Athias

There is nothing irrational about it. Whether it matters is an entirely different question, and one which is not the subject of this thread.

I still fail to understand what you take issue with. The point of this question is twofold; to theists who use God as the solution to this

(usually prepositionalists)

I’m demonstrating that it’s not a solution at all.

And more importantly, when theists claim God is all knowing, I’m demonstrating how that’s not even possible because there is no way for God to know that there isn’t some higher God above him who has concealed himself.

If you don’t think the topic is worthy of discussion you don’t have to partake in it.

Or, if you think there is a flaw in my logic you are welcome to point it out.

That has nothing to do with whether solipsism is a problem. The fact that there is no way for us to know for certain whether the reality we experience including the people we love and care about are actually real is considered a problem to most. The fact that it is unfalsifiable or that it is brought up typically by a certain group of people is irrelevant to that.

You derive pleasure from others platonically based on experience or evolutionarily driven - you do not derive "pleasure that informs possessiveness" with nonromantic individuals, pretty simple that.

Furthermore, yes it is non-human animals, similar to a vast majority of research done - it's not like humans are the only species with developed frontal lobes and consciousness - furthermore - the concept is what is taken, not specifics - further backing this on. 

No... it does not mean that they are "equivalent" it means that they are both controversial in regards to the research - as that is the only part that your argument is highlighting, we call this cherry-picking.Its also interesting that this quote is not from the article itself, but separate - you are, ironically, taking a statement completely out of context and trying to insert a meaning as to what the conjunction means - the mere fact that OR is there does not mean that they are equivalent, they can also mean that they are being COMPARED.

First off, can you clarify? Are you sure you’re using the right word?'

b: an artificial arrangement or development

Let’s imagine the following

Second, if it’s not a problem then why in philosophy is it referred to as “the problem of hard solipsism”?

You primarily ignored my response to you

and [instead] responded to a response to another person - which I was responding to a different statement

It is the fuel of that possessiveness which matters, not the possessiveness itself - though typically romantic relationships are more often possessive when compared to platonic relationships - as I elaborated in one of my responses which you hardly responded to yourself:

" You don't typically find pleasure from the other's personality, it is a type of love that is formed through connections made by experience"

The difference is the possessiveness by experience or personality - romantic love is when possessiveness is borne from the pleasure of another's personality.

Next.... I find myself disappointed in your reasoning - the fact that the author is saying such difference is controversial does not mean that they are not separate - that is a non-sequitur

"Although sexual desire and romantic love are often experienced in concert, they are fundamentally distinct subjective experiences with distinct neurobiological substrates."

Because most research on the neurobiological substrates of sexual desire and affectional [pair] bonding has been conducted with animals, a key priority for future research is systematic investigation of the coordinated biological, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes that shape experiences of love and desire in humans.

It seems to me that a necessary precondition of thought is time within which to have that thought. It can't be the other way around.

You haven't substantiated that time is outside of your thoughts.

Absurd?

All you did was reiterate the point of this thread, that God himself cannot solve this problem.

Theists often appeal to God as the solution to this, I’m just demonstrating why that is flawed.

Because I'm having the thought in time. Having a thought necessitates the time within which to have it. Which means that there is an external world where time exists; at least the now moment within which I'm having this thought exists. 

What are FREE and NOT FREE.

Romantic - you are having sex.

Platonic - you are not having sex. 

The difference is that in one instance, their is sexual desire fueling possessiveness, and the other simply desire for them - as a person in all - while the latter can also be attuned to the former, that is the basic answer. 

You distinguished romantic relationships from platonic relationships by sex, but romantic relationships can happen even without sexual attraction, so clearly that isn't true. In other words, no, I don't quite agree with you.

In other words, you can have sexual attraction towards someone you love platonically, hell, you can have sex with that person and still only be in a platonic love, so clearly the vague act of having sex never separates a romantic relationship from a platonic relationship - if we were talking about the state of correlation regarding most romantic relationships, then yes, absolutely, but I was responding to what you said differentiated romantic and platonic relationships.

Although it may be easy to imagine sexual desire without romantic love, the notion of "pure," "PLATONIC," OR "non-sexual" romantic love is somewhat more controversial.

I don't see how people can think that the government will screw it up, but not private industries... the guys who only care about profit - in other words - the guys who have much more motive to screw people over

"Who cares" people will dismiss, just industries being industries, but the government gets a lot more flock - an entire cabinet can be gone by next election cycle.

