You say you weren't equating unvaxxed with terrorists. 

So, how else is one to interpret the example of terrorists within the context of COVID? 

I noticed you didn't mention China -- the most likely terrorist in the context of COVID.

I already explained the purpose of the terrorist situation. Using the terrorist triage question to make someone think about whether there is ever a situation where it would be appropriate to insert a moral question is not the same thing as saying unvaccinated people are akin to terrorists.

And conservatives aren't strangers to moral judgements in the application of policies either. This thought experiment was never an argument for one side or the other, only to get people to think critically.

A relative of mine got the jab and her first period came since getting jabbed and the blood was a lighter red than the normal darker red.  Her period blood is always the same color, so this is something new.

I have heard on the news that they have started to discover that a side effect of the vaccine can be an irregular period following the vaccine. IIRC so far it looked like only a temporary thing that would go back to normal after 1 cycle.

Sorry to hear about your dad, but you are basically begging me to flip the premise here.
Didn't your dad make decisions his whole life that could have led up to him getting kidney cancer?
Cancer is a very common disease, so he if willingly did thinks like eat spam and drink alcohol then he chose to accept the consequence of a higher risk category.
Why is that not grounds for putting him on a lower priority of care to make room for those who can prove that they tried harder?

That is a potential slippery slope of applying such an idea. On the flip side should all government policy be devoid of any sort of moral judgement? Why push for drug testing or work requirements for welfare recipients. Either extreme presents problems, what has to be done is to find the right balance. What if the end result of putting the unvaccinated at the back of the line was that more people got vaccinated and thereby more lives were saved?

Trust me, you don't want to live in the world you are trying to create

Discussing the idea doesn't mean I support it, be careful not to jump to conclusions.

I posed a question to Flapp, I am curious your response to it as well.
"magine this were wartime and the governor issued a mandatory blackout  so enemy bombers couldn't find the city to bomb. Now imagine about 10% decided it was infringing on their freedom to have their lights on. Their intent isn't to harm anyone, they can argue it is their personal freedom. "

I posed a question to Flapp, I am curious your response to it as well.
"magine this were wartime and the governor issued a mandatory blackout  so enemy bombers couldn't find the city to bomb. Now imagine about 10% decided it was infringing on their freedom to have their lights on. Their intent isn't to harm anyone, they can argue it is their personal freedom. "

Your comparison is totally ridiculous and based on the entirely false premise that jabs do anything more than temporarily treat symptoms before they inevitably wear off and become completely useless.

Then again I suppose they do have have some utility by serving as a long term example of why it's a bad idea to trust the government, the media, and self serving liars in lab coats.

Your comparison is totally ridiculous and based on the entirely false premise that jabs do anything more than temporarily treat symptoms before they inevitably wear off and become completely useless.

That isn't what the current evidence about the vaccines show.Thought the effectiveness is waning they still greatly reduce the chance of serious illness or death. That is not merely treating symptoms.
Regardless the question is about when exercising freedoms can affect society as a while.

That is a potential slippery slope of applying such an idea. On the flip side should all government policy be devoid of any sort of moral judgement? Why push for drug testing or work requirements for welfare recipients. Either extreme presents problems, what has to be done is to find the right balance. What if the end result of putting the unvaccinated at the back of the line was that more people got vaccinated and thereby more lives were saved?
Discussing the idea doesn't mean I support it, be careful not to jump to conclusions.

I posed a question to Flapp, I am curious your response to it as well.
"magine this were wartime and the governor issued a mandatory blackout  so enemy bombers couldn't find the city to bomb. Now imagine about 10% decided it was infringing on their freedom to have their lights on. Their intent isn't to harm anyone, they can argue it is their personal freedom. "

The consequences of not turning out your lights in the circumstances of an aerial bombing have a direct cause and effect.

Not getting vaccinated has no such direct consequence.  You can still get infected and spread the disease.  You can still get sick after one shot and before a booster.  Children under 16 are not supposed to get the vaccine, but they are not immune from the virus.  Masks, hand washing and social distancing still need to be done even after getting the shots.

So, everyone turns off their lights -- 100% compliance.  But, due to infrared technology, the bombers can see exactly where everyone is.  The mandate did nothing to stop the deaths.  Blackouts might have made hitting the target less convenient, but in the end, the blackouts were ineffective.  I guess killing the 10% who wanted to turn their lights on accomplished nothing (taking the problem to its extreme solution).

That isn't what the current evidence about the vaccines show.Thought the effectiveness is waning they still greatly reduce the chance of serious illness or death. That is not merely treating symptoms.
Regardless the question is about when exercising freedoms can affect society as a while.

"Greatly reduce the chance of serious illness or death" ....until it wears off.

And then you're stuck with unknown long term side effects and no safety net because you were dumb enough to sign a liability waiver for a sketchy medical experiment

In my book that sort of willful ignorance totally undermines any "moral" authority Team Stab has to weigh in on issues involving other people's freedom

EEF, there is one flaw in your thought experiment.

