I know there were court battles, but from my recollection and a quick glance at the history of the cases, they didn't involved religious objections. It was about informed consent and the safety of the vaccines. You didn't have people screeching "faith over fear".Martin Q. Blank said:Yes that one. It went through many court battles.PacifistAg said:Martin Q. Blank said:Anthrax vaccine?PacifistAg said:Soldiers have long had mandatory vaccinations as well. I never heard anyone screech about "faith over fear", prior to their current hysteria, when soldiers or school children were required to vaccinate.Zobel said:
Vaccinating school children is nothing new.
The same anthrax vaccine I was required to get, and that I never heard anyone screech about "faith over fear"?
lost job due to no vax
33,108 Views |
469 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Reload8098
And we had Dems saying they wouldn't trust a 'Trump Vaccine' from well before the actual availability.Macarthur said:RAB91 said:Have you not turned on a TV this last 18 months?Macarthur said:Martin Q. Blank said:It doesn't address how this vaccine and disease is different. Who the disease affects, how the vaccine was developed, and the political way it was rolled out.Zobel said:
Why is it tone deaf? We collectively as a society decided this issue a long time ago. Why should it be reopened?
What do you mean by the 'political way it was rolled out'?
I'm genuinely wondering what one thinks is 'political' about how this was rolled out?
18 months? We've had a vaccine for about 10...
RAB91 said:And we had Dems saying they wouldn't trust a 'Trump Vaccine' from well before the actual availability.Macarthur said:RAB91 said:Have you not turned on a TV this last 18 months?Macarthur said:Martin Q. Blank said:It doesn't address how this vaccine and disease is different. Who the disease affects, how the vaccine was developed, and the political way it was rolled out.Zobel said:
Why is it tone deaf? We collectively as a society decided this issue a long time ago. Why should it be reopened?
What do you mean by the 'political way it was rolled out'?
I'm genuinely wondering what one thinks is 'political' about how this was rolled out?
18 months? We've had a vaccine for about 10...
They said they would trust what the scientists said but would not trust Trump alone at his word.
Sapper Redux said:RAB91 said:And we had Dems saying they wouldn't trust a 'Trump Vaccine' from well before the actual availability.Macarthur said:RAB91 said:Have you not turned on a TV this last 18 months?Macarthur said:Martin Q. Blank said:It doesn't address how this vaccine and disease is different. Who the disease affects, how the vaccine was developed, and the political way it was rolled out.Zobel said:
Why is it tone deaf? We collectively as a society decided this issue a long time ago. Why should it be reopened?
What do you mean by the 'political way it was rolled out'?
I'm genuinely wondering what one thinks is 'political' about how this was rolled out?
18 months? We've had a vaccine for about 10...
They said they would trust what the scientists said but would not trust Trump alone at his word.
That's a good one.....
Yeah, I detest Kamala and Cuomo's politics, but for Harris at least, she said she'd not take Trump's word for it. Her exact comment:
Not quite what RAB is claiming.Quote:
"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump," Harris said, "and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. I will not take his word for it."
Her exact comment. It's not goaltending. It's correcting your misrepresentation of the comment.Quote:
"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump," Harris said, "and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. I will not take his word for it."
I almost forgot. Trump was bout to override all the normal approval processes and just approve it himself.PacifistAg said:
Yeah, I detest Kamala and Cuomo's politics, but for Harris at least, she said she'd not take Trump's word for it. Her exact comment:Not quite what RAB is claiming.Quote:
"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump," Harris said, "and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. I will not take his word for it."
If you don't think it has been political, you're either willfully ignorant or incredibly nave.
I didn't say this hasn't been political. Both sides have politicized this. It's why we have people acting like tantruming children and pretending this is a matter of faith. I was simply correcting your dishonest representation of Harris' comment. She said she wouldn't trust Trump on the issue, and that she would rely on actual intelligent people who know what they are talking about.RAB91 said:I almost forgot. Trump was bout to override all the normal approval processes and just approve it himself.PacifistAg said:
Yeah, I detest Kamala and Cuomo's politics, but for Harris at least, she said she'd not take Trump's word for it. Her exact comment:Not quite what RAB is claiming.Quote:
"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump," Harris said, "and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. I will not take his word for it."
If you don't think it has been political, you're either willfully ignorant or incredibly nave.
And why would anyone trust Trump or Biden or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, etc on something that they don't understand themselves? Especially since all have either proven themselves to be liars, devoid of character, or both.
So I'll mark you down in the willfully ignorant column.PacifistAg said:I didn't say this hasn't been political. Both sides have politicized this. It's why we have people acting like tantruming children and pretending this is a matter of faith. I was simply correcting your dishonest representation of Harris' comment. She said she wouldn't trust Trump on the issue, and that she would rely on actual intelligent people who know what they are talking about.RAB91 said:I almost forgot. Trump was bout to override all the normal approval processes and just approve it himself.PacifistAg said:
Yeah, I detest Kamala and Cuomo's politics, but for Harris at least, she said she'd not take Trump's word for it. Her exact comment:Not quite what RAB is claiming.Quote:
"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump," Harris said, "and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. I will not take his word for it."
If you don't think it has been political, you're either willfully ignorant or incredibly nave.
And why would anyone trust Trump or Biden or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, etc on something that they don't understand themselves? Especially since all have either proven themselves to be liars, devoid of character, or both.
Despite what you think, her statement (which I never specifically called out) only supports my claim. She's making it political by trying to undermine Trump and his administration's credibility.
How am I willfully ignorant by agreeing with you that this has been made political? Strange claim. Both sides have politicized this.RAB91 said:So I'll mark you down in the willfully ignorant column.PacifistAg said:I didn't say this hasn't been political. Both sides have politicized this. It's why we have people acting like tantruming children and pretending this is a matter of faith. I was simply correcting your dishonest representation of Harris' comment. She said she wouldn't trust Trump on the issue, and that she would rely on actual intelligent people who know what they are talking about.RAB91 said:I almost forgot. Trump was bout to override all the normal approval processes and just approve it himself.PacifistAg said:
Yeah, I detest Kamala and Cuomo's politics, but for Harris at least, she said she'd not take Trump's word for it. Her exact comment:Not quite what RAB is claiming.Quote:
"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump," Harris said, "and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. I will not take his word for it."
If you don't think it has been political, you're either willfully ignorant or incredibly nave.
And why would anyone trust Trump or Biden or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, etc on something that they don't understand themselves? Especially since all have either proven themselves to be liars, devoid of character, or both.
Despite what you think, her statement (which I never specifically called out) only supports my claim. She's making it political by trying to undermine Trump and his administration's credibility.
But, speaking of willful ignorance, to claim that her actual comments support what you first claimed is the height of "willful ignorance". She said she doesn't trust Trump. That's smart. Who would trust a man like him? Especially on a subject he's ignorant on. She then said she'd trust actual experts. Gasp!
PacifistAg said:The problem is that you wrongly link getting a vaccine as a lack of faith in God.Quote:
I think it sinful to have a lack of faith in God.
This particular "vaccine".
Pay attention.
dermdoc said:
I have a strong faith and believe in the sovereignty of God. And totally respect your decision.
I also think God gives us smart people to come up with stuff to help us and also gives us discernment to know what helps us.
I am pro vax.
Thank you.
Zobel said:
Are we talking about something that has actually happened? Or just a hypothetical?
I appreciate this comment more than you know. My critique was two-fold: a) it oversimplifies the choices any generic American has to say 'get a new job' or 'start a new business' (back to our beliefs about identity, there are many connected networks we're a part of and the state layers on top of that), and b) it is unsympathetic to tell someone to do so and simply spit facts at them. In short the context of texags reduces people to avatars and categorizes them rather than generating empathy for what they view as tough choices, even from those who think a 'church' should help them and claim to be fellow believers.
That is why I view these responses as tone deaf. 'Look they're safe,' 'every school requires vaccines,' and 'I got the shot but I don't believe people should be forced to,' don't actually address the human element of these dilemmas, the part that Christ cares about. I have a lot of friends and family with medical issues or strong pro-life beliefs that will be forced to compromise their health or beliefs in the face of this. Or they won't be employed for trying to protect them and I will be the hands and feet of the church. If you're individually actively helping someone who's lost their job for this then forgive me but that's not what's coming through and what I see as a real immediate future for me.
PacifistAg 'm glad you don't have guns in your home for "self-defense". Faith over fear! Trust God![/quote said:
Matthew 26:52
Yes, I know you've carved out a convenient exception for this "particular vaccine" based on your lack of understanding of how the vaccine works. Either way, getting this "particular vaccine" is in no way a result of a lack of faith in God. Either way, your problem is still the same. You are linking getting this "particular vaccine" with a lack of faith in God. By doing so, you insult the faith of countless brothers and sisters, myself included, who have gotten the vaccine.Catag94 said:PacifistAg said:The problem is that you wrongly link getting a vaccine as a lack of faith in God.Quote:
I think it sinful to have a lack of faith in God.
