The vaccine was clearly rushed into production and saved a lot of vulnerable people’s lives. That does not mean it does not have risks that, for younger and healthier people, those might outweigh the benefits.
But public hysteria and groupthink dictated that it had to be coerced on people.
Perhaps, now that the vaccine has been around for years and there’s plenty of data on its efficacy and risks, you might cite some of those risks? Because the data I’ve seen shows that infection is still much worse for your health than vaccination, regardless of whether or not you are “young and healthier.” I would be very interested to see what data you have that shows otherwise. I quite like being proven wrong.
I don’t understand this logic. It had to be quickly developed because the entire world population was affected by COVID. We’re talking about millions of deaths. Economies halted, everything literally went stand still and you expected the vaccine to take 3 years to develop?
I’m sure it might have sounded scary to have medicine developed so rapidly but I don’t think you realize the scale at how it was developed because so many countries and companies dumped a ton of money researching a cure out the door as fast as possible.
Sure there are side-effects but in that case the side effects were worth having versus the deaths of high risk individuals.
Economies halted because the public freaked out. The vast, vast majority of healthy people were absolutely fine. Most of those who died, with respect, had relatively few years of life left anyway.
Society should strive to keep these vulnerable people as safe as possible. But I personally think it was incredibly unethical to shut down whole economies just for that.
They already did, that was done before they launched the vaccines. You still don’t think they are safe, so now it is up to you to prove why. Which you can’t, because you have nothing but your feelings to show for it.
They did but it was an abridged version shall we say. Which is fine. It was an emergency and the law foresees this.
But the cultural shift towards harm avoidance at all costs and general authoritarianism (as clearly on display here on this site) led governments the world over to, use heavy handed tactics, shall we say, to get people to take it.
I am absolutely not against the vaccines. I got three doses of Pfizer. But I am profoundly against the heavy handed tactics used in deploying them.
They completed all of the normal testing. The mRNA vaccines technology is decades old. They did all of the normal testing but the stages were done in parallel and pushed ahead of everything else in the pipe. Had any stage failed the approvals would not have been given. This is an anti-vax meme but it is completely false.
A lack of privilege is not a consequence. Receiving an organ donation is a gift, not a right.
Fact of the matter is there are a lot of people waiting for organs, whomever you give it to somebody else is going to die. When you get an organ transplant you have to take medication that leaves you immuno compromised.
So you have two people in front of you in need of an organ but only one organ to give it out. One is up to date on all their vaccinations and has been following their doctors instructions. The other thinks they know better than their doctor and has refused to get vaccinations. Which one of these two people do you think will have a better chance of surviving longer once immnuo compromised from the transplant?
“Woman who refused vaccine gets organ transplant, dies of COVID a month later” is a much shittier headline.
I was in Spain at the beginning of the pandemic. The bodies they were stacking in the back of army trucks because their mortuary system had collapsed were not fine.
because the entire world population was dying from COVID
Okay I’m no anti vaxxer but this is just going to get you laughed at by the people you’re trying to convince.
About 1% was at risk of death, and that’s no small number, and we all had to get vaccinated to protect them, and that’s fine. But outright stating the entire world population was dying is just laughable sensationalism.
If you want to convince people, you’re never going to do it with sensationalism, especially when that sensationalism is so dramatic is flat out wrong.
Sure there are side-effects but in that case the side effects were worth having versus millions of deaths
I mean, one of the most commonly mentioned side effects was something that happened in a much more serious form with a real COVID infection. It’s the easiest way to meet antivaxxers in the middle if they’re arguing in good faith. Even if there’s a significant side effect of myocarditis, it’s not nearly as common or heavy as the myocarditis die effect of an actual infection.
As I recall, all the side effects of the Covid vaccines are side effects present with other vaccines, and they are all auto-immune responses. You are at a much much greater risk of all of those if you actually caught Covid.
I suppose there is a bit of calculus involved. If you are 100 times more likely to suffer from Guillain–Barré syndrome or myocarditis if you catch a disease, but the disease is exceptionally rare, it might not make sense to get a vaccine. In Covid’s case though, a substantial amount of the general population caught Covid, meaning that the overall risk was substantially reduced by being vaccinated.
Some people just seem to have trouble with risks and percentages; shades of grey rather than black or white. Getting vaccinated isnt 100% the right call, it’s only 99.99+% the right call. Ironic that the same people were totally cool with a 0.5% of Covid killing them, never mind all the other severe side effects. You were asking them to make a choice between 99.99% fine vs. 90% fine or 99.9999+% non-lethal and 99.5% non-lethal. You look at the relative risks though and the vaccine was thousands of times more safe than catching Covid unvaccinated.
Any sort of medical treatment has side effects. For instance I got diabetes, you know what the side effects of using Insulin is? Death. Do you know what the side effects of untreated diabetes is? Death. Do you know what the side effect of life is? Eventually death. We are all going to get there someday, but I mean might as well stretch it out as long as possible, way I see it. There’s so much I want to see, after all. Are the Leafs ever going to win the cup? Am I ever going to see retirement? Do I ever get my Corvette? This lady in the story is never going to have any of those answers, because they were too worried about side effects.
