ANSWERS: 2
  • Also, what about people who don't follow such religions, but simply do not want a blood transfusion? And what if the government declares the "prevention" a matter of public health, as they had done long ago when people initially refused vaccines? Would you rather go against a religious mandate or a government mandate? The punishment for disobeying government is jail, and maybe they force people to have the transfusion against their will. I very much doubt it will come to that, but I think it's a fair question as a fringe hypothetical.
    • Linda Joy
      This might happen in a communist country, but not here... at least not yet! Y'all keep promoting socialism and communism and one day you will have no liberties left!
    • bostjan64
      I know I asked this in another question, but since it's come up again and I have yet to receive an actual answer from you: When have I promoted communism?
    • Linda Joy
      Socialism is just a step away. When did I say you promoted communism?
    • bostjan64
      "Y'all keep promoting socialism and communism and one day you will have no liberties left!"
  • Your hypothetical is difficult to swallow. I don't know about where you live, but people here are not in a panic, they are ready to go back to work! And they haven't laid down their guns. The government won't likely force anyone here. Of course they may end up dead, but that's far better than giving up our liberties. And why would a transfusion be necessary? All they need are the selected antibodies. Sure some will resist. Their god will save them or they will join him. Even now people don't have to be immunized. They just can't go to public school if they haven't been, or get a waiver. Some may also have medical conditions that prevent it.
    • bostjan64
      Transfusion is the cheapest way to receive the antibodies, and the only viable large-scale way of distributing them amongst the population. If you think that immunization has never been enforced by the US government, please look into past epidemics. The precedent has been set for well over a hundred years, that if a person resides in a city that is facing an epidemic, and the government mandates a vaccine for all residents of that city as a matter of public health and safety, the person can be punished by law for refusing the vaccine. For further reading: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/mandatory-vaccination-legal-time-epidemic/2006-04
    • Linda Joy
      That's ok i'll take your word. I was just saying some people are allowed to get a waiver or just not go to public school. But in reality this pandemic is no worse than the regular flu in numbers and if these politicians don't stop with their crap they may be the ones soon out of a job! ESPECIALLY if they push their boundaries.
    • bostjan64
      The above case doesn't refer to public school, but to city-wide epidemics of the turn of the previous two centuries and enforcing vaccination of everyone, not just children. Maybe things have changed since then. As far as the statement "But in reality this pandemic is no worse than the regular flu in numbers," I wish that were the case, but it's simply not true. If we count flu deaths the same way we count coronavirus deaths, the worst flu season in recent years killed around 12k people from flu. The number people commonly cite is "deaths from suspected pneumonia and flu," which includes many diseases deadlier than the flu, including anthrax, coronavirus, and tuberculosis. So, looking at only influenza, 12 thousand people over twelve months versus 65 thousand people over 4 months is about 16 times more deadly. Comparing the flu with covid-19 is literally like comparing a Maserati GranTurismo with a Toyota Yaris. And that's not taking into account closing down borders, shuttering non-essential businesses, nor social distancing. Now, if you are making the comparison of this epidemic being like what it would have been the first time the flu was introduced to the human race, maybe so, but otherwise, you are just being deliberately obtuse by making the comparison whilst you have google at your fingertips.
    • Linda Joy
      This is what I found on google."About 5% to 20% of Americans get the flu each year. More than 200,000 people are hospitalized, according to the CDC. And since the 1970s, between 3,000 and 49,000 people have died from the flu each year. This is largely due to other infections and complications that can occur when you have the flu, particularly pneumonia" And this regarding coronavirus "United StatesUnited States Confirmed 8,112 +137 Recovered - Deaths 298 +6" I guess it depends on where you get your numbers.
    • bostjan64
      Where the heck did you see 298 deaths in the USA?! I know different sources vary wildly, but the lowest I've seen is just below 40k ( https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm ), although the CDC's official number is much higher than that report ( https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html ) and the highest I've seen is nearly 100k ( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/28/us/coronavirus-death-toll-total.html ), with most counts in the middle of those ( https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200505covid-19-sitrep-106.pdf?sfvrsn=47090f63_2 https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ ). Could you provide a source that says 298 deaths?

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy