How long will this last?

[NorthwoodHusker]

So in your mind “libs” don’t believe in government, taxes, cops, etc? If you feel so strongly about all those things you might be a, gasp, “lib”. As for handing huge corporations money, I believe the “libs” wanted assurances that they would use that money to keep jobs, pay people, etc. As they fear those owners would just pocket the money without those in place, which they will.

Not at all, but under supporting one facet of our economy, taking a moral stance in doing so, can easily cause no cops, no monies, no jobs.
Like you or me, businesses have bills to pay. They dont pay them, theyre out of business.
The only groups that have huge sustainability that comes to mind,being able to ride this out, are certain universities, where they're sitting in many billions, with little overhead.

 

[jflores]

Not at all, but under supporting one facet of our economy, taking a moral stance in doing so, can easily cause no cops, no monies, no jobs.
Like you or me, businesses have bills to pay. They dont pay them, theyre out of business.
The only groups that have huge sustainability that comes to mind,being able to ride this out, are certain universities, where they're sitting in many billions, with little overhead.

The argument by classical conservatives being used to flame Trump presently is that companies have responsibilty, as do people, to have a war chest of money to ride out rough times.

Its not a conservative position to say that companies need bail outs because they have huge operating costs and people don't because it makes people lazy.

Its a conservative position to say that companies and people should both save for a rainy day, because no one should get bail outs.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

The argument by classical conservatives being used to flame Trump presently is that companies have responsibilty, as do people, to have a war chest of money to ride out rough times.

Its not a conservative position to say that companies need bail outs because they have huge operating costs and people don't because it makes people lazy.

Its a conservative position to say that companies and people should both save for a rainy day, because no one should get bail outs.

I like the last one, living day to day, then wonder why heart disease is so prevalent?
But, at our worst, sometimes as individuals,we fail.
In those times, like in esrlier times, the community comes out to help to make sure the new neighbors house is finished on time before winter.
Everyone prefers to do it themselves,but thats not realistic every time.

 

[jflores]

I like the last one, living day to day, then wonder why heart disease is so prevalent?
But, at our worst, sometimes as individuals,we fail.
In those times, like in esrlier times, the community comes out to help to make sure the new neighbors house is finished on time before winter.
Everyone prefers to do it themselves,but thats not realistic every time.

That's a very Keynes and FDR point of view. Which I'm not saying my feeling is different than yours, but its also not a conservative viewpoint.

 

[headcard]

That's a very Keynes and FDR point of view. Which I'm not saying my feeling is different than yours, but its also not a conservative viewpoint.

Careful those are “libs” your talking about.

 

[jflores]

Careful those are “libs” your talking about.

Yah, so I've read a bunch of the Austrian school. I get that they think they are the ultimate diviner's of man's true nature. I think they are full of baloney on that point.

If you can have someone go to the mat for someone like Trump in defense of markets and/or conservatism, and then turnaround and be sympathetic to Keynes and FDR's argument....the whole Austrian construct falls apart.

People have spent untold billions of hours arguing over the one true way when in reality there's a little bit of left and right in all of us. There's just enough crisis in people's lives though, either through robber barons or global depression or public health, that the slow leftward slide is a thing because its enough to nudge the conservatives leftward for "just this thing".

Doesn't really have a heck of a lot to do with media, conspiracies, or whatever other bogeyman you want to think up that would have to persist over centuries.

 

[jflores]

There are some poli sci folks out there that write about the disappearance of the swing voter.

In an unacademic swag, I think they are nuts.

People are not ideologically entrenched if they voted for Dubya, turn around next election and vote for Obama, and then turn around again and vote for Trump.

People on the edges are settled (and still occassionally abandon ship), but that middle is moving all over the place, IMO.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

That's a very Keynes and FDR point of view. Which I'm not saying my feeling is different than yours, but its also not a conservative viewpoint.

Keynes can suck it. The idea of such structuring never applies, especially in times like this.
True conservatism has been ratcheted by the media and left further right into the mindset of their followers.
Much like this, as people change, so do the things they believe that define them.
At the time, JFK, who used to always be quoted by these same thoughtowners, was considered very liberal in his day.
But, he said the 180% opposite of Obamas beliefs, when he said ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, flies directly in the face of Obamas position.
So, to say whats conservative, if you let those who arent conservative define them for you, its why they don't understand Trump, and current day consevative beliefs and ideals.