That’s what I don’t get about these people barking about the side effects, I mean it might kill you or make you stupid, sure (I mean it’s possible, but highly unlikely). But so can falling out of bed in the morning. Or you know, COVID or whatever other disease you are trying to prevent. Was it raced out? I mean, sure. But pandemics, you know? Not a lot of time on anyones hands. And I’d say they’ve been pretty god damn effective. Like they bitch about shutting things down and the economy and mAH freedumbs, but then they bitch about racing out the vaccines, it’s like shit, what can we do to make you folks happy here?
You do know you had a 99.9 percent chance of surviving COVID. COVID as a pandemic was a complete joke thanks to media hysteria. I am so tired of hearing this false belief of “the entire world population was dying”. Drop this crusade and move on already.
It was overwhelming hospitals, which means people with other problems were dying, because ambulances were not getting to them, surgeries had to be postponed. If all your firefighters are sick, more people will die in fires and accidents. If a high number of people in a society get sick that society is breaking. No law enforcement, no health care, no working government, no grocery store.
You are one of the people that complain when action is taken and works that that action wasn’t needed because it wasn’t that bad and when no action is taken how bad the government is. And Covid wasn’t at all the worst it could have been. There will be a next virus in the future and people like you will not have learned anything from this one and drive us into an even worse crisis, just by being stubborn.
It did not happen because most people stayed at home, were wearing a mask, followed social distancing rules, were working from home, kept their children at home, washed their hands and got the vaccine when it was available. Again, it did not happen because we stopped it from happening and now you go “it wasn’t that bad” ignoring the billions of people who stopped it from getting that bad.
It’s like “seatbelts are against my freedom” and when everyone wears one to go “look people don’t die in car crashs that proofs seatbelts are unnecessary and only made up by the news” when the reason for them not dying is that they wear a seatbelt.
The vaccine, a mysterious injection that was forced on the population, created by big pharma who has a repuation for dishonesty for decades. Comparing this to seatbelts is a horrible comparision. Seatbelts BTW are straps you wear to ensure you do not go flying out the wind shield during a car crash. No mystery around that, no closed source injection being pumped into your bloodstream when wearing a seat belt.
And COVID mass deaths would of not happen if life was allowed to go on as normal. There were places like South Dakota that did nothing authoritative and I do know South Dakota still exists, life goes on.
Again, stop watching the news. Unplug from the matrix and then you will see the source code to all of this madness.
You are one of the people that complain when action is taken and works that that action wasn’t needed because it wasn’t that bad and when no action is taken how bad the government is.
Yup, that’s basically the entirety of the whole anti-vax thing in one sentence. Vaccines have been so effective at eradicating so many diseases people don’t have a concept of have deadly diseases can be and can’t grasp why getting a vaccine is so important to protect them from disease.
Best counter point is y2k.
Huge publicity. Massive amounts of money spent.
New year 1999/2000 was uneventful (except for parties).
… Y2k was a hoax, waste of money… Wut?!
It wasn’t. There’s is proof of such. It was removed/mitigated by a huge effort of developers.
This woman died because of lies written by around a dozen people and spread by crushingly ignorant people like you. You’re so confident in your stupidity that it’s laughable. We literally don’t care anymore. Take the vaccine, don’t take the vaccine, we don’t care. We’ve moved on from you.
Dunning-Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias whereby people who are incompetent at something are unable to recognize their own incompetence. And not only do they fail to recognize their incompetence, they’re also likely to feel confident that they actually are competent. See also @freeindv
I’m familiar with these people. I monitored some of their subs and argued with them a lot. I still don’t like the cheering.
When someone dies in a self-defense situation I still dislike cheering on their death. The death of criminals is tragic, too. You can create the situation that causes your demise out of ignorance or stupidity and I’ll still argue nobody should celebrate.
I agree and I’m definitely not cheering but when you’re dealing with this kind of smug arrogant hive-minded cultist stupidity it’s easy to sympathize with those who do cheer.
I love how people mention heart inflammation from the vaccines, but they never talk about heart inflammation from COVID itself - it’s more common with COVID itself, and it’s more severe with COVID itself.
These are the same people who argue against wearing seatbelts and mandatory airbags because they could potentially be worse than an accident without them, which is ignoring the 99.999% of the time they help.
And the vaccine was a choice. Noone was forced to take it.
Many lost their jobs and in places like Canada could not leave the country for refusing to take the vaccine? It was not a choice, it was forced and those who wished to be left alone, lost basic freedoms.
Imagine you wanted to leave Canada to go to a better place, but you were denied since you needed to show a digital ID. Think about it.
The provincial superior courts and the Supreme Court have long held and being vaccinated can be a requirement of employment. The people who lost their jobs did so because they did not meet their conditions of employment. Their choice.
You have the right under Section 6 of the Charter to cross provincial borders without restriction, to live anywhere in the country you choose to, and to leave Canada and return to Canada.
You could have walked to the border and left Canada if the US would take you (it wouldn’t nor would any other country). If you were outside of Canada you could have walked to to the border and entered Canada but you would probably have been required to quantine for a couple of weeks. Your rights were never in any danger you just don’t understand what they are.
