Why should people be forced to get vaccinated in order to protect others who choose not to get vaccinated??

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
First you said that I was arguing AGAINST the lockdown, without explaining what I was arguing against(the non-voluntary nature, the facts that show why it is ineffective).

why would I need to explain your own argument to you? Did you not understand your own argument?

I'm I wrong?
YES, you are wrong in arguing against the lockdowns whilst using the results of our lockdowns as the basis for your argument. If you want to prove lock downs are not necessary, find a similar jurisdiction who did not impose lockdowns and compare their data with ours.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
What sort of people are you referring to who cannot protect themselves?
those that are dependent on others for starters, either due to age, language restrictions, or disabilities.... those that don't have the resources to act, also those that don't have the mental capacity to understand the risks ... there are lots of people out there that need help
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Well I'll ask again, in a different way: what does being uninsured have to do with people other than the person who is uninsured?
I don't get why you're getting so hung up on this. It was similie. The vaccine is an insurance policy just like the insurance policy on your house. Sure, your chances of dying from covid in Australia aren't high, but there is a chance ... just like the chances of your house burning down aren't high. Despite that, most people still insure their homes against fire, so why not insure your life with a vaccine?

the added benefit is that the vaccine isn't just insurance for you, it's also added insurance for those around you
 
Last edited:

chris155au

Active member
I don't get why you're getting so hung up on this. It was similie. The vaccine is an insurance policy just like the insurance policy on your house. Sure, your chances of dying from covid in Australia aren't high, but there is a chance ... just like the chances of your house burning down aren't high. Despite that, most people still insure their homes against fire, so why not insure your life with a vaccine?
Yes, but I wasn't sure how this related to a vaccine mandate.

the added benefit is that the vaccine isn't just insurance for you, it's also added insurance for those around you
Yes, but those around you can also have that added insurance.
 

chris155au

Active member
those that are dependent on others for starters, either due to age, language restrictions, or disabilities.... those that don't have the resources to act, also those that don't have the mental capacity to understand the risks ... there are lots of people out there that need help
What does this have to do with vaccinations though?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
why would I need to explain your own argument to you? Did you not understand your own argument?
Another straw man to talk to. Had you also explained WHY I was arguing against the lockdown, you would have included my reasons. That is, in implementing such a simplistic and intrusive solution, it is destroying our economy, destroying our jobs, turning Australians into dobbers, destroying our industries, suspending our basic freedoms and basic rights(privacy), and is providing the template for more government surveillance. But you can conflate my argument to just arguing against the lockdown. I really didn't expect even a hint of intellectual honesty from you.

Since you continue to create your own straw man to misrepresent anything anyone says, I didn't think I would be any different? Maybe you believe that when you make these distracting accusation, and include an insult, that people should just accept whatever you say because you say so?

Clearly you DID avoided including WHY I was arguing against the lockdown. Clearly you are still avoiding explaining the direct causal link between the lockdown, and the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. And clearly, you have NOT disputed even ONE of the facts that I have deposited.


YES, you are wrong in arguing against the lockdowns whilst using the results of our lockdowns as the basis for your argument. If you want to prove lock downs are not necessary, find a similar jurisdiction who did not impose lockdowns and compare their data with ours.
Again, a direct causal link please! You can't just say lockdowns are working, unless you can either dispute the facts that I have already deposited, or can present your own facts to support your claims.

Are you really suggesting that I should compare Australia's lockdown Covid-19 stats, to some other country's Covid-19 who do not implement lockdowns? Should we also just ignore any other variables specific to that country? And, just what exactly would this prove?
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Had you also explained WHY I was arguing against the lockdown, you would have included my reasons.
why would I need to explain your argument to you? That's your argument not mine.

Clearly you DID avoided including WHY I was arguing against the lockdown
Why you argue something is your problem, not mine.

And clearly, you have NOT disputed even ONE of the facts that I have deposited.
your 'facts' are irrelevant to the point I was making. You're using the result of our lock downs as some sort of convoluted proof that we don't need lock downs. It's like arguing you don't need oil in your car after adding oil.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
why would I need to explain your argument to you? That's your argument not mine.


Why you argue something is your problem, not mine.


your 'facts' are irrelevant to the point I was making. You're using the result of our lock downs as some sort of convoluted proof that we don't need lock downs. It's like arguing you don't need oil in your car after adding oil.
I have no idea what you are talking about, or the goal posts you are changing again. What I am talking about is not just my problem(another straw man). In fact, thousands of other Australians have this same problem, and feel the same way. Freedom of movement, and freedom of choice. What are these irrelevant facts that don't address the point you were making? And, if you think that the lockdown is saving us all from a viral apocalypse, then please, what evidence can you deposit that can clearly demonstrate any direct causal link?

Convoluted? Is the effectiveness of wearing masks relevant to this lockdown? How about trying to keep 26M people 2 meters apart? How about downloading locator apps, or mobile QR swipes? How about comparing the normal viral cycle expected for any viral pathogen within any population, and this pathogen? Is the mortality and infection rates relevant? How about the the size of the virus to the pore size of masks? How about the fact that a person can be infected via the eyes? Finally, the glaring importance of those in the population who are at high risk, and the true number of actual cases minus the recoveries? Are any of these facts relevant to a lockdown?

Even the government knows that even a moron might begin to question locking down millions of people, just because a few people were infected with a 98.7%+ survivable virus. Or, a 100% survivability rate for those NOT in any of the high risk groups. Exactly how many people on this forum personally know(not heard or told) of anyone who have died directly from the complications of Covid-19?

How about if we just lockdown and quarantine all those in the high risk groups? For their own safety, of course!!
 

Texan

Active member
I know 3 people who have died with covid. Two were in their 60s and obese with diabetes. The third was 72 with a heart transplant 9 years ago. I know dozens of others who have had covid and they are all fine. Many of them have other health issues as well. For a healthy, young person this disease is only a risk to their vulnerable family members. Quarantine and get on with your life.
 
Top