I would love to see you and Neil engage in this exploratory understanding. I will share this on social media and I hope it gains some traction.
By and by, if Neil doesn’t turn up, would you be willing to do this exercise with someone on the same like minded wave length as Neil and let me record the conversation?
The fall back position I've heard articulated to some degree in answer to the 'if vaccines work the let those that want them take it and be protected' is that some people can't get vaccinated. Or that for some minority of people (immunocompromosed) they won't work. As such if the vaccines still reduce transmission we can protect the vulnerable if all do our part. Now that has proven false for the Covid vaccines at least to us on this side of the divide, but if in theory a vaccine did reduce transmission I still would feel it be a good thing to get vaccinated (assuming the vaccines were perfectly safe).
I guess my position is if their assumptions were correct then I would agree with their argument ethically/morally? (I actually don't know the difference between ethics and morals despite trying to learn it many times over.) That it be the right thing to do. But I don't know how far I'd be willing to force it via mandates and coercion. I do believe in my body my choice though for jobs where you could infect vulnerable people I hedge a bit. Though I'd be fine with proof of natural immunity, or testing in that case. My position on the ethics of it becomes irrelevant given that in reality most people weren't that vulnerable to severe disease, the vaccines don't stop transmission, aren't that effective, and are more dangerous to most than than infection. But I still like to try to figure out where my lines are.
The fact that natural immunity was completely ignored was a massive red flag.
> is that some people can't get vaccinated
It is another logical fallacy. If people can't get vaccinated, then keep them away from unvaccinated people, if that is what they wish. But is it no justification to force everyone else to undergo an intrusive medical procedure.
The reverse argument is that if the vaccines were truly safe and effective, AND people felt the threat was real to them and others, they would have taken them willingly.
So much established science about natural immunity and symptomatic transmission went flying out the window.
If one takes the time to recap all the absurdities we were told, the mind boggles. "New science" erased centuries of **established science**. We can't ignore that.
-----
There is also an underlying assumption that many people refuse to acknowledge, and that is COVID was never a threat to healthy young people, and even the elderly who had high vitamin D serum levels.
Furthermore, the average age of COVID death was greater than the life expectancy. This fact is pertinent but was purposely ignored.
> But I still like to try to figure out where my lines are.
Agreed. This is a valuable exercise. In fact it is a by-product of the "exploratory understanding" approach.
I would love to see you and Neil engage in this exploratory understanding. I will share this on social media and I hope it gains some traction.
By and by, if Neil doesn’t turn up, would you be willing to do this exercise with someone on the same like minded wave length as Neil and let me record the conversation?
> I will share this on social media and I hope it gains some traction.
Thanks!
Realistically there is about a 0.0001% chance of him agreeing to this (and I think I'm being generous). But, you never know, if you never try ;-)
> would you be willing to do this exercise with someone on the same like minded wave length as Neil and let me record the conversation?
Absolutely. That would be great.
This approach is still in its infancy, so the more people try it, provide feedback and refine it, the better it will get.
(Will try and write more about it in another substack later today.)
Will keep an eye out. I’m especially looking forward to more details about you and your wife’s convo.
Thanks, Kalev!
The fall back position I've heard articulated to some degree in answer to the 'if vaccines work the let those that want them take it and be protected' is that some people can't get vaccinated. Or that for some minority of people (immunocompromosed) they won't work. As such if the vaccines still reduce transmission we can protect the vulnerable if all do our part. Now that has proven false for the Covid vaccines at least to us on this side of the divide, but if in theory a vaccine did reduce transmission I still would feel it be a good thing to get vaccinated (assuming the vaccines were perfectly safe).
I guess my position is if their assumptions were correct then I would agree with their argument ethically/morally? (I actually don't know the difference between ethics and morals despite trying to learn it many times over.) That it be the right thing to do. But I don't know how far I'd be willing to force it via mandates and coercion. I do believe in my body my choice though for jobs where you could infect vulnerable people I hedge a bit. Though I'd be fine with proof of natural immunity, or testing in that case. My position on the ethics of it becomes irrelevant given that in reality most people weren't that vulnerable to severe disease, the vaccines don't stop transmission, aren't that effective, and are more dangerous to most than than infection. But I still like to try to figure out where my lines are.
The fact that natural immunity was completely ignored was a massive red flag.
> is that some people can't get vaccinated
It is another logical fallacy. If people can't get vaccinated, then keep them away from unvaccinated people, if that is what they wish. But is it no justification to force everyone else to undergo an intrusive medical procedure.
The reverse argument is that if the vaccines were truly safe and effective, AND people felt the threat was real to them and others, they would have taken them willingly.
So much established science about natural immunity and symptomatic transmission went flying out the window.
If one takes the time to recap all the absurdities we were told, the mind boggles. "New science" erased centuries of **established science**. We can't ignore that.
-----
There is also an underlying assumption that many people refuse to acknowledge, and that is COVID was never a threat to healthy young people, and even the elderly who had high vitamin D serum levels.
Furthermore, the average age of COVID death was greater than the life expectancy. This fact is pertinent but was purposely ignored.
> But I still like to try to figure out where my lines are.
Agreed. This is a valuable exercise. In fact it is a by-product of the "exploratory understanding" approach.
I use to follow and like him, he has lost his way in science and is now under the political views and corruption of big pharma and government
Are your boosters up to date Neil