This is false. Canadians could not board planes. How can you leave the country if you were denied access to a plane ride? This did violate the Canadian charter of human rights.
Yeah the US also blocked access to the unvaxxed, the only neighbouring country to Canada. And denying access to air travel was not done to “stop the spread of COVID”. It was malice, and to make excuses for this with twisted logic is quite disturbing to say the least.
You have no right to fly on an airplane or to ride on a train or a boat. You could have driven or walked to the border and left Canada if the US would take you. It wouldn’t. You could have driven to the coast, bought a boat, and sailed to any country that you could reach by sea if they would take you. They wouldn’t. You always had the right to leave Canada, you just didn’t have the ability to leave Canada as a consequence of your choices.
OMG! So you expect people to start their own airline, buy their own yacht? You must be Trudeau’s legal guy to use twisted logic to keep people from leaving the country. Unfrickin believable.
This did violate the Canadian charter of human rights.
Do you mean the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
In the case that this article is referring to Justices Frederica Schutz, Michelle Crighton and Dawn Pentelechuk of the Alberta Court of Appeals wrote that “Ms. Lewis’ COVID-19 vaccination status is not who she is,” the court wrote. “It is not an immutable personal characteristic … her choice not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is just that — a choice.”
What that means is that it isn’t a Charter issue because it was her choice not to be vaccinated which resulted in her being lawfully denied a transplant. It is the same for people who were not vaccinated and could not fly, it was their choice and therefore not a Charter issue.
There are excellent references available on the Justice Canada website that explain exactly what the Charter does and does not mean. Avoid Facebook because that is likely how you ended up confused in the first place and avoid the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom website because they lose 99% of their cases because they are just a right wing extremist troll farm.
imagine a vaccine so effective you have to be threatened in order to take it for a disease that is so deadly you need to be tested to know you have it?
They do, that’s why you’re likely not vaccinated right now, and why people who are against it are not vaccinated.
Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences of choices. If you make a bad choice, you aren’t entitled to be free from the consequences of that choice.
If you run around with Covid making others sick, you do not just weigh a risk for yourself, you are also inflicting it onto others. If too many do that, society breaks because hospitals get overwhelmed, firefighters and law enforcement are sick, the grocery store has to close and the government stops working. Children are unattended and whatever else.
If you do not wear a set belt your broken body takes up a hospital bed too, or are you going to accept the weight of your decision and abstain from health care because you inflicted that harm on yourself? Be welcome to not wear a seatbelt then, but make sure to have a big sticker on your car that says: “My head injury was my choice, so do not help.”
Most people are actually mostly reasonable most of the time because they don’t want to die or be seriously injured
Generally then, your scenario is unrealistic
If it were true, that most people were just dying to get brain damage in car accidents we could probably deal with it in a non-authoritarian way
Consider the billions per month alcohol and tobacco cost public health systems. We still let people do these things. Frankly I’d very much be in favor of taxing smokers more if they wanted to use the public health system.
The reality is, you just like a more controlling society as I like a more free one.
The vaccine underwent the exact same rigorous testing that literally every other vaccine or medication gets. The only difference is that COVID vaccines were given a free pass to the front of the line at each step necessary. As well, due to them having a much shorter timeline and higher competition, it was economical to run multiple tests in parallel that would normally have been done in series.
It wasn’t “rushed” as in sloppy, it was “rushed” in that it was given priority in the various governmental queues.
I have relatives that think the way the person you’re replying to does. “There’s no way it can be safe.”
I was grieving their position last night (momentarily, I’ve accepted that they think this way but it still makes me sad). There’s nothing I can do to persuade them. The fact that I’ve had four jabs and I’m still fine isn’t worth pointing out.
I agree with a sibling comment that says it isn’t worth trying to educate the willfully ignorant. However, you did a great job of saying it concisely. I appreciate you.
Ask me if my relatives have american flag iconography on their walls. Spoiler: they do. It’s almost as though there’s a very specific type of person who falls for this shit.
The vaccine went so fast because most of the part was already known and they had solution for other covid variants. They only needed to adapt it to attack the correct part of this covid 19 virus. It wasn’t a new study. It wasn’t rushed. And this person wasn’t healthy but terminal. Healthy, lol.
Please not. I am an autist and I am vaccinated three times, waiting for the new vaccines to arrive for my fourth. Being stubborn and unwilling to learn and being autistic are two very different things. One of them is a choice the other isn’t.
For many people, myself, my daughter, and many of my coworkers, autism isn’t a disability, it’s a superpower. Many well known big thinkers were autists. Some will known monsters were, too. Autism causes vaccines.
Meh…I let the normies have their fears and prejudices then, when the time is right, I whip out the weaponized Autism and take them by surprise.
That’s what my Autistic friend calls it when one of us does something so wild that it blows the normies minds. A few weeks ago we got a late request to respond to an RFP. I had some cycles so I raised my hand. It was 516 questions, it was Friday afternoon, and we had until the next Friday to write our responses, review our responses, get the package together and to our partner so they could submit it to the customer. I told them to start working on the supporting material and leave the questions with me. I sat down on Sunday morning at 7 AM with my notebook, some dark trance music, and my two cats and wrote 504 answers over the next 30 hours. There was a HUGE scramble once they realized that I was done and they had to get their shit together and actually get it submitted. That’s the power of weaponized autism.
