That’s not any sort of negotiation.
And a number of the participants in this thread have stated that they would refuse to take a mandatory vaccine. So the question is already answered. (If it’s more than mere talk.)
Then we understand the meaning of “negotiation” in a democracy governed by the rule of law differently. In all the states [here in America], liberals and conservative weigh in on the issue in various ways and then attempt to elect those to office who will shape and mold any legislation so as to reflect more their own concerns.
It’s just that some citizens have more power than others. Big Pharma for example. The medical industrial complex for example. Crony capitalists for example.
I mean, let’s face it, folks here have different ideas regarding that which constitutes the “deep state”.
Again, this has to be examined in each particular context. They refuse. And others will react to their refusal.
Okay, so then what? Who has the power to enforce one rather than another set of behaviors.
With 1, read into it what you will…
With 2, I’ve researched the matter enough, to make my own valued-judgement on it, that correlates with more than you might think.
Good of you to say so…
…and who might this person, this someone, be?
Conflicting… or he who shouts the loudest? Individual versus conglomerates…
I don’t know… are you?
Perhaps, perhaps not… some might, some might not.
I have yet to hear anyone I know singing the advocates of Chinese Medicine…
Ayurveda and Naturopathy… these two work for me, but who knows about others? I certainly don’t…
“but I haven’t experimented much with alternative medicine.“
It’s underrated… as long as the correct diagnosis is made, thus separating the snake-oil-selling charlatans from the Physician/the Diagnoser…
Pharma would have its use… if it wasn’t so toxic, but in the case of pharma… cheap really does (not) mean cheerful.
Well, given my own experience with moral and political objectivists, the only thing that can be derived from it, whether in regard to vaccines or any other context involving conflicting goods, is that, yes, it is possible to know what is going on in the world. Why? Because they already do know what is going on.
Which means that if you don’t share their own assessment of their own collection of facts then you are wrong.
Necessarily wrong.
Also, the objectivists among us will almost never admit that in regard to an issue as important as this one – here literally involving life and death – that they were ever wrong. After all, to note that they were once wrong about something this important, means that they may well be wrong this time too.
At best, some will abandon one objectivist frame of mind for another. Okay, they were wrong before, but now they’ve seen the light. That was me once.
I don’t doubt that. My point though is that those on the other side can say the same thing. Then what? Then it’s back to a thread like this, a debate in which both sides are able to construct reasonable arguments based sets of assumptions, facts and scenarios that the other side are never able to make go away. Not completely.
Here in particular that revolves around political prejudices revolving around views of the government, of Big Brother, of assessments pertaining to the optimal relationship between “I” and “we” and “them”. In regard to any particular citizen’s freedoms and responsibilites.
The part I root in dasein, but that the objectivists root in God or ideology or reason or moral obligation or nature.
It could be anyone.
Here I suggest that they explore the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
Then in regard to vaccines [on this thread] I ask them to note the extent to which their own political prejudices might perhaps be but another manifestation of this. Which back when I was an objectivist – both God and No God – it was clearly the case involving myself.
That’s the part I root in political economy. The part that revolves around those who have accumulated the most economic power. The part that revolves around my own rendition of the “deep state”: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=173789&p=2187045&hilit=bullfrog+films#p2187045
Okay, here it is: the liberal narrative: nytimes.com/2020/05/13/tech … e=Homepage
[b]'The other night, midway through watching a clip from “Plandemic” — a documentary that went viral on social media last week, spreading baseless lies and debunked nonsense about the coronavirus to millions of Americans overnight — I had a terrifying thought:
What if we get a Covid-19 vaccine and half the country refuses to take it?
'It occurred to me that all the misinformation we’ve seen so far — the false rumors that 5G cellphone towers fuel the coronavirus, that drinking bleach or injecting UV rays can cure it, that Dr. Anthony Fauci is part of an anti-Trump conspiracy — may be just the warm-up act for a much bigger information war when an effective vaccine becomes available to the public. This war could pit public health officials and politicians against an anti-vaccination movement that floods social media with misinformation, conspiracy theories and propaganda aimed at convincing people that the vaccine is a menace rather than a lifesaving, economy-rescuing miracle.
'Scariest of all? It could actually work.
'I’ve been following the anti-vaccine community on and off for years, watching its members operate in private Facebook groups and Instagram accounts, and have found that they are much more organized and strategic than many of their critics believe. They are savvy media manipulators, effective communicators and experienced at exploiting the weaknesses of social media platforms. (Just one example: Shortly after Facebook and YouTube began taking down copies of “Plandemic” for violating their rules, I saw people in anti-vaccine groups editing it in subtle ways to evade the platforms’ automated enforcement software and reposting it.)
'In short, the anti-vaxxers have been practicing for this. And I’m worried that they will be unusually effective in sowing doubts about a Covid-19 vaccine for several reasons.
'First, because of the pandemic’s urgency, any promising Covid-19 vaccine is likely to be fast-tracked through the testing and approval process. It may not go through years of clinical trials and careful studies of possible long-term side effects, the way other drugs do. That could create an opening for anti-vaccine activists to claim that it is untested and dangerous, and to spin reasonable concerns about the vaccine into widespread, unfounded fears about its safety.
