I just had an interesting “debate” on twitter. Someone I follow (and who doesn’t follow me) said something about the vaxx-denier at work being on again about the person in question getting vaccinated.
I’ve heard the word “denier” used more or less in the same context as “racist” or “child molester,” as if someone does not have the right to hold a different opinion on the topic, and doesn’t have the right to choose NOT to receive the COVID vaccine.
I didn’t respond to this person directly, but I did retweet his message as a quote and added one of my own. He responded and, as I said, because I like him (although I’m sure he thinks I’m the Son of Satan for being such a difficult human being) and generally think he’s a good person, I am paraphrasing him in the following image as he responds to me.
Here’s the link to the fact check by Reuters, a news agency which does firmly lean to the left (so the left can’t call it “fake news”): Fact check: It is standard practice for vaccine safety monitoring to continue after approval
At that point, he said he chose not to discuss this with me any further and I respected his wishes.
He may have made my point, though. I’m a “denier” as long as I don’t have evidence. But what if I do? I didn’t deny the general effectiveness of the vaccine based on the information we have so far (which is limited). I just said that the vaccines are still experimental and that anyone consenting to take one is a lab rat that will be kept under observation for a year or two. I didn’t even go into the vaccine side effects including deaths in Norway and elsewhere.
What about someone being “irresponsible” or even “morally inferior” if they choose not to be vaccinated? Must 100% of the human population be vaccinated in order for the “new normal” to raise up among us (and frankly, I’m holding out for the “old normal”)?
Not according to this: How Much of the Population Will Need to Be Vaccinated Until the Pandemic Is Over?
Here’s the relevant quote:
Once a population reaches a point of collective immunity where the disease is no longer likely to spread, it reaches the herd immunity threshold. The estimate for COVID-19 is that roughly 50 to 80% of the population will need to be vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold. (In contrast, the flu needs between 33 and 44% vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold.)
So from 20 to 50% of the general population can choose to remain “unvaccinated” and not be a horrible threat.
So I have evidence for my assertions. Is that what people are afraid of discussing?
Look, all I’m talking about is choice. If you choose of your own free will to be vaccinated against COVID, that’s fine and dandy. No complaint from me. My complaint is when people or organizations attempt to coerce a person into being vaccinated by insulting or shaming them as in “You’re a lousy denier” (and remember what I said “denier” equates to up at the top).
Get your vaccine as you will, but your will doesn’t mean you get to decide for everyone.
Oh, and surprisingly, so far, the individual in question hasn’t blocked me on twitter.
3 thoughts on “Are the COVID “Unvacciated” Deniers and Morally Inferior?”
Let’s not neglect the fact that natural immunity is generally superior to artificial vaccine-induced immunity. Hence, all those who already recovered from the illness do not need to be vaccinated — and there is even some evidence that the vaccine can interfere with natural immunity, though that’s still uncertain. So there are several categories of people who should have a very low probability of becoming infected or infecting others. One is the vaccinated group, another is the recovered group, and a third group is people with strong immune systems who are by nature resistant to all sorts of biological assaults because of their T-cell and K-cell (I think that’s the other biggie) responses. These folks can all dispense with masks and distancing because these means cannot reduce risks any further than the already low probabilities. Only a remaining few who have higher-than-average susceptibility or have other risk factors need take extra precautions to protect themselves. That’s not denial of any reliable “scientifically-tested-and-verified” information — that is reliance on “the science”. It is those who deny facts such as I’ve just outlined who are the “deniers”. And as more data is collected about the risks posed by the experimental vaccines themselves, those who insist that they cannot be criticized, and that everyone absolutely MUST be vaccinated, are denying both the data and the responsibility of individuals to consult with their own medical professionals to make the wisest, most informed decision about their own healthcare — which might just determine that the vaccine is contra-indicated in some cases. Let us all be very careful, therefore not to enable deniers of data, or deniers of individual responsibility and liberty, or those who overuse the word “denier”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Says all you need to know about your opinions:
“Briefly stated, the Mell-Gann Memory effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Melley’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper somehow has exactly the same quantity and quality of errors about Palestine as the baloney you just read. You turn the page and vastly overestimate what you think you can critique based on your vast knowledge of show business.”
― Michael Crichton