Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Did you read the article?

 

Yes.  Did you?

I read both articles.

The article you linked to after saying "The aricle includes a link ( this first "clickable" thing) that directs to this" says nothing about vaccination.

Edited by Doug Morris
Correct minor typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]"Current U.S. and NATO proxy warfare in Ukraine isn’t sufficient to defeat Russia, or even to stop Putin from continuing to capture territory in eastern Ukraine. All it’s sufficient for is making the war costly for Moscow while Ukrainians keep dying. That’s because this is exactly what the empire wants.

“I care about Ukrainians, so I support a negotiated settlement” is a morally coherent position.

“I care about Ukrainians, so I support direct hot war with Russia” is also morally coherent, if insane.

“I care about Ukrainians, so let’s keep doing what we’ve been doing” is not morally coherent at all.

It makes sense to support a negotiated peace settlement if you want to save Ukrainian lives. In a twisted, deranged sense it also makes sense to support direct NATO intervention against Russia to save Ukrainian lives. But continuing with the current plan clearly does not make sense as a strategy for saving Ukrainian lives, because it just keeps getting them killed.

I of course point this out not to advocate a third world war, but to show that the western empire does not care about Ukrainian lives and isn’t doing what it claims to be doing with its proxy warfare in that country. If the empire cared even the slightest whit about Ukrainian lives it would be drastically changing its approach, one way or the other. The fact that it’s just maintaining the status quo of continuous death is their confession that they only care about grand chessboard maneuverings for global control, not the actual people who are fighting and dying".

[...]

Caitlin A. Johnstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/8/2022 at 5:28 PM, tadmjones said:

There are no long term studies on mRNA covid vaccines, none.

not sure if this convinces you that it has been in development for a while.

Quote

Robert Langer, ScD, is the David H. Koch Institute professor at MIT and a co-founder of Moderna, the pharmaceutical company behind a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. In this Q&A, he tells us about the present and future of these versatile vaccines.

 

GEN: The technology behind mRNA vaccines has been available for decades, but it was only with the pandemic that we first saw a publicly available mRNA vaccine. Why didn’t this happen sooner?

 

Langer: While it is true that over the last thirty years hundreds of scientists have worked on developing mRNA vaccines and therapeutics, real breakthroughs in making an effective and commercially viable mRNA vaccine were greatly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s important to realize that Moderna and others like BioNtech and Curevac were in clinical trials for multiple different vaccines and therapeutics at the time the COVID-19 crisis started in late 2019/early 2020.

https://www.genengnews.com/topics/translational-medicine/infectious-diseases/whats-next-for-mrna-vaccines/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The longest term study of the safety of mRNA covid vaccines started two years ago.

Moderna started in 2010 to develope products based on the mRNA platform , they derived the name by using a word that incorporates those letters.

The platform is like the delivery system . In the case of covid jabs the mRNA delivers the ‘payload ‘ of the instructions for producing and expressing the spike protein of the corona virus.

Their first product to market is their covid vaccine , and they hit it out of the park revenue wise. Objectively it doesn’t look like their science is living up to the largess. The vaccines are proving to be less effective and safe than the original claims. But in reality that doesn’t even matter given that the vaccines are being administered under the umbrella of liability protection.

You keep confusing the platform for the vaccine.

 

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

they hit it out of the park revenue wise

yes they did

6 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Objectively it doesn’t look like their science is living up to the largess.

Meaning the platform or vaccine does not work at all?

6 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

The vaccines are proving to be less effective and safe than the original claims.

Yes, they are not that effective against the new variants. And they do kill some people. But do they save some?

I am thinking if we lived in a world where there were no mandates, and a pharmaceutical in a free market came up with this vaccine, would it in fact benefit some people according to your news sources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

yes they did

Meaning the platform or vaccine does not work at all?

Yes, they are not that effective against the new variants. And they do kill some people. But do they save some?

I am thinking if we lived in a world where there were no mandates, and a pharmaceutical in a free market came up with this vaccine, would it in fact benefit some people according to your news sources?

