Israeli Doctors Cure the symptoms of CV-19?

[alanjh595]

How many would have died in the next 10 years waiting for the results?

If the vaccine kills just 1 person that would not have died from Covid then you are playing with the trolley problem and that is a philosophical no no for me.

How many have already died of Covid so far ? 2100 just in BC alone.

How many in the world that we know of ?

Hint.

Deaths:
4,999,769

[Jonrox]

A lot of folks will be extremely skeptical until there are 10+ years of studies done to measure the long-term effects of the drug.

see even you agree 10 year studies are needed to make sure they are safe , welcome to the real world

Nowhere in this did I say that I believe 10 year studies are needed. I only said that a lot of folks will be skeptical until that happens. Try reading what I posted again.

[Sparki55]

How many have already died of Covid so far ? 2100 just in BC alone.

How many in the world that we know of ?

Hint.

Deaths:
4,999,769

Again, the trolley problem. Your answer must be to pull the lever. Even if just one innocent person dies of the vaccine we made the decision of who lives and dies.

[Jonrox]

How many have already died of Covid so far ? 2100 just in BC alone.

How many in the world that we know of ?

Again, the trolley problem. Your answer must be to pull the lever. Even if just one innocent person dies of the vaccine we made the decision of who lives and dies.

Life isn't priceless though. Everybody puts a price on other people's lives every single day. It doesn't make sense to try to save everyone's lives at any cost. Decisions have to made on who lives and dies for the greater good. Our governments made decisions about how to handle the pandemic, knowing that their decisions would result in people dying... the goal has never been to save everyone.

Unless I'm missing your point.

[the truth]

see even you agree 10 year studies are needed to make sure they are safe , welcome to the real world

Nowhere in this did I say that I believe 10 year studies are needed. I only said that a lot of folks will be skeptical until that happens. Try reading what I posted again.

your worlds -- i believe 10 year studies are needed --

[Jonrox]

Nowhere in this did I say that I believe 10 year studies are needed. I only said that a lot of folks will be skeptical until that happens. Try reading what I posted again.

your worlds -- i believe 10 year studies are needed --

Try reading it again one more time. Those weren't my words... lol. Here, I'll help you out. I know reading can be hard, but I'm sure you can figure this out:

A lot of folks will be extremely skeptical until there are 10+ years of studies done to measure the long-term effects of the drug.

[alanjh595]

How many have already died of Covid so far ? 2100 just in BC alone.

How many in the world that we know of ?

Again, the trolley problem. Your answer must be to pull the lever. Even if just one innocent person dies of the vaccine we made the decision of who lives and dies.

By not pulling the lever, the whole trolley load of riders may die.

[Sparki55]

Unless I'm missing your point.

Say there is a man with a grenade who is going to throw it at 3 people and one person you can push infront of the grenade which will save the three people. If you do nothing the one person lives. If you push the person they die and the 3 are saved. Nobody else is hurt in either choice.

Do you push the person?

Most people change their answer if the 3 people are their family and the one person is a stranger.

We're doing the push one innocent person into harms way to save others by somewhat forcing the vaccine.

[Jonrox]

Unless I'm missing your point.

Say there is a man with a grenade who is going to throw it at 3 people and one person you can push infront of the grenade which will save the three people. If you do nothing the one person lives. If you push the person they die and the 3 are saved. Nobody else is hurt in either choice.

Do you push the person?

Most people change their answer if the 3 people are their family and the one person is a stranger.

We're doing the push one innocent person into harms way to save others by somewhat forcing the vaccine.

I push away in both scenarios. It's unethical to let more people die.

However, it is more complicated than this in reality. It depends who the people are. For example, if one of the people is a world-renowned doctor on the verge of curing cancer or something, I don't push him because his work could save millions of people. But I'll push my brother in front of the grenade to save this guy.

[Beerhunter341]

Unless I'm missing your point.

Say there is a man with a grenade who is going to throw it at 3 people and one person you can push infront of the grenade which will save the three people. If you do nothing the one person lives. If you push the person they die and the 3 are saved. Nobody else is hurt in either choice.

Do you push the person?

Most people change their answer if the 3 people are their family and the one person is a stranger.

We're doing the push one innocent person into harms way to save others by somewhat forcing the vaccine.

Seems to me if it were my family I would jump in front of it rather than push anyone.

[the truth]

Say there is a man with a grenade who is going to throw it at 3 people and one person you can push infront of the grenade which will save the three people. If you do nothing the one person lives. If you push the person they die and the 3 are saved. Nobody else is hurt in either choice.

Do you push the person?

Most people change their answer if the 3 people are their family and the one person is a stranger.

We're doing the push one innocent person into harms way to save others by somewhat forcing the vaccine.

I push away in both scenarios. It's unethical to let more people die.

