Winston

Putting words in my mouth again are we Aristides?

Willing carriers? Who is a willing carrier?

I do not think we have written off Covid deaths, people are still quite upset with the medical community and leadership for failing to proactively manage the difficult situation.

Vaccine reporting system that is self reported would not give great results. Unless the data suggested a reoccurring issue, still not exactly causation. Unless the CDC has strong data it seems they are just making a blanket statement. Unless the data suggested a reoccurring issue, still not exactly causation.

I am not familiar with VAERS. I am asking how did they determine that Covid is the cause of these "wide range of new, returning, or ongoing health problems "?

Medically we have not written off the susceptible, but societally we always have, just look at the jobs people with disabilities can attain. If we want to protect the susceptible we should invest in treatments and biomedical technology.

How did they determine that Covid is the cause of these "wide range of new, returning, or ongoing health problems "? This is self reported?

Statistically most of the deaths are from those with prexisting conditions and above 60s, realistically the majority of the population is not at high risk. https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#vaccine-outcomes https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#pre-existing-conditions

Its okay, if its for profit. All jokes aside, there seems to be this idea that a "conspiracy" must exist in order for those who are responsible to be complacent or those deliberately take actions that do not benefit the collective, I am not sure why? This occurs naturally in the world.

It is why I think Covid is a distraction, what matters is how power in society is distributed, this tends to come from wealth. Is it possible for corporations or institutions to fund and /or select individuals with certain beliefs, political standings or ideologies? If the majority of these corporations or institutions share a specific ideology could this ideology become prevalent within society, irrelevant of the future negative outcomes for society?

Yes people believe in humanism, how is that immoral or unethical?

Indeed, it can become quite complex. I would argue the opposite(in agreement), it is the duty of the individual to question the dominant views or government agendas for the sake of the collective. The issue with dominant views or government agendas is they do not necessarily reflect the collective, instead they reflect the individuals who hold the power to introduce those agendas.

What does this have to do with morality or ethics? "Because of the evolutionary brainwashing, the indoctrinated now have no purpose to their lives and no eternal hope or perspective." - What does this have to do with morality or ethics? Its purely a religious statement.

Yes exactly. We must first draw a line at when we can and can not violate the rights of an individual. Even ignoring Covid, crossing of that line requires tedious work, evidence and analysis by multiple parties for criminal/mental issues. Yes, as an individual who is part of a collective, there is a duty to carry out actions that are for the benefit of the collective, but there also is a duty for the collective to uphold the rights of the individual.

This is becoming extreme thread drift, please post this in religion or at least change the title.

With due respect I think ignoring it does not play into their hands. Because they focus on Covid rather than the underlying issue of rights violation. Changing the discussion from Covid to rights violation changes the premise of the argument. For example are there situations where someone's rights to their own body can be violated? There are many examples in society, criminal activity, insanity and if they pose an extremely high risk to others. The question becomes at what level of risk can we violate someone's rights by force?

I found this poll. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a17333eb0786935ac112523/t/61e77919672c5a0fc0148e8b/1642559771161/Unvaccinated+Factum+19+02+22.pdf It represents 1506 individual opinions with weighting "The results have been weighted by education, age, gender, and region (and in Quebec, language) to match the population according to Census data which ensures the sample is representative of the entire adult population of Canada." Meaning you have a higher subset of older generation and university graduates. Overall I can agree with you Myata, but bringing up the Covid virus is a distraction it has nothing to do with the issues we are commenting on. Freedom of speech, individual rights and distribution of wealth have little to do with Covid virus itself. (off topic)

I doubt this is true. The majority thinks vaccines are the way to stop covid, but when asked " do you have the right to determine what enters your body?", the majority answer yes. There is a small minority of extremists who may think individual rights should not exist and a small minority of extremists who think everything is about individual rights. They are just loud, on both sides. Realistically most people will follow the mass, not necessary with thought to their actions, I agree. “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.” We actually have something quite powerful, the internet, where discussions can occur and action items can be planned. But on the other side, the majority is so distracted by covid, that the real issues plaguing society are ignored. It is clever to those that desire this distraction.

Still quite far away. I would say there will be more interest in climate change as a means of taxation and societal behavior. But I would ask, to what end? Or is everyone operating on individualism without thought for the collective. Generic automation is also quite far away, people are just too cheap to replace at this time.

Why is Homosexuality a heart posture of sin? I have it on good faith God is Bisexual, including gay. So the real question is "why is God creating heterosexuals?"

Its dishonest to hold different evidence of value for science, if you read my post. If Science stated the universe was created with faith in science we would have the same "evidence" of science creation of the universe. Is this a serious question? If I told you I made the universe you would just believe me, just like that? Because how do we know God created anything? But I am God, why do you keep disbelieving. Would you like proof or evidence? Great what is supernatural and how does one determine if something is supernatural or not?

How did you determine that I am not God? Or how do you prove I am not God?

Reread what I wrote, I accused you of not having an honest discussion. I am quite sure you honestly believe in a god. It becomes a dishonest discussion to expect science to provide evidence but not creationism. You are missing the possibility that apparent complexity is from the system, not a designer. Having the premise that an intelligent design created the universe is extremely complex, you would have to show how something that operates in time and space can manufacture time and space? In this case tell me why I can not just assert that I created the universe and everything, including you? Or do you agree that I can assert that I created everything? You know how god operates yet you can not explain the method by which god creates. But I can just show that a grain of sand as complex as it may be is just pure physics at work, no designer required.

Yes I can concede this point. It would be unrealistic to expect the general public to be current on any/all fields. I am worried that experts may not have the publics best interest in mind unless they have a responsibility or vested interest in the conclusion. I would rather see expert opinions with pure transparency of methodology and data for those that wish to take the time to review the findings and learn the topic.

Fair enough. But I would not be in favor of limiting the general public to review scientific studies. People can hold their own opinion by their own review. It would be up to others to take it seriously or not based on the data and conclusion. I would rather a society of people deeply thinking about topics, rather than being told what to think.