Public Shaming/Praise for Vaccine Decision?

[Wallfire]

And that raises the moral conundrum do we do what is best for ourselves or what is best for a larger group. I remember a question asked by an instructor about triage. Do you save the life of a doctor who can then save other peoples lives, but if you do that a 6 month old child will die that you could of saved. The instructor wanted us to understand that every life is based on the value we and others give it.

No conundrum. What is best for me is what is best for my patients. If I don't do what is best for me, I am of use to no one,  not even my patients.  

As you said, "remember you are of no use to the people you can help if you are sick or dead."

At this point in time the only person you have to justify your actions to are yourself.

[beez]

My hospital notified me yesterday that I am unable to receive the vaccine because of my allergy to vaccine products/components.



Now I'd NEVER do this, but if I was to do so, I could get documentation that I have received the vaccine.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

At this point in time the only person you have to justify your actions to are yourself.

I agree with you. At this point I don't have to justify my actions, even to myself, because there is nothing to justify, outside of a decision that requires no action at this time.

I am fullly aware that my actions, based solely on what I believe to be right or reasonable, only carry weight if my actions do not involve others.

When it comes to my job, that can be, and has, on occasion, been stretched a bit wider, to include what is within the boundaries of the law. 

I have on more than one occasion acted in a way that required me to justify my actions, to the courts, because what is legal, and what is rightful, just, and neccessary, is not always easily defined by law.

I hear what you are saying. It is just that when it comes to making medical decisions, there will never be a one size fits all solution.

[Wallfire]

At this point in time the only person you have to justify your actions to are yourself.

I agree with you. At this point I don't have to justify my actions, even to myself, because there is nothing to justify, outside of a decision that requires no action at this time.

I am fullly aware that my actions, based solely on what I believe to be right or reasonable, only carry weight if my actions do not involve others.

When it comes to my job, that can be, and has, on occasion, been stretched a bit wider, to include what is within the boundaries of the law. 

I have on more than one occasion acted in a way that required me to justify my actions, to the courts, because what is legal, and what is rightful, just, and neccessary, is not always easily defined by law.

I hear what you are saying. It is just that when it comes to making medical decisions, there will never be a one size fits all solution.

I agree with you

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

My hospital notified me yesterday that I am unable to receive the vaccine because of my allergy to vaccine products/components.



Now I'd NEVER do this, but if I was to do so, I could get documentation that I have received the vaccine.

My civilian doctor tried to talk me into it. 

My VA doctor said, "No way, Sunshine. "

I don't blame my civilian doctor, I am sure he will get perks for every patient he vaccinates.

The VA has been dealing with my vaccine allergies for over twenty years. I have had a reaction to every one they have given me. The last one was the worse and the last. My charts are so red flagged you can see then from across the room.

[PLOTUS]

My hospital notified me yesterday that I am unable to receive the vaccine because of my allergy to vaccine products/components.



Now I'd NEVER do this, but if I was to do so, I could get documentation that I have received the vaccine.

And some will not be able without a high degree of Risk.

www.allergicliving.com/2020/12/16/faq-on-allergy-concerns-and-the-mrna-covid-19-vaccine/

[drussell41]

Your job is close contact with people , by not taking the vaccine are you ready for the fact you can spread the virus, make people sick or kill people. That by your decision you might be killing some ones loved one because you dont want to protect them. 
You are no longer in the play ground, you are now in my world were actions have consequences that cannot be ran away from

Wallfire, there's no guarantee that getting the vaccine will keep people from spreading it.   I heard Fauci say the same thing, but couldn't find the link to his comments.

https://bgr.com/2020/11/25/coronavirus-v...-required/

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/...1632600066

In fact, there's some concern that too much reliance could promote the spread of the disease:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-19-spread

So everyone hopes that getting it will decrease transmission, but there isn't proof at this point.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

So everyone hopes that getting it will decrease transmission, but there isn't proof at this point.

It a general consensus.

We know vaccination will prevent you from getting sick, but we do not know if the vaccine will prevent you from spreading the virus to others yet.

https://www.uwmedicine.org/coronavirus/vaccine

[drussell41]

So everyone hopes that getting it will decrease transmission, but there isn't proof at this point.

