Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

There are always going to be extreme nutcases out there. But it was a problem that you couldn't even voice a concern about the vaccines without being called an "anti-vaxer". In other words, there needs to be room for proper discussion and reasonable doubt.

It was a time, for a short time, when we were too busy fighting to save 1000s of lives, when dissent was unproductive and, quite frankly, unacceptable. And for that short time, it was not tolerated. Purely as a matter of prioritising the saving of lives. It was necessary. Briefly.

I strongly disagree with that. Especially, when some of those dissenters were qualified virologists/epidemiologists.

Ultimately, it does not matter how urgent the emergency, one must always ensure the course of action decided upon is not going to cause more harm than good. Sure, I understand you can't endlessly debate these things in an emergency as you have to act quickly but they should not have been silenced and their concerns should have been considered more fully later on.

[Lagayascienza]

I don't know that it is true to say that other views weren't listened to or acknowledged. In fact, I think they were because I remember hearing and reading about them. For example, there was talk here of just letting COVID rip so that natural herd immunity developed ASAP. And too bad for the dead. But that was just unacceptable to the vast majority of people. So ordinary folk had to go with what was felt to be the most reliable information - they could not adjudicate complex scientific differences - they needed direction by the consensus opinion of established science. And, as it turned out, the science was largely right. The lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccines saved tens of millions of lives worldwide. Sure, there were very rare side effects in some people from the vaccines, and yes, there were excess deaths on top of the number who died from COVID, but those excess deaths would likely have been very much higher without the measures taken, and if we had just let it rip. I'm very glad we did not do that.

[Pattern-chaser]

There are always going to be extreme nutcases out there. But it was a problem that you couldn't even voice a concern about the vaccines without being called an "anti-vaxer". In other words, there needs to be room for proper discussion and reasonable doubt.

It was a time, for a short time, when we were too busy fighting to save 1000s of lives, when dissent was unproductive and, quite frankly, unacceptable. And for that short time, it was not tolerated. Purely as a matter of prioritising the saving of lives. It was necessary. Briefly.

I strongly disagree with that. Especially, when some of those dissenters were qualified virologists/epidemiologists.

Ultimately, it does not matter how urgent the emergency, one must always ensure the course of action decided upon is not going to cause more harm than good. Sure, I understand you can't endlessly debate these things in an emergency as you have to act quickly but they should not have been silenced and their concerns should have been considered more fully later on.

Calm consideration is always ideal, but in this instance, as in many others, the urgency is such that our knee-jerk best-guess policies must be implemented without wasting time we don't have to consider *everything*, *in depth*. People were dying in their 1000s, from a disease we knew very little about, at first. *Timely* action was the priority. Thankfully, such occasions are few and far between, because considered — and informed —responses are nearly always better for all.

[Sy Borg]

There are always going to be extreme nutcases out there. But it was a problem that you couldn't even voice a concern about the vaccines without being called an "anti-vaxer". In other words, there needs to be room for proper discussion and reasonable doubt.

It was a time, for a short time, when we were too busy fighting to save 1000s of lives, when dissent was unproductive and, quite frankly, unacceptable. And for that short time, it was not tolerated. Purely as a matter of prioritising the saving of lives. It was necessary. Briefly.

However, once society goes down the ad hom path, it can't just turn it off. The dictatorial tendencies of both government and lobbyists has not only remained, but increased, long after the threat was gone.

It reminds me of the government importing cane toads to eliminate the cane beetle from sugar cane farms, and now they are perhaps Australia's worst feral pests. I suppose that's why means and ends are debated. Using foul means to achieve fair ends does not tend to end well.

I know people who were made very sick by the vaccines. They didn't bother me, but it seems that Astazeneca wasn't a big deal for us oldies. I may have felt a bit weird after the first jab or it might have been psychosomatic, but it was not important. My nephew was laid up, sick for days. He would have called for an ambulance but he understandably didn't want to go to hospital, the way things were.

I am also leery of the fact that every report on vaccine side effects seems to feature the term "rare side effects". Never a variation - never uncommon, infrequent, occasional, sporadic, isolated, limited, irregular, few etc, just the specific word "rare", over and over. Generally, when a term is repeated like that, it conveys a lack of understanding, mere parroting to reassure an uncertain public. There are definitely issues with the vaccines, and there are ongoing side-effects, more than has been let on.

[Lagayascienza]

There can definitely be side-effects from the COVID vaccines. According to the Australian Government Department for Health and Aged Care, the AstraZeneca vaccine has been associated with "a very rare blood clotting condition called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia". This can be deadly but they say it's "rare". There have also been cases of allergic reactions with all the brands of vaccine but this, too, is uncommon.

Some people feel quite ill after a COVID vaccine, others have no side effects at all. The five times that I have had a COVID vaccine I've felt a bit of color for a day and had a sore arm but nothing to worry about. In a way, I found those slight side-effects encouraging because it indicated that my immune system had recognised a foreigner and was mounting a strong immune response and producing antibodies. The antibodies ensured that if I should come in contact with the live COVID virus my immune system would recognize it and jump on it. And that's what happened when I finally did get COVID a few weeks back. It just felt like a mild cold. If my friend who visited and brought COVID to my house hadn't phoned me later and told me he had COVID, I wouldn't have thought anything of it.

I don't know why they always use the term "rare" rather than "uncommon, infrequent, occasional, sporadic, isolated, limited, irregular, few etc." I guess all we can do is trust the authorities when they say the serious side effects are rare. What I do know is that, at my age, had I not had the vaccines, I may have died from COVID. Thank goodness for science.

[Pattern-chaser]

There are always going to be extreme nutcases out there. But it was a problem that you couldn't even voice a concern about the vaccines without being called an "anti-vaxer". In other words, there needs to be room for proper discussion and reasonable doubt.

It was a time, for a short time, when we were too busy fighting to save 1000s of lives, when dissent was unproductive and, quite frankly, unacceptable. And for that short time, it was not tolerated. Purely as a matter of prioritising the saving of lives. It was necessary. Briefly.

However, once society goes down the ad hom path, it can't just turn it off. The dictatorial tendencies of both government and lobbyists has not only remained, but increased, long after the threat was gone.

Yes, that's always been a problem, I think. Perhaps it will *always* be a problem?

It reminds me of the government importing cane toads to eliminate the cane beetle from sugar cane farms, and now they are perhaps Australia's worst feral pests. I suppose that's why means and ends are debated. Using foul means to achieve fair ends does not tend to end well.

I like to think we discuss means and ends to see if we can learn from what happened in the past? Less-positive perspectives are available...