Why does anyone oppose free healthcare? It literally saves the lives of more people. 

I mean, in my opinion, Universal healthcare is good, and it is probably expected that some Trump supporters would support it.

However, why do some people oppose this idea?

While definitions of God vary, some of its central tenants are that he is all knowing, all powerful and creator of everything. Let’s imagine the following:

God creates a bubble of reality unconnected to anything else. Within this bubble he creates a being that is all powerful and all knowing with regards to anything inside of this bubble, so this being is free to create anything he wants; Universes, multiverses, heaven, hell, etc. We’ll call this being God 2. But God decides that he will conceal all knowledge of himself or anything outside of this bubble from God 2. As far as God 2 knows, this bubble is reality, nothing outside of it exists.

Question: if you pray, how does the God you pray to know that he is not God 2?

If I can know for certainty that I think, then that necessarily means that I am thinking in time, since I am having the thought now. The act of thinking necessarily implies an external world where time exists within which I may have a thought.

A platonic relationship is different from a romantic relationship in several regards. The most easily explained would be to degree - for example - you can have physical contact with just friends, in a lot of cultures hugging, kissing, and even cuddles is considered friendship - it has to do with how much of a connection you have to a person while also having dominating feelings towards them - or feelings that have you do things without you necessarily meaning to do so. To a degree of feeling physically uncomfortable by not spending time with them. It also has to do with companionship in general - being dependent on another for steadiness and other emotional needs. Finally its a possessive emotion, even in forms of polygamy. 

Familiar love is different from romantic, but not very different from strong platonic love - familiar love is essentially the strongest form of platonic love. You don't typically find pleasure from the other's personality, it is a type of love that is formed through connections made by experience - so yes - it is possible that a familiar love can become romantic - it does not usually happen because those feelings aren't usually deriving pleasure from another personality or company, if you do start to feel happiness spending time with them it is usually the difference of inherently and externally feeling that pleasure (and no I don't mean anything regarding sexual urges) - familiar and platonic relationships are fundamentally built on social and biological connections, mothers have an internal feeling (typically) towards their offspring. Friends find things in common that they can share, partners have an internal non-biological feeling for each other- usually from the subconscious - though if you consider the the effects of the brain biological and neurological that can technically be the same thing - to put it better - mothers feel an evolutionary connection to their offspring - this is not the case with romantic partners. 

I'll get to the rest later, I just wanted to bring this to your attention, did you notice that one word there? In the middle of the sentence? "May"? Because I did - I ALREADY agreed that romantic and sexual love does typically align, but they do not ALWAYS align. You are seemingly deliberately misreading texts now so they agree with your conclusions, can you please take your time to analyze things? Because its apparent you don't - if this is representative of the level of thought you put into these replies I'm starting to think I should just leave you to your own head - because you clearly aren't taking this seriously enough to comprehend words correctly.

Again - SEXUAL AROUSAL can be, and often IS a part of the equation, but it is simply untrue that it ALWAYS IS. Now - this IS in contrast to the  popular triangular theory of love perspective; however, I, and several other researchers, would contest the inherent connection of sexual attraction to romance - it is simple not always the case. While this is not the full study, it does provide some insight into the issue I think would be useful here:

It's about who we feel affection for and may include who we seek out to build a life or family with.

Do not mistake my insistence for ignorance, I have done the research here. 

Perhaps you are confused by insistence on this matter, or find me hypocritical, but do understand that there are impacts to sex, ones which do not exist for most forms of work - social, physical, mental - while there are of regular jobs they are so too a much lesser extent. Its the same reason why some jobs are required to provide more legal protection or physical protection for workers than others - in this case - these people are getting more physical protection. You did go on about analogies and how there are exceptions to my rule - there are exceptions to every rule - the fact that you can point out a couple does not change the fact that it applies to the vast majority of the populations - and yes - by the fact that you have attempted to come to very specific conclusions with these analogies and did not take into consideration the actual portions which dictated the things you are discussing, your analogy still fails. You are trying to compare a sex-worker refusing sex to a worker refusing labor because of characteristics, but fail to realize that consenting to make someone a burger is different from agreeing to have sex due to the affects of such labour on individuals. 

