Wakesurfer817 said:

---

With respect to "whose job it is to mitigate your risk from Covid." This is an interesting question. I'll respond for myself first. As a person of faith, I'm required to love my neighbor as myself. Thus - again, as a Christian - it is actually my job to mitigate your risk from Covid. (Perhaps even take some personal risk to do so (even if I don't like my neighbor) - see "The Good Samaritan")

For non-Christians, I think the question is perhaps easier to answer as you have, although there is an aspect of civil responsibility in there somewhere.

---

As a Christian, I disagree with that take. You can love your neighbor AND not be vaccinated. The concept of love is not giving someone a better life. There is an element of sacrifice with love, but that does not mean self harm or intentional actions to yourself.

Applying that same logic means I should not drive (because I risk a crash), should not order food (because the cook might be at risk, food may be sourced inequitably), should not share opinions (as they might offend someone), etc.

Tramp96 said:

---

As a Christian, I have a serious problem with the fact that aborted fetal tissue was used in the development of the vaccines. I have an obligation to those who cannot defend themselves. I should be able to refuse the vaccine on those grounds alone.

Also, something not discussed in this thread, is the fact that there will be a NATURAL immunity that will evolve. The vaccine is not the only way we will come out of this, and it's the height of human hubris to think that is the case. Look at the 1918-1919 pandemic. They did not develop a vaccine to get us out of it...the plague ran its course. I think to tell people who refuse the vaccine and rather wait for the natural immunity to develop that they would be the reason we don't overcome it is dishonest.

---

My understanding is that neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines utilized aborted fetus cells. See a discussion here: https://www.usccb.org/resources/Answers%20to%20Key%20Ethical%20Questions%20About%20COVID-19%20Vaccines.pdf

(I am not a Catholic, however I consider analysis done by my Catholic brothers and sisters on the matter to be the gold standard when it comes to abortion ethics.)

With regard to natural immunity - you cite the 1918 Flu. Respectfully, why stop there? Smallpox, rubella, tetanus, polio - does your logic not apply to these as well? Said another way, why vaccinate at all?

Wakesurfer817 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Wakesurfer817 said:

---

With respect to "whose job it is to mitigate your risk from Covid." This is an interesting question. I'll respond for myself first. As a person of faith, I'm required to love my neighbor as myself. Thus - again, as a Christian - it is actually my job to mitigate your risk from Covid. (Perhaps even take some personal risk to do so (even if I don't like my neighbor) - see "The Good Samaritan")

For non-Christians, I think the question is perhaps easier to answer as you have, although there is an aspect of civil responsibility in there somewhere.

---

As a Christian, I disagree with that take. You can love your neighbor AND not be vaccinated. The concept of love is not giving someone a better life. There is an element of sacrifice with love, but that does not mean self harm or intentional actions to yourself.

Applying that same logic means I should not drive (because I risk a crash), should not order food (because the cook might be at risk, food may be sourced inequitably), should not share opinions (as they might offend someone), etc.

---

"Greater love has no on than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13.

I do agree with you - you can love your neighbor and not be vaccinated. Just seems to me like an easy way to maybe take a little risk, and in a small way, be a Good Samaritan (and who knows - maybe even protect yourself too.)

---

Please stop with the fake Christianity. Your post are not Christ like in any way.

Just make your point without mocking Christianity.

96ags said:

---

Wakesurfer817 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Wakesurfer817 said:

---

With respect to "whose job it is to mitigate your risk from Covid." This is an interesting question. I'll respond for myself first. As a person of faith, I'm required to love my neighbor as myself. Thus - again, as a Christian - it is actually my job to mitigate your risk from Covid. (Perhaps even take some personal risk to do so (even if I don't like my neighbor) - see "The Good Samaritan")

For non-Christians, I think the question is perhaps easier to answer as you have, although there is an aspect of civil responsibility in there somewhere.

---

As a Christian, I disagree with that take. You can love your neighbor AND not be vaccinated. The concept of love is not giving someone a better life. There is an element of sacrifice with love, but that does not mean self harm or intentional actions to yourself.