This particular "vaccine".
Pay attention.
This vaccine doesn't have a damn thing to do with faith, or lack thereof, in God. And trying to claim as much is bordering on using His name in vain.
Quote:Quote:PacifistAg 'm glad you don't have guns in your home for "self-defense". Faith over fear! Trust God![/quote said:
Matthew 26:52
Not sure what you think that verse is saying, other than supporting my position on nonviolence. Yes, we should listen to Jesus and not join in the cycle of violence.
I love how it is always the BCs who think that they're the smartest ones in the room. I guess we're all guilty of that a little, but it really blinds them as the data turns against them (ex. natural immunity as good or better than the shot).Quote:
Yes, I know you've carved out a convenient exception for this "particular vaccine" based on your lack of understanding of how the vaccine works.
PacifistAg said:Yes, I know you've carved out a convenient exception for this "particular vaccine" based on your lack of understanding of how the vaccine works. Either way, getting this "particular vaccine" is in no way a result of a lack of faith in God. Either way, your problem is still the same. You are linking getting this "particular vaccine" with a lack of faith in God. By doing so, you insult the faith of countless brothers and sisters, myself included, who have gotten the vaccine.Catag94 said:PacifistAg said:The problem is that you wrongly link getting a vaccine as a lack of faith in God.Quote:
I think it sinful to have a lack of faith in God.
This particular "vaccine".
Pay attention.
This vaccine doesn't have a damn thing to do with faith, or lack thereof, in God. And trying to claim as much is bordering on using His name in vain.
I carved it out based on several reasons including how it works. I'll gladly take an exposure to the virus gaining a real, God given immune response that generates a more dependable protection. Something I already have but no one has even bothered to ask.
Also, I'm not judging what others do, I stating what I believe. My faith is between Christ and me. And, I'm not trying to force that on others just asking for the same curtesy especially from our democratic republic.
You're not helping your argument. Natural immunity is not as good as the vaccine. It may protect against future COVID infections more or less as well as the vaccine, but that's not the same thing. As I already said, many people die before they get natural immunity. Between 33 and 50% of those people that catch COVID have symptoms for as long as 6 months to go along with that natural immunity. I have many patients that just recovered from delta and have awesome natural immunity as they walk around with their new portable oxygen tanks.RAB91 said:I love how it is always the BCs who think that they're the smartest ones in the room. I guess we're all guilty of that a little, but it really blinds them as the data turns against them (ex. natural immunity as good or better than the shot).Quote:
Yes, I know you've carved out a convenient exception for this "particular vaccine" based on your lack of understanding of how the vaccine works.
If you catch COVID, survive, recover completely and have no lasting health issues from your infection, then your natural immunity is equivalent to a vaccine. The good thing is that the vaccine gives you all the benefits of natural immunity without any of the risk of death or long term health issues.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Geez, this thread is like watching humanity devolve before our very eyes.
How about you allow people to make the choice to take that risk for themselves as opposed to forcing you preference on them?
And you're not helping the claim that many in the medical field are actually anti-science. Tens of millions of people have already had it. If we just talk about this group they have no need for the vaccine.ramblin_ag02 said:You're not helping your argument. Natural immunity is not as good as the vaccine. It may protect against future COVID infections more or less as well as the vaccine, but that's not the same thing. As I already said, many people die before they get natural immunity. Between 33 and 50% of those people that catch COVID have symptoms for as long as 6 months to go along with that natural immunity. I have many patients that just recovered from delta and have awesome natural immunity as they walk around with their new portable oxygen tanks.RAB91 said:I love how it is always the BCs who think that they're the smartest ones in the room. I guess we're all guilty of that a little, but it really blinds them as the data turns against them (ex. natural immunity as good or better than the shot).Quote:
Yes, I know you've carved out a convenient exception for this "particular vaccine" based on your lack of understanding of how the vaccine works.
If you catch COVID, survive, recover completely and have no lasting health issues from your infection, then your natural immunity is equivalent to a vaccine. The good thing is that the vaccine gives you all the benefits of natural immunity without any of the risk of death or long term health issues.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/10/covid-19-natural-immunity-compared-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-the-definitive-summary/
Edit: I have my annual physical coming up. I'm sure it will be a fun conversation when they ask if I've had the vaccine.
