COVID gratuitous dumpster fire thread

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,809
23,330
1
On my property I pee where I want. In public, where I come from, it's public indecency. But you do you.

Lately, I have began to worry about you. The tone of your posts have changed. I blame the media and loss of critical thinking jk well sort of, any how you can relax the worm is turning and your ignorant bliss will be restored.

If I'm wrong and you are carrying water don't think there will be saving of a seat in the bunker for you.

Let's not do this any more I don't want a ban
Ah, peeing on your own property. You know the difference between a good house and a great house? A good house is one where you can pee off the back porch, and the neighbors won't see you. A great house is one where you can pee off the front porch.

I can, I just have to time it right. 🤣
 

82bordeaux

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2019
4,001
12,647
1
59
eriespecialty.com
Ah, peeing on your own property. You know the difference between a good house and a great house? A good house is one where you can pee off the back porch, and the neighbors won't see you. A great house is one where you can pee off the front porch.

I can, I just have to time it right. 🤣
The great house is the one where if you pee off the back porch, only the boaters can see you.
 

SWPA

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2017
1,032
2,044
1
Peeing outdoors isn't a mandatory, but having plenty of Freedom Trees can prove convenient.
2f4a2cca-774f-4b62-a913-bdbbefd97421_text.gif
 

District four

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2018
2,830
2,939
1
I'm well aware of sacrifice having served two combat tours. Freedom has always been a touchy subject for me. I understand people being scared, but I know at our Legion Hall the vast majority tend to pick freedom over safety. I have noticed the reverse of what you are saying. I have heard women who support abortion claiming I owe them protection by masking up or getting a jab. I happen to be a true Libertarian in that I support all sorts of lewd acts and outlandish beliefs as long as I am not being forced to participate. Live and let live. Most of us just want to be left alone to make as many of our own choices as possible. I don't trust a government who has repeatedly put Americans in harms way only to completely abandon them when they return home from combat. This same government suddenly caring about my safety is more of a punchline than a realistic assessment of the actions we have seen during this virus response.
I agree with the last part but I struggle with this obsession with individualism and self centered ideology our country is drowning in. One of the most unique features about this American experience from day one is the sense of community and the common good. That's the only way this is going to work. That's what I fight to protect. I get the libertarian view and I don't disagree with any of it unless it interferes with the common good. Shit we don't allow kids to attend elementary schools unless they have shots nobody bitches about that. I stood in line on Paris island and got jabbed multie.times going down the line and never questioned once about my personal freedoms the bottom line is if we don't protect the common good and our communities as a whole all of our personal freedoms won't mean shit because we won't be here anymore
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dogwelder

86PSUPaul

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2017
3,737
4,760
1
I agree with the last part but I struggle with this obsession with individualism and self centered ideology our country is drowning in. One of the most unique features about this American experience from day one is the sense of community and the common good. That's the only way this is going to work. That's what I fight to protect. I get the libertarian view and I don't disagree with any of it unless it interferes with the common good. Shit we don't allow kids to attend elementary schools unless they have shots nobody bitches about that. I stood in line on Paris island and got jabbed multie.times going down the line and never questioned once about my personal freedoms the bottom line is if we don't protect the common good and our communities as a whole all of our personal freedoms won't mean shit because we won't be here anymore
I know this is probably not the first time you heard this, but those multiple shots you get for elementary school actually prevent things. We get the TB shot and we will not get TB, we get measles shot and we will not get measles. This shot is no where like this, though originally they did say it was. Now they say you can still get it but not as severe. The closest is the flu, and we DO NOT require a flu shot for kids to go to elementary school.
Not at all the same.

and with regards to the ones you got at Paris Island, that was your choice to join, but many in the military are not at all happy about now being forced to take this one. Many are showing their displeasure by leaving, including special forces operators.
 