Applying that same logic means I should not drive (because I risk a crash), should not order food (because the cook might be at risk, food may be sourced inequitably), should not share opinions (as they might offend someone), etc.

---

"Greater love has no on than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13.

I do agree with you - you can love your neighbor and not be vaccinated. Just seems to me like an easy way to maybe take a little risk, and in a small way, be a Good Samaritan (and who knows - maybe even protect yourself too.)

---

Please stop with the fake Christianity. Your post are not Christ like in any way.

Just make your point without mocking Christianity.

---

Exactly why I haven't responded to this "new poster"

Interesting. I've been hugging my family and friends for a year. didn't realize I couldn't.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Exactly why I haven't responded to this "new poster"

---

I actually am new. Seriously.

My kid goes to A&M. So I started getting on this site to keep up with what's going on at the school. Really the best run school forum out there. I have to say - been really, really impressed with the whole A&M experience so far.

Didn't mean to offend anyone. It's obvious I have though, and so I apologize.

MosesRAB-93 said:

---

Our household (wife, two daughters, and myself) all had Covid and not much to it. I have known many who have died from it - we'll all be getting the vaccine for them.

---

Not sure I understand what you are saying. You are getting the vaccine for people who are already dead or to keep other people from dying? I assume the latter, but the way it's written reads like the former.

StoneCold99 said:

---

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

I am not anti-vaccination but my entire family, less me, gets their flu shot, every year. I have not had the flu in 15-20 years but two of my kids have...

This comes down to a simple risk evaluation:

1) take a vaccine that may or may not prevent me from contracting COVID-19, with unknown long-term side effects

2) don't take the vaccine and accept that I have a 99.98% chance of survival if I contract it...

No that difficult of a decision

---

LOVE IT! Agree 100%.

---

Saying the vaccine "may or may not" work is pretty disingenuous.

Misinformation is anything that doesn't serve the pharma cartel. If you don't understand this by now, your nativity and compliance are more dangerous to us all than anything this shill of an article fearmongers about.

Let me explain: I know people whose social media accounts were censored/suspended months ago for sharing information supporting the ideas contained in the following mainstream news headlines. All of these were 'misinformation/conspiracy theories' months ago, but are not now because the thought police changed their minds...though the truth remains the truth.

'Hydro chloroquine has been upgraded from 'dangerous' to 'effective''
'Bolivia announces their official treatment is chlorine dioxide'
Multiple sources confirm case numbers (all over) have been inflated'
'WHO recently recommended lowering cycle count on PCR tests after citing 'any particle' could result in a positive test'
'Merck pulls their jab after showing it is more effective to get the virus and natural immunity'
'Forbes announced incorrect angle of nasal swab and damage cerebrospinal lining and cause brain fluid leakage'

There are plenty more. How can one have been a functioning adult over the past year and not question if what they're being told is true? How do you know what is actually true or misinformation? Because someone told you? When they flip it as in what I shared above, do you flip it in your mind immediately too?

Oh, you mean just like how the flu no longer mutates and has been eradicated? Oh that's right, it's still here.

Pressuring your peers into taking an experimental medication 'for the greater good' made by corporations with a track record of failure/abuse and who have zero liability is borderline sociopathic. Stop with this dystopian codependent fantasy built upon utter propaganda. This blind faith in the benevolence/infallibility of big pharma is more like Stockholm syndrome/medical fascism, than it is science or you being a good person, no matter what you think about it. If it's safe and effective, then great...take it and don't worry about what I do.

double aught said:

---

StoneCold99 said:

---

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

I am not anti-vaccination but my entire family, less me, gets their flu shot, every year. I have not had the flu in 15-20 years but two of my kids have...

This comes down to a simple risk evaluation:

1) take a vaccine that may or may not prevent me from contracting COVID-19, with unknown long-term side effects

2) don't take the vaccine and accept that I have a 99.98% chance of survival if I contract it...