It presumes that the unvaxxed are morally wrong for not taking a clot shot that is totally safe. It presumes that unvaxxed are just being stubborn about “freedom” and equating them to engaging in risky behavior, equivalent to having unsafe sex and getting AIDS.

Now, restart your thought experiment with an understanding that the unvaxxed are being forced against their will to take a clot shot that violates their moral convictions, has a chance of aggravating a medical condition that could lead to long term illness or even death, or both. Compound this with the possibility that they may not need this clot shot if they already have natural immunity from having recovered from Covid, or have alternative options to the vaccine for preventing and treating covid.

Would you still consider it morally right to triage them as a lower priority for being unvaxxed?

EEF, there is one flaw in your thought experiment.

It presumes that the unvaxxed are morally wrong for not taking a clot shot that is totally safe. It presumes that unvaxxed are just being stubborn about “freedom” and equating them to engaging in risky behavior, equivalent to having unsafe sex and getting AIDS.

Now, restart your thought experiment with an understanding that the unvaxxed are being forced against their will to take a clot shot that violates their moral convictions, has a chance of aggravating a medical condition that could lead to long term illness or even death, or both. Compound this with the possibility that they may not need this clot shot if they already have natural immunity from having recovered from Covid, or have alternative options to the vaccine for preventing and treating covid.

Would you still consider it morally right to triage them as a lower priority for being unvaxxed?

Thanks for your balanced perspective. I'm losing patience with those who insist on casually comparing me with terrorists and traitors in order to justify taking away my rights.

To anyone who chose to get the shot I understand and sympathize with the fact that you were acting on the best information you had at the time.

I now ask you to please extend me the same courtesy by demanding a stop to this madness.

To anyone who chose to get the shot I understand and sympathize with the fact that you were acting on the best information you had at the time.

I now ask you to please extend me the same courtesy by demanding a stop to this madness.

Don't forget those like me who were coerced to get the vaxx.

Don't forget those like me who were coerced to get the vaxx.

That's a good point. Sometimes I forget that not everyone has the means to slide back into independent contractor life.
No kids or mortgage also takes away the Jabbers' ability to hold them hostage.

Personally, I hate when anyone or any group takes the moral high ground based on what they have done, or what they believe.  Especially hate it when they propose scenarios and present it like "it's fact or proven".  To try to "see the light".

In this case, I would want folks to look at it from a neutral perspective and look at it toward both sides.  There will always be those who take things to the extreme on both sides, and I don't think you'll ever get those folks to see otherwise. . .

That's a good point. Sometimes I forget that not everyone has the means to slide back into independent contractor life.
No kids or mortgage also takes away the Jabbers' ability to hold them hostage.

Even if you were and wanted to travel. Now you have to test neg b4 returning.  Say you pop. Now yo uhave to stay up there for 10 day min and spend thousands of dollars more. Instead of being vaxxed and coming back positive and staying in your own home.  Their plan is to force vaxx from all sides. This way they get the highest compliance.

The proposed $3.5 TRILLION budget from Biden includes a ten-fold increase in fines for companies with 100+ employees.

Currently, a company that doesn't force its employees to be vaccinated in some situations (repeated violations, etc.) are being fined $70,000.  That would increase to $700,000 per incident if this monstrosity of a budget bill passes.

The Democrats are trying to sell this bill saying "It won't cost the nation one dollar."  Somehow, Biden figured out a way to magically produce money from thin air.

 

The proposed $3.5 TRILLION budget from Biden includes a ten-fold increase in fines for companies with 100+ employees.

Currently, a company that doesn't force its employees to be vaccinated in some situations (repeated violations, etc.) are being fined $70,000.  That would increase to $700,000 per incident if this monstrosity of a budget bill passes.

The Democrats are trying to sell this bill saying "It won't cost the nation one dollar."  Somehow, Biden figured out a way to magically produce money from thin air.

 

Gotta pay for the Obama Presidential Center some how.  $800+ Mil!   

Even if you were and wanted to travel. Now you have to test neg b4 returning.  Say you pop. Now yo uhave to stay up there for 10 day min and spend thousands of dollars more. Instead of being vaxxed and coming back positive and staying in your own home.  Their plan is to force vaxx from all sides. This way they get the highest compliance.

Ironically, I've traveled to two coast, visited 4 states, got a negative test, was cleared by safe travel to go anywhere in Hawaii but work. City is requiring another negative test from one of there approved sites. So I can go any where in the state but I'm not allowed at work even to drop off paperwork! Insanity

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Ironically, I've traveled to two coast, visited 4 states, got a negative test, was cleared by safe travel to go anywhere in Hawaii but work. City is requiring another negative test from one of there approved sites. So I can go any where in the state but I'm not allowed at work even to drop off paperwork! Insanity

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

It's so people don't travel.  Yet they complain that the Japan tourist market has basically died.  Wonder how Downtown Vegas is doing without the HI market. 

"Greatly reduce the chance of serious illness or death" ....until it wears off.