Last edited:

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,703
5,013
1
I agree with the last part but I struggle with this obsession with individualism and self centered ideology our country is drowning in. One of the most unique features about this American experience from day one is the sense of community and the common good. That's the only way this is going to work. That's what I fight to protect. I get the libertarian view and I don't disagree with any of it unless it interferes with the common good. Shit we don't allow kids to attend elementary schools unless they have shots nobody bitches about that. I stood in line on Paris island and got jabbed multie.times going down the line and never questioned once about my personal freedoms the bottom line is if we don't protect the common good and our communities as a whole all of our personal freedoms won't mean shit because we won't be here anymore
I'm not sure you really grasp American history. We killed off an entire people and the ones we left we put on reservations. America was founded by scoundrels like all of mankind who sought prosperity at the expense of anyone in the way. The bottom line is once you give up your personal freedoms for the "greater good" you surrender your power to people who are neither great nor good. This was about the transfer of power and wealth from us to them. They are not good.
 

Dogwelder

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2013
6,965
15,231
1
… We get the Tb shot and we will not get TB, … Now they say you can still get [COVID even if vaccinated] but not as severe. The closest is the flu, and we DO NOT require a flu shot for kids to go to elementary school …
So, you do understand that laws and rules are different for different disease severities and different vaccine effectivenesses. And you don’t like where they drew the line for COVID.

Okay. That’s fair.

Now, please tell us how many lives would need to be saved, in your preferred line-drawing algorithm, for a vaccine mandate to be okay with you?

If a new disease comes along and we could save 10 million Americans lives in the first year, would a mandate be okay? What about 50 million Americans lives in the first year? What about 100 million Americans lives in the first year?

If you refuse to answer, then we won’t understand where you’re coming from—e.g., we won’t know whether you are trying to trade off freedom for public good (which is what ~every good law does, de facto) or whether you are trying to live by an arbitrary idiosyncratic criterion (“must be nearly 100% effective against infection).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: goldenanimal

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
552
870
1
I'm not sure you really grasp American history. We killed off an entire people and the ones we left we put on reservations. America was founded by scoundrels like all of mankind who sought prosperity at the expense of anyone in the way. The bottom line is once you give up your personal freedoms for the "greater good" you surrender your power to people who are neither great nor good. This was about the transfer of power and wealth from us to them. They are not good.
Didn’t you say you served? What is military service if not giving up your personal freedoms for the greater good?
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldenanimal

jmadden1998

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
1,435
2,405
1
So, you do understand that laws and rules are different for different disease severities and different vaccine effectivenesses. And you don’t like where they drew the line for COVID.

Okay. That’s fair.

Now, please tell us how many lives would need to be saved, in your preferred line-drawing algorithm, for a vaccine mandate to be okay with you?

If a new disease comes along and we could save 10 million Americans lives in the first year, would a mandate be okay? What about 50 million Americans lives in the first year? What about 100 million Americans lives in the first year?

If you refuse to answer, then we won’t understand where you’re coming from—e.g., we won’t know whether you are trying to trade off freedom for public good (which is what ~every good law does, de facto) or whether you are trying to live by an arbitrary idiosyncratic criterion (“must be nearly 100% effective against infection).
What is your threshold for lives saved to require vaccination?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dogwelder

86PSUPaul

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2017
3,737
4,760
1
So, you do understand that laws and rules are different for different disease severities and different vaccine effectivenesses. And you don’t like where they drew the line for COVID.

Okay. That’s fair.

Now, please tell us how many lives would need to be saved, in your preferred line-drawing algorithm, for a vaccine mandate to be okay with you?

If a new disease comes along and we could save 10 million Americans lives in the first year, would a mandate be okay? What about 50 million Americans lives in the first year? What about 100 million Americans lives in the first year?

If you refuse to answer, then we won’t understand where you’re coming from—e.g., we won’t know whether you are trying to trade off freedom for public good (which is what ~every good law does, de facto) or whether you are trying to live by an arbitrary idiosyncratic criterion (“must be nearly 100% effective against infection).
How about I turn it around and you give me solid info based on how many lives a covid vaccine will save. And that must be peer reviewed, work for the newest variant, work for the newest shots, etc. This has been such a moving target, and even though I keep hearing "Science" yet the science keeps changing, as science does. They seem to draw a line in the sand, yet this is rarely a line in the sand issue. The first line in the sand was the shot stops spread, that line is long past gone!
once you give me this info I will give my recommendation if it should be mandated.

