I have been double vaccinated, so I don't care what others do, because I believe in the vaccine that it protects me, otherwise why the f*k would I even have gotten it in the first place.
And no, people don't need to get vaccinated to protect the vulnerable. The vulnerable will not escape an endemic virus. Sooner or later they will get it so if they cannot get a vaccine themselves then they will have to either fight it off or die. It's kind of how nature works, one day something will have to kill you. And I also reject all that nonsense that people must get vaccinated to create herd immunity. People, especially young people can also get immunity through infection. I had COVID and I was immune since then. I got the vaccine still because I believe in science, but I don't believe in tyranny and that is textbook tyranny. Kim Jong-un or Adolf couldn't do it better.
> And no, people don't need to get vaccinated to protect the vulnerable. The vulnerable will not escape an endemic virus.
This is not true. We can eradicate a virus without vaccinating every single person. That's how we eradicated smallpox.
> And I also reject all that nonsense that people must get vaccinated to create herd immunity. People, especially young people can also get immunity through infection. I had COVID and I was immune since then.
People, even young people, can die from Covid. Or get long term lung damage and other side effects.
It won’t happen. There’s reservoirs in the animal population already. Even if every human was cleared of virus eventually there would be outbreaks again.
to choose to not get vaccinated when it's not medically necessary for you to avoid it means you are endangering those who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons.
Freedom of choice can only extend to actions that have no effect on others.
Your post might be read by a crazy person who takes it as proof that anyone drinking is a danger to the world, and so decides to firebomb a bar. Since your actions lead to harm to others, you are no longer permitted to post on the internet (or elsewhere). Enjoy.
As far as I understand this also plays the other way, because no one endorses each and every effect of the vaccine, therefore no one knows for sure that it cannot cause a problem, and consequently being vaccinated is taking a risk. Am I wrong?
> no one knows for sure that it cannot cause a problem
It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. By all available evidence, the vaccines are "safe" for some level of "safe". What more evidence do you need?
Not getting the vaccine -> risk. Getting the vaccine -> smaller risk. Those are your two choices.
Also, your choice to not get vaccinated not only increases others risk of infection, pools of unvaccinated people allow for mutation, endangering the currently vaccinated as well.
If you are looking for the ability to 100% prove something, take up mathematics, and leave the rest of science to others.
> Not getting the vaccine -> risk. Getting the vaccine -> smaller risk.
This is not a hard fact but a matter of opinion, mainly of trust. Everyone is entitled to have one, and to chose for himself. Coercing some (for example to have them vaccinated) in the name of solidarity and preservation of society may lead to resentment and even hate. This is dangerous.
My take: such crisis (pandemics) arise because too much people live in too densely populated areas, and travel too much and too fast. Those who chose to live this way are threatening others. In a mature human society we may let subgroups chose, each for itself, instead of coercing everyone into sustaining a single way.
Trying to solve such crisis thanks to some hack (here: mandatory vaccination) is at best a kludge. Do some really think that, given the current state of affairs, there will be no other pandemics, that some new ones will not raise the ante, or that kludges will always be adequate?
> As far as I know you are still free to drive a car even though you a good chance to kill people with it every single day.
And if you do kill someone with your car you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter.
Similar laws exist that make it a crime to kill or injure others through recklessness or negligence in a wide variety of circumstances.
So I gather you're advocating for the government being able to charge the unvaccinated with manslaughter if a death can be attributed to their recklessly endangering others by refusing vaccination?
Edit: To be clear, I'm not advocating for such a thing, but if one is going to accuse another commenter of "bad reasoning", it's probably best to avoid doing the same.
> And if you do kill someone with your car you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter.
You still have the freedom to drive your car while we all know very well that several dozens of thousands of people will die because we allow that kind of freedom. Let's not pretend otherwise.
And with that comes legally enforced consequences if you cause the death of another while exercising that freedom. That's how we deal with the situation where exercising one's freedoms violates the rights of another.