Maybe as much fun as when they asked if own any firearms, and I told them its not relevant to an annual exam. Because just last month we were literally to the point where people were dying of conditions completely unrelated to COVID, because all the hospitals were too full of people working on their natural immunity. I had a patient die in my hospital due to a heart attack. He couldn't get him to a cardiologist who might have been able to save his life, because all the ICUs in the state were full of COVID patients. The same has been documented in other small hospitals with heart patients and dialysis patients. Your decision doesn't just affect you. That's not how infectious disease and public health works.Catag94 said:
How about you allow people to make the choice to take that risk for themselves as opposed to forcing you preference on them?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Catag94 said:
How about you allow people to make the choice to take that risk for themselves as opposed to forcing you preference on them?
Because it's a viral pandemic. Your personal choice does not limit the risk to just you.
Why is this part so hard to get across? Have we become so atomistic a society that we can't grasp how individual choices affect more than just the individual?
Which State?
ramblin_ag02 said:
He couldn't get him to a cardiologist who might have been able to save his life, because all the ICUs in the state were full of COVID patients.
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why would ICUs being full affect cardiologist availability? Are these ICU patients needing care from cardiologists in the ICU?
Texas
here is a documented example
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-us-hospital-icu-bed-shortage-veteran-dies-treatable-illness/
But also has happened in Idaho, Montana and Alaska
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/17/hospitals-ration-care-covid/
here is a documented example
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-us-hospital-icu-bed-shortage-veteran-dies-treatable-illness/
But also has happened in Idaho, Montana and Alaska
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/17/hospitals-ration-care-covid/
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Acute heart attack patients go the CCU (Cardiac Care unit). In our case, all the CCU beds had been converted to ICU beds to take care of the surge of COVID patients. Our patient was too sick for a regular hospital bed, so the larger hospitals couldn't take him. And only the large hospitals have facilities to perform cardiac catheterization, which is pretty much the only life saving procedure for people like this.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Thanks for sharing, that's such a scary thought that you go to the hospital and you die not because of a lack of tech or skills but resources.
I know it's a bit off topic, but if you don't mind me asking, what do you do for patients like this?
I know it's a bit off topic, but if you don't mind me asking, what do you do for patients like this?
I like that you accuse me of being anti-science but repeat exactly what I just said with less detail and thought.RAB91 said:And you're not helping the claim that many in the medical field are actually anti-science. Tens of millions of people have already had it. If we just talk about this group they have no need for the vaccine.ramblin_ag02 said:You're not helping your argument. Natural immunity is not as good as the vaccine. It may protect against future COVID infections more or less as well as the vaccine, but that's not the same thing. As I already said, many people die before they get natural immunity. Between 33 and 50% of those people that catch COVID have symptoms for as long as 6 months to go along with that natural immunity. I have many patients that just recovered from delta and have awesome natural immunity as they walk around with their new portable oxygen tanks.RAB91 said:I love how it is always the BCs who think that they're the smartest ones in the room. I guess we're all guilty of that a little, but it really blinds them as the data turns against them (ex. natural immunity as good or better than the shot).Quote:
Yes, I know you've carved out a convenient exception for this "particular vaccine" based on your lack of understanding of how the vaccine works.
If you catch COVID, survive, recover completely and have no lasting health issues from your infection, then your natural immunity is equivalent to a vaccine. The good thing is that the vaccine gives you all the benefits of natural immunity without any of the risk of death or long term health issues.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/10/covid-19-natural-immunity-compared-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-the-definitive-summary/
Edit: I have my annual physical coming up. I'm sure it will be a fun conversation when they ask if I've had the vaccine.
And whether you have a firearm is certainly a fair question. I ask every parent with small children, because firearm accidents are potentially deadly. I've had plenty of people who sleep with a pistol under their pillow and shotgun under their bed. That's obviously a bad idea if you have a 4 year old in the home or staying the weekend. Also, firearms are the most common method of suicide for adult men, and the rates of that are increasing every year. Not to mention the fact that many of our demented elderly still have working firearms well past the point of being a danger to others. So identifying the causes of major accidents and self harm and making sure people are mentally stable and taking proper precautions is right up our alley.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The best we can, which is not much. Basically prayer and whatever we have on hand that might help a littledargscisyhp said:
Thanks for sharing, that's such a scary thought that you go to the hospital and you die not because of a lack of tech or skills but resources.
I know it's a bit off topic, but if you don't mind me asking, what do you do for patients like this?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Sometimes choices are binary. I'm not very sympathetic for most of the people I see with objections to the vaccines. In general they seem to me to be politically motivated, a part of the culture wars which fall down red-blue lines. I'm not very sympathetic towards that in general, so I don't see why I should be sympathetic to this particular expression of it.