I've tried to be much more level-headed here - I want to stop leading discussions into a fire, so here's my attempt - I apologize for any previous slights.

Here is you - to summarize - trying to justify a broad brush by quoting outliers; furthermore - specifically - the case of escort - the DIFFERENCE is the case of the contract - which is that they have the ability to refuse anyone BECAUSE the service is talking about the agency of the women, such a thing IS NOT the case of workers - as the difference is one's autonomy and one's doing dishes, or making cakes, or selling clothes. Their is an ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

you still need to put in labor of some sort in exchange for resources - which is, practically speaking, what work is. 

The same is the case of ROMANTIC and SEXUAL relations - I have ENTIRELY NON_SEXUAL romantic relationships. You are entirely conflating the two - but romantic feelings are feelings of pleasure from experiencing another mental company - the same is not necessarily the same for SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPs, while the two CAN intertwine, they are not ALWAYS so - see: Asexual people who have romantic relationships. 

While you are right that they do not need to be be 1 to 1 comparisons - the THING you are comparing MUST have the same consequences for both sides of the analogy.

Finally, the entire "majority versus all" is negligible, as the amount of people NOT in this specific majority ARE EXTREMELY SMALL.

Not to mention that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, as a MAJORITY of wealthy and RICH people still do have to work in order to maintain their wealth and therefore their lives.

Also... people who steal ARE working, illegally?

You've also just agreed to some points - like denying someone on the aspect of race is racist.

Finally - no - it doesn't mean FIRING people - it means that whenever looking for new workers you don't have a BIAS against certain people.

Furthermore, the case is because they were discriminated, but the difficulty of an action does not mean that it should not be done. Which matters more, the ease of doing something for companies, or the case of people unable to find work because they are being DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, for something they have NO CONTROL over. 

Just to be clear, there are many more factors involved in selecting a partner than just comparing 23-and-me percentages.

https://www.popsci.com/story/science/dna-tests-myth-ancestry-race/

You are saying: "income" and "dating" are the same

when they are very clearly - not the same. Your analogy does not work

Your only "defence" is that there is one section in where sex and income come into correlation; however, SEX and DATING are not necessarily the same thing. 

Dating: "to regularly spend time with someone you have a romantic relationship with:

As for your question: If your decision regarding a baby-sitter is RACE, then that person is being racist.

To actually regulate would require a massive ramp up of babysitting websites- it would have to include professionalizing recruiting for, and dispensing of babysitters - it would probably have to do-away with citizens individually choosing baby-sitters.

The best idea I have is for some kind of group for people to order the service of another, without any picture or such. Kinda like how ordering food is, you don't get to choose who does and who doesn't order your food - but that is based on the promise that each driver who comes is trained to bring you your food, so would the baby-sitters all have to be trained to take care of children.

In order to eat in this society - yes - you do need to work, you could argue that one could be a child or an elderly person, perhaps as someone who is incapable of working in general.

Those are the obvious outliers,

you still need to put in labor of some sort in exchange for resources - which is, practically speaking, what work is. 

My point is, for a majority of people, working is necessary to live.

Perhaps you could argue that what YOUR talking about is only defined as far as interaction; however, your discussion regarding the laws of work would clearly use the LEGAL definition of work which is: "the performance of services for which remuneration is payable." - you could argue about the interpretation of performance of service, and what payable is, but these are ESSENTIAL bits to the meaning BEHIND work.

Just pointing out you debating style......

Which is obviously reflective of your intellect....

But  might or might not be reflective of your character.

And I find that people shut you down, either, when they run out of logical argument, or if their argument is based upon illogic in the first place.

And I find that people shut [me] down, either, when [I] run out of logical argument, or if [my] argument is based upon illogic in the first place.

Mr A is probably Trypanophobic.

So as long as they can slip a strawman or non-sequitur into there argument, it will temporarily  assuage their fears.

Though, good debating isn't necessarily about being honest..........It's about effectivity.

Covid, blood clot, cancer, heart failure.....You gotta go some time.

Choices, choices.

it looks like i'm not the only one who had trouble communicating with athias, here is something he said that makes it look like was saying vaccines are pointless... 

"One's injecting oneself with a vaccine provides little more than a placebo effect, except unlike a placebo, vaccines can harm." 

but i think if you look at the context, he was saying that, only if the person's immune system didn't work properly. he seemed to make it sound like we might as well assume we are all immuno compromised. 