Of course I do. Your body creates antibodies to viral proteins or particles and develops memory to them. In this case the antigens are created by your own body via injected mRNA enclosed in lipids, not an injected weakened or dead viruses.
So…you proved you don’t have any idea. For illnesses like COVID-19 it is key for a vaccine to be applied to as many people as possible to make it harder - in the final consequence impossible - for the disease to spread.
That’s the case with a vaccine to any contagious disease. Life has trade offs. I prever not to live under an authoritarian state. I don’t think hive-minded harm avoidance is the be all and end all of existence.
I mean she did not avoid harm and no one forced her to, so everything is ok. She also wasn’t forced to get vaccinated, she could say no just fine which means there was no authoritarian state controlling her. Decisions come with consequences. The consequence for her was a certain death in a short timeframe.
What is wrong is to make decisions and expect others to bare the consequences, like getting a rare transplant and risking it because you could get Covid and die from it because for the transplant to work your immune system needs to be held back for some time, while someone who would have done everything possible to make this work can’t get a transplant.
Also there needs to be a level of trust between a doctor and a patient, so if she gets told to take specific medication or live her life in a specific way after the surgery, she will accept the advice. She was willing to take the transplant, but did not trust the doctors with the vaccine, what would she not have trusted them with?
She had her trade off and I hope she died thinking it was worth it.
Well put. She made her choice. I doubt she accepted the consequences of her choice though. All the noise about being “denied” an organ, the fundraiser, the noise she made.
A lot of people are going to die waiting for an organ transplant, there aren’t enough to go around. No one is entitled to an organ, someone has to die to donate one (other than kidneys). Her demanding an organ is condemning someone else waiting to death. It the fundamental ethical calculus of organ transplants and organ donation.
I just really get the impression that she felt entitled to an organ despite choosing not to follow all medical advice.
No, you were not required to. But you were also excluded from a lot of life if you didn’t. And a lot of people were foaming at the mouth and very much desirous of an outright requirement.
“I showed up to the potluck with nothing even though I was told that I needed to bring something and expected to get the same things that everyone who brought something did, AiTA?”
I prever not to live under an authoritarian state.
So what authoritarian state? Being “excluded from a lot of life” is not an authoritarian state if it was just a result of people deciding not to be around you if you made the choice to be a health risk.
Or is this like a child screaming “YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!” Just because they can?
I didn’t want to have to sit next to someone infected with infectious disease when on an airplane.
Don’t blame the government, they were just implementing policies I wanted to protect me from people that had a higher probability of being a disease carrier because they get their medical advice from the internet.
No individual is more powerful than the state. That’s sort of the point of the state. Therefore, people who value freedom, like myself, are absolutely concerned with the decisions of the state and about the consequences of living a life out-of-line with the powers that be.
To use a hyperbolic example (and I fully acknowledge that is is hyperbolic, but I want to demonstrate a point), you were free to denounce Stalin and go to the Gulag. Nobody sewed up your mouth and prevented you from doing so. As you would aptly say, there are consequences.
“Life has trade-offs” is an interring philosophy to apply when you enjoy the benefits and others incur the costs.
There is a reason we do not let people breathe second hand cigarette smoke onto people’s faces at work.
There is a reason we apply speed limits on roads.
There is a reason that civilization has adopted rules of society that supercede the individual in every system ever devised.
The reason is that the collective has decided that being protected from the particularly terrible and wreck less decisions of the worst of us is a worthwhile “trade-off”.
That makes you a Nazi monster obviously. These lemmy fuckers are pretty keen on having the powers that be tell them exactly what to do and think. Kind of surprising, considering the platform lol.
Tell that to countries like Peru and Mexico who had little vaccination and a mortality rate of nearly 5%. Compared to the countries who had the highest vaccination rate with mortality of less than .05%
So… over 100 times more?
USA and CA had 1.1% so 5 times more… (erm that makes no sense, but you get what i mean. I need coffee)
Those numbers aren’t accurate. They didn’t have the same insane drive to try to find and record every case, so the death percentage is artificially inflated
Exactly. So deaths are drastically overcounted, as opposed to “confirmed cases”. Which is why the combination of the two leads to drastically overstating the death rate.
You’re such a cute widdle bootlicker yes you are! Yes you are! I’m so proud my big boy right here did all his own research! It’s just too bad little smookums here seems to think vaccine bad but computer good but both came from scientists.
Oh look he’s bout to post a reply. Maybe it’s a “I have a bad attitude and this is not productive to a debate despite I was shit posting” or “keep crying, lib” or “whatabout Obama/Biden” or mAyBe he’ll use his big boy words and call be a Woke libtard!! Oh man it’s been so long since I’ve been called that! That would totally make my day. 🥰
But I’ll tell y’all what he won’t do and back his claims with some bonafide peer reviewed scientific evidence!
Ah my little BB is getting cranky again. Here take your ivermectin and go take a nap. You’ve have a long day!
This is stupid on several levels, but I ain’t got time for all that so I’ll just point out that this lady wasn’t younger or healthier, given that she died without an organ transplant, and had she received a transplant she would be one of the vulnerable people on immunosupprressants. So even this stupid ass argument doesn’t apply in this situation.
Someone needing an organ transplant doesn’t sound like “younger” or “healthier” people.
According to your criteria, regardless of vaccine efficacy: this sounds like someone that should have been vaccinated.
You know what? It’s a fucking opinion. This sort of shit is why we keep going through this over and over and over and over again. It’s why everyone’s so fired up.
Do I think they are absolutely wrong? Honestly, yeah I do. But trying to suppress opinions you don’t agree with, using mock outrage isn’t really any better. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can read this comment, shake their head and move on with their day. Screaming outrage and how dare they, supress them, block them, disinformation, report them/supress them, whatever else, honestly that makes you the fuckhead. Sorry pal.
The rest of us normies are quite capable of ignoring morons, don’t worry. We don’t need babysitters. The longer this sorta horseshit continues, the longer we gotta deal with all these dickheads and their signs in traffic and whatever else. Because they aren’t exactly wrong in that their free speech is being suppressed. Again, I ain’t saying I agree with them, but like this woman, she had the right to do what she did, and she fucked around and found out. Evidently.
“If you are not a scientist, and you disagree with scientists about science, it’s actually not a disagreement. You’re just wrong.”
The problem is that these wrong “opinions” are presents as fact, facts that are believed by the scared and the gullible, and they grow and gain a life of their own until someone uses them to manipulated someone who is vulnerable into literally dying instead of getting a safe, effective vaccine.
Lies and fear and hate are dangerous. Lies caused a violent mob to storm the seat of US democracy and lies caused this woman, this wife, this mother, this grandmother, this Canadian, to sacrifice herself.
The smart people have a moral obligation to reject and challenge and contradict these dangerous lies.
Another of my favorites… “Science said one thing then it said another thing. We can’t trust anything science says.”
“Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.”
The problem is there is no chance to refute any of it if you or other mods remove it. I can’t stand the conviction behind some of these beliefs but also I think its much worse to see it being removed
The mods aren’t removing everything. They have made that very clear in at least two posts. The ones where there is a good, detailed response are being left up. In one case a mod put a comment ahead of one saying, “the comment below is wrong but I’m leaving in there because the responses are good”. I think the mod is doing a good job.
I’m aware. And I fully support the mods not allowing this place to turn into what r/Canada became. But it doesn’t feel right to me to remove posts just based on a commenter saying some bullshit but with enough conviction to say it as a fact.
The comment below by @nomadjoanne is incorrect, since a COVID-19 infection has a higher risk for myocarditis than what the vaccine can cause. However, I’m choosing to keep it up because there are a lot of comments afterwards outlining WHY it is incorrect, and that’s helpful for dealing with the disinformation.
I’m open to reviewing this again if people think it should be removed anyway
Yup. Literally the worst thing that could have happened to her had she taken the vaccine happened to her because she didn’t take the vaccine. Maybe they’ll put a monument to her on top of the hill that she chose to die on.
I was hoping to turn into a magnetic monkey with 5G tracking chips. No such luck.
The best few minutes of the pandemic for me was watching my 15 year old autistic daughter disassemble and completely humiliate a reality-denying mid-50s angry man at a farmers market. It was glorious.
Thanks. She is pretty awesome. Three of the people there to witness it, two labour negotiators and a “consultant” to CSIS, approached me the next week to say how impressed they were. She was clearly angry but she knew the data and presented it effectively. He slunk off after that. It was true awesome.
Yeah but throwing an organ away with someone that will die anyway refusing treatment just because they paid or because your system is incapable of transporting organs to better suited donors is not exactly a “benefit”.
Nope. That’s why the courts allow transplant coordinators to require that you be vaccinated. This vaccine was so incredibly safe that it’s ridiculous that she chose to die rather than getting it. I mean, literally the worst thing that could have happened to her because she got the vaccine happened to her because she didn’t get the vaccine.
I have a background in chemistry. Early in the pandemic when all the anti-vax nonsense was at its peak I took a look at the ingredients in the three main vaccines in Canada (A-Z, M, and P). For the most part they all included:
While I do agree the vaccines are safe enough, saying “mRNA which we all have in our bodies all the time” is a bit misleading. The number of ways an mRNA strand could mess you up is astronomical.
Sure, mRNA could be created to create a prion but the mRNA in the vaccine does not. It creates a small fragment of protein similar to a trans-membrane protein on the covid virus.
I assumed that you had concrete information to share no just wild anti-vax fear mongering.
I am not calling into question the safety of these vaccines. They are safe.
I’m pointing out that just because something is a salt doesn’t make it safe (see Sodium Cyanide), and just because a compound is mRNA doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous.
If you base your assessment of the safety of a drug on the premises you laid out instead of on controlled studies, you’re no better than anti-vaxxers.
I am very well aware that you are just being an argumentative pedant. I’ve been dealing with people like you for years so I recognized it right away.
I am not calling into question the safety of these vaccines. They are safe.
Yes, they are.
I’m pointing out that just because something is a salt doesn’t make it safe (see Sodium Cyanide), and just because a compound is mRNA doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous.