It a general consensus.

We know vaccination will prevent you from getting sick, but we do not know if the vaccine will prevent you from spreading the virus to others yet.

https://www.uwmedicine.org/coronavirus/vaccine

 

General consensus of what? That we don't know if it will prevent transmission?

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

So everyone hopes that getting it will decrease transmission, but there isn't proof at this point.

It a general consensus.

We know vaccination will prevent you from getting sick, but we do not know if the vaccine will prevent you from spreading the virus to others yet.

https://www.uwmedicine.org/coronavirus/vaccine

 

General consensus of what?  That we don't know if it will prevent transmission?

Yes. All the data I have found on the vaccines, say the same thing. 

The efficacy of the vaccine is that it will stop you from getting sick, or at least reduce your symptoms, if you do get sick, but they do not know if it will stop you from spreading the virus to others.

[senona]

And might I reiterate, which is why many people are hesitant to take the vaccine, as is their right and not mandatory.



First, it is a rushed vaccine that is NOT FDA approved. 

Second, there is no guarantee that it will prevent one from getting covid

Third, there is no confirmation as to IF it will protect one from covid, how long that protection will last.

Fourth, not all side effects are known yet. Which that there have many uncertain.




Realistically, it takes years and years for a vaccine to go through trial studies before it is ever approved.



So now we have a rushed vaccine that may or may not help protect one from covid.
And being as years of testing have not been done, there truly is no telling what the long term side effects are. 



ETA: there are a few countries that refuse to participate in the unproven vaccination.





Now then, there are medicines that help people recover from covid. 


The recovery rate is 98% and the death rate, one must remember the numbers are NOT accurate. They are lower than what they claim due to EVERY death being written off as covid. 



Those that have existing underlying health issue ALWAYS are most vulnerable due to an already weakened immune system. Whether they have the flu/pneumonia/covid or even the common cold, they will be most at risk. People will die, there is no way to escape that. 







The one thing that a doctor from John Hopkins said recently about all this, more than anything else was........





WASH. YOUR. HANDS.





They said that was the most important way to prevent sickness, along with stay away from crowded areas, keeping your distance.

[Ninurta]

The recovery rate is 98% and the death rate, one must remember the numbers are NOT accurate. They are lower than what they claim due to EVERY death being written off as covid. 

Yeah, I read yesterday that in one county in Colorado, 40% of their "covid deaths" were also found to have bullet holes in them...

.

[Wallfire]

This thread has been interesting and also very disturbing for me. I ask a question that can be answered with a yes or no, and got pages of justifications but as far as I can see no real answer to the question asked. It seems that people are more in to justifying then taking reasonability.
So I will make it even more simple.

1/ Do you understand and are you willing to take the consequences of taking the vaccine.
2/ Do you understand and are you willing to take the consequences of not taking the vaccine.

This can be asked in another way, in life do you take and understand the responsibilities of your actions.

[Ninurta]

Option 2 for me.

.

[BIAD]

Option 2 for me.

And me.

[Wallfire]

Perhaps my English is not the best but just saying option 2 is not answering the question, as option 2 is a question

[drussell41]

This thread has been interesting and also very disturbing for me. I ask a question that can be answered with a yes or no, and got pages of justifications but as far as I can see no real answer to the question asked. It seems that people are more in to justifying then taking reasonability.
So I will make it even more simple.

1/ Do you understand and are you willing to take the consequences of taking the vaccine.
2/ Do you understand and are you willing to take the consequences of not taking the vaccine.

This can be asked in another way, in life do you take and understand the responsibilities of your actions.

I think it may be because everyone assumes we all take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, vaccine or no vaccine.  I don't think I've met one person here who isn't a responsible adult.   When someone says, "number 2", it means, "I am one who will not be taking it and yes, I understand the consequences of that decision."  The pages of discussion aren't because people aren't willing to accept responsibility, but may be because they are more interested in what WILL be the consequences of taking/not taking the vaccine.   That, my friend, is up for debate.  The scientific community isn't even fixed on it.