So, given your choice of analogy, in a world where individuals have the freedom to choose not to be vaccinated against a deadly disease, I assume you therefore support the idea that similar legally enforced responsibility should apply to those who exercise their freedom to go about unvaccinated, and in doing so cause the death of another.
Or would you care to choose another analogy where you are able to exercise a right in a way that both violates the rights of others while having absolutely no consequences?
Society has tradeoffs. Paying taxes is one of them. Getting vaccinated is another.
Those tradeoffs are made to protect the weaker members of society so that everyone, even the less fortunate, gets a fairer shot.
In return, you get all the advantages of said society.
This idea that you're protesting tyranny or something is absurd. You're being asked to give up a few hours of your time and some muscle pain to fight back against something that is plaguing the entire planet.
You want to be selfish? Okay, but then go live on your own and don't go and contaminate other members of our society.
You want to be selfish but still go to restaurants and concerts and airports and what not? Well what the fuck can I tell ya.
Mandating a medicine which many people don't really need is yet the most unethical dystopian thing of our current times. This is nothing like paying taxes because no tax bill has caused someone to die from side effects.
Also I know that those side effects are extremely rare, but if you force it on 100% of the population then you know that there will be some who will be affected and you are essentially willingly killing some in order to protect others. That is completely unethical in principle.
And I repeat, I am pro vaccine, but not forcefully applied to everyone. It should be a choice. I was happy to get vaccinated because I wasn't afraid of any side effects. But I also wasn't afraid of COVID so there's that.
When you're talking about side effects that are this rare, I can guarantee you that the side effects of just about anything are just as frequent.
"Nobody has died from a tax bill" is nonsense. If you give it more than a moment's thought, you'll realize that there's probably plenty of people who have in fact died as a side effect of any type of unexpected bill, and that can include tax bill.
Your premise that "many people don't really need" the vaccine for a highly infectious, highly transmissible disease is flawed from the get go. If you don't get the vaccine, you will catch COVID at one point or another, especially as its transmissibility goes up. And if you catch it, it's just a roll of the die whether you suffer side effects from it or not. This isn't about being scared of it or not, it's about numbers.
Regardless on whether you suffer side effects, you will be a transmission vector. And if you do suffer side effects, you'll be a burden on society. It is in fact society's responsibility to prevent this from happening.
I'm not a fan of nanny states, but when so many people are so eager to be not only selfish but a danger to themselves, fuck it all to hell, I'm pro mandatory vaccination at that point.
I'd never have been pro mandatory vaccines until I found out just how many anti-vax people there are. Funny how that works: The more of them there are, the more we need to make them mandatory.
> "Nobody has died from a tax bill" is nonsense. If you give it more than a moment's thought, you'll realize that there's probably plenty of people who have in fact died as a side effect of any type of unexpected bill, and that can include tax bill.
Don't be ridiculous. That is just plain ridiculous.
> If you don't get the vaccine, you will catch COVID at one point or another
Vaccinated people also continue to catch COVID. The vaccine doesn't shut the entry points, just helps your body to fight it off when it enters you.
> And if you catch it, it's just a roll of the die whether you suffer side effects from it or not.
A roll of the die means 50% chance and that is just ridiculous again. The vast majority of people and close to 100% of young healthy people have no lasting effects whatsoever of an infection. I agree the effects are different for different people, but it's not a roll of the die. That statement is just complete stupid nonsense.
> Regardless on whether you suffer side effects, you will be a transmission vector.
Only people with enough viral load will have enough virus to spill it. This is why asymptomatic or minor infections like those of vaccinated people have a near zero chance of transmission. This is precisely why double vaccinated people don't need to quarantine in many countries anymore.
> And if you do suffer side effects, you'll be a burden on society.
This is the biggest idiot statement I have ever read. Young healthy people who want to work, live life and socialise ARE NOT a burden on society.
Do you know who is a burden on society? People who can't stop eating McDonalds, cake and drink Coca Cola and therefore need protection from a mild virus and who cost us so much public money with all their health issues being treated