What you said, and no disrespect, is was 60s hippies were saying back in the day.
Its the lefts definitions, lack of understanding, their leaders creating something that is long gone, and is why people arent getting on without so many wrong and misunderstood preconceptions that have long disappeared.

 

[jflores]

Keynes can suck it. The idea of such structuring never applies, especially in times like this.
True conservatism has been ratcheted by the media and left further right into the mindset of their followers.
Much like this, as people change, so do the things they believe that define them.
At the time, JFK, who used to always be quoted by these same thoughtowners, was considered very liberal in his day.
But, he said the 180% opposite of Obamas beliefs, when he said ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, flies directly in the face of Obamas position.
So, to say whats conservative, if you let those who arent conservative define them for you, its why they don't understand Trump, and current day consevative beliefs and ideals.

What you said, and no disrespect, is was 60s hippies were saying back in the day.
Its the lefts definitions, lack of understanding, their leaders creating something that is long gone, and is why people arent getting on without so many wrong and misunderstood preconceptions that have long disappeared.

I haven't endorsed Obama. Nor have I endorsed a welfare state.

But Trump is printing money at an unfathomable rate. His bailout was more than double the last one. And there's been basically zero discussion of a market based solution.

There's not a whole lot to understand about Trump's new modern conservative economic approach when it's something we've all seen in the past on both sides of the aisle.

Which is fine. I think he has to do this. But I'm not going to hold him up as the ultimate expression of market economics either.

 

[jflores]

I haven't endorsed Obama. Nor have I endorsed a welfare state.

But Trump is printing money at an unfathomable rate. His bailout was more than double the last one. And there's been basically zero discussion of a market based solution.

There's not a whole lot to understand about Trump's new modern conservative economic approach when it's something we've all seen in the past on both sides of the aisle.

Which is fine. I think he has to do this. But I'm not going to hold him up as the ultimate expression of market economics either.

Perhaps the biggest thing that has made traditional conservative afraid is that there wasn't even any push back on giving Trump a seat in the board room of every company in America.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

I haven't endorsed Obama. Nor have I endorsed a welfare state.

But Trump is printing money at an unfathomable rate. His bailout was more than double the last one. And there's been basically zero discussion of a market based solution.

There's not a whole lot to understand about Trump's new modern conservative economic approach when it's something we've all seen in the past on both sides of the aisle.

Which is fine. I think he has to do this. But I'm not going to hold him up as the ultimate expression of market economics either.

Now, the money thing.
I believe his approach is a business one. While most believe government shouldnt run/own businesses, could government be run like a business, where debt and investing are commonplace?

I'm not sure, but I believe thats Trumps approach, but, he needs to know, his foremen, the left and the right, arent spending big for the project so to speak, but to keep being foremen, and yes, there's a huge difference.

 

[jflores]

Keynes can suck it. The idea of such structuring never applies, especially in times like this.
True conservatism has been ratcheted by the media and left further right into the mindset of their followers.
Much like this, as people change, so do the things they believe that define them.
At the time, JFK, who used to always be quoted by these same thoughtowners, was considered very liberal in his day.
But, he said the 180% opposite of Obamas beliefs, when he said ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, flies directly in the face of Obamas position.
So, to say whats conservative, if you let those who arent conservative define them for you, its why they don't understand Trump, and current day consevative beliefs and ideals.

What you said, and no disrespect, is was 60s hippies were saying back in the day.
Its the lefts definitions, lack of understanding, their leaders creating something that is long gone, and is why people arent getting on without so many wrong and misunderstood preconceptions that have long disappeared.

With no disrespect to yourself, the 60s hippies may have had a point.

When we stop observing the GOP moving economically leftward is when they will cease to have a valid point.

Reagan was "the govt is the problem" and we had fixated on the right politically to minimize the USG particularly in areas like social entitlements because they will drag the country under. Although we were unsuccessful in doing so it became a litmus test.

With Trump there is no such pretense. He ran explicitly on NOT touching entitlements and sort of handwaved away their mid term bankrupting power.

Several points in The Donald's favor...the first election I had real experience was Dubyas first one. I could tell then that old guard Republican was on its last legs or dead. While the Donald is not exactly the package I had imagine we needed someone who could make a real run at the blue collar and union vote. If not grabs some minority votes along the way. Trump's not doing much on the minority front but blue collar he did get. So kudos to him for making somewhat of a big tent in the GOP.