As for the strong pro-life beliefs, again for me it is an issue of consistency. I support people who have convictions about this. I don't support hypocrites who take all manner of medications tested or manufactured with those same cell lines who then claim that's the reason they won't be vaccinated. That's just lying, using your religion to justify your (probable) political stance. And if you do suffer for doing what's right, you should rejoice. St Peter is wise on this -
If someone I know needs help, I don't really care why. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to agree or empathize with their choices when I help. Love doesn't require this. I'm perfectly capable of thinking what they did was wrong or foolish while also having sympathy and compassion on their situation. I do it all the time with my kids when they do stupid things and get hurt, especially when I warned them not to.
Losing your job over tribal politics is stupid. If the vaccine is an example of that - and only that person can really know the truth - then it qualifies as stupid.
I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I would be very surprised if anyone that has a legitimate medical condition that prevents them from safely taking the vaccine suffers a negative consequence from not taking it accordingly.Quote:
I have a lot of friends and family with medical issues or strong pro-life beliefs that will be forced to compromise their health or beliefs in the face of this.
As for the strong pro-life beliefs, again for me it is an issue of consistency. I support people who have convictions about this. I don't support hypocrites who take all manner of medications tested or manufactured with those same cell lines who then claim that's the reason they won't be vaccinated. That's just lying, using your religion to justify your (probable) political stance. And if you do suffer for doing what's right, you should rejoice. St Peter is wise on this -
Quote:
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to the king as the supreme authority, or to governors as those sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorance of foolish men.
Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Treat everyone with high regard: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
Servants, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but even to those who are unreasonable. For if anyone endures the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God, this is to be commended. How is it to your credit if you are beaten for doing wrong and you endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
If someone I know needs help, I don't really care why. That doesn't mean I'm obligated to agree or empathize with their choices when I help. Love doesn't require this. I'm perfectly capable of thinking what they did was wrong or foolish while also having sympathy and compassion on their situation. I do it all the time with my kids when they do stupid things and get hurt, especially when I warned them not to.
Losing your job over tribal politics is stupid. If the vaccine is an example of that - and only that person can really know the truth - then it qualifies as stupid.
ramblin_ag02 said:RAB91 said:ramblin_ag02 said:RAB91 said:Quote:
And whether you have a firearm is certainly a fair question. I ask every parent with small children, because firearm accidents are potentially deadly. I've had plenty of people who sleep with a pistol under their pillow and shotgun under their bed. That's obviously a bad idea if you have a 4 year old in the home or staying the weekend. Also, firearms are the most common method of suicide for adult men, and the rates of that are increasing every year. Not to mention the fact that many of our demented elderly still have working firearms well past the point of being a danger to others. So identifying the causes of major accidents and self harm and making sure people are mentally stable and taking proper precautions is right up our alley.
Curious, what about a firearm in particular makes it fall within the purview of a medical professional? I presume you aren't asking about things like motorcycle riding or other risk-taking behaviors people choose to partake in.
From the DSHS website:ramblin_ag02 said:
Texas
here is a documented example
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-us-hospital-icu-bed-shortage-veteran-dies-treatable-illness/
But also has happened in Idaho, Montana and Alaska
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/17/hospitals-ration-care-covid/
data show that total Covid hospitalizations in Texas for the month of September:
- Peaked at just over 26% as a percent of all hospitalizations - the highest was in the Lufkin TSA at 58.55% on 9/2/21
and
- Peaked at 21.36% as a percent of total hospital capacity.
So, I am not disputing your claim, but the DSHS data are saying something diffrent.
Catag94 said:From the DSHS website:ramblin_ag02 said:
Texas
here is a documented example
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-us-hospital-icu-bed-shortage-veteran-dies-treatable-illness/
But also has happened in Idaho, Montana and Alaska
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/17/hospitals-ration-care-covid/
data show that total Covid hospitalizations in Texas for the month of September:
- Peaked at just over 26% as a percent of all hospitalizations - the highest was in the Lufkin TSA at 58.55% on 9/2/21
and
- Peaked at 21.36% as a percent of total hospital capacity.
So, I am not disputing your claim, but the DSHS data are saying something diffrent.
Not every patient requires an equal number of resources or an equal length stay in the hospital. The resource requirements for Covid patients is astronomical, especially once they get to the ICU. The average ICU stay is not typically very long. Covid patients will occupy a bed for well over a month in some cases.
Featured Stories
See All
51:33
3h ago
3.4k
Stakes are raised in Vegas as Aggies participate in Players Era Festival
by Luke Evangelist
7:51
2h ago
675
12:16
7h ago
1.8k