No that difficult of a decision

---

LOVE IT! Agree 100%.

---

Saying the vaccine "may or may not" work is pretty disingenuous.

---

How is it disingenuous? I didn't realize any of the vaccines had reached 100% effectiveness in any of the trials so far. Did I miss that?

The best performing one I heard was 90%, and that was before the UK and other strains started to emerge.

So, unless a vaccine has shown to be 100% effective, the phrase "may or may not work" is factually correct and not disingenous.

That's not how science or medicine works. The vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. Full stop.

amercer said:

---

That's not how science or medicine works. The vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. Full stop.

---

Actually, that is how science works.

A vaccine can be "safe and effective", yet still may or may not work for some people. As can every other medicine. So what he said was factually correct and not disingenuous.

Flu vaccines prove this point year in and year out. Yes, they are for the most part safe and effective, yet they may or may not work for individuals.

How come this same standard can't be applied here? COVID vaccines are proven to be safe and effective, but that does not mean it may work for every person. Just exactly like the flu vaccine. Just like any other vaccine. Just like any other type of medicine.

This "full stop" language implies that the science is determined and cannot possibly be challenged or change. It baffles my mind these days when people say "follow the science" or "the science is settled". Since when? The very nature of science, as we were all taught at every level growing up, is that it is never settled and is constantly changing. If it weren't, then there would be no scientific method, no continued scientific research, and no continual scientific discovery.

94% effective (or 100% effective against death) does not equal "may or may not"

Well for one thing none of the trials actually had an end point of Covid infection.

The vaccines were 100% effective in trials at preventing hospitalization and death.

But in the end, trail design and biostatistics are very complex. Fundamentally, no drug is approved on how well it works. It's the risk/ benefit ratio that most concerns the FDA. And the analysis behind that is almost incomprehensible if you aren't in the field. But when you take any drug, it is n=1 anyway.

Also vaccines are for public health. That's different than individual health. If 90% of people get a vaccine it irrelevant that it might not work for 5% of them. If only 30% of people get the vaccine, it's irrelevant that it works for 100% of them from a public health perspective.

Tramp96 said:

---

amercer said:

---

That's not how science or medicine works. The vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective. Full stop.

---

Actually, that is how science works.

A vaccine can be "safe and effective", yet still may or may not work for some people. As can every other medicine. So what he said was factually correct and not disingenuous.

Flu vaccines prove this point year in and year out. Yes, they are for the most part safe and effective, yet they may or may not work for individuals.

How come this same standard can't be applied here? COVID vaccines are proven to be safe and effective, but that does not mean it may work for every person. Just exactly like the flu vaccine. Just like any other vaccine. Just like any other type of medicine.

This "full stop" language implies that the science is determined and cannot possibly be challenged or change. It baffles my mind these days when people say "follow the science" or "the science is settled". Since when? The very nature of science, as we were all taught at every level growing up, is that it is never settled and is constantly changing. If it weren't, then there would be no scientific method, no continued scientific research, and no continual scientific discovery.

---

How very philosophical of you. But also kind of bull**** when it comes to vaccines.

After soap there has been no greater advance in public health than vaccines. We know how they work. The Covid ones work astoundingly well, and the sooner we all get them the sooner this is done. Full stop.

Quote:

---

Vaccines are great, but they are not, never have been, and never will be 100% effective

---

Smallpox

Sure. Nothing is 100%, but that's also never been the standard. And it's not even possible to really define because clinical trials aren't (can't) be set up that way. I mean, the J&J vaccine was 100% at preventing hospitalization and death in the trials (as were the others actually). But that doesn't mean it can't happen. So things are either safe and effective, or they aren't.

The Covid vaccines are awesome. Everyone should get them as soon as possible.

94% of the time, it works every time.

Man - you guys get so far off the point sometimes.

The point of the OP was that if leaders wanted to get more people to take the vaccine (not those who were never going to get it anyway), then they have done a horrendous job with their messaging.