Also kudos to him for at least addressing the China issue and relooking at how we interact with that society. But his is again a large diversion from conservative market thought. His stance of protectionist policies is more old line union Democrat than conservative. Again tied to the union vote.

Also kudos to him for recognizing that while Obamacare was not the answer...it would need something to replace it. Old line conservative again balked as this was yet again a continuation of leftward govt policy influence.

This bailout and the quantitative easing...which you somehow have called looking at the country like a business and investing was shamed by conservative thinkers when Obama did it and also when Bush did it. It may be necessary and I believe it is...but it's again a leftward retreat economically for conservative circles. And there's a promise of more to come.


As I said before there is no secret about where Trump stands and running an economically minimal govt is not one of his flag posts. Running close to a trillion dollars deficit in good times is not usually done. He has endorsed $100 trillion in entitlements, he has endorsed USG activity in private health care (just not Obamacare) and he has quite heartily endorsed the Fed and money printing as well as corporate and private bailouts.

We could call this the modern conservative whatever but its been known as old skool liberal thought for generations.

 

[CC_Lemming]

With no disrespect to yourself, the 60s hippies may have had a point.

When we stop observing the GOP moving economically leftward is when they will cease to have a valid point.

Reagan was "the govt is the problem" and we had fixated on the right politically to minimize the USG particularly in areas like social entitlements because they will drag the country under. Although we were unsuccessful in doing so it became a litmus test.

With Trump there is no such pretense. He ran explicitly on NOT touching entitlements and sort of handwaved away their mid term bankrupting power.

Several points in The Donald's favor...the first election I had real experience was Dubyas first one. I could tell then that old guard Republican was on its last legs or dead. While the Donald is not exactly the package I had imagine we needed someone who could make a real run at the blue collar and union vote. If not grabs some minority votes along the way. Trump's not doing much on the minority front but blue collar he did get. So kudos to him for making somewhat of a big tent in the GOP.

Also kudos to him for at least addressing the China issue and relooking at how we interact with that society. But his is again a large diversion from conservative market thought. His stance of protectionist policies is more old line union Democrat than conservative. Again tied to the union vote.

Also kudos to him for recognizing that while Obamacare was not the answer...it would need something to replace it. Old line conservative again balked as this was yet again a continuation of leftward govt policy influence.

This bailout and the quantitative easing...which you somehow have called looking at the country like a business and investing was shamed by conservative thinkers when Obama did it and also when Bush did it. It may be necessary and I believe it is...but it's again a leftward retreat economically for conservative circles. And there's a promise of more to come.


As I said before there is no secret about where Trump stands and running an economically minimal govt is not one of his flag posts. Running close to a trillion dollars deficit in good times is not usually done. He has endorsed $100 trillion in entitlements, he has endorsed USG activity in private health care (just not Obamacare) and he has quite heartily endorsed the Fed and money printing as well as corporate and private bailouts.

We could call this the modern conservative whatever but its been known as old skool liberal thought for generations.

Always a breath of fresh air to read your thoughts.

I don't understand where you're coming from with the Trump recognized "that while Obamacare was not the answer...it would need something to replace it." He quite explicitly ran on the promise of ending Obamacare, and he and the GOP had no real alternative to replace it with ("hey, let's do more to promote HSAs"), which is why they failed. I wouldn't give him credit for being forward-thinking there, but perhaps you had something in mind that I am failing to see.

I also don't think I share your thoughts above about the middle/independents being alive and well but "moving all around the place." The way information is presented and dissected by the vast majority of people in this country now that is becoming increasingly difficult, and it seems quite evident to me that most people vote on ideological grounds first and principles second if at all. I am not exempting myself from this generalization, as much as I despise it, certainly not when we get extreme/fringe elements as elected officials (I hope you would not disagree with this characterization of Trump, at least when it comes to social policies and through un-pc rhetoric meant to embolden his base and also inflame his opposition, e.g., "China virus").

