RE: The vaccine debate is ridiculous, just choose what is right for you
It's certainly a contentious issue; and you're right when you say they're not safe. Anything efficacious is unsafe.
Potency is potency.
My main misgivings revolved around incentives. If the Minister for Health had a damning finding land on his desk; that vaccines have definitely been causing x; for the reasons you mentioned, he doesn't want to be the guy in charge of health when thousands of people start dying from preventable diseases.
You don't get to be the Minister for Health by being brave and honest.
He's going to find any reason at all to kick the can down the road and make it the next guy's problem.
He'll find some reason to re-test. Commission a new study; drag his feet until he gets his pension, only to be replaced by the next guy with the same incentive structure.
The stakes are just too high. There could be dozens of these reports and we'd never hear about them.
The other problem I have is with these no jab, no play policies. When the state takes our money, its an unavoidable obligation for everyone; but when it gives some back that's a privilege enjoyed only by the obedient.
As the years go by, it's going to be harder and harder to qualify as obedient.
Naturally they start with popular stuff like vaccination. Then they expand which services are privileges, and the prerequisites to qualify for them; suddenly we're under a social credit score system like they've rolled out in China; and I can't buy a plane ticket because my Uncle isn't an organ donor.
Great points Matt
The gaining of tax payer funds is not only for the obedient, it is for the obedient and destitute. Anyone who has invested, saved or have been responsible with money in the course of their working life is entitled to nothing/zip, irrespective of how much tax they have paid and contributed along the way.
People who have not worked ever and are obedient to the demands of the system can gain help when they need it.
Flipping the conversation away from vaccines for a moment and using real estate as an example, we have a lot of real estate clients in nursing homes relying on rental income to fund their retirement and not entitled to a pension or reductions in the costs of medicines nor do they get discounts for public transport. They get nothing because they have been responsible enough when they were younger to own properties and save their money instead of enjoying it along the way.
Although on paper it looks good, in reality, the rental income is not always income, there is maintenance and vacancies associated with properties and this causes undue stress for the people in nursing homes with no other income. These are the worst kept properties, they are unable to do any maintenance causing tenants to leave and cause vacancies - its a disaster that you do not want to be dealing with when you are 98 years old.
While our investor clients get no funding or reduction in medicines or help with public transport from the government, the old people in the rocking chairs next to them who own nothing, have never owned anything, have nothing in the bank, never saved anything and enjoyed whatever they made along the way, paid less tax and contributed less than our investor clients, get a pension coming in every week to pay for the exact same nursing home with the exact same benefits and have absolutely nothing to stress about.
Where is the fairness in this system? Not looking after those who look after themselves is not a good system either. It's not about who paid tax, its about who is destitute and desperate and obedient.
So much truth there. I sometimes wonder if I'm irresponsible raising my children to be responsible.
Perhaps I'm doing them a disservice. Have you read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand?