as everything is prefaced with...this is about doubting certainty not informing public policy; then maybe people can raise their concerns without anyone being threatened by ideas.

But having voted for Trump seems to guide the amount of risk aversion they feel about this vaccine. They may wear masks compulsively, avoid crowded rooms, commercial venues, etc., keep their distance, and so forth -- but the vaccine is NO GO. — Bitter Crank

It comes off as contrarian if you've never experienced any hesitation. But, yes it's also strange for a group to select 'not immunized' as a part of their identity. It's funny because it unites the right more with what you find on the far left.

without anyone being threatened by ideas. — Cheshire

No sir! Wouldn't want anyone at all to feel threatened by an idea, especially when the idea might save them, their families and loved ones, and communities from the virus that is actually threatening them and that in some cases will kill them, and in ways they will not enjoy.

No sir! Wouldn't want anyone at all to feel threatened by an idea, especially when the idea might save them, their families and loved ones, and communities from the virus that is actually threatening them and that in some cases will kill them, and in ways they will not enjoy. — tim wood

...which don't pertain to altering public policy or threaten advocacy for the general participation of the public? — Cheshire

Any actionable idea would be outside the scope of the OP.

Some people are scared by technical terms. — Bitter Crank

Some people are just scared.

I had my two jabs of Pfizer and no side effects. I don't generally suffer form paranoia about government or the wealthy, even if both groups frequently showcase an ugly agglomeration of unprincipled douche canoes. The wealthy and governments generally struggle to organise a bonk in a brothel so a billion person death conspiracy is surely beyond them. Besides, if they wipe out all the poor people, what will the rich have to eat?

Especially when this virus has produced fatalities quite close to the 1918 epidemic -- even over a similar length of time. I have not heard anyone dismiss the 1918 influenza as a minor infection. Yet, this one -- killing roughly as many -- just isn't being given its proper due by the vaccine / face mask shy.

(OK, so granted, the 1918 stats are estimates because about a quarter of the states did not report influenza case counts and deaths in 1918. Don't know why they didn't. 3/4ths of the states managed it.)

They eat Earth, along with the rest of us. — James Riley

I agree, but I don't assume I'll ever achieve any actual level of opposition. I might maintain the price floor but producers will always sell to the highest bidder. If goods were suddenly priced on a proportional system relative wealth and they found themselves bidding directly against us then maybe they would have a reason.

I am acknowledging every ecosystem has a limited carrying capacity, but I don't see that threat as reaching an extreme that would suggest a coordinated response in progress. I do follow the casual chain of logic though.

Over ten percent of the US population have had Covid, About 630,000 deaths in the US and counting. Just under 4.5 million deaths and counting worldwide, and worldwide totals are likely underreported. This in about 18 months.

People opposed to masks and vaccines are simply crazy people, their craziness dangerous, as is often the case with crazy people.

↪Bitter Crank ↪Cheshire Over ten percent of the US population have had Covid, About 630,000 deaths in the US and counting. Just under 4.5 million deaths and counting worldwide, and worldwide totals are likely underreported. This in about 18 months.

People opposed to masks and vaccines are simply crazy people, their craziness dangerous, as is often the case with crazy people. — tim wood

Yes, I thought a break from emoting hysteria might be interesting. It's totally justified, but doesn't seem to be getting the job done.

If only we had panicked more....said no one.

Pretend you're a parent of a small school-aged child in Florida or Texas. You have to send your child to school. The governors of those two states are doing their best to ban mask mandates in schools. Your child goes to school, gets sick and dies, because of the governor's ban. Your child dead. What do you do?

↪Cheshire Pretend you're a parent of a small school-aged child in Florida or Texas. You have to send your child to school. The governors of those two states are doing their best to ban mask mandates in schools. Your child goes to school, gets sick and dies, because of the governor's ban. Your child dead. What do you do? — tim wood

It seems rude to pretend to that level of suffering for the sake of argument. I could literally be talking to myself right now in regards to where I stand and how much consideration of an oppositional vaccine position is worth discussing. But, we don't have the authority to tell people what they can not doubt while knowing the truth of the matter. Otherwise the conversation begins with a power imbalance based on imposing a lie. I can doubt anything man can produce and that's common ground.

