Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

I never said that vaccine material was singular; my intent was for "material" to represent the totality of all material content in the vaccine dose, save perhaps for the water molecules it is suspended in.

If you want to go down that rabbit hole of "long lasting impacts" then you must equally accept that everything you eat is a risk. Everything you wear against your skin is a risk. Every breath you take. Every move you make. Every bond you break. Risk is everywhere.

Running away from a Komodo dragon carries the risk present in any form of physical activity. It's possible that you might trip, fall, and hit your head in a particularly nasty way. But the fact that running isn't entirely free of risk doesn't mean running away from a Komodo dragon is a bad idea.

Re: the strawman argument, I already clearly stated where you misrepresented my argument so if you're still unclear about it read it several times. Your point about ad absurdum is wrong because you're not making a statement on my initial argument about the amount of evidence required to make a high confidence decision on long term safety.

Re: "existence of some unnamed person somewhere believing a proposition having any bearing on the truth of the proposition"

You seem to be making things up now, if you make absurd claims, back it up with evidence. Where did I say such a thing? My point has always been about the amount of evidence, if you understood otherwise you misinterpreted what I said. At least now, you are starting to agree with my point about the need for evidence, so we are making some progress here.

> Really now? Its basically a meme at this point to use a line like this when talking about race relations

This is such a dumb thing to say with no relevance to the point at all. If you feel the need to resort to such analogies to strawman (yes, read what it means if you don't get the use of the term here and keep re-reading till you understand) my argument, it is clear you have nothing of substance to say. The reason I brought this up is not to virtue-signal as you seem to have misrepresented but rather to inform you about the sources I'm getting my information from. All of my friends who work in these fields agree with these risks and advise against getting the vaccine until there is more data unless its unavoidable.

Re: Zabdeno - The fact that it is an exceptional use authorization is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that it is approved and has been in use for over a year. That reduces the uncertainty about long-term effects. If you don't trust the rigor of the EMA and doubt that it is safe despite being in use for over a year, it is up to you to discount the evidence. Irrelevant to the point.

In any case, I have not heard anything convincing from your end as to why the people who are holding off of getting the vaccine because of the lack of long term safety data are wrong. And instead, it is increasingly clear that you have not done your research or thought about this matter deeply enough. I know it is not representative of all the people who are pro-vaccine so I would like to allocate my time hearing from those who have actually thought about this and have substantial things to say. Good day.

> since vaccinated people can still get sick.

Then may be you should complain to people who gave you the vaccine, instead of pushing others to take this thing that apparently does not work as advertised.

>Ultimately when enough of the population is vaccinated, you’d expect the majority of hospitalizations to be vaccinated.

So apparently, vaccines can never fail, by definition!

> Re: the strawman argument, I already clearly stated where you misrepresented my argument

And i disagreed that making a comparison from one thing to another is a misrepresentation provided that one accurately describes the initial thing. As far as i can tell you haven't disputed my counterargument as to what the words misrepresent and comparison mean, as of yet. My evidence is the dictionary. > Re: "existence of some unnamed person somewhere believing a proposition having any bearing on the truth of the proposition" > You seem to be making things up now, if you make absurd claims, back it up with evidence. Where did I say such a thing?

I'm responding to "From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety"

To be fair, you did qualify that with weasel words about medical professional & well informed people. They were unnamed though. I should have used the same qualification. I don't think changing it to be "existence of some unnamed medical professional or person somebody deems to be well informed somewhere believing a proposition having any bearing on the truth of the proposition" has any material impact on my argument.

> The fact that it is an exceptional use authorization is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that it is approved and has been in use for over a year. That reduces the uncertainty about long-term effects.

Look at those goal posts shift.

> I brought this up is not to virtue-signal as you seem to have misrepresented but rather to inform you about the sources I'm getting my information from.

Yes, indeed, that's why i compared it to the racism context, since that's how that argument is used in that context too - as an appeal to authority that cannot be assailed because the authority is hidden (or potentially made up) making it very difficult to criticize the authority. Maybe its a bit of an obnoxious comparison since its borderline ad hominem to compare to that subject matter. Nonetheless all the reasons that's an unreasonable argument in that context apply here too.

> In any case, I have not heard anything convincing from your end as to why the people who are holding off of getting the vaccine because of the lack of long term safety data are wrong.

Indeed, the primary point i was arguing is that your position is irrational and inconsistent. This has nothing to do with vaccines. I can't actually tell if you are pro or against it, since you seem to be pro adenovirus vaccines, and most covid vaccines other than moderna or pfizer are adenovirus based. Regardless, you'd be wrong if you were pro, you'd be wrong if you were anti, you'd be wrong if we were talking about what type of shoes to wear. The reasons you're wrong for the most part have nothing to do with the subject at hand.