An argument against forcing Covid vaccines from the hypothetical situation where the enslaved were in power
A kind of evidence seems to be emerging against forcing Covid vaccines in light of the position of several serious and experienced experts such as Dr. Geert Vanden in the video below, who believe that a mass vaccination project at a time like Israel, the US, and England increases the risk of dramatic harm to the population in the not-so-long term since it encourages very destructive and contagious mutations of the virus and perpetuates it (a phenomenon he calls: Vaccine-induced Immune Escape).
The problem is this: if the party that believes that vaccines increase the risk for it were in power, would it be so eager to forcibly prevent , directly or indirectly, by restricting fundamental rights, the very possibility of injecting the preparation from those who wish to do so? It turns out very well not. After all, the entire example on which his method is based is the very strong ownership that a person has over his body, which requires very good and powerful evidence regarding an immediate, real and direct risk, which would clearly distinguish it from a harmless booster, in order to restrict it, and even then only the most specific restriction possible.
And it turns out that in similar situations, one party assumes the authority to invade the body of another against his will, while the other’s conscience would have stopped him from such an act. This moral imbalance is telling and casts another shadow over the morality of coercion.
In fact, the comparison is more serious: forcing a person to inject something into their body against their will is not comparable to *merely preventing access* to a substance that others may know to be dangerous to them. And yet there seems to be no serious objection to the claim that those opposed to forced vaccination, directly or indirectly, if they were in power, would have difficulty preventing a person who thinks this is the appropriate medical solution for them from injecting themselves with the genetic vaccine. All the more so if it were a positive coercion of introducing an undesirable substance.
The claimant will argue: A green passport is not coercion. However, it seems that the denial of basic rights such as freedom of movement and occupation is not fundamentally different from coercion. Rape is rape: here directly and here through blackmail with threats (you will not be able to exercise your freedom, or basic and very natural human activities and rights for you unless you do what I want).
I don’t accept it in every way.
First, the asymmetry is hypothetical. We haven’t seen them in power (like the Khazarian claim against the friend).
Second, the asymmetry is incorrect because there is also an asymmetry in the results against which you are defending yourself. After all, I am afraid that they will infect me themselves, and at most they will fear that I will cause an evolutionary process that may lead to the formation of a certain mutation in the future. Something much more indirect that justifies much less coercion against it.
And third, and most importantly, just like their right to roam anywhere, it’s my right not to be infected with my views. Sorry for the platitudes, but it’s literally the right to drill a hole in your cabin on a ship. So to see this as coercion is a bad joke. They want to force me to get infected with them.
And of course another important difference: I am not forcing anyone to get vaccinated, only not to infect me. You are supposed to require me not to get vaccinated so that indirectly nothing happens to you. So even if you were right that there is an asymmetry in relation to the other, it is not really an asymmetry.
What is mainly relevant to the argument is what ideology drives the group. If power corrupts it – it will be defined for this matter as a different group because there is no identity of worldview or ideological affiliation over time. For example, if I were to argue this about Rand Paul, the American libertarian who has been in politics for years and consistently expresses the same views, it would be a bit difficult to argue that we have no idea what he would do if he were in power. And that is not the point. The question is what the public that expects him to implement certain positions would demand that he do.
Regarding the second point, the more deterministic a process is, the less morally relevant the fact that it requires more steps is. Deliberately pulling a gun is no less an act of murder just because several processes have to go through from the pull to the bullet entering the human body and killing him.
In our case, the claims made by the Belgian scientist are not that the process *may* indirectly lead to the creation of harmful mutations of apocalyptic proportions, but that it is quite necessarily so. Every 10 hours a new mutation is created, but without a mass vaccination campaign, nature would have no mechanism to pressure it to favor deadly and more contagious mutations over the other mutations - which are the majority. That is, according to the theory, the vaccinated create a deterministic or near-deterministic risk that is an order of magnitude more deadly than we have known so far (since this forces immune escape, as explained in this video and others and in his written warnings sent all over the world).