It seems rude to pretend to that level of suffering for the sake of argument. — Cheshire

Why? It's already happened in Alabama if I recall correctly. No doubt children in unmasked schools are getting sick. If some have not already died, they will soon.

But, we don't have the authority to tell people what they can not doubt while knowing the truth of the matter. — Cheshire

No? Why not? Are not people told, for example, to evacuate their homes on the chance of fire or flood or storm?

This is not about thought control. It is about advising sensible people about what on the one hand they ought to do, and on another, what they must do. And of people who are not sensible, there is the police power, which every community on the planet reserves to itself for the common good.

Vaccines and masks have a proven track record. There is no excuse whatsoever for not using them appropriately. for oneself, for one's family, for one's community.

Any argument against?

I feel it's a vaccine for something that's going to mutate, and that we should be developing a natural immunity to. I think it's creating a virus that will be larger than the one we have now.

Scary, though, I guess... People haven't been dropping left and right, though. There aren't wheelbarrows full of corpses on the street, exactly.

And I just do feel like we're obeying the Karens on this one. You gotta deal with death in the world, you just do, it's a fact of life, sorry. They can't accept that, and the world's gonna end up suffering untold for it. For their false sense of security.

Any argument against? — tim wood

Yes, several. But, primarily the theme of being off putting and condescending(though warrented) doesn't seem to be improving the situation. What part of, I'm just as frustrated but looking for solutions is not computing.

Why? It's already happened in Alabama if I recall correctly. No doubt children in unmasked schools are getting sick. If some have not already died, they will soon. — tim wood

Because that is an extreme level of suffering and pretending to it disrespects those who endure it. And the people I hope to sway are loaded up with emotional arguments that keep them too unstable to identify logic from emotional ranting.

No? Why not? Are not people told, for example, to evacuate their homes on the chance of fire or flood or storm? — tim wood

Because of Cogito, ergo sum. I prefer not to start from a position that denies the only known undoubtable truth.

This is not about thought control. It is about advising sensible people about what on the one hand they ought to do, and on another, what they must do. — tim wood

Right, well unfortunately sensible people demand you present yourself with creditability. Which often involves a degree of indifference as to whether they believe you.

Vaccines and masks have a proven track record. There is no excuse whatsoever for not using them appropriately. for oneself, for one's family, for one's community. — tim wood

Right, it's obvious, so why does it need to be said forcefully? Will it make it more true or compelling or will it just confuse the beast with emotional signals?

Any argument against? — tim wood

We are at the mercy of the free will of fools. Act accordingly.

I feel it's a vaccine for something that's going to mutate, and that we should be developing a natural immunity to. I think it's creating a virus that will be larger than the one we have now. — theRiddler

It's a vaccine for something that did mutate. Developing a natural immunity is a lean in strategy toward a pandemic. I have read the articles that claim getting covid is better protection from covid. Well, it's not if you have to get it first. But, I've seen the way it's been framed to look compelling. Like, the best protection against death is being dead; but lets explore some alternative options at least. Your right though; noodling with nature has led to unintended outcomes. I can imagine any number of things. It's whether being able to suppose it is reason enough to assume it is a "best fit" strategy.

Scary, though, I guess... People haven't been dropping left and right, though. There aren't wheelbarrows full of corpses on the street, exactly. — theRiddler

Right, that's true. I mean a lot of people are dead; it's the nature of a virus that spreads quickly but doesn't burn itself out by killing all it's host. A more deadly virus would be devastating but arguably shorter lived. No doubt things could be much worse in a black plague collapse of society sort of way; but that's the point where "what should we do" starts showing up in the rear view. It is a valid observation regardless.

And I just do feel like we're obeying the Karens on this one. You gotta deal with death in the world, you just do, it's a fact of life, sorry. They can't accept that, and the world's gonna end up suffering untold for it. For their false sense of security. — theRiddler

Yeah, people unloading their frustrations doesn't make for an interesting discussion. I don't want to be defending myself for having my own ideas. But, again the lean in strategy has a bit of a point of no return that still appears a little reckless when there are options on the table. It is the simplest and requires least amount of participation, so in that respect; it's the easiest to execute.

Hope I was fair. Been a long day.