My ‘news sources’? Heh, well yes of course I know I’m subject to confirmation bias , and even knowing that and actively trying to combat the impulse I fail, but I try :)

But my opinions and considerations come mostly from trying to understand studies and reports on the subject matter , I try not to base my conclusions on the ‘news’ about a study or report , though the news sources I pay attention do steer me to certain or specific studies.

The number of saves vs the number that died as a result of the immunization with the spike protein will be the defining factor. Any idea on those numbers ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of 223 million people fully vaccinate around 35 thousand reported deaths.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/28/960901166/how-is-the-covid-19-vaccination-campaign-going-in-your-state

https://openvaers.com/covid-data

Saved, I have no idea how to figure that out accurately. But even at ten percent effectiveness, It would be twenty million people.

This not my endorsement of forced vaccination but to show that the adverse percentage is very low and the benefit seems high in comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saved would mean that without the intervention the disease would have manifested and caused death , no ?

Vaccine injury would be damage that without the intervention would not have occurred , yes?

What is the IFR? With the numbers you stated was covid so dangerous to the general population as to justify killing one person for every 6371 'save' ? Is that death rate 'normal' for inoculation programs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Saved would mean that without the intervention the disease would have manifested and caused death , no ?

Vaccine injury would be damage that without the intervention would not have occurred , yes?

What is the IFR? With the numbers you stated was covid so dangerous to the general population as to justify killing one person for every 6371 'save' ? Is that death rate 'normal' for inoculation programs?

Ok then, out of the approximately 220 million that were fully vaccinated only 2 percent would have died. Meaning 4,400,000. And that would have been the maximum saves. Even at 10% effectiveness, 44,000 of those is more than 30,000 deaths  reported on vaers from the vaccine, still more saves. But if we go with 90% effectiveness as advertised, then 3.9 million were saved.

I could see some people going for the vaccine with those kinds of odds.

Edited by Easy Truth
added million
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that assumes a IFR of 2% and that only applied to like people over 70 yrs. The IFR was demonstrated to be age stratified and higher in older age groups.

I'm going to continue to hold my assumptions that covid was as lethal as it was at the onset of the pandemic and the lethality waned as the virus mutated along the 'normal' evolution of similar pathogens , which is to mutate toward producing less severe symptoms and death. I think the mitigation strategies employed caused more overall harm.

I think the spike protein inducing jabs are a disaster and are the key factor in the excess death numbers we see today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

But that assumes a IFR of 2% and that only applied to like people over 70 yrs. The IFR was demonstrated to be age stratified and higher in older age groups.

My understanding is that the 2 percent is the overall death rate, that among 70 years old it was 10 percent or higher, that was what said in some interview with Peikoff's daugher.

50 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I think the spike protein inducing jabs are a disaster and are the key factor in the excess death numbers we see today.

If a proper case was made it could change things. There better be some evidence behind your assumptions otherwise, they will and should be ignored by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-022-00106-7

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext

I'll admit I can't give a proper critique of the methodology or conclusions , but these two studies in a simple search don't , I believe, show evidence for the numbers you may have seen quoted. 

I think they do show the age stratified risk of death from infection, but I also believe they show the IFR has gone 'down' since late 2019 , which coincides with either vaccine effectiveness and or ( and I vote for or) lessening of disease severity due to mutant strain development. One or the other or both could be true, but given the lack of trust I have in the institutions that report on such matters , I just don't know.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

but I also believe they show the IFR has gone 'down' since late 2019 , which coincides with either vaccine effectiveness and or ( and I vote for or) lessening of disease severity due to mutant strain development

There you have a point. Also it looks like people who are vaccinated are far more prone to the new variants. But then the question becomes if it were an army that you had command of and you needed to make utilitarian decisions, would you prevent the deaths from the original more lethal variants. Keeping in mind, there is never a justification for a governmental mandate to take a medicine. Unless, Doug wants to make that case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

There you have a point. Also it looks like people who are vaccinated are far more prone to the new variants. But then the question becomes if it were an army that you had command of and you needed to make utilitarian decisions, would you prevent the deaths from the original more lethal variants. Keeping in mind, there is never a justification for a governmental mandate to take a medicine. Unless, Doug wants to make that case.

The unknowns and the unknown unknowns make the case that absorbing the original deaths is probably the most rational course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

there is never a justification for a governmental mandate to take a medicine. Unless, Doug wants to make that case.

The argument for mandating a vaccine would be that refusing to be vaccinated physically endangers people to a degree that rises to the level of physical force.  Applying this to any given disease raises technical questions about that disease.  There are probably other diseases that are better examples than Covid-19. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2022 at 12:24 PM, Doug Morris said:

The argument for mandating a vaccine would be that refusing to be vaccinated physically endangers people to a degree that rises to the level of physical force.  Applying this to any given disease raises technical questions about that disease.  There are probably other diseases that are better examples than Covid-19. 

The idea that if one does not take care of oneself it can be a risk to others, is the situation in any interaction between two people. It includes your hygiene to how the neighbor is bringing up their children. If the unvaccinated are initiating force then the government would be justified in retaliating in some way.

But are all of the unvaccinated initiating force? Some of the unvaccinated will never get Covid and never transmit it. This minority will be treated as "initiators of force" who are not a threat. They will never get Covid either through natural immunity or lifestyle choices. The innocent treated the same as the guilty.

But worse, in the case of forced vaccination of the Covid vaccine, there is definite initiation of force by the government.
This vaccine will kill some people who take it. (even if it is a very few) When there is a chance that the vaccine damages someone, if individual rights are paramount, one forced death is too many. That alone should be the argument against such a force inoculation unless one is a utilitarian.

The initiation of force argument is a confusion about the appropriateness of quarantine vs. mandating a medicine. Quarantining is justified when someone is sick or is going to get sick. Quarantining is not justified in the case that so and so "might get" sick.

Treating the unvaccinated as if they are sick is unjustly using that right to quarantine against those who do not have the disease. A threat has to be an impending intentional damaging act. Otherwise you can be arrested for looking at someone because of your frown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The idea that if one does not take care of oneself it can be a risk to others, is the situation in any interaction between two people. It includes your hygiene to how the neighbor is bringing up their children. 

The key point is, to what extent are you physically endangering other people.

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

 Some of the unvaccinated will never get Covid and never transmit it.

The key point is, how much physical risk to other people are you creating by not getting vaccinated.

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

This vaccine will kill some people who take it. (even if it is a very few) When there is a chance that the vaccine damages someone, if individual rights are paramount, one forced death is too many.

If you feel stomach pain and drive yourself to the hospital, you will be forbidden to drive in a way that excessively endangers others, even though this limitation may conceivably cost you your life.  In this situation and with vaccination, it is necessary to balance risks.

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The initiation of force argument is a confusion about the appropriateness of quarantine vs. mandating a medicine. Quarantining is justified when someone is sick or is going to get sick. Quarantining is not justified in the case that so and so "might get" sick.

Quarantine has a greater impact on a person's life than vaccination.  Quarantining may be justified when a person is at high risk of getting sick.  

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

 A threat has to be an impending intentional damaging act.

A person who is using a gun or a car recklessly may not intend any damage or danger, but may still be initiating physical force.  A person who improperly disposes of something dangerous a long distance away from where there is currently any specific expectation of anyone doing anything is not creating an impending threat but may still be initiating physical force.

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Otherwise you can be arrested for looking at someone because of your frown.

A frown is not a physical threat and does not create a physical danger.  Saying "I will kill you." in a serious tone may rise to the level of physical force, but a frown doesn't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

The key point is, to what extent are you physically endangering other people.

From an individualistic perspective, it is actually to what extent are you physically endangering a specific person. For decision making, it has to be a binary choice. You are endangering … or you are not endangering.