Case in point, a recent study of evangelicals showed that something like 4/5 of them thought Trump was a morally upstanding individual and honest. There is no way they came to that judgment on the basis of the evidence we have of his honesty or his moral character. If they came to that judgment on the basis of his dealings in business, those who have spoke out against him, his numerous extra marital affairs, and his self-admission of sexual assault, I could only conclude that these people are seriously deluded. Therefore, I can only assume they arrived at that judgment because he stands for other ideological beliefs they hold and hold very strongly (e.g., appointing pro-life judges). Further evidence of this was provided in the form of another statistic, which showed that while Obama was president something like 3/4 of them felt that the country was "against them," but it completely switched now. I can try to find the study if necessary.

[Edit: it now occurs to me that using another quite fringe/fairly extreme element of society as evidence of my claim that the middle is shrinking is not all that convincing, but perhaps the point stands for whatever it's worth.]

I would certainly welcome a reverse course where moderates become desirable. But my experience has been that when one team tilts so far in the other direction, I find myself tilting just as far in the opposite direction.

 

[jflores]

Always a breath of fresh air to read your thoughts.

I don't understand where you're coming from with the Trump recognized "that while Obamacare was not the answer...it would need something to replace it." He quite explicitly ran on the promise of ending Obamacare, and he and the GOP had no real alternative to replace it with ("hey, let's do more to promote HSAs"), which is why they failed. I wouldn't give him credit for being forward-thinking there, but perhaps you had something in mind that I am failing to see.

I also don't think I share your thoughts above about the middle/independents being alive and well but "moving all around the place." The way information is presented and dissected by the vast majority of people in this country now that is becoming increasingly difficult, and it seems quite evident to me that most people vote on ideological grounds first and principles second if at all. I am not exempting myself from this generalization, as much as I despise it, certainly not when we get extreme/fringe elements as elected officials (I hope you would not disagree with this characterization of Trump, at least when it comes to social policies and through un-pc rhetoric meant to embolden his base and also inflame his opposition, e.g., "China virus").

Case in point, a recent study of evangelicals showed that something like 4/5 of them thought Trump was a morally upstanding individual and honest. There is no way they came to that judgment on the basis of the evidence we have of his honesty or his moral character. If they came to that judgment on the basis of his dealings in business, those who have spoke out against him, his numerous extra marital affairs, and his self-admission of sexual assault, I could only conclude that these people are seriously deluded. Therefore, I can only assume they arrived at that judgment because he stands for other ideological beliefs they hold and hold very strongly (e.g., appointing pro-life judges). Further evidence of this was provided in the form of another statistic, which showed that while Obama was president something like 3/4 of them felt that the country was "against them," but it completely switched now. I can try to find the study if necessary.

[Edit: it now occurs to me that using another quite fringe/fairly extreme element of society as evidence of my claim that the middle is shrinking is not all that convincing, but perhaps the point stands for whatever it's worth.]

I would certainly welcome a reverse course where moderates become desirable. But my experience has been that when one team tilts so far in the other direction, I find myself tilting just as far in the opposite direction.

When Obamacare was passed without GOP support...they immediately went on TV and made it their signature issue to take back the country and repeal it...FULL STOP. The stance was that USG interference in healthcare was not desired so there was no need for a replacement. I believe at the time, we had something like 18 months to another election, I remember telling my buddy they wouldn't be able to do it because 18 months is a long time to cash in on anger with an electorate.

I also remember Kasich, then governor of Ohio, broke ranks and publically said it would never work unless the GOP had a replacement plan. He was politically attacked by his colleagues.

Fast forward an election or two later, and the GOP was forced to deal with the reality that while the electorate didn't like Obamacare as a whole, that didn't mean the country was full of staunch conservatives who believed the USG shouldn't be involved at all. The GOP started shifting publically to repeal and replace.

When Trump came on the scene, he officially put the nail in the whole USG stays out of healthcare thing when he said he would like Day 1 repeal Obamacare and replace it with a beautiful plan of his own. Not minding his own personal timeline, the idea that the USG *should* provide a healthcare backstop (Trumpcare or GOPcare, whatever) had officially become a party plank.

They sort of got the worst of both worlds though. They got years of bad pub by appearing to not want to help people by bad mouthing Obamacare...and then when Trump came along and said he would replace it, he only half killed his enemy and didn't bother replacing it, which led people to believe they still had no real intention of helping people on the healthcare front.

 

[jflores]

Always a breath of fresh air to read your thoughts.

