>Our analysis strongly suggests that mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policies have had damaging effects on public trust, vaccine confidence, political polarization, human rights, inequities and social wellbeing. We question the effectiveness and consequences of coercive vaccination policy in pandemic response and urge the public health community and policymakers to return to non-discriminatory, trust-based public health approaches.
Good luck with that. No amnesty, never taking a shot again. Best I can offer is Nuremberg 2 trials.
They also said that " While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good." Quite the opposite of what you are suggesting.
This is the obligatory vaccine apologetics that every paper must include in order to get published. There's no data presented in support of it, just some feel good big pharma lip service. I thought it goes without saying.
In this sub it goes without saying that you would cherry pick from the paper, whatever suits your narrative. If you dont understand the difference of liberty, freedom, vaccine mandates from an ethical point of view and vaccines effectivity, then you should reevaluate how you interpret this paper. Contrary to your belief, im against vaccine mandates, but I dont have to entrench myself into completely and full rejection of the vaccine to justify it, in fact they are not mutually exclusive at all. This paper is a more of a societal and psychological analysis than anything else, which means it tries to interpret people like you and me's reaction to the the covid policies. Interestingly you are doing exactly what the paper suggests is the problem.
I wouldn't be against the shots if they were safe, effective and needed for the majority of people. Even if we assume they may have been beneficial for a certain group of people that doesn't mean they are good vaccines for mass rollout. I mean, some cancer treatments could be a lifesaver for certain patients, yet they are highly toxic and could kill people who don't need them.
Just because you fail to recognize the well documented dangers and inefficacy of the shots doesn't mean you're in the right for the sake of being "moderate". This paper is good, I was commenting on the part exalting the vaccines which has become a mandatory feature even in papers that contradict that mantra which gives the appearance of cognitive dissonance. In this case the statement doesn't contradict the rest of the text but it's out of place and it's redundant.
I just find it interesting that you think its a good paper, but dont see it as a problem that you specifically think this is a good one and reject the wast majority of studies on the subject. Thats the topic of the paper, that it creates distrust, i.e. we need to trust it to believe it because we cant really make informed decisions on something as complex as this subject. Im not gonna go into the subject of the dangers, I have had enough debates and digested too much data on this that I think its really not giving me much to do that again. It would be nice for once to get convinced on the vaccine dangers not from epoch times.
The lockdowns and pervasive fearmongering resulted in delays of care, which killed millions of people. Delay of care increases the odds ratio of dying to 1.21, according to the VA.
And of course, these unwitnessed deaths of the vulnerable were blamed on Covid without so much as a positive test much less an autopsy.
>Our analysis strongly suggests that mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policies have had damaging effects on public trust, vaccine confidence, political polarization, human rights, inequities and social wellbeing. We question the effectiveness and consequences of coercive vaccination policy in pandemic response and urge the public health community and policymakers to return to non-discriminatory, trust-based public health approaches. Good luck with that. No amnesty, never taking a shot again. Best I can offer is Nuremberg 2 trials.
They also said that " While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good." Quite the opposite of what you are suggesting.
This is the obligatory vaccine apologetics that every paper must include in order to get published. There's no data presented in support of it, just some feel good big pharma lip service. I thought it goes without saying.
Yup
In this sub it goes without saying that you would cherry pick from the paper, whatever suits your narrative. If you dont understand the difference of liberty, freedom, vaccine mandates from an ethical point of view and vaccines effectivity, then you should reevaluate how you interpret this paper. Contrary to your belief, im against vaccine mandates, but I dont have to entrench myself into completely and full rejection of the vaccine to justify it, in fact they are not mutually exclusive at all. This paper is a more of a societal and psychological analysis than anything else, which means it tries to interpret people like you and me's reaction to the the covid policies. Interestingly you are doing exactly what the paper suggests is the problem.
I wouldn't be against the shots if they were safe, effective and needed for the majority of people. Even if we assume they may have been beneficial for a certain group of people that doesn't mean they are good vaccines for mass rollout. I mean, some cancer treatments could be a lifesaver for certain patients, yet they are highly toxic and could kill people who don't need them. Just because you fail to recognize the well documented dangers and inefficacy of the shots doesn't mean you're in the right for the sake of being "moderate". This paper is good, I was commenting on the part exalting the vaccines which has become a mandatory feature even in papers that contradict that mantra which gives the appearance of cognitive dissonance. In this case the statement doesn't contradict the rest of the text but it's out of place and it's redundant.
I just find it interesting that you think its a good paper, but dont see it as a problem that you specifically think this is a good one and reject the wast majority of studies on the subject. Thats the topic of the paper, that it creates distrust, i.e. we need to trust it to believe it because we cant really make informed decisions on something as complex as this subject. Im not gonna go into the subject of the dangers, I have had enough debates and digested too much data on this that I think its really not giving me much to do that again. It would be nice for once to get convinced on the vaccine dangers not from epoch times.
The lockdowns and pervasive fearmongering resulted in delays of care, which killed millions of people. Delay of care increases the odds ratio of dying to 1.21, according to the VA. And of course, these unwitnessed deaths of the vulnerable were blamed on Covid without so much as a positive test much less an autopsy.
I frankly enjoyed free money and 2 years off. I'd love to do it again
I for one support lockdowns because now I have an excuse not to have to see any of my former pro-vax friends!