Oh, and not necessarily you (though you were definitely edging there), many were being very snippy with people that are against the shot. Yet many seem to really enjoy Cael's insight in at least wrestling, but also life issues. If the rumors are correct that he is against vax mandates, would you be as snippy with him?
 

Dogwelder

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2013
6,965
15,231
1
What is your threshold for lives saved to require vaccination?
I have not really thought about the cut off.

I’m just trying to see if we can find common ground in agreeing that there is a number that is large enough, and that there is a number that is too small.

In 100% sincerity and seriousness …

Can we please agree that a nationwide vaccine mandate to save 1 life in the first year is not worth it?

And can we please agree that a nationwide vaccine mandate to save 100 million lives in the first year is worth it?
 

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,703
5,013
1
So, you do understand that laws and rules are different for different disease severities and different vaccine effectivenesses. And you don’t like where they drew the line for COVID.

Okay. That’s fair.

Now, please tell us how many lives would need to be saved, in your preferred line-drawing algorithm, for a vaccine mandate to be okay with you?

If a new disease comes along and we could save 10 million Americans lives in the first year, would a mandate be okay? What about 50 million Americans lives in the first year? What about 100 million Americans lives in the first year?

If you refuse to answer, then we won’t understand where you’re coming from—e.g., we won’t know whether you are trying to trade off freedom for public good (which is what ~every good law does, de facto) or whether you are trying to live by an arbitrary idiosyncratic criterion (“must be nearly 100% effective against infection).
Who is the "we" who would save these lives? I would be ok if it were a law passed by both houses of congress,signed by the POTUS and the company making the jab for this new disease prevention wasn't granted immunity. I think you confuse laws and mandates. Is anyone arguing against laws? Do you see mandates equal to laws? Should a POTUS be able to make mandates on any and all things if lives could be saved? Ban processed sugar? Cars? Abortion? Booze? Tobacco? Red Meat? There are so many things that result in loss of life that we accept because we choose self determination over tyranny. I also don't like the blanket thought that these jabs are saving lives. We have no idea what damage and how many millions will later die from the side effects. Why the immunity if they are safe? Why does the FDA want to wait until 2096 to release the approval data for the Pfizer vaccine if it was approved for life saving instead of profit? Turning a blind eye to the obvious corruption doesn't remove the corruption.
 

86PSUPaul

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2017
3,737
4,760
1
I have not really thought about the cut off.

I’m just trying to see if we can find common ground in agreeing that there is a number that is large enough, and that there is a number that is too small.

In 100% sincerity and seriousness …

Can we please agree that a nationwide vaccine mandate to save 1 life in the first year is not worth it?

And can we please agree that a nationwide vaccine mandate to save 100 million lives in the first year is worth it?
I don't know, agreeing is the first step on a slippery slope of coming to agreement! It must be avoided at all cost!!! ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Dogwelder

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,703
5,013
1
I don't know, agreeing is the first step on a slippery slope of coming to agreement! It must be avoided at all cost!!! ;)
The slippery slope of allowing mandates to be made at all is where we went wrong. Make laws and enforce laws but don't make mandates with powers never granted by the people. We don't need or want Kings and Queens.
 

jmadden1998

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
1,435
2,405
1
I have not really thought about the cut off.

I’m just trying to see if we can find common ground in agreeing that there is a number that is large enough, and that there is a number that is too small.

In 100% sincerity and seriousness …

Can we please agree that a nationwide vaccine mandate to save 1 life in the first year is not worth it?

And can we please agree that a nationwide vaccine mandate to save 100 million lives in the first year is worth it?
If there was definitive proof I think more people would get vaccinated. I am vaccinated but that was my choice. How many lives would the flu vaccine save each year? Apparently not enough for anyone to care because it’s never been mandated. Not even in healthcare. If a healthcare worker refused the flu vaccine prior to COVID they were just required to wear a mask.
 

Dogwelder

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2013
6,965
15,231
1
How about I turn it around and you give me solid info based on how many lives a covid vaccine will save. And that must be peer reviewed, work for the newest variant, work for the newest shots, etc. …
We’ve had pages of that. I am trying to find an underlying basis for agreement about the goals in decision making. We need to find some common basis for decision making. Otherwise we are talking on shifting sands and we will get nowhere.

So, instead of intentionally bogging us down in the practical weeds of peer review, etc., let us establish a theoretical basis of agreement of is there a number of lives saved that would be worth a mandate, if we could convince ourselves that the number is reliable?
 

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,703
5,013
1
We’ve had pages of that. I am trying to find an underlying basis for agreement about the goals in decision making. We need to find some common basis for decision making. Otherwise we are talking on shifting sands and we will get nowhere.

So, instead of intentionally bogging us down in the practical weeds of peer review, etc., let us establish a theoretical basis of agreement of is there a number of lives saved that would be worth a mandate, if we could convince ourselves that the number is reliable?
99.99 percent of the population would need to die before any mandate that wasn't supported by congress would be ok to enforce. I'm pretty sure if millions were dying and it was noticed that the people who were vaccinated weren't dying you would need no law or mandate.
 

jmadden1998

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
1,435
2,405
1
We’ve had pages of that. I am trying to find an underlying basis for agreement about the goals in decision making. We need to find some common basis for decision making. Otherwise we are talking on shifting sands and we will get nowhere.

So, instead of intentionally bogging us down in the practical weeds of peer review, etc., let us establish a theoretical basis of agreement of is there a number of lives saved that would be worth a mandate, if we could convince ourselves that the number is reliable?
See Jame P Whitters post above. Run it through the proper channels and make it a law. If the number of lives saved is reliable and true then it shouldn’t be an issue making it a law.
 

86PSUPaul

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2017
3,737
4,760
1
We’ve had pages of that. I am trying to find an underlying basis for agreement about the goals in decision making. We need to find some common basis for decision making. Otherwise we are talking on shifting sands and we will get nowhere.

So, instead of intentionally bogging us down in the practical weeds of peer review, etc., let us establish a theoretical basis of agreement of is there a number of lives saved that would be worth a mandate, if we could convince ourselves that the number is reliable?
Well my long answer, with all my caveats, is my way of saying I doubt there is a reliable number, so why should I have to pick a number that they can then arbitrarily chose as the threshold. Prove to me there is a reliable number and I will consider it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmadden1998

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,703
5,013
1
If it would save enough lives should individual traffic cops by able to mandate new driving procedures? Should they be able to block you from entering a public roadway if they see something in your vehicle type of perhaps your vision that they deem unsafe? Why have laws at all if we can simply appoint people to mandate things as they see fit?
 

PD4thespawn

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2016
696
1,026
1
I know this is probably not the first time you heard this, but those multiple shots you get for elementary school actually prevent things. We get the Tb shot and we will not get TB, we gt measles shot and we will not get measles. This shot is no where like this, though originally they did say it was. Now they say you can still get it but not as severe. The closest is the flu, and we DO NOT require a flu shot for kids to go to elementary school.
Not at all the same.

and with regards to the ones you got at Paris Island, that was your choice to join, but many in the military are not at all happy about now being forced to take this one. Many are showing their displeasure by leaving, including special forces operators.

How about I turn it around and you give me solid info based on how many lives a covid vaccine will save. And that must be peer reviewed, work for the newest variant, work for the newest shots, etc. This has been such a moving target, and even though I keep hearing "Science" yet the science keeps changing, as science does. They seem to draw a line in the sand, yet this is rarely a line in the sand issue. The first line in the sand was the shot stops spread, that line is long past gone!
once you give me this info I will give my recommendation if it should be mandated.

Oh, and not necessarily you (though you were definitely edging there), many were being very snippy with people that are against the shot. Yet many seem to really enjoy Cael's insight in at least wrestling, but also life issues. If the rumors are correct that he is against vax mandates, would you be as snippy with him?
Easy on the last paragraph. The thread will be scrubbed.
 