I don't understand where you're coming from with the Trump recognized "that while Obamacare was not the answer...it would need something to replace it." He quite explicitly ran on the promise of ending Obamacare, and he and the GOP had no real alternative to replace it with ("hey, let's do more to promote HSAs"), which is why they failed. I wouldn't give him credit for being forward-thinking there, but perhaps you had something in mind that I am failing to see.

I also don't think I share your thoughts above about the middle/independents being alive and well but "moving all around the place." The way information is presented and dissected by the vast majority of people in this country now that is becoming increasingly difficult, and it seems quite evident to me that most people vote on ideological grounds first and principles second if at all. I am not exempting myself from this generalization, as much as I despise it, certainly not when we get extreme/fringe elements as elected officials (I hope you would not disagree with this characterization of Trump, at least when it comes to social policies and through un-pc rhetoric meant to embolden his base and also inflame his opposition, e.g., "China virus").

Case in point, a recent study of evangelicals showed that something like 4/5 of them thought Trump was a morally upstanding individual and honest. There is no way they came to that judgment on the basis of the evidence we have of his honesty or his moral character. If they came to that judgment on the basis of his dealings in business, those who have spoke out against him, his numerous extra marital affairs, and his self-admission of sexual assault, I could only conclude that these people are seriously deluded. Therefore, I can only assume they arrived at that judgment because he stands for other ideological beliefs they hold and hold very strongly (e.g., appointing pro-life judges). Further evidence of this was provided in the form of another statistic, which showed that while Obama was president something like 3/4 of them felt that the country was "against them," but it completely switched now. I can try to find the study if necessary.

[Edit: it now occurs to me that using another quite fringe/fairly extreme element of society as evidence of my claim that the middle is shrinking is not all that convincing, but perhaps the point stands for whatever it's worth.]

I would certainly welcome a reverse course where moderates become desirable. But my experience has been that when one team tilts so far in the other direction, I find myself tilting just as far in the opposite direction.

I mean, I don't know what to think about the independents. I know this for a fact, the nation is not full of die hard liberals and die hard conservatives.

A nation full of silent majority conservatives don't vote for Obama, and then four years later vote for Trump. Ditto the reverse for a nation of liberals. That's just too much movement. Call them politically ignorant, call them independent, call them just chasing the best offer, they are not tied down to one political ideology. There's a large block of someone out there who marches to their own tune.

 

[CC_Lemming]

When Obamacare was passed without GOP support...they immediately went on TV and made it their signature issue to take back the country and repeal it...FULL STOP. The stance was that USG interference in healthcare was not desired so there was no need for a replacement. I believe at the time, we had something like 18 months to another election, I remember telling my buddy they wouldn't be able to do it because 18 months is a long time to cash in on anger with an electorate.

I also remember Kasich, then governor of Ohio, broke ranks and publically said it would never work unless the GOP had a replacement plan. He was politically attacked by his colleagues.

Fast forward an election or two later, and the GOP was forced to deal with the reality that while the electorate didn't like Obamacare as a whole, that didn't mean the country was full of staunch conservatives who believed the USG shouldn't be involved at all. The GOP started shifting publically to repeal and replace.

When Trump came on the scene, he officially put the nail in the whole USG stays out of healthcare thing when he said he would like Day 1 repeal Obamacare and replace it with a beautiful plan of his own. Not minding his own personal timeline, the idea that the USG *should* provide a healthcare backstop (Trumpcare or GOPcare, whatever) had officially become a party plank.

They sort of got the worst of both worlds though. They got years of bad pub by appearing to not want to help people by bad mouthing Obamacare...and then when Trump came along and said he would replace it, he only half killed his enemy and didn't bother replacing it, which led people to believe they still had no real intention of helping people on the healthcare front.

Fair enough. As I suspected, you certainly had a better memory and more in-depth understanding of the issue than I did. You're right, "repeal and replace" was the mantra. I never took his "beautiful plan" as a viable alternative to a USG option because my recollection was that what was proposed was the same hackneyed alternatives already available (HSA). You may or may not disagree with that, but in any case I see where you were coming from with that remark now.

 

[jflores]

Fair enough. As I suspected, you certainly had a better memory and more in-depth understanding of the issue than I did. You're right, "repeal and replace" was the mantra. I never took his "beautiful plan" as a viable alternative to a USG option because my recollection was that what was proposed was the same hackneyed alternatives already available (HSA). You may or may not disagree with that, but in any case I see where you were coming from with that remark now.