All four of the fats in the Covid vaccines naturally occur in or bodies.
All four of the salts in the Covid vaccines naturally occur in our bodies.
The tiny fragment of mRNA in the Covid vaccines is perfectly safe.
The only molecule in the Covid vaccine that is absolutely, provably killing many, many people is β-D-Fructofuranosyl α-D-glucopyranoside.
If you base your assessment of the safety of a drug on the premises you laid out instead of on controlled studies, you’re no better than anti-vaxxers.
There WERE controlled studies. Many controlled studies. The main vaccines are demonstrably safe.
“If you are not a scientist, and you disagree with scientists about science, it’s actually not a disagreement. You’re just wrong. Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.”
How was I supposed to know from your earlier comment that you weren’t literally saying “the COVID vaccine is safe because it’s made of things similar to stuff in our body”? 🤣
Fact is, there’s more people in need of transplants and simply not enough viable organs to go around.
I’m not going to fault the transplant committee for denying someone over a vaccine. Simply, why give this very finite and very precious resource to someone when they’re just going to go get themselves unalived over something as dumb as a 100% preventable disease or something just because they have a brain malfunction that makes them think vaccines are bad. Especially when so many other people are literally dying without the same organs, who are more than happy to follow doctors instructions to ensure they can live a long and prosperous life with the replacement they desperately need.
It’s all rather silly.
The thing that probably bothers me the most about organ transplants in general is that if cloning research and stem cell research was allowed to proceed properly, it’s entirely possible that science could find a way to grow you a replacement of your own organs… Apart from genetic problems causing organs to fail, it would almost completely eliminate the entire demand for organs. But no, some idiots don’t want cloning because it upsets their imaginary friend.
On a related note, go fill out your donor card people. Even if you’re one of those “nobody will want my organs” type of people, do it anyways. The transplant people will figure out if your organs are viable when you no longer need them anymore. Let them figure that shit out for you. Just check the box to be a donor and don’t think about it any further.
Don’t just put it on your license either. In many places that isn’t legally binding. Have a conversation with your partner/children/parents who are going to have legal authority over your body while brain dead and tell them you want to be a donor.
On a related note, go fill out your donor card people. Even if you’re one of those “nobody will want my organs” type of people, do it anyways. The transplant people will figure out if your organs are viable when you no longer need them anymore. Let them figure that shit out for you. Just check the box to be a donor and don’t think about it any further.
and the stupid rumour about “the doctors will kill me to save 8 others” is bullshit. I am glad my donor signed. His wife said she didn’t want him to, but seeing me live because of his selflessness made her reconsider, and she tells everyone to be a donor.
That rumor flies in the face of the first rule doctors vow to uphold “do no harm”.
IDK about you, but killing someone for their organs is pretty damn harmful for the individual “donating” their organs.
It’s a different story if you’re braindead or hurt to the point of being capable of recovering at all, even with all of the modern science and medicine that is available.
Language will evolve naturally over time. But to claim that hoping your children are intelligent/physically healthy is a form of eugenics is absurd. If QAnon was left-leaning, this is the kind of shit they would say.
I think it’s really funny that no one is taking the bait. All of the responses have been simple, on point, and non-engaging. That’s how you deal with a troll.
Disability studies, disability justice, disability theory, crip theory… lots of keywords for you to start googling. The other poster isn’t wrong: prioritizing intelligence and health in a child is the theory behind the practice of eugenics. Yes, these are strong words… but they’re not wrong.
I am. Disabled people are. People who work with disabled people are. I understand that this topic doesn’t interest you, but that doesn’t mean it’s not fucking important for a lot of us.
I think that people who are unvaxed shouldn’t get priority for transplants.
Even so, it’s not inappropriate to call out ableism in any topic. If somebody was racist, or sexist, or discriminatory in any other form, would you say, “Hey, we’re not talking about racism — stop hijacking the conversation”?
EDIT: For everyone else reading this: This is what people do when they feel uncomfortable with being called out. They deflect, refuse to admit they could be wrong, and stop engaging. That’s actually a fairly normal response. It’s hard to admit that, for example, ableist comments can be as harmful as racist comments. It’s okay to stop talking as long as one doesn’t stop thinking.
I wonder if you’d be able to take a step backward and consider that the linked article was written in earnest because it reflects a valid way of looking at the world that you may never have considered before. People disagreeing with you may not actually be trolling, but presenting their own valid beliefs. Look up disability studies, disability justice, and/or crip theory.
I agree that hoping for an intelligent and physically healthy child definitely reflects an ableist worldview. This is basic disability/crip theory.
For those who are going to argue: wanting an intelligent child is ableist because it implies that people who are intelligent have more worth than people who are not. It’s assigning the value of a person based on a pretty narrow and Western conceptualization of how people think. A person is valuable not because of their intelligence, but because of their existence — all are equally valuable because they’re people, and everyone is equal. The same goes, believe it or not, for physical disabilities, including health. If you disagree, then you think that not all people are equal, which is problematic, as problematic as hoping that your child is straight, or male, or has blonde hair and blue eyes.