I don't feel particularly invulnerable. I just know the risks of the pharmacological effects of these vaccines, not to mention that I believe in the resiliency of the immune system. One of the first books I read as a child was my mother's book on Pathology. So as a kid I developed the habit of practicing good hygiene especially with the knowledge of how infections transmit. I'm not stating one shouldn't take the vaccine if that is what one has decided, though personally I would not. But to claim one is a "stupid GOP'er" for neither wanting nor intending to take the vaccine is another thing.

Straw man. I never said they were the same.

Not a non sequitur. Throughout this thread you have been saying that covid vaccines were futile and getting them wouldn't help old people or immunocompromised people because they don't affect spread, so there was no point in most people getting the covid vax.

Now you want to make it sound as if

the only thing you claimed is "the vaccine prevents neither the contraction or spread of the virus"  which is fine because you haven't offered any proof that's true anyway. 

So the CDC is only reporting data on people they've actually studied.

Funny

that you think

the CDC is such a shoddy source

that it's the one you chose when I asked you for a source.

I said  vaccines help the body recognize spike proteins and create antibodies. 

You said a more practical response instead of vaccination is "to just simply practice good hygiene (and nutrition.)" And I said washing your hands doesn't help create antibodies. So no you did not say that washing hands creates antibodies, but you're saying washing hands is "a more practical response" which is not true for many people.

But yes I did engage you, and you did not even answer the first question I asked you when you said most people in "hotbeds" have already had covid. I asked you how you came to that conclusion and you chose to ignore that question. 

If we are to take the epidemicity of this virus seriously, then that would suggest that most who live in the "hotbeds" have been exposed.

No, the CDC does not support your argument. I asked if you can show me the data you have where it says vaccines have no impact on contracting or spreading the virus.

The vaccine prevents neither the contraction nor the spread of the virus. 

You did not explicitly use the word "useless."

Your CDC source says the vaccine reduces the risk of viral spread,  so explain how that proves your point that the vaccine does not prevent spread given the reduced risk.

Why would the risk be reduced if there is no impact on transmission. 

The CDC also said one dose of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 80 percent effective at preventing infection,

Also, if people are fighting off covid because they have antibodies already introduced from the vaccine

that is not something that can  be accomplished just by washing your hands.

You are free to keep preaching your anti vax fear mongering,

but expecting the CDC to support that makes no sense

At this time they are still researching the effectiveness but have not determined there is no impact

so you are just drawing that conclusion that vaccines are useless while simultaneously saying the trials are not substantive or long enough.

If they are not long enough then how can you be certain they are useless. 

A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-world conditions among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers.

you should just admit that your position is incoherent.

"my immune system might not work properly therefore i'm not getting the vaccine" is one of the self evidently stupidest things i've heard lately. 

Why didn't you highlight the part of your source that says "A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others." Is it because it goes against your claim that vaccines have NO IMPACT on transmission?  Very dishonest. 

The same source also says "While some prevention measures will continue to be necessary regardless of vaccination status, fully vaccinated persons may be able to engage in some activities with low or reduced risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19." 

Nothing you put in bold from the second source proves in any way that vaccines have no effect on transmission. It says vaccinated people still have to follow social distancing protocols, wear masks, and follow other guidelines which is obviously to slow the spread among UNVACCINATED PEOPLE. But even if you could transmit covid with the vaccine doesn't mean vaccines have NO IMPACT. 

The vaccine prevents neither the contraction nor the spread of the virus. 

Can you show me the data you have where it says vaccines have no impact on contracting or spreading the virus?

Key Points

• COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States are effective against COVID-19, including severe disease.
  
• Preliminary evidence suggests that the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines may provide some protection against a variety of strains, including B.1.1.7 (originally identified in the United Kingdom). However, reduced antibody neutralization and efficacy have been observed for the B.1.351 strain (originally identified in South Africa).
  
• A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing.
  
• Modeling studies suggest that preventive measures such as mask use and social distancing will continue to be important during vaccine implementation. However, there are ways to take a balanced approach by allowing vaccinated people to resume some lower-risk activities.
  
• Taking steps towards relaxing certain measures for vaccinated persons may help improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake.
  
