Will you take the CCP Virus vaccine? Why/why not

Will you take the CCP Virus vaccine? Why/why not

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 34.6%

  • No

    Votes: 80 52.3%

  • Undecided (include why)

    Votes: 20 13.1%
  • Total voters
    153
#402
#402
0nelilreb said:
It’s not .. it’s 99% for healthy people and people 69 and under , 94% for unhealthy and people 70 and over was the last I read . Not making anymore cars and restricting drivers of the cars we have to only 1 day a week would also “ save lives “ . You in ?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but I’m confused by your analogy. A better one be, if you could wear a seat belt to save you and your families life in the event of accident. Would you? I would.
 
#403
#403
UT = Checkmate said:
I’m sorry but I’m confused by your analogy. A better one be, if you could wear a seat belt to save you and your families life in the event of accident. Would you? I would.
Click to expand...
Seat belt laws are over reach and just tax sources too. What an individual does to oneself is their decision. Seat belt laws are a great example of an overtaxing nanny state. Drop into the decriminalize drugs thread this exact conversation is happening there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lukeneyland
#404
#404
UT = Checkmate said:
I’m sorry but I’m confused by your analogy. A better one be, if you could wear a seat belt to save you and your families life in the event of accident. Would you? I would.
Click to expand...

My analogy was directed at your statement of “ it could save lives “ . I gave you another example of tens of thousands of lives that could be saved each year if we just agreed to it . Keep in mind seat belt laws already exist and we wear ours , so that’s a non-sequitur
 
#405
#405
0nelilreb said:
My analogy was directed at your statement of “ it could save lives “ . I gave you another example of tens of thousands of lives that could be saved each year if we just agreed to it . Keep in mind seat belt laws already exist and we wear ours , so that’s a non-sequitur
Click to expand...
you are grasping for straws, it’s a risk benefit. We drive to work to take care of our families. I’m saying we take the vaccine so the economies can reopen and people can drive to work to take care of of their families because we have people incapable of wearing masks. So we have to attack the covid problem biologically.
 
#406
#406
UT = Checkmate said:
you are grasping for straws, it’s a risk benefit. We drive to work to take care of our families. I’m saying we take the vaccine so the economies can reopen and people can drive to work to take care of of their families because we have people incapable of wearing masks. So we have to attack the covid problem biologically.
Click to expand...
What if we find out in 10-20 years that the vaccine causes a dramatic increase in pancreatic cancer? You were young, healthy, and less then a one percent chance of dying from the virus. But oops now you got something that will probably kill you. Tough trade off to ask from young healthy people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lukeneyland, NorthDallas40 and 0nelilreb
#407
#407
volfanhill said:
What if we find out in 10-20 years that the vaccine causes a dramatic increase in pancreatic cancer? You were young, healthy, and less then a one percent chance of dying from the virus. But oops now you got something that will probably kill you. Tough trade off to ask from young healthy people.
Click to expand...
The same could be said for polio and measles. We take vaccines to save lives. I don’t completely trust the speed in which this one was developed so you have no argument from me on the skeptics front but the out right saying that vaccines can’t be a powerful solution, I think makes us short sighted. You have the right to your opinion and I’m not saying your wrong. Just offering different perspective.
 
#408
#408
UT = Checkmate said:
you are grasping for straws, it’s a risk benefit. We drive to work to take care of our families. I’m saying we take the vaccine so the economies can reopen and people can drive to work to take care of of their families because we have people incapable of wearing masks. So we have to attack the covid problem biologically.
Click to expand...

I got some news for you , the government is the one that’s keeping the economy down over a virus with a 99% survival rate for healthy people . You are pushing the same ideology that’s always pushed .. just do what you are told and we will , possibly , if we don’t have anything we think you should do , let you have your freedoms back . It’s just a shot , just take it and move along , after all “ it’s for your own good “.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lukeneyland and NorthDallas40
#409
#409
0nelilreb said:
I got some news for you , the government is the one that’s keeping the economy down over a virus with a 99% survival rate for healthy people . You are pushing the same ideology that’s always pushed .. just do what you are told and we will , possibly , if we don’t have anything we think you should do , let you have your freedoms back . It’s just a shot , just take it and move along , after all “ it’s for your own good “.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not pushing a narrative and honestly I work in healthcare. Our brothers and sisters are suiting up everyday and have been fighting this damn virus since March and people are burnt out and its getting worse. I think temperature is too amped in the country where we are fighting each other rather than uniting against this thing. Like you, I’m young and have a great chance of survival if I get it. But probably like you, I have older aunts and uncles that this thing could do harm. I think we as country have gotten away from caring for people and others and honestly we just care about ourselves. I don’t think we should close businesses but I do think their should be a mask mandate if it mean nothing closes down.
 