If you aren’t gonna take steps to protect yourself, you’re not worthy. There’s a long list and many people who will work hard to safeguard such a gift.
“Taking this vaccine offends my conscience. I ought to have the choice about what goes into my body, and a lifesaving treatment cannot be denied to me because I chose not to take an experimental treatment for a condition — COVID-19 — which I do not have and which I may never have,” Lewis said in an affidavit.
I guess she died with a clear conscious. 🙄
Seriously though, taking an organ from the waitlist and then inevitably getting COVID while immunocompromised is … not very cool… for the next person on the waitlist.
I wonder if she did die with a clear conscience considering she withdrew the money donated at her fundraiser (which I find hilarious that they have a “send prayers” button on the page) so that she could live. They said in an earlier update that they expect everyone to be fair minded and not request a refund, but people can reach out for a refund. Very manipulative. Also, she didn’t leave a will and the funds are “unfortunately” locked while they figure out her estate. The whole thing is worth a read, if you don’t mind puking a little in your mouth.
Ugh. $125k to get an organ transplant in the US without the vaccine. Also, the stupid tweet speculating that vaccines aren’t required to donate organs. Nope, they absolutely aren’t. Idiots. Imbeciles. Morons. It’s absolutely infuriating that people can be so willingly ignorant.
Sure, hospitals willing and able to do organ transplants are rare, but that’s because organs to transplant are exceptionally rare. Other than kidney donations, and I think liver (IIRC), all organ transplants require someone to die, and to die under pretty controlled conditions so that their organs are still in a usable condition. For every organ transplant that occurs, there are a dozen others that die waiting.
To give this woman an organ transplant is to deny someone else an organ transplant. The question is not whether she should get an organ transplant despite not taking every reasonable measure to increase the odds of that organ contributing to a longer and healthier life; but rather who else dies if she doesn’t want to take every reasonable measure.
The fundamental calculus of organ donation is not everyone who needs one will get one. Who will benefit the most? This is absolutely the practical application of those philosophical paradoxes where you are asked to pick which life to save under various circumstances.
Her whole case reeks of the entitlement that oozes from the Convoy protesters. I shouldn’t be inconvenienced, I shouldn’t have to compromise to help others. I should get to live, screw everyone else.
I have a friend who got a lung transplant around 10 years ago. It’s a little unnerving how bloodthirsty I got whenever I saw an aggressive motorcycle driver. “I hope they are an organ donor” became my new curse. I wasn’t exactly wishing death upon people, but it was sobering to feel how mixed my feelings became knowing a friend was waiting for an organ donation.
The inverse of this story of this woman dying is the story of everyone who skipped past her in line. One of those organs could have been hers. I’d like to hear stories about people whose lives were saved.
This is the same decision that would’ve been made before covid about any other vaccine, so why be a donor in the first place? Genuine question, I don’t understand.
Overall I agree. While every death is a tragedy, the reality is that if someone is denied a compatible organ, it means that there was someone who received it and was willing to go through more effort to ensure that they would survive the operation long term.
COVID still exists, and it is still running rampant through the world, and it is still a legitimate threat to those with weakened immune systems, something that all organ recipients are.
This is virtually the same as someone being denied a lung transplant because the refused to quit smoking. Someone died to give you that lung, and so if you’re not going to treat it with respect, you don’t deserve it as much as someone who will.
That said, the numbers for transplants I’ve found are a lot more positive than I had expected: Organ transplants in Canada, 2021: Donations and need. That said, most organ transplants are from the deceased, and of those, a significant percentage were from Ontario and BC (adjusted for population) interestingly enough.
Though with that said as well, in 2022 80% of donations were from the deceased, 52% were from family members, and compared to 2936 transplants, there were an additional 3777 people on the wait list. 701 Canadians were removed from the wait list that same year, 39% of whom had died while waiting. (cihi.ca/…/summary-statistics-on-organ-transplants…)
The numbers are pretty uplifting overall, but until we can commercially grow organs (either in a vat or a donor pig) we need to take care of donated organs and maximize their value by preferentially giving them to those who are most likely to survive receiving them in the long term.
They don’t give organs to alcoholics who don’t stop drinking either.
Good luck getting a heart of you refuse to quit eating a hamburger an hour.
Look, you have to pass a baseline level of taking care of yourself to qualify for an organ, and vaccinations are the bottom, base level first line of defense.
What a dumnass. In her Pyrrhic victory not to be made into a 5g zombie (or whatever nonsense she might have believed) she stood her ground and died like an idiot. She gets no tears from me.
This is such a paradoxical statement, because if she did get the vaccine willingly, then no one would consider her to be an idiot and thus see no issue with her getting the transplant.
Transplants are incredibly strict about you not just wanting to live, but doing everything you can in order to live. It is good that the transplant went to someone with a sense of self-preservation. Utter waste on the likes of her.
Are you kidding? Should we not give narcan to OD’d drug addicts? Should we keep people from dying from lung cancer because they smoked? Should we not try to help people dying from liver disease because they’re alcoholics? They chose those situations, right?
Should we keep people from dying from lung cancer because they smoked? Should we not try to help people dying from liver disease because they’re alcoholics?