You're more likely to be a vector if you don't get vaccinated, so there's that. Don't ask for citation. You should have already read the findings on that. — frank


I don't believe that's the case. There's been less than a handful of studies on transmission, none, to my knowledge, have compared vaccination to other hygiene measures, only to non-vaccination with undifferentiated other actions. — Isaac

It seems reasonable to think that if someone vaccinated has a breakthrough infection, then they might carry a similar viral load to someone unvaccinated who was comparably ill. But if vaccines are say 70% effective at preventing infection then you would have only 3 chances in 10 or about 30% the chance of being infected than a vaccinated person does. Then if the vaccine is 90% effective in preventing serious illness, you would have about 10% the change of being seriously ill and becoming equally infectious as a seriously ill unvaccinated individual.

I realize this has not been studied comprehensively but this seems plausible enough to my layman reasoning. The other point is that if vaccination makes you less likely to be a vector or a burden on the hospitals, and other strategies also make you less likely to be a vector and a burden on the hospitals then the wise thing to do would be to adopt all stategies, because taken together they will reduce your chances of being infectious and a burden even further.

I hold a view of belief that is completely opposed to any 'one true answer' philosophy. — Isaac

I can see how that applies to philosophy, but do you think it applies to science? I mean would there not be "one true answer" to the question:'does vaccination reduce viral transmission?' even if we might not presently know just what that answer is? And does the answer not seem, on the face of it, more likely to be 'yes' than 'no'?

If some bad shit happens because I got the vax, then Baker, et al, can say "I told you so!" — James Riley

See, that's just it. _I_ wouldn't tell you "I told you so".

But you don't care. You just put me into the same category with anyone who isn't all that enthusiastic about the covid vaccine.

But here's the thing: they didn't tell me anything, because they don't know anything. All they did was speculate. They aren't smart enough and don't have the training to tell me anything. All they can do is question, wonder, speculate or regurgitate what others have said to make them scared. There is nothing wrong with that, I guess. But I don't live my life that way.

But here's the thing: You don't care. You don't listen. You think in black and white terms, all or nothing. No nuance, no detail, nothing. Like a total redneck. This is what puts many people off.

You're sending the message that anyone who is rabidly in favor of the covid vaccines is entitled to spew hatred and contempt at those who aren't, and that those others are obligated to accept that hatred and contempt on their knees.

It's more of a context for discussion. I'm trying to create a more of a space than a target. I think some people had/have doubts. Telling a person what they can not doubt is wrong in a way. So long as everything is prefaced with...this is about doubting certainty not informing public policy; then maybe people can raise their concerns without anyone being threatened by ideas. — Cheshire

But public policy is the problem.

For one, the official government outlets are offering simplified and thus misleading information about covid and about the covid vaccines. They paint a black-and-white picture of the situation which, indeed, makes things easier from an administrative/bureocratic perspective for the government, but not in terms of handling the pandemic. The fully vaccinated now get barely ever tested, and they behave as if all was well: and so they spread the disease unchecked (because being vaccinated doesn't stop one from being contagious).

For two, if one does get bad side effects from the vaccine, there is, at least in some EU countries no medical protocol for that, no protection. One is left to oneself. Because the covid vaccines are legally
still treated the same way as any other experimental medication.

For three, there are medical practices related to covid that have greatly complicated things for people. For example, people have been diagnosed with covid by their doctor, but no test done to confirm it. Now, when they try to get a covid pass (which is necessary for so many things in the EU), they can't get it, because a covid pass requires an old enough positive test. Further, those that have had bad side effects after the first dose of the vaccine, are left to themselves; even their doctors advise them not to take the second dose. But if they don't, they can't get a covid pass.


In short, the government and the medical establishment, given some very bad practices they have done in the past and are still doing them, are demanding too much trust from people.

We are at the mercy of the free will of fools. Act accordingly. — Cheshire

See, you're just looking for a scapegoat. Instead of acknowledging the complexity of the situation, you opt for a simplistic outlook which makes it okay for you too see the world in black and white terms, making it easy to point fingers and to bask in righteous indignation.

The pleasure you get from despising those who aren't enthusiastically in favor of the covid vaccine is so intoxicating, isn't it.