#410
#410
0nelilreb said:
I got some news for you , the government is the one that’s keeping the economy down over a virus with a 99% survival rate for healthy people . You are pushing the same ideology that’s always pushed .. just do what you are told and we will , possibly , if we don’t have anything we think you should do , let you have your freedoms back . It’s just a shot , just take it and move along , after all “ it’s for your own good “.
Click to expand...
Also it sounds like you are willing to sacrifice 1%. Why if we have the potential to save them. For numbers sake...1% is 3.3 million people
 
#411
#411
Not until after few years of trial, at least, because my father-in-law is a doctor who says there's no way they can know it's safe after producing it this fast, and I trust him. Plus, my whole family has tested positive, including my stepdad who for the past few years has had to have a breathing machine help him breathe at night, and we're all fine. Generally speaking, I think the virus is weak so I'm not worried about it.
 
#413
#413
UT = Checkmate said:
Also it sounds like you are willing to sacrifice 1%. Why if we have the potential to save them. For numbers sake...1% is 3.3 million people
Click to expand...
Emotional appeals aren’t really a strong point to debate from. They get frosty receptions generally

“But what if we save one child if we ban all guns.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#414
#414
UT = Checkmate said:
Also it sounds like you are willing to sacrifice 1%. Why if we have the potential to save them. For numbers sake...1% is 3.3 million people
Click to expand...

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Theres roughly 2.8 million people die every year in the US , did you willingly accept those ? I’m assuming we had the potential to save the majority of them also . If you did accept those deaths , what is the difference ?
edit: I posted this before I read you are in health care , I look forward to your response even more now .
 
#415
#415
0nelilreb said:
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Theres roughly 2.8 million people die every year in the US , did you willingly accept those ? I’m assuming we had the potential to save the majority of them also . If you did accept those deaths , what is the difference ?
edit: I posted this before I read you are in health care , I look forward to your response even more now .
Click to expand...
Die from what?
 
#416
#416
volfanhill said:
Monty’s position is pretty ignorant. They will have a strong idea of what the short term implications are. I wouldn’t worry about those. What we do have to worry about it going to the doctor ten years from now, told you have cancer x, and then the doctor asking “Did you happen to get the Covid vaccine in 2021?”
Click to expand...

Last I checked, ol' Donnie said vaccines cause autism. I'm already semi-short bus, so gotta be careful...
 
  • Like
Reactions: lukeneyland
#419
#419
MontyPython said:
Last I checked, ol' Donnie said vaccines cause autism. I'm already semi-short bus, so gotta be careful...
Click to expand...
The short bus you are on is bc you think you will have a more informed decision to make in a few months. You won’t. That game has been played out. I have no concern about the short term. I am not an anti vaccine person. You can even check out how I voted in this poll. But you are being dumb if you think we have any clue what the long term effects are. And we have documented history of vaccines going wrong.
 
#421
#421
0nelilreb said:
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Theres roughly 2.8 million people die every year in the US , did you willingly accept those ? I’m assuming we had the potential to save the majority of them also . If you did accept those deaths , what is the difference ?
edit: I posted this before I read you are in health care , I look forward to your response even more now .
Click to expand...
It’s all context right. people die from all sorts of things. Suicide, accidents, poor eating habits, cancer, however none of these are directly related to a pandemic. I think that was my larger point.
 
#423
#423
NorthDallas40 said:
Emotional appeals aren’t really a strong point to debate from. They get frosty receptions generally

“But what if we save one child if we ban all guns.”
Click to expand...
No emotional appeal here, but changing the argument to gun rights is not the same. I believe in gun ownership and the right to beat arms.
 
#424
#424
NorthDallas40 said:
Seat belt laws are over reach and just tax sources too. What an individual does to oneself is their decision. Seat belt laws are a great example of an overtaxing nanny state. Drop into the decriminalize drugs thread this exact conversation is happening there.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I disagree with your characterization of seat belt laws being overtaxing. When a person is involved in a car wreck and they aren't wearing a seatbelt they are more likely to die or be seriously injured. Who pays for their hospital bills? We all do through increased medical costs. Who pays for raising their child? We all do through increased social security expenses. I could go on and on, but reckless behavior costs society money and taking a vaccine just like wearing a seatbelt are examples of many.
 
#425
#425
UT = Checkmate said:
No emotional appeal here, but changing the argument to gun rights is not the same. I believe in gun ownership and the right to beat arms.
Click to expand...
I didn’t change the argument to guns rights I gave you an example of the exact form of appeal you are using. The gun one comes up all the time. And since it has no merit and is just an emotional appeal it gets soundly rejected every time. Just a friendly reminder you’re going to need more substance than that is all.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top