When the smoker/drinker fully admits they have zero intention of quitting, I would much rather give my lung/liver to someone who isn’t going to get a full, healthy life out of it, rather than someone who clearly would rather continue abusing it and burn through it in a couple years.
Organs are a limited resource, that’s why there is a list - and we should absolutely dedicate limited resources to doing as much good as possible
Yeah medical providers routinely do deny limited treatments (like organs) to people who refuse to stop taking drugs, smoking, or drinking. It makes complete sense too.
In the US, no one forces anyone to get a vaccine. But if a patient doesn’t cooperate with the doctors’ orders, they won’t get the treatment.
It’s not even really denying. They are just giving that organ to someone else. I’m sure if there were a glut of organs on the market somehow, then they could get less picky, but you don’t. For every successful organ donation there are probably a dozen people who die waiting.
A lot of people would say no to this. From a personal perspective I’d say “depends on the circumstance but not repeatedly of signify continues to use”.
As for smoking/alcohol and transplants… yes they did and those are already exclusionary factors.
If they plan to continue smoking or heavily drinking, then yes we should skip over to the next person on the list.
If they refuse to take up the lifestyle changes or follow medical advice, the organ should be used for the next person on the list.
People who’ve got transplants need to take immunosuppressants to reduce risk of rejection. Making them much more vulnerable to COVID. If the person is adamantly refusing the vaccine for bogus conspiracy theory reasons - it doesn’t give me much confidence that they would even follow through on other medical advice to prevent rejection.
That comparison makes no sense lol. You can get a vaccine for zero downsides at any point in time with next to no inconvenience. And you compare that to someone dying of lung cancer?? Especially when lungs are extremely limited and they are clearly showing they don’t care. You can’t say the same about the other comparisons you’ve made and that’s why it makes no sense.
You have to remember that anyone that receives an organ is another that don’t. doctors are very strict to not give organs to ppl that can suddenly stop taking meds to keep a thing so important working, receiving an organ is not a right, is a gift from someone that died to keep another alive.
Actually smokers who haven’t quit don’t get lung transplants either. Same with alcoholics who keep drinking, they are not put on the waiting list for liver transplants. There is a whole list of requirements you need to follow before you are even considered for a transplant. One of them is being fully vaccinated.
We respect those who have given life as their final act by making sure their organs aren’t wasted.
Those going through organ transplants are immunocompromised and it is especially important that they be vaccinated. Giving someone who is rejecting medical advice related directly to the transplant and it’s aftermath isn’t something we can do while there’s an organ shortage.
That’s the other angle. Someone has to die to donate organs (other than kidneys and I think liver). There aren’t enough organs to go around. Who lives and who dies? It’s a classic philosophical conundrum.
If you were in the wilderness with only 1 dose of Narcan and you had to choose between administering it to a drug addict dying from a bender, or their 8 year old that accidentally got into what was causing their parent to OD who would you give the single dose to? That is the kind of decision being made here.
Yep, not enough organs to go around. Some people are doomed to die waiting. It’s right out of a philosophy textbook.
You’re escaping from a burning building, the stairs are about to collapse. Do you assist the elderly smoker or the teenager? The pregnant woman or the father?
Classic. In this case do you save the entitled woman demanding an organ who refuses to follow medical advice, or the next person waiting?
Your example of narcan doesn’t even make sense - no one has to die for there to be more narcan. They just make more. So yeah, obviously we should give people narcan even if they’re making bad choices. People dying of lung cancer or liver disease require someone to die (or at least permanently give up part of an essential organ, in the case of livers), and we can’t just go to the pharmacy and pick up some spare organs just in case. It’s part of the deal that you don’t get an organ if you don’t meet a whole bunch of criteria, like being sober, getting vaccines, generally doing as much as possible to ensure the success of the transplant, because there’s someone else who will. Maybe they can’t change the past behavior that got them in the situation, but choosing not to change current/future behavior is absolutely grounds for denial.
It literally was. She had the choice to get vaccinated and get it. She choose not to and die. That is an extremely easy choice. Which part of that is not having a choice?
If you’re choosing to jump off a cliff because it offends you to walk on a paved road and you’re being offered to walk on the paved road then it really is your own fault.
You’re given a very reasonable and next to no effort choice. You’re choosing against that and choosing to hurt yourself by not picking that option. Except in this case you’re also hurting others around you. It’s like you’re suggesting it’s the grounds fault that she died when she choose to launch herself off the cliff, she could’ve just taken the paved road for no effort.
If I was drowning in a raging river and somebody threw me a rope, I could refuse the rope and demand that somebody else risk their life to swim out to get me. When they refuse, I am not going to say that they made the choice for me. I chose to die.
I understand that I am not going to convince you. That is fine. That does not change the fact that they gave her the choice and told her the steps she needed to take. The choice was hers and she chose. The fact that they did not decide to risk or kill somebody else waiting for that organ to accommodate her “choice” does not transfer the responsibility to them.
It is tragic to see somebody destroyed by their choices. That said, I am glad that somebody that was willing to save their own life got a chance at that organ instead. I hope that nobody that I care about is ever impacted by the kind of decision making you are defending here ( the woman who refused the organ that could have saved her life ).
Add comment