Just give it time. The GOP was in denial when Bilary was in the WH and they thought they could ignore healthcare issues at the federal level. They got lucky there. They had 15 years to prepare, the universe gave them a 2nd chance, and they still thought they could face Obama with no plan in hand. Not sure how many more chances the universe is going to give us, but I hope whoever is around in leadership stops giving the opposition all the chances to make US healthcare policy.

I'm pretty sure we're not going to enjoy the outcome of that.

 

[husker2612]

We COULD have enough vaccine to vaccinate the highest risk folks like healthcare workers and the elderly by September. It would take an extreme expediting of the FDA's approval process but it could be done. Hell, IMO we could have hundreds of thousands of doses of vaccine in a real time wild virus challenge in a matter of a few more weeks if the FDA would change their protocols. This is a dire situation and it requires dire measures. Personally I would be first in line to take one of the experimental vaccines they're testing now. The only risk is that you might not get the right dose to illicit an adequate immune response or you might have a reaction to an adjuvant. The testing our government requires on some things is just ludicrous.

I agree the extensive testing is crazy. Im not so sure I would be jumping in line to be a guinea pig with no type of testing to see what adverse affects it causes. The cure might be worse than the cause.

 

[jflores]

I agree the extensive testing is crazy. Im not so sure I would be jumping in line to be a guinea pig with no type of testing to see what adverse affects it causes. The cure might be worse than the cause.

Right we can't get in a rush the other direction. You are going to inject this thing into billions of people. Its best to make sure it has a pretty good chance of not harming them.

 

[husker2612]

Right we can't get in a rush the other direction. You are going to inject this thing into billions of people. Its best to make sure it has a pretty good chance of not harming them.

Yep , there is a reason this stuff goes through 10 years of testing. Harm may not come instantly but years down the road. Yeah it might protect you from Covid, but 5 years from now you get stage 5 cancer from it.

 

[GBRforLife1]

Yep , there is a reason this stuff goes through 10 years of testing. Harm may not come instantly but years down the road. Yeah it might protect you from Covid, but 5 years from now you get stage 5 cancer from it.

That will be ok. Stage 5 cancer is not from China. The media won't care.

 

[WestCoastCornhusker2]

Keynes can suck it. The idea of such structuring never applies, especially in times like this.
True conservatism has been ratcheted by the media and left further right into the mindset of their followers.
Much like this, as people change, so do the things they believe that define them.
At the time, JFK, who used to always be quoted by these same thoughtowners, was considered very liberal in his day.
But, he said the 180% opposite of Obamas beliefs, when he said ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, flies directly in the face of Obamas position.
So, to say whats conservative, if you let those who arent conservative define them for you, its why they don't understand Trump, and current day consevative beliefs and ideals.

What you said, and no disrespect, is was 60s hippies were saying back in the day.
Its the lefts definitions, lack of understanding, their leaders creating something that is long gone, and is why people arent getting on without so many wrong and misunderstood preconceptions that have long disappeared.

"Keynes can suck it." Yes he did literally, prorbably on the receiving end too, he as crazed deviant.

 

[newAD]

A friend who trusts government even leas than I do sent me this. Not saying I believe it. Just sharing. Very long.

 

[dinglefritz]

I agree the extensive testing is crazy. Im not so sure I would be jumping in line to be a guinea pig with no type of testing to see what adverse affects it causes. The cure might be worse than the cause.

There is almost zero risk from taking a subunit vaccine like they design now. I would take it in a heartbeat. The testing is more about trying to discover which antigens confer protective immunity and the minimum effective dose which in this case I think it's kind of silly to be wasting time trying to make sure you're giving as little as possible of the antigen. Give ME the BIG F'n dose. I'm a man! I'll take one for the team.

 

[headcard]

 

[dinglefritz]

Yep , there is a reason this stuff goes through 10 years of testing. Harm may not come instantly but years down the road. Yeah it might protect you from Covid, but 5 years from now you get stage 5 cancer from it.

Um. Not that is NOT how it works. The carriers and the adjuvants they use have all been tested at lengths and are safe. We're talking giving a small fraction of the virus, a protein subunit. There is virtually NO CHANCE that it will make you sick now or ever. Statistically it is not more likely to give you cancer than being given a shot of saline in your arm. The worst that would happen is that you had some type of treatable allergic reaction but man that is extremely unlikely as in one in 10 million.