Hence, compared to the risk posed by the vaccinated to the unvaccinated, there is nothing further here. Perhaps the opposite: the period of infection of an unvaccinated person is usually when he shows symptoms and therefore avoids the presence of others, compared to the vaccinated person who is usually asymptomatic or has mild symptoms and therefore hardly knows that he is a source of infection for others, in addition to the fact that vaccinated people are going to be infected with worse mutations than unvaccinated people.
Regarding the third point, preventing freedom of movement is a direct forceful action against the implementation of the right to freedom of movement. The harm is immediate and real and above all – certain. On the other hand, according to official government data regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine, an unvaccinated person who exercises his freedom of movement does not endanger you in any serious way – at least no more than getting the flu endangers you, as Professor’ points out Udi Qimron (Head of the Department of Microbiology and Clinical Immunology at Tel Aviv University):
“Vaccine efficacy of 95% reduces the risk of corona by 20 times – to a lower risk than the flu.
Anyone who supports the continuation of any restrictions is essentially denying the effectiveness of vaccines.
You can't hold the stick at both ends.”
https://twitter.com/UdiQimron/status/1372425756777840640
It seems, then, that the problem remains: unvaccinated people who advocate the theory that vaccinated people endanger the public do not see themselves as having the right to deny vaccinated people their right to their bodies because of this, unlike vaccinated people, who advocate the opposite theory, but do not restrain themselves when it comes to restricting unvaccinated people.
Regarding the point “I don’t force anyone to get vaccinated, just not to infect me. You’re supposed to demand that I not get vaccinated so that indirectly nothing happens to you.”
Not necessarily. To compare, an unvaccinated person who holds the theory that vaccinated people endanger him does not need to force others not to get vaccinated, but only that if someone gets vaccinated, he will not be able to infect the vaccinated person, through various apartheid mechanisms between the groups. Of course, in both cases, this is an indirect coercion to vaccinate/not to vaccinate as described in the question.
In practice, unvaccinated people usually do not even consider this as a serious social or moral option.
[Pushed forward.
There is a claim here by virtue of symmetry that I see no place for. Suppose someone holds the principle that people should not be imprisoned under any circumstances and then he wanders the streets and steals money from people. Would I refrain from imprisoning him because, according to his principles, he would not imprison me if I were to do things that he believes are bad? Of course not. The card deck in his learned method interests me in the slang.
The matter of symmetry can actually work the opposite way to allow me prohibitions – If someone holds the position that he is allowed to hit me if, for example, I drink alcohol at home, then perhaps I will also hold the position that I am allowed to hit him if, for example, he hangs out laundry (in my opinion, there is no justification in principle for this, but conditioning morality on symmetry is a respectable opinion. And it is also possible to hold such a position in practice without justification in principle. Let him be honored to give up hitting me and then I will give up hitting him). But that symmetry will work to prohibit me from things that I think are permissible and desirable - this is something that the ear cannot hear.
In the State of Israel there is no symmetry, there is a law.
And the law says that the government is allowed to do everything.
And whoever can't hear should go get a hearing test.
And those who started to crook their noses like that?
On September 9, 2017,
If the experts had decided that the vaccines were unsafe, they would indeed have been banned, as indeed happened with the AstraZeneca vaccines, which in some countries were ordered to stop using due to concerns about their safety. The vaccines used in Israel received emergency approval from the FDA, but there is certainly the possibility that the medical establishment will be convinced that they are problematic and will prevent their use, and then they will also ban them from those who are interested.
The asymmetry is actually in favor of those who are afraid of vaccination, since even the governments that support them do not force anyone to get vaccinated, but rather prevent them from easing restrictions on gatherings. And after all, they themselves, assuming that the vaccine is unsafe, should continue to take the precautions they took before the vaccines became available.
Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Tolginus,
The argument is that *you* think it is wrong. The evidence is that if unvaccinated people were in power, you would agree with them that vaccination should not be forced on those who desire it. Moral principles are not capricious or random. If there is such a principle, it does not appear ad hoc only when it is in your favor, but as a general rule: do not impose a medical view on another person's body against their will (this can also be seen as an expression of what is hateful to you, do not do to your friend) including direct or indirect coercion of vaccines.
Yaron,
The problem you describe arises from the fact that, following the US, countries including Israel have begun to take responsibility for vaccine injuries while vaccine companies are completely exempt from any responsibility for compensating the injured. In a normal situation, a vaccine like the latest one from ‘Astra-Zeneca’ Either it wouldn't have come to market or they would have recalled it immediately after the first reports of harm, otherwise the vaccine company would have risked huge losses.
However, as a principle, an expert, certainly not a "state expert", as a party to a deal with Pfizer has no right to determine for you what medical treatment to receive or not to receive.
Regarding AstraZeneca, which comes up again and again here, as far as I understand, this is stupid and unfounded hysteria. There are those who have had blood clots following the vaccination, their percentage in the population is lower than their percentage in the normal population regardless of the vaccine. Just hysteria, and now several countries have actually started using it again. I heard that this was also determined by the doctors of the well-known terrorist organization that works together with Bill Gates: the World Health Organization.
Copenhagen
I decide according to the content and not according to a sterilized formalistic symmetry: what I think is justified is right and what I think is unjustified is wrong. Preventing vaccination is wrong in my opinion, and therefore I also demand that non-vaccinators who are in power not enforce preventing vaccination. Restrictions on the unvaccinated are in my opinion, yes, okay, and therefore I demand that they be enforced. I have nothing to do with a general principle “Is it permissible to impose or not” but with specific principles “Is it permissible to impose something so-and-so”. In my opinion, the non-vaccinators are wrong, and therefore in my opinion they are forbidden from enforcing preventing vaccinations, period.
Do I think that according to their system, it is okay for them to impose it? That is a question that does not concern me and is irrelevant. That they should concentrate hard and think about what is right according to their system. In my opinion, there are things that are permitted and forbidden, and so-and-so's incorrect system is his business, not mine. It's like thinking if someone is driving to the right what should he do to drive to the left. The answer is that he should do a U-turn and drive to the left. As long as he drives to the right, everything he does is wrong.
As usual, it's convenient to take an example. We Jews prevent Palestinians from Gaza from coming and living in Herzliya. If there is a general position here that ”it is permissible to prevent other peoples from coming to live in a place under our control” then you will also accept that if the Palestinians were in power, it would be right for them to prevent Jews from coming and living in Herzliya? I, for example, do not accept that. In my opinion, it is okay for Jews to live in Herzliya and Palestinians to live in Gaza, preventing Palestinians from living in Herzliya is good and preventing Jews from living in Herzliya is bad. Therefore, even if the power were in the hands of the Palestinians, I would demand that they allow Jews to live in Herzliya and that they make sure to evict the Palestinians from there and make the situation exactly as it is today.
By the way, I have a Geiger counter in my pocket that monitors the level of deontology and warns of abnormalities. Unfortunately, when I met you, my counter started beeping incessantly. It should be said to the praise of this counter, by the way, that he is a guy like me and for him, even epsilon is an abnormality that is worthy of note. More than once I encounter issues in the Gemara that destroy my device as a result of overload, and then I have to go get a new one and carefully move it away from such disaster zones.
Tulginus
The ”sterilized formalistic symmetry” is nothing more than ‘what is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor’. As a rational being, you cannot escape responsibility for what this formalism, which you are surely able to grasp with your reason, demands of you. What ’you think is justified’ cannot come at the expense of what is justified on its own part. A double standard is never truly justified.
I do not see how the example regarding Palestinians living in Herzliya is relevant. The owners of the place bear the rights of control over land that they own (and the Jewish people are the legal owners of their historical land). As before, ‘what is hateful to you’ Obliges the Palestinian to refrain from stealing territory that is not his, just as he would demand that you obey the natural law that obliges you to refrain from illegitimate invasion of his home - if he is the true owner of the property.