My own household is split on it.   My husband will be taking it eventually. probably the next 6-12 months.  I'm okay with that. It is his decision to make. My own timeline is more like five years out, if ever.   We both understand the consequences of these decisions.   I'm willing to die of COVID-19 if that's the way it goes; I'm not willing to take this vaccine for quite a while.   I'm very rarely around other people, so you don't have to worry about my infecting others.  For the few times I am, I'll be happy to wear an N95 forever versus getting the vaccine in the next five years.    I've had enough iatrogenic injury, thanks.  I've rejected the options of back and hip surgery for the same reason.  My risk threshold when it comes to medical procedures has fallen through the basement floor.  In contrast, my husband has never sustained iatrogenic injury, and he's willing to risk the vaccine in order to get back to a more normal life.   I think alot of what one's willing to risk is based upon what they've seen and experienced in the past, don't you? 

Differing risk threshold and analysis /= a refusal to accept responsibility.

[BIAD]

Perhaps my English is not the best but just saying option 2 is not answering the question, as option 2 is a question

2/ Do you understand and are you willing to take the consequences of not taking the vaccine.

Yes.
....................................................

In the interests of maintaining my credibility on this discussion forum, may I offer my reasons why I arrived
at my decision?

To the best of my ability to understand and appreciate the possible negative effects of not taking a vaccine,
I am still willing to accept the consequences of such a decision.

It is a difficult decision when the vaccine is presented as a crutch to assist the human body to fight against
an awful invasive respiratory-damaging contagious disease.
If inflicted with certain weaknesses or bodily deficiencies, I know that a disease that is named SARS II can
deliver an effect that could bring death to myself.


However, the National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom advises the public that SARS II (Covid-19) will
cause:

The main symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19) are:
A high temperature – this means you feel hot to touch on your chest or back (you do not need to measure your temperature)
A new, continuous cough – this means coughing a lot for more than an hour, or 3 or more coughing episodes in 24 hours
(if you usually have a cough, it may be worse than usual)

A loss or change to your sense of smell or taste – this means you've noticed you cannot smell or taste anything, or things
smell or taste different to normal.

If I discover I have such symptoms, the same NHS advises me to:

What to do if you have symptoms
If you have any of the main symptoms of coronavirus:

Get a test to check if you have coronavirus as soon as possible.
You and anyone you live with should stay at home and not have visitors until you get your test result
– only leave your home to have a test.
Anyone in your support bubble should also stay at home if you have been in close contact with them
since your symptoms started or during the 48 hours before they started.

But the second section is based on the first and the second section doesn't involve a cure or an easing
medicine, it involves bureaucracy. Testing doesn't help my body, staying at home doesn't help my body
and not having visitors fails to assist in helping my assumed-Covid-effected body.

Yet, I do appreciate that not following the above advice could contaminate others. But the decision is
based on myself having the disease. If I don't have it -which I do not, such a decision is made easier
to not take a vaccine for a disease I do not have.
(I hope that makes sense!)

I believe SARS II is a bad case of flu and in a weak human body, can be a contributing factor towards
causing death. I'm 60 years-old and I'm fairly fit. I also smoke -which the trusted media told me that
French scientists found that those who smoke have 'adjusted' enough to stifle the SARS II effecting
the lungs.

All I can tell you is what I believe and I believe a seasonal ailment -although deemed a new type of
seasonal flu, has been politicised and being used by the media to enhance those politics and also
maintain their position as a needed conduit.

I don't want to take the vaccine and believe I don't need it.

[drussell41]

Perhaps my English is not the best but just saying option 2 is not answering the question, as option 2 is a question

You're not a native English speaker?   I'm surprised.   Your English is excellent, indistinguishable from that of a native speaker. For me, anyway.

[Wallfire]

Perhaps my English is not the best but just saying option 2 is not answering the question, as option 2 is a question

You're not a native English speaker?   I'm surprised.   Your English is excellent, indistinguishable from that of a native speaker.  For me, anyway.

Thankgoo i spekks Enggish goodly but do aveee woble griting it as toast of me welling is badly.
Finn has wonderful English, his use and word formation is way better than mine