Oh, no, I don't think it's a placebo. I personally think there are danger flares all around. But insofar as every member of my family has submitted, and will line up for boosters until whenever, I cling to the thin hope that, in spite of everything I have learned, it is somehow benign in the long term. I used "placebo" in this case only to indicate the immediate psychological effect this injection appears to have.
Do you think I can control the actions of sovereign adults? If so, your family functions differently from mine. You make other assumptions in your comment that are also unwarrented, but this is not about me or you. What I was trying to say was, all of us, whatever our "vax status", have many loved ones who have chosen or been effectively forced to go along. I cannot wish them ill. I pray I am wrong, and el gato malo is wrong, and Dr. Malone is wrong, and vanderBrosse (?) is wrong. But I fear they are all right. This should be breaking all of our hearts.
When one side argues for choice and the other side insists that the side that's happy to give them the choice to mask up, vaxx up, stay home must be compelled to do the same or else their own interventions "won't work," we've got asymmetry of regard here.
It's like a knightly order of chivalry challenging Barbary pirates to a Queensberry boxing match.
Yes, we all have family and friends who've gotten the jabs.
And we all hope they do no real harm even if they don't prevent infection or disease.
Unfortunately, their submission to authority and wishful thinking has put the rest of us at risk...indeed our entire society at risk.
If it was merely a question of you so you and I'll do me, I would have no problem. But many are so captured that they'll insist the unvaxxed get vaxxed, even though the CDC has admitted that the jabs don't stop infection or transmission. They are lining up to get another jab of last year's potion to protect against this year's contagion. And too many of them are enraged that the rest of us just won't go along. SCV2 is bad, but the mind virus is worse.
Their unwillingness or inability to think critically is putting everyone...including them...at risk.
I'm not suggesting oppressing anyone. (I have no power to, anyway). I'm saying the side of liberty in this and most instances is nearly always on the back foot, because it's easier to win if you're prepared to do so at any cost (and have dehumanized your opponent.)
This is an important point that many people don't understand. Science can (or should be able to) tell us what the risk is -- but it can't tell us if that risk is acceptable or not. Everybody has their own risk tolerance and risk profile. I don't ride a motorcycle because the risk isn't worth the reward. On the other hand I play third base in softball whereas others won't because THEIR risk isn't worth the reward.
Of course, the bureaucrat would either ban ALL risk or spread it out evenly -- even to people who don't want to ride the motorcycle or play third base.
Oh, no, I don't think it's a placebo. I personally think there are danger flares all around. But insofar as every member of my family has submitted, and will line up for boosters until whenever, I cling to the thin hope that, in spite of everything I have learned, it is somehow benign in the long term. I used "placebo" in this case only to indicate the immediate psychological effect this injection appears to have.
> every member of my family has submitted, and will line up for boosters until whenever
I really question your judgement. I do hope it all works out for you.
Do you think I can control the actions of sovereign adults? If so, your family functions differently from mine. You make other assumptions in your comment that are also unwarrented, but this is not about me or you. What I was trying to say was, all of us, whatever our "vax status", have many loved ones who have chosen or been effectively forced to go along. I cannot wish them ill. I pray I am wrong, and el gato malo is wrong, and Dr. Malone is wrong, and vanderBrosse (?) is wrong. But I fear they are all right. This should be breaking all of our hearts.
and this is an important point.
arguing for choice and liberty involves accepting that others will make choices we wish they would not.
hell, i have some friends that listen to (shudder) maroon 5 and have mistaken it for music...
what can one do save pity them and try to educate them?
we can provide information, but we cannot force choices. that's not consistent with supporting a free society or personal agency.
When one side argues for choice and the other side insists that the side that's happy to give them the choice to mask up, vaxx up, stay home must be compelled to do the same or else their own interventions "won't work," we've got asymmetry of regard here.
It's like a knightly order of chivalry challenging Barbary pirates to a Queensberry boxing match.
i find that framing deeply problematic.
"we must become monsters to battle monsters" is a self defeating philosophy.
do that, and you've lost before you even begin.
you cannot use "only good coercion" to oppress your way out of tyranny.
such powers, once granted, always wind up wielded by exactly the people you wished they wouldn't.
Yes, we all have family and friends who've gotten the jabs.
And we all hope they do no real harm even if they don't prevent infection or disease.
Unfortunately, their submission to authority and wishful thinking has put the rest of us at risk...indeed our entire society at risk.
If it was merely a question of you so you and I'll do me, I would have no problem. But many are so captured that they'll insist the unvaxxed get vaxxed, even though the CDC has admitted that the jabs don't stop infection or transmission. They are lining up to get another jab of last year's potion to protect against this year's contagion. And too many of them are enraged that the rest of us just won't go along. SCV2 is bad, but the mind virus is worse.
Their unwillingness or inability to think critically is putting everyone...including them...at risk.
I'm not suggesting oppressing anyone. (I have no power to, anyway). I'm saying the side of liberty in this and most instances is nearly always on the back foot, because it's easier to win if you're prepared to do so at any cost (and have dehumanized your opponent.)
This is an important point that many people don't understand. Science can (or should be able to) tell us what the risk is -- but it can't tell us if that risk is acceptable or not. Everybody has their own risk tolerance and risk profile. I don't ride a motorcycle because the risk isn't worth the reward. On the other hand I play third base in softball whereas others won't because THEIR risk isn't worth the reward.
Of course, the bureaucrat would either ban ALL risk or spread it out evenly -- even to people who don't want to ride the motorcycle or play third base.