What I hate and I don't do to my friends is “prevent vaccinations”, not “force something”. And indeed, just as I demand of myself not to prevent vaccinations, so I also demand of anti-vaccinationists not to prevent vaccinations. One standard for one world.
Therefore, the Palestinians touch exactly on the issue. With the Palestinians, you – in case you comment – discuss what is true on the merits of the matter and not just what the parties think. In other words, you say: the Jews are right and therefore they are allowed to prevent Palestinians, and the Palestinians are wrong and therefore they will not be allowed to prevent Jews (even if they had the power). By the same token, I say that the supporters of vaccinations are right and therefore they are allowed to enforce restrictions, and the anti-vaccinationists are wrong and therefore they will not be allowed to prevent vaccines (even if they had the power).
As usual, you can always play with the level of generalization in the categorical imperative, and it's always unnecessary chatter because what's important is the concrete content and not the empty formula. A rather trite and hackneyed matter. [Besides, in my opinion, the entire categorical imperative and even the proverb of Hillel the Elder are not worth the finger from which it is sucked, and personally I see no point in engaging with it. Although I completely agree that morality is something that can be called ‘isotropic’ in relation to different people, but that has nothing to do with the imperative]
As a reminder, the uniform standard we were discussing is: not imposing a medical view on another person's body against their will. You are not willing to accept this. This is certainly not surprising in the totalitarian atmosphere that has descended upon us following the forced house arrests (“lockdowns”), the closure of businesses, the skies, and electronic handcuffs. But a public atmosphere is no justification for supporting wrongdoing. The statement “Just as I demand of myself not to prevent vaccinations, so I also demand of anti-vaccinationists not to prevent vaccinations” is nothing more than an evasion of the issue itself. The unvaccinated could also say “Just as I demand of myself not to be vaccinated, so I demand of those who wish to be vaccinated not to be vaccinated”, and after all, we have a “uniform standard”…
In our issue, as in the Palestinian issue, the discussion was about what is true on the merits of the matter. Is the other person the sole owner of his body (and especially in the matter of forcing treatments that stem from a conflicting medical view)? And like the question: Is the Jewish people the owner of their historical land? In both cases the answer is yes. There is nothing special in saying that those who oppose Jewish ownership of their historical homeland, like those who support blackmail against those who refuse to take part in the medical treatment offered to them, are wrong.
All it takes is a few Jew haters to take over a shipment of Pfizer vaccines and replace the vaccine with something older and 6 million Jews in the State of Israel will be massacred by the sting of a syringe.
No one knows what substance they were injected with, it's all based on stories and legends.
The argument on the merits of the matter is one thing, and the argument from symmetry is another. If you think it is right not to restrict the unvaccinated, then I do not argue (here). I argue with the claim that even those who think it is right to restrict the unvaccinated should reconsider because in the opposite situation they would not restrict him.
Pointing to asymmetry is a device for auxiliary evidence and not the ultimate basis for establishing the claim of injustice. For example: do not silence others when they express a position that may entail a risk to the public (such as expressing support for a party that will release terrorists if it reaches a deal) since you would not want and would not think that there would be justification for restricting your freedom of expression when the fragments of your party are in power.
The use of symmetry is intended only to expose the ethical principle that is violated, and to emphasize the fact that you also know that an abstract theoretical risk (to the public in general, as opposed to a direct concrete risk to a specific individual) does not justify forcing medical treatment, or even preventing access to substances purely (for medical treatment purposes).
On the 10th of Nissan Tashaf
If most doctors believe that vaccination is effective and saves lives, then the obvious conclusion is that those who do not vaccinate are likely to endanger others. Therefore, even if for themselves they may rely on the minority of doctors who oppose vaccination, then their moral duty is to keep their distance so as not to endanger others, and to practice all the same distancing practices that were practiced before vaccinations. The state forces them to fulfill their moral duty.