And then you're stuck with unknown long term side effects and no safety net because you were dumb enough to sign a liability waiver for a sketchy medical experiment

In my book that sort of willful ignorance totally undermines any "moral" authority Team Stab has to weigh in on issues involving other people's freedom

#1 The liability protection for the covid doesn't last forever
#2 You can get long term side effects from covid too so acting like only the vaccine leaves you with unknown long term side effects is subjectively applying objections.
#3 There is no evidence so far that the protection completely wears off. And even if it did, so what? We get boosters for other things like a tetanus booster every 10 years. Furthermore evidence is showing that if someone has natural immunity and a vaccine they are better protected than someone who only had the vaccine. So you get the vaccine and still get covid but your survival odds increase greatly and after your body beats the virus you have even greater protection

Please note that I am not judging anyone who decides not to get the vaccine. I understand full well that there are numerous reasons that a rational person could look at and become hesitant. Furthermore bringing in a moral judgement would only serve to make someone defensive and push them away from the vaccine rather than push them towards it. That is part of the reason I don't support forced vaccinations.

EEF, there is one flaw in your thought experiment.

It presumes that the unvaxxed are morally wrong for not taking a clot shot that is totally safe. It presumes that unvaxxed are just being stubborn about “freedom” and equating them to engaging in risky behavior, equivalent to having unsafe sex and getting AIDS.

Now, restart your thought experiment with an understanding that the unvaxxed are being forced against their will to take a clot shot that violates their moral convictions, has a chance of aggravating a medical condition that could lead to long term illness or even death, or both. Compound this with the possibility that they may not need this clot shot if they already have natural immunity from having recovered from Covid, or have alternative options to the vaccine for preventing and treating covid.

Would you still consider it morally right to triage them as a lower priority for being unvaxxed?

My thought experiment does not indicate any moral judgement in my opinion. I would say it is designed to tug on emotions to make people think but it doesn't decide what answer is the morally right one. Two people can run through the thought experiment and come to opposite conclusions. One might say the terrorist goes to the back of the line for reasons ABC and the other might say the terrorist should be triaged just the same as the victim for reasons XYZ. People may use morality to come to their conclusion but I am not morally judging what conclusions people come to.

A thought experiment might cause someone arrive at a conclusion they don't like but it isn't a moral judgement. In the case of the triage situation and how vaccinated or unvaccinated people should be treated or seen by society this isn't just a hypothetical anymore, it is happening in some areas. There are no clean easy answers to the question but it is one that has to be answered. I asked a cousin who wasn't going to get the vaccine what hospitals should do if they are overloaded by the vaccine and she didn't want to think about it, just said the hospitals will decide.

You are right though that certain pre-existing medical conditions would complicate a policy that places the unvaccinated at the back of the line. This would be, in my opinion, one of the stronger argument against using a triage system that prioritizes the vaccinated.


I wouldn't say I believe it is morally right to triage an unvaccinated person as lower priority compared to a vaccinated person. I can see a few positives to it but a number of negatives that I am not comfortable with.

My personal position on the matter of forced vaccinations is that I will never support forced vaccinations of any kind. I don't trust the government with that kind of power, though they technically already have it for members of the military. Now if a private employer wants to mandate a vaccine that I somewhat support since they are private. I think it is ok for the government to incentivize a vaccine but the line from incentive to force can get a little blurry.

#1 The liability protection for the covid doesn't last forever
#2 You can get long term side effects from covid too so acting like only the vaccine leaves you with unknown long term side effects is subjectively applying objections.
#3 There is no evidence so far that the protection completely wears off. And even if it did, so what? We get boosters for other things like a tetanus booster every 10 years. Furthermore evidence is showing that if someone has natural immunity and a vaccine they are better protected than someone who only had the vaccine. So you get the vaccine and still get covid but your survival odds increase greatly and after your body beats the virus you have even greater protection

#1  Why else do you think they're pushing to get as many shots in arms as quickly as possible?  Maybe BECAUSE the liability protection won't last forever?

#2  Who said you can't get longterm side effects from the virus?  Who is "acting" like ONLY the vaccine leaves you with side effects?  Nobody here that I've seen.  If both the vaccine and the virus have a risk of long term side effects, where's the benefit IN THIS CONTEXT of taking the vaccine?

#3  The word "completely" is the operative phrase.  Maybe not 100% completely, but the vaccine does become inert over a few months.  How that affects immunity in the body is to be seen. 

Regular annual flu shots are effective until the next annual shot.  From what's being told to us, the COVID vaccine isn't effective UNTIL you get a booster.  Then you may need another booster in 6 months (like Biden just had).  Then you need another in 6 months, and another, and another.  There are no studies, as well there can't be, that show the longterm side effects of taking these periodic boosters to continually force your body to develop immunity to a disease -- an immunity that's not even close to the level promised.

When was the last time you heard the term "Herd Immunity?"  Is that no longer relevant for this virus?  Now it has to be 100%?