When should we consider to what extent is the government endangering a specific person with it's mandate? With your background in Statistics I can see you gravitating toward what happens to the group rather than the individual and this may be an issue in our discussion. Meaning, "well, some individuals will be directly harmed by this policy that will help most people".

So regarding Covid, it comes down to, if I am not vaccinated, am I an actionable threat to you when we are in the same room? Would you say an unvaccinated person is saying "I will kill you" in a serious tone? If you don't think so, support for a mandate implies that you do think so.

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If you feel stomach pain and drive yourself to the hospital, you will be forbidden to drive in a way that excessively endangers others, even though this limitation may conceivably cost you your life.  In this situation and with vaccination, it is necessary to balance risks.

Yes, and if you don't have the money to get a life saving operation, you will be forbidden from stealing it from someone. You're equating a criminal act with being unvaccinated. You never say yes, but it's evident. Why don't you come out and say "being unvaccinated may be a criminal act"?

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

A person who is using a gun or a car recklessly may not intend any damage or danger, but may still be initiating physical force.  A person who improperly disposes of something dangerous a long distance away from where there is currently any specific expectation of anyone doing anything is not creating an impending threat but may still be initiating physical force.

These become complicated in that there are contractual obligations to consider which change the rights one has. Who owns the car? Is the gun being carried onto private property? Who owns the land? Who owns what can be impacted? At some point ownership and responsibility  have to come into play. There may be a road that you can drive 90 miles and hour, and on another one you get a ticket for going over 55. Right now we may be polluting mars by doing our experiments. The only justification is that it is un-owned.

Now, in your defense, I could think of the nuclear experiments done in the past have endangered everyone. Wifi endangers people too. Maybe cell phone radiation all around us endangers us too. Ultimately, one person has to show harm and take it to an agency that protects his rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where Easy Truth is going with some of the things he says.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

From an individualistic perspective, it is actually to what extent are you physically endangering a specific person.

It is possible to endanger multiple specific people.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

I can see you gravitating toward what happens to the group rather than the individual

No.  What happens to the individual is key.  But putting an individual at risk can be physical force too, and this is still true if you put many individuals at risk.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

saying "I will kill you" in a serious tone

This was in reply to what you said about a frown.  It was not intended to be directly relevant to vaccination.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Why don't you come out and say "being unvaccinated may be a criminal act"?

It may be in some cases.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

These become complicated in that there are contractual obligations to consider which change the rights one has. Who owns the car? Is the gun being carried onto private property? Who owns the land? Who owns what can be impacted? At some point ownership and responsibility  have to come into play. There may be a road that you can drive 90 miles and hour, and on another one you get a ticket for going over 55. Right now we may be polluting mars by doing our experiments. The only justification is that it is un-owned.

Now, in your defense, I could think of the nuclear experiments done in the past have endangered everyone. Wifi endangers people too. Maybe cell phone radiation all around us endangers us too.

My point was that there does not have to be intent or imminence for there to be physical force.

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Ultimately, one person has to show harm and take it to an agency that protects his rights.

Someone has to show harm or endangerment, which may be to more than one person.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Why don't you come out and say "being unvaccinated may be a criminal act"?

It may be in some cases.

Therefore in some cases it is not a criminal act. The problem is that a mandate does not distinguish between criminals and non criminals. I suppose the question for you is why would it be justified to treat some non-criminals as if they are criminals? To force everyone to get a vaccine is to treat everyone as a threat and for those who are not a threat, this force is the government initiation of it.

Is that just "the cost of doing business" i.e. "shit happens" and some fall through the cracks? My fundamental objection is that if there is a moral reason, it will inevitably be utilitarian. If you could acknowledge that it would be helpful. It maybe true that in some cases, or in some form, the utilitarian approach is in fact the best approach.

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

My point was that there does not have to be intent or imminence for there to be physical force.

Imminence is in regards to threat identification.

Yes, damage can be caused either intentionally or unintentionally. The private solution for unintentional damage is usually insurance. Isn't a mandate like forced insurance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...