If most doctors believed that vaccination was dangerous, it might be possible for a person who believes in vaccination to inject himself at his own risk. But for a professional whose professionalism is supervised by the state, there is a case for prohibiting him from administering vaccination to others, so as not to endanger them. After all, the state is responsible for supervising medical personnel and institutions that do not offer the public inappropriate treatments.
Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
If you ask, all doctors will agree, and all other intelligent people will agree with them, that not driving a car saves both the driver from himself and the pedestrians or other passengers from the driver from road accidents.
Therefore, according to the approach of “one endangers others”, the moral duty of every person is not to drive a car.
And whoever drives a car violates “and you were very careful for your souls” and is close to shedding blood. And behind him are allowed and anyone who wants to hit him will come and hit him.
And not only that, but every vaccinated person who leaves his house when there are still unvaccinated people roaming the streets, puts himself in danger and loses himself in knowledge and has no part in the world to come.
And the sages of Israel used to throw their polluted and unvaccinated children into lakes and seas, and the people of Ma'ale burned their children and passed them through the fire beforehand. To cleanse the people of Israel from pollution and to make everyone in their homes fearless in the streets.
And the great leaders of the people of Israel, the wise, righteous, holy, and pure, came out and instructed that the material developed by the wise men of Germany, into which was encoded supreme wisdom (a genetic code in Hebrew) that was copied from the coronavirus that our righteous Chinese brothers created in their seminary in Wuhan, must be awakened, introduced, instilled, and injected, into our young and old, our sons and daughters. For the festival of the bats is for us.
”Does the individual endanger others”,
We have to say that there are several flaws in the argument you built to justify blackmail. I will touch on a few of them: First, the truth is not learned according to what is accepted or agreed upon by the majority, but according to the nature of the evidence and arguments. Usually, a minority of scholars who are attacked from all sides and still stand by their opinions are more knowledgeable about the relevant material than the majority, whose members tend to trust each other, and ”you will not be the last of many to do wrong”.
Regarding “saving lives”. The Belgian scientist's argument presented in the video is this: Vaccinate everyone – you will cause a mutation that is more contagious and deadly than the previous one and you will be left without a natural herd immunity. The vaccine will cause specific, non-neutralizing antibodies to take over and worsen the problem, probably catastrophically – and you will get, instead of Covid, a virus similar to SARS. The wave that will come after will dramatically increase the mortality rate, in which even younger people who were not supposed to be affected will be affected. This is the danger of such a systematic and comprehensive violation – never before attempted – of the balance in the natural course of a pandemic. You have no refutation of his claims – and I am not aware of anyone who has raised one. He invited experts in positions of authority to a public debate on the question – so far as I know there is no answer. I am not saying that he is right, but only that we do not know that he is wrong.
Second, if your argument was good, it should have worked against those infected with the flu, since the estimated risk from Covid that emerges from government publications for vaccinated people is lower than the risk from exposure to regular seasonal flu (and see the quote from Prof. Udi Kimron above). But it doesn't work against the flu. So – it probably doesn't work here either.
You're saying that if the opinion of those in power and the prevailing medical indoctrination were the same as the scientist in the video, that vaccination poses risks and should be stopped immediately, you would agree that they would not have the right to forcibly prevent (or by blackmailing with threats, as mentioned) someone who believes that vaccination is beneficial for them from injecting the preparation into their body. In other words, you agreed with the principle that a medical view should not be imposed on another person's body without their consent. How can this be reconciled with the violation of the principle regarding unvaccinated people?
In principle, a person who performs a normal human action such as praying in a synagogue or going to the doctor's office cannot be excluded from being considered non-dangerous. A person walking down the street does not need to prove that he does not endanger the environment as a potential robber, terrorist or rapist, but on the contrary - others have a very strong burden of proof. I have not seen such a proposal for the unvaccinated.
Regarding your comment about the state, the state does not have the automatic right to decide what medical treatment to give to a doctor, or what to withhold from him. A doctor is first and foremost obligated to his patient and to the doctor's oath. He must not obey the ruler if this contradicts his initial obligation.
By the way
https://twitter.com/GrimBeholder/status/1374329738119032833
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