'Second, if a vaccine does emerge, there is a good chance that leading health organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the World Health Organization will have a hand in producing or distributing it. If that’s the case, anti-vaccine activists, who have been crusading against these groups for years, will have plenty of material stockpiled to try to discredit them. They are already taking aim at Mr. Gates with baseless conspiracy theories claiming that he created and is trying to profit from the virus. These theories will be amplified, and the attempts to discredit leading virus research efforts will intensify as the vaccine nears.
‘Third, if and when a Covid-19 vaccine is approved for widespread use, people may be required to take it before being allowed to fly on certain airlines, attend certain schools or enter certain businesses. That’s a good idea, public health-wise, but it would play into some of the worst fears of the anti-vaccine movement.’[/b]
On the other hand…
[b]'There is some reason for hope. Recent surveys have suggested that most Americans would take a Covid-19 vaccine if one were available today. Even politicians who have expressed skepticism about vaccines in the past, including President Trump, are rooting for one that can prevent the disease. And some public health experts I spoke to said public pressure to end the pandemic and return to normal life might overpower anti-vaccine activism.
“People are seeing the toll of Covid-19 all around,” said Kasisomayajula Viswanath, a professor of health communication at the Harvard School of Public Health. “My guess is that if there is a successful vaccine, especially in the absence of treatment, people may discount the anti-vaccine groups.”'[/b]
As usual my own chief concern here is the children. In other words, if their parents are against the vaccine and turn out to be wrong about it.
Consider for example,. the polio vaccine: vaccines.procon.org/vaccine-his … act/polio/
“What if we get a Covid-19 vaccine and half the country refuses to take it?”
Then fucking make it safe then!
A couple of takes on that from live science: livescience.com/57488-vacci … mbers.html
livescience.com/coronavirus … trial.html
Still, who gets to decide what being “safe” here means?
For example, sans politics? And, in particular, political prejudices that revolve around, “only I/we get to decide what safe means”.
What does safe mean, in the context of All? and don’t skirt around the issue Iam, as safe generally means as non-allergenic as can be, for All! or am I wrong here? Please confer…
I don’t know anyone that has died from flu or other such illnesses, so I’m not projecting here, so please take this exchange at face value.
Well, for one thing I am not qualified to make that determination. Like the preponderance of us, I can only rely on the competence and integrity of those in the medical profession who are qualified.
And hope that they themselves are not “my way or the highway” objectivists committed to one or another dogmatic set of political prejudices.
For all? Given the complexity of both human biology and the coronavirus itself, I doubt a one-size-fits-all vaccine will ever be discovered.
I do know this however: that in a medical industrial complex where the bottom line is often the bottom line, money doesn’t talk, it screams. But that’s just the nature of capitalism, isn’t it?
Some people just refuse to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing.
They’ll consume whatever their authority figures place in the trough without concern, question or criticism.
Just like the people who bought the lie big tobacco and sugar together with government, MSM and allopathy use to tell us, that tobacco and sugar were harmless.
They kept on smoking and eating tons of sugar in spite of their body’s many attempts to warn them that something was afoul.
In spite of observational and anecdotal evidence that others were getting sick and dying from tobacco and sugar use.
In spite of activists, marginalized allopaths and naturopaths attempts to warn them.
In spite of the numerous holes and conflicts of interest in the studies supposedly proving tobacco and sugar were harmless.
At no point did they take any of this information into consideration, they were conditioned, groomed to trust only the establishment, the dominant institutions and nothing but.
Some things are not comparable with all else… I would say that vaccines are one of them.
Why? I hear you ask… because vaccines and all injectables require ethical scrutiny, much much more than most consumerables, and yet they are not afforded it.
What has that got to do with the question of ethics, in the manufacturing and administering of Vaccinations/all Injectables?
Were you ever a teacher Iam? I feel like I’ve been given homework to do, but anyway… your suggestion on further investigation into one’s political prejudices, again, has no bearing on ethical Vaccinations/other Injectables…
Care to summarise and clarify your stance here?
…and because of that we should relinquish all concern up to Capitalism and the Qualified, and hope they all do the right ethical thing.
On use of US military for vaccine distribution or ‘distribution’…
youtube.com/watch?time_cont … e=emb_logo
Wow!
I wonder what will be in the vaccine? 
That article was from December 17th 2018… I wonder how many other countries had signed up to a mandatory vaccination policy, from around that time?
I’m sure the world is chomping at the bit, in anticipation of having a toxic-cocktail of chems injected into their collective arms… exciting much? 
If it protects you against dangerous diseases and it’s not very toxic. Hell yeah.
This is an older video where RFK discusses the problems with vaccines. What I like about it is the section on what he calls ‘Tobacco Science’. The Tobacco industry was able for decades to hold off all sorts of problems by creating science and suppressing science. There is a section in the video where RFK describes how very damning research (admitted in private by the CDC to be damning) was suppressed lied about and then ‘lost’ and replaced by Vaccine industry produced research.
IOW the people who think vaccines are in the main safe may very well be epistemologically sound thinkers when it comes to science, but confused thinkers when it comes to how big money can create ‘science’ and destroy science, just as the tobacco companies did for decades.
Perhaps some people will then go into RFK’s website to see that in fact there are many things going on that they do not realize.
You can see a broader discussion of what has happened in science (where I orginally saw the RFK talk) in this video…
youtube.com/watch?v=LfHEuWa … e=youtu.be