seems mandatory vaccine is the go for the work place ....
Community Member
on 29-10-2021 12:20 AM
@countessalmirena wrote:
I am concerned by the increasing reach of mandating vaccination for people who have very strong objections to it. There is an important aspect to the right of the individual to choose.
However, in certain settings, the risk to others is sufficiently great that vaccination as a prerequisite is - quite simply - necessary for anyone who is in those settings, in contact with people who are particularly vulnerable.
I do support vaccinations, and regard the authorised vaccines for COVID-19 as extraordinary achievements.
What worries me about people who refuse to be vaccinated is if they do so on the basis of misinformation. If these people are being lied to, have been given wrong information, have been swayed by a purposeful campaign of disinformation, that is indefensible behaviour. I can and do forgive the passing on of misinformation by people who are themselves fooled (even though it is very frustrating). It's not the same case when disinformation is disseminated (or facilitated) by people who have an underlying agenda.
----------------------------------------------
@4channel writes:
I am seeing strong similarities between what you're saying here and what was said in the lead up to and during the war on Iraq. The people who were objecting to the attack on Iraq were accused of the very same thing. There were accusations of "loving the enemy", "being unpatriotic" and "forming opinions based on misinformation". People objecting to the war were accused of being the ones that "put the rest of us at risk". Years later we realize what an horrific monumental obscene criminal mistake the war was and the damage as a result that will last longer than our lifetime.
Here we are in 2021 and if we are allowing people to be bullied, harassed, threatened, even brutalized if they stand on their right not to be jabbed then we as a society have lost something so precious that we may as well throw the rest away. This is because we have now accepted fascism as the system.
People who choose not to be vaccinated are making informed decisions as well as standing on an inalienable right not to be modified. Any vaccination involves modification of sorts. An mRNA injection is a whole new kettle of fish and it is still in the experimental stages and will be for some time yet!
----------------------------------------------
@countessalmirena wrote:
I believe that there is an underlying agenda based upon the behaviour and words of those behind these anti-vaccination anti-mask anti-social-distancing anti-COVID-is-real movements. These agitators seem to me to be contacting and infiltrating groups of people with different sorts of hesitations or concerns about the vaccines and individual freedoms. Some of those hesitations and concerns are legitimate and certainly worth consideration. I have nothing but respect for many of the issues raised originally... but once infiltrated, something evil entered into the picture. A violent "here we stand" line being drawn by people who have really been conned into this... who have been fed pseudo-sympathetic material by pseudo-sympathetic individuals who apparently respect the cause or stances of various very different groups. It's like twisting and then weaponising individual views, rather than addressing them and giving them due weight.
This is not - in my view - exclusively a far-right sort of movement. It's more an extremist movement (perhaps more than one, and perhaps they have very different agendas) capitalising upon any view or concern or perspective that they can manipulate. Nothing has really come to light - at least publicly - about extreme-left involvement, but I'm sceptical about the insidious nature of these manipulations and frankly don't think that left or right matters. The fact is that disinformation is being produced, and it's being spread through any means or group that will propagate it, with the same wording being used, the same non-existent or incorrect data being referred to, the same figures being hailed, and people from various and very different walks being used to spread it.
----------------------------------------------
@4channel writes:
That's a distortion on what is taking place. whilst there is a small amount of people who are using the pro-choice vaccination movement to hitch a ride but that's not influencing the main narrative by the people choosing biological freedom & sovereignty over forced injection / pharmaceutical tyranny. I've studied this for a while and watched countless interviews, read many articles, spoken to friends with opposing views.
The people protesting for their freedom of choice to be respected have a stance that is valid due to the inalienable rights we a bequeathed at birth (or conception depending on what one believes). In addition to that vaccinating everyone doesn't stop the spread of a virus. The mixing of "vaccines" and boosters can turn "vaccinated" people into super spreaders according to medical experts.
----------------------------------------------
@countessalmirena wrote:
For example: Dr Pierre Kory's perspective seems to be that he wasn't permitted the autonomy to use patients as guinea pigs. He is not Dr Gregory House and life is not a television series with dramatic breakthroughs each episode. I put forward the notion that his ego, his sense of hubris, is being appealed to, and that he is thoroughly enjoying being a poster boy of the whole "Only we can save the world, and all of the others in the medical profession are minions of huge corporations and the media."
Ditto for Dr Paul Marik, who has a lot on the line as he seeks to prove that a treatment protocol devised by him, which doesn't work as he hoped it would against sepsis, is the cure-all for COVID-19. Ego and hubris again.
Dr Peter McCullough, ditto. It's all about government controls over just steaming ahead with any treatment or medical interventions without responsibility, without testing, without clinical trials, just blind intuition and no accountability in the event of being wrong.
----------------------------------------------
@4channel writes:
OK, here we go with the key words, "guinea pigs" and "ego". These doctors, Kory / Khory, McCullough etc. have proven that early stage oral treatment works. In various other countries around the world, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, doxyclycline in conjunction with supplements have been saving lives by the hundreds of thousands. In mainly Western countries and a few others, this treatment has been stopped, not by logic but by regulation that will move at a snails pace or even backwards depending on who wants it that way. Compounding this is the gross incompetence of our medical system and the politics involved.
I'm not going back to show some of the links by prominent and respected doctors who speak the truth, or the accounts of test sabotage or slanting. It is known by a lot of people but ignored here.
-----------------------------------------------------
@countessalmirena wrote:
In the case of "sovereign citizens", the emphasis is upon "my body, my choice" and "they don't have the right to force me to wear a mask", etc.
It goes on in that way - using whatever a group or individual may personally believe, so that that becomes the platform on which misinformation is placed, like so many straws in a game where the whole edifice could come tumbling down if sufficient care is taken.
--------------------------------------------
@4channel writes:
The mask choice and the vaccination choice are two different issues and even though someone who is standing on their choice not to wear a mask may also have the same stance with "vaccination", it often isn't always the other way around.
The straws analogy appears to be a play on emotions rather than anything else.
-------------------------------------------------------------
@countessalmirena wrote:
It's quite complicated, and I am very wary of the twin issues between autonomy of choice and the responsibility of the individual as part of a family, group, society, community. This is an INFECTIOUS disease, which means there are wider considerations than the individual declaring his/her right to be at risk if they so choose. And yet... forcing individuals is something with which I am deeply uncomfortable.
-------------------------------------------------------------
@4channel writes:
I have to say that you do have a similar way of addressing an issue with a view to portraying it in a certain way and discrediting a stance not unlike that of David Frum! He was George Bush's speech writer. I may have asked you in the past if you had met him during your travels
You say "there are wider considerations than the individual". Well, sugar-coated fascism is still fascism!
The short of it is that "vaccinated" people spread virus. Unvaccinated people spread virus. Those who have had the virus and overcome it have now developed a better immune system to deal with it better if in contact again. They should not be jabbed In 15 years time, there'll be a better "vaccination" approach, that's if we have democracy. Those who reject the agenda of being part of an experimental approach to this issue are actually a shining light in fog of fascism. Those who just stand on their rights are also a shining light. Those who don't have gone dim!
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