PD4thespawn

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2016
696
1,026
1
For me if they fill a needle with the vax and give Nickie hillton the first half I would be more than willing to take the other half
 

District four

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2018
2,830
2,939
1
I know this is probably not the first time you heard this, but those multiple shots you get for elementary school actually prevent things. We get the TB shot and we will not get TB, we get measles shot and we will not get measles. This shot is no where like this, though originally they did say it was. Now they say you can still get it but not as severe. The closest is the flu, and we DO NOT require a flu shot for kids to go to elementary school.
Not at all the same.

and with regards to the ones you got at Paris Island, that was your choice to join, but many in the military are not at all happy about now being forced to take this one. Many are showing their displeasure by leaving, including special forces operators.
I agree the shots aren't the same as the ones for kids. My point is do I get the shot in an attempt to part of the solution or don't I because I individual freedoms and I'm not even saying that's wrong Im just saying I wish our country was more about community than individualism per say. Kids nowadays are so self centered if you discuss anything outside the realm of their reality it's traumatic lol. I think everyone on this thread has some good points to make. On the flip side I have been vaccinated three shots total. I work around a very risky population (addicts and inmates) not to mention both my twins and my youngest daughter all had it twice and I was right beside them and I have never had it. Or I should say I've never been sick enough to even get tested and all my daughter's were vaccinated and they wouldn't have known they had it if they didn't work at the hospital and got tested twice a week. In the end I think covid is the new flu and before long that's all we will talk about. Nobody even mentions the flu anymore it's like it went away lol. Thanks for your feedback though you definitely say things that make sense. I don't think anyone truly has all the answers and some of this shit is way overblown
 

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,703
5,013
1
Yes, to defend to community/country’s freedoms. Otherwise known as the common good.
A country's freedoms are only worthwhile if they speak to individual freedoms. I don't give a rat's ass about defending the freedoms or sovereignty of any nation who doesn't make individual liberty a priority. The problem with assigning a term like "common good" is the arbitrary nature of the phrase. I might individually believe that it is for the common good to make obesity a crime and mandate that all obese people be put in holding camps until fit and thin. This would save many lives making it for the common good. Who gets to define what common good really means? Is there a litmus test you can share? Is common good up to whomever happens to wield power be it through election or appointment? I would rather a large number of free individuals act independently and without coercion to achieve the actual "common good". To me a very dangerous society with true freedom trumps a much safer restrictive society. I have no problem if you personally choose safety over freedom because that is simply you acting upon your own free will. I'm always scared when government speaks of common good or sacrifice. It usually means good for them individually and sacrifice for us. The very people who shut down our economy (the decision makers) and the people declaring the science were all still getting paid.
 

PD4thespawn

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2016
696
1,026
1
A country's freedoms are only worthwhile if they speak to individual freedoms. I don't give a rat's ass about defending the freedoms or sovereignty of any nation who doesn't make individual liberty a priority. The problem with assigning a term like "common good" is the arbitrary nature of the phrase. I might individually believe that it is for the common good to make obesity a crime and mandate that all obese people be put in holding camps until fit and thin. This would save many lives making it for the common good. Who gets to define what common good really means? Is there a litmus test you can share? Is common good up to whomever happens to wield power be it through election or appointment? I would rather a large number of free individuals act independently and without coercion to achieve the actual "common good". To me a very dangerous society with true freedom trumps a much safer restrictive society. I have no problem if you personally choose safety over freedom because that is simply you acting upon your own free will. I'm always scared when government speaks of common good or sacrifice. It usually means good for them individually and sacrifice for us. The very people who shut down our economy (the decision makers) and the people declaring the science were all still getting paid.
And they got their bets in early and often. Rules for you and not for me.
 