However, it is more complicated than this in reality. It depends who the people are. For example, if one of the people is a world-renowned doctor on the verge of curing cancer or something, I don't push him because his work could save millions of people. But I'll push my brother in front of the grenade to save this guy.

wow . that is f on every level, you need help

[Jonrox]

I push away in both scenarios. It's unethical to let more people die.

However, it is more complicated than this in reality. It depends who the people are. For example, if one of the people is a world-renowned doctor on the verge of curing cancer or something, I don't push him because his work could save millions of people. But I'll push my brother in front of the grenade to save this guy.

wow . that is f on every level, you need help

Option 1 would have been me jumping on the grenade, but I know Sparki purposely didn't include that option because it ruins the thought experiment. It's a very interesting question he brought up though... it's the kind of discussion I can appreciate. Full of nuance, ethics, logic, and emotion.

[Jonrox]

Say there is a man with a grenade who is going to throw it at 3 people and one person you can push infront of the grenade which will save the three people. If you do nothing the one person lives. If you push the person they die and the 3 are saved. Nobody else is hurt in either choice.

Do you push the person?

Most people change their answer if the 3 people are their family and the one person is a stranger.

We're doing the push one innocent person into harms way to save others by somewhat forcing the vaccine.

Seems to me if it were my family I would jump in front of it rather than push anyone.

For sure. But I'm sure Sparki deliberately didn't include that as an option because it's the obvious and easy answer. It's a much more interesting thought experiment when you're forced to work within the parameters he laid out and can't jump on the grenade yourself.

He laid the question out like he did for a specific reason. It was an attempt to draw a parallel to forced vaccinations... a little more extreme, but the dots can be connected.

My answer would essentially amount to supporting vaccine mandates for the greater good, even if some folks are hurt or die because of it... overall more people survive. Doing nothing and letting all three folks die is like letting people choose for themselves whether to get vaccinated even if it means more people die, but we're not directly causing their death by forcing them into something they didn't want to do.

I think that's the point he was getting at. Please correct me if I'm wrong Sparki.

[Sparki55]

My answer would essentially amount to supporting vaccine mandates for the greater good, even if some folks are hurt or die because of it... overall more people survive. Doing nothing and letting all three folks die is like letting people choose for themselves whether to get vaccinated even if it means more people die, but we're not directly causing their death by forcing them into something they didn't want to do.

I think that's the point he was getting at. Please correct me if I'm wrong Sparki.

Yes, that was the thought experiment I wanted to convey.

There are many versions of it:

Imagine you are a doctor and you have five patients who all need transplants in order to live. Two each require one lung, another two each require a kidney and the fifth needs a heart.

In the next ward is another individual recovering from a broken leg. But other than their knitting bones, they’re perfectly healthy. So, would you kill the healthy patient and harvest their organs to save five others?

It is true that coercing someone into taking the vaccine isn't identical to these thought experiments but parallels can be drawn. Since vaccination isn't a death sentence and almost nobody will die from it there is another layer to this however if one person dies from vaccine complications that would have otherwise lived a long and healthy life, the ethical dilemma stands and it is well agreed that human sacrifice is unacceptable to save other humans when the sacrifice came from other decisions, the the people being sacrificed.

[Jonrox]

My answer would essentially amount to supporting vaccine mandates for the greater good, even if some folks are hurt or die because of it... overall more people survive. Doing nothing and letting all three folks die is like letting people choose for themselves whether to get vaccinated even if it means more people die, but we're not directly causing their death by forcing them into something they didn't want to do.

I think that's the point he was getting at. Please correct me if I'm wrong Sparki.

Yes, that was the thought experiment I wanted to convey.

There are many versions of it:

Imagine you are a doctor and you have five patients who all need transplants in order to live. Two each require one lung, another two each require a kidney and the fifth needs a heart.

In the next ward is another individual recovering from a broken leg. But other than their knitting bones, they’re perfectly healthy. So, would you kill the healthy patient and harvest their organs to save five others?

It is true that coercing someone into taking the vaccine isn't identical to these thought experiments but parallels can be drawn. Since vaccination isn't a death sentence and almost nobody will die from it there is another layer to this however if one person dies from vaccine complications that would have otherwise lived a long and healthy life, the ethical dilemma stands and it is well agreed that human sacrifice is unacceptable to save other humans when the sacrifice came from other decisions, the the people being sacrificed.

I like it a lot Sparki. Thanks for bringing it up.

It reframes a discussion that's been going on for a long time... I think it gets people out of the comfort zone they've been living in for the last two years. Like you said, it's not a perfect correlation but I think there are some definite parallels worth talking about.

Your next example is a bit different though because in the first example, the person being pushed was dead either way. The guy with the broken leg isn't dead either way, so it's a bit of a different situation.