• The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Vaccinated people could potentially still get COVID-19 and spread it to others. However, the benefits of relaxing some measures such as quarantine requirements and reducing social isolation may outweigh the residual risk of fully vaccinated people becoming ill with COVID-19 or transmitting the virus to others.
  
• Guidance for fully vaccinated people is available and will continue to be updated as more information becomes available.
  

Fully vaccinated people can:

• Visit with other fully vaccinated people indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
  
• Visit with unvaccinated people from a single household who are at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing
  
• Refrain from quarantine and testing following a known exposure if asymptomatic
  

For now, fully vaccinated people should continue to:

• Take precautions in public like wearing a well-fitted mask and physical distancing
  
• Wear masks, practice physical distancing, and adhere to other prevention measures when visiting with unvaccinated people who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease or who have an unvaccinated household member who is at increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease
  
• Wear masks, maintain physical distance, and practice other prevention measures when visiting with unvaccinated people from multiple households
  
• Avoid medium- and large-sized in-person gatherings
  
• Get tested if experiencing COVID-19 symptoms
  
• Follow guidance issued by individual employers
  
• Follow CDC and health department travel requirements and recommendations
  

Even if you could compare dating and employment

(you can't...)

you need one to live - you need the other to thrive

a fundamental difference there

There is a difference between sex and race in obvious ways - you even dropped this point in your response

the two involve interaction - if that were the case then conversation is analogous to work, and a hand shake is analogous to work

the fact that two people are interacting does not logically lead to the conclusion that the two things are therefore comparable

Furthermore - that is.... racist - simple as that. Now - the actual ability to make a "protocol" out of a thing that is intrinsically hard to regulate is a non-starter in the first place

I made a generalization regarding increased life expectancy in recent times, relative to medical intervention, including vaccines.

You seemed to avoid this with the obscure reply: "How have you determined death".....Perhaps you could clarify.

There used to be a time when we could trust each other to make our own personal risk assessments. Today, it's just an exercise in obedience.

At least the government isn't mandating inoculations.

We do not vaccinate to prevent a minor case of the sniffles. 

The reason we have vaccines is to prevent severe disease and death caused by infections. The polio vaccine prevents paralysis. The measles vaccine prevents pneumonia, brain infections and blindness.

 Annual influenza vaccines prevent pneumonia, sepsis and heart attacks.

All seven COVID-19 vaccines that have completed large efficacy trials — Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, AstraZeneca, Sputnik V and Sinovac — appear to be 100% effective for serious complications. Not one vaccinated person has gotten sick enough to require hospitalization. Not a single vaccinated person has died of COVID-19.

Its a false equivalence in the sense that you implied such a connection - for example: "Why would one's practice of discrimination as it concerned sex be any less reprehensible than one who employs?"

Thats you comparing sex and race (also not the same) in regards to work-place discrimination - and applying it to dating - I bring it up because they can't be compared - they don't correlate. So no - my example doesn't exactly correlate with your argument; however, it does refute the comparison you attempt to make

Once you give up your WEAPONS, you are at the MERCY of the side with an ARMY.

THE QUESTION IS, "WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DO GRANDCHILDREN HAVE FOR THE CRIMES (think "deathcamps" & "slaughter") OF THEIR GRANDPARENTS?"

(A) 0%

(B) 5%

(C) 6%

Mostly because unlike gender, race is only tangible in the aspect of culture, furthermore - unlike gender - there is no psychological study demonstrating that everybody has a racialsexuality or racialromanticism - perhaps you have a type, but to not want to date someone specifically because of their race is not equivalent to not wanting to date someone because of their gender- it is a fundamental false equivalence you've made

You're clever enough to understand the principle of vaccination.

So irrespective of methodology the body produces antibodies.

The obvious difference between vaccination over nature in respect of Covid-19, is that the latter is potentially far riskier.

And I certainly agree that lifestyle influences health

"And death is inevitable"....Yep an inevitable side effect/consequence of life.

And vaccination is a factor of medical intervention in general......Which all in all, has led to a significantly increased human life expectancy.....There's no denying the fact.

Also, does it seem strange that they recommend the "vaccine", even for people who have ALREADY HAD A CONFIRMED INFECTION OF COVID19?

Why would you need a jab to stimulate the production of antibodies for a disease you've already recovered from?