crablegs1

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2009
552
870
1
A country's freedoms are only worthwhile if they speak to individual freedoms. I don't give a rat's ass about defending the freedoms or sovereignty of any nation who doesn't make individual liberty a priority. The problem with assigning a term like "common good" is the arbitrary nature of the phrase. I might individually believe that it is for the common good to make obesity a crime and mandate that all obese people be put in holding camps until fit and thin. This would save many lives making it for the common good. Who gets to define what common good really means? Is there a litmus test you can share? Is common good up to whomever happens to wield power be it through election or appointment? I would rather a large number of free individuals act independently and without coercion to achieve the actual "common good". To me a very dangerous society with true freedom trumps a much safer restrictive society. I have no problem if you personally choose safety over freedom because that is simply you acting upon your own free will. I'm always scared when government speaks of common good or sacrifice. It usually means good for them individually and sacrifice for us. The very people who shut down our economy (the decision makers) and the people declaring the science were all still getting paid.
But specifically I’m referring to where you said “The bottom line is once you give up your personal freedoms for the "greater good" you surrender your power to people who are neither great nor good.” It seems to me you did exactly that - gave up your personal freedom for the benefit of the greater good.
 

nerfstate

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2017
8,087
19,689
1
But specifically I’m referring to where you said “The bottom line is once you give up your personal freedoms for the "greater good" you surrender your power to people who are neither great nor good.” It seems to me you did exactly that - gave up your personal freedom for the benefit of the greater good.
I get your point--but presumably, James volunteered to serve, so it was a personal choice, and not compulsory. Of course, in the past, we have had a draft . . .

I don't usually post on-topic in this thread, but I was wondering about this imaginary world where a particular vaccine was obviously preventing hundreds of millions of deaths, and everyone rallying behind a law that would mandate the vaccine (or better yet, rallying behind universal volunteer vaccination): sounds lovely. Does anyone see a universal acceptance of truth like that as very plausilbe in this day and age? Can we even have universal truth anymore? I feel like if Party A were to proclaim: "Breathing: the most healthy thing you can do." Party B's media campaign would run a series of expose's on the ill effects of hydrogen in the lungs, that "big Air" was behind it all for greed, and soon enough, everyone supporting Party B would start holding their breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grass and Dogwelder

Dogwelder

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2013
6,965
15,231
1
… I feel like … Party B's media campaign would run a series of expose's on the ill effects of hydrogen in the lungs, that "big Air" was behind it all for greed, and soon enough, everyone supporting Party B would start holding their breath.
Say no to oxygen! Get your own jokes. :)
 

James P. Whitters III

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2007
1,703
5,013
1
But specifically I’m referring to where you said “The bottom line is once you give up your personal freedoms for the "greater good" you surrender your power to people who are neither great nor good.” It seems to me you did exactly that - gave up your personal freedom for the benefit of the greater good.
Honestly combat is one of the most terrifying experiences I have been a part of, but like is mentioned above I willingly gave my self determination a pass to pursue other goals. The example is also relevant because I'm not altogether sure that what we did for the "greater good" in those conflicts was actually great or good. Our leadership assured us we were fighting for truth,justice, and the American way so to speak, but we were really most likely preserving economic interests of the elite. I see this as similar.
 

District four

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2018
2,830
2,939
1
But specifically I’m referring to where you said “The bottom line is once you give up your personal freedoms for the "greater good" you surrender your power to people who are neither great nor good.” It seems to me you did exactly that - gave up your personal freedom for the benefit of the greater good.
I don't think anyone should GIVE up their personal freedoms for the common good it should be a choice. That can be a tough choice but in some circumstances not that bad as long as it's a choice
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
15,809
23,330
1
We’ve had pages of that. I am trying to find an underlying basis for agreement about the goals in decision making. We need to find some common basis for decision making. Otherwise we are talking on shifting sands and we will get nowhere.

So, instead of intentionally bogging us down in the practical weeds of peer review, etc., let us establish a theoretical basis of agreement of is there a number of lives saved that would be worth a mandate, if we could convince ourselves that the number is reliable?
If this virus was affecting all ages at similar rates, then trying to come up with a single number might be easier. But, it is so heavily weighted by age, having the same mandate for all age groups isn't reasonable, IMO. Particularly, because these vaccines were rushed through the approval process, and long- term safety effects simply aren't known.