A diversity of opinions is helpful when the question at issue is a subjective opinion question. But you keep answering factual questions with your beliefs, which are not based on facts or are based on inaccurate interpretations of facts, and we are going to keep pointing out the facts you misrepresent because being a reliable source of information on COVID is one of BioLogos goals.
3 Likes
Christy, we apparently disagree on the facts and on whether my views are based on facts.
Do you think it is a fact that all 5-year-olds need to be vaccinated against Covid?
I like and want to know as much truth as possible. But I also want my leaders to use good judgment on how or when or even if certain things are shared. I would forego (at least temporarily) my right to full knowledge on something if the dissemination of that knowledge would do little more than lead to panic and yet more danger and death. Even if the facts witheld were relevant and significant to me for my own personal decisions, I would respect the fact that the leadership I am trusting is not just a personal leader for me, but for my entire community, state, or nation - and thus my personal desire for knowledge of all pertinent truth should rightly be subjugated to the broader rights of my entire community and their rights to maximized safety or minimized harm.
In a stark, yet not-so-out-of-this-world example ⌠if some high-up official received credible intelligence that a nuclear device was about to detonate in the center of a large urban area, I think we would all agree that such information would be extremely relevant to each and every person living in that area. The official may also know that simply broadcasting this will lead to instant gridlock on all major highways, and very few people are able to get out. But if the official reasons that to attempt a less aggressive (but still major) evacuation on lesser pretenses would actually get a lot more people out of the area (by keeping panic at bay) - then should the official utilize this deceptive strategy in order to save thousands more lives? I, for one, would think the latter strategy not only justified, but even morally required. My ârightâ to instant access to all truth should not outweigh yours and thousands of others rights to not be killed.
It seems we might be getting a bit sidetracked. The apparently incomplete communication of some orthodox scientists is irrelevant to the truth of the vast body of science on vaccines by thousands of scientists and data, would we not all agree? Thanks.
An immediate nuclear strike is much different from a multi year pandemic, but I struggle to imagine how telling lies to the public about a nuclear strike and replacing the evacuation recommendation with a different emergency would be beneficial.
Evacuees would be unlikely to bring their iodine pills.
One of my additional duties in the US Army was as a Nuclear/Biological/Chemical officer.
And people should flee upwind for a nuclear blast. Call it something else and they might go the wrong way without those pills.
They might not be prepared to take cover at the flash of light or know to wait until the back blast has occurred.
And the liars would be hated by survivors who resent not being trusted with the truth.
1 Like
Thatâs why I wasnât asking you to imagine anything. I was quite specific with the scenario.
I sincerely hope any official in such a position would have enough courage and moral fortitude to consider a potential multitude of saved lives more important than his personal reputation or career.
And your specific scenario only demonstrated how lying to people harms them.
Certainly he can lie if he thinks it is best, but a situation in which a lie is better than the truth was not found in your example. Maybe if you had focused on Roswell in 1947 that would have been more appropriate.
And telling lies about the pandemic is not beneficial either.
President Eisenhower thought he was doing the best thing when he lied to the world about Gary Powerâs U2 flight, but it blew up in his face when the Russians trotted out the captured pilot.
But the general population had no actions to take about the U2 flight. We have decisions to make on Covid, and leaders who donât respect their people with the truth when they have decisions to make are not providing leadership.
What does the âvast body of science on vaccinesâ say about vaccinating 5-year-olds with a vaccine for which the long-term effects are unknown when the disease is known to be very mild in 5-year-olds except in the rarest of cases?
Do you think it is a fact that all 5-year-olds need to be vaccinated against Covid?
Speaking as a non specialist, I will go by their expertise, no matter what.
But speaking as a family doc, since we are all going to get Covid (or be exposed by it), yes, getting a non infectious antigen instead of the multiple antigens of infectious variety is, according to the specialists. preferable. I also go by their word rather than mine.
Hope your church went well. Good night
1 Like
Vaccinating children is also about protecting the more vulnerable in their families and communities.
1 Like
Randy, you answered my first question. You think all 5-year-olds should get vaccinated against Covid. Did you mean even the ones who have already had Covid? Like my three granddaughters?
If so, why is recovery from Covid not sufficient?
By the way, I have come to the same conclusion you wrote here;
Doesnât that conclusion contradict this:
If we are all going to be exposed to it, then vaccinating children to insure they donât expose others doesnât work, does it, Randy? Covid is so infectious and pervasive that we will all be exposed sooner or later.
This zero-Covid policy of China looks like an attempt at holding back a river.
I thought this was an interesting statement, especially as it relates to 5-year-olds being vaccinated:
âThe vaccines have done damage to the immune system such that it makes people more likely to get COVIDâover a longer term, not the short-term vaccine benefit period, but after thatâmore likely to get COVID infections, more likely to get other respiratory infections.â
Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health.
would go to an immunologist and not an epidemiologist to comment on immune system. CDC debunks this.
Iâm at work, but again, strongly recommend going to the CDC for all these questions. They are tons smarter than I am (thanks for the compliment, though, of asking me) 
thanks.
Maybe after work and some time to reflect you will be able to clarify how vaccinations of children will help protect the older and otherwise vulnerable population if we are all going to get Covid or at least be exposed to it.
Covid is ubiquitous. It appears all but hermits will be exposed (vegetarian hermits, given the infections in the deer population). And vaccinations now appear to do little or no good in avoiding infections.
Have a great day.
1 Like
There may be some validity in that argument. Interestingly, you would have still made the same specious claims about âitâs totally the parentsâ choiceâ last year and still have been very wrong. There are still other variants out there dangerous to all that the vaccines still protect against, so the point about protecting the more vulnerable still stands. Do you know that there is no Delta still circulating?
It was the choice of the parents last year, and it is the choice of the parents this year.
Parents are responsible for their 5-year-old children.
The government mandates child safety seats in cars, doesnât it. And vaccines for children still protect the most vulnerable.
The legislators made the seat belt laws for all ages (in 49 states, I think). The legislators are elected by the people.
When legislation is passed that require 5-year-olds to be vaccinated, then 5-year-olds will be required to be vaccinated.
This is the way our government was set up to work by the founding fathers. Bureaucrats donât make laws; they only make regulations within the bounds of the enabling legislation.
I am surprised you donât understand the difference.
And vaccines for children still protect the most vulnerable.
âThe problem with vaccine mandates is that they are immunologically ignorant by ignoring the powerful effect of natural immunity,â Dr. Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins surgeon and professor, told The Epoch Times. âNatural immunity has been formally studied in over 200 studies and has been found to be more effective than vaccinated immunity.â
So why should my 5-, 6-, and 7-year-old granddaughters who have had Covid get a shot?
Is it a fact that 5-year-olds should be vaccinated? No one wants to answer that question.