Furthermore, perhaps these will be interesting to you: 

First, a list of the clinical trials and the rigor of what is allowed as a trial:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427

And some studies with the efficacy demonstrating some things;

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

"TRIAL OBJECTIVES, PARTICIPANTS AND OVERSIGHT

We assessed the safety and efficacy of two 30-μg doses of BNT162b2, administered intramuscularly 21 days apart, as compared with placebo. Adults 16 years of age or older who were healthy or had stable chronic medical conditions, including but not limited to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus, or hepatitis C virus infection, were eligible for participation in the trial. Key exclusion criteria included a medical history of Covid-19, treatment with immunosuppressive therapy, or diagnosis with an immunocompromising condition.

Pfizer was responsible for the design and conduct of the trial, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript. BioNTech was the sponsor of the trial, manufactured the BNT162b2 clinical trial material, and contributed to the interpretation of the data and the writing of the manuscript. All the trial data were available to all the authors, who vouch for its accuracy and completeness and for adherence of the trial to the protocol, which is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. An independent data and safety monitoring board reviewed efficacy and unblinded safety data."

"EFFICACY

The first primary end point was the efficacy of BNT162b2 against confirmed Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose in participants who had been without serologic or virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 7 days after the second dose; the second primary end point was efficacy in participants with and participants without evidence of prior infection. Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplification–based testing, either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility (using a protocol-defined acceptable test).

Major secondary end points included the efficacy of BNT162b2 against severe Covid-19. Severe Covid-19 is defined by the FDA as confirmed Covid-19 with one of the following additional features: clinical signs at rest that are indicative of severe systemic illness; respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death. Details are provided in the protocol.

An explanation of the various denominator values for use in assessing the results of the trial is provided in Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org. In brief, the safety population includes persons 16 years of age or older; a total of 43,448 participants constituted the population of enrolled persons injected with the vaccine or placebo. The main safety subset as defined by the FDA, with a median of 2 months of follow-up as of October 9, 2020, consisted of 37,706 persons, and the reactogenicity subset consisted of 8183 persons. The modified intention-to-treat (mITT) efficacy population includes all age groups 12 years of age or older (43,355 persons; 100 participants who were 12 to 15 years of age contributed to person-time years but included no cases). The number of persons who could be evaluated for efficacy 7 days after the second dose and who had no evidence of prior infection was 36,523, and the number of persons who could be evaluated 7 days after the second dose with or without evidence of prior infection was 40,137."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389

"METHODS

This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2."

"RESULTS

The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups."

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna-vaccine-basics.html

Well, at least it's nice to see the CDC admits nothing is foolproof.

Specifically this bit - 

"mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person’s DNA."

I don't know, see  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna-vaccine-basics.html

mRNA vaccines have strands of genetic material called mRNA inside a special coating. That coating protects the mRNA from enzymes in the body that would otherwise break it down. It also helps the mRNA enter the dendritic cells and macrophages in the lymph node near the vaccination site.

mRNA can most easily be described as instructions for the cell on how to make a piece of the “spike protein” that is unique to SARS-CoV-2. Since only part of the protein is made, it does not do any harm to the person vaccinated but it is antigenic.

After the piece of the spike protein is made, the cell breaks down the mRNA strand and disposes of them using enzymes in the cell. It is important to note that the mRNA strand never enters the cell’s nucleus or affects genetic material. This information helps counter misinformation about how mRNA vaccines alter or modify someone’s genetic makeup.

Once displayed on the cell surface, the protein or antigen causes the immune system to begin producing antibodies and activating T-cells to fight off what it thinks is an infection. These antibodies are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which means the immune system is primed to protect against future infection.

This is not true for the Covid-19 vaccine, mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases. To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies.

All helps.

But if someone offered you antibiotics for a tooth abscess or medication for hypertension etc etc....Would you refuse?

Why the downer on a vaccination to protect against a possibly fatal viral infection.

And death is the side effect of life.

If you weren't alive you wouldn't die....Simple.

And life is what we strive to prolong, and death is what we strive to put off.

And statistics prove that medical intervention increases life expectancy.

your point is that a person's immune system might not work properly to stop the disease. but the thing is, unless a person has reason to think otherwise, they should act as if their immune system works properly. that's the reasonable thing to do.

and does a vaccine save lives? yes, they do. the very large majority of folks who take a vaccine won't die which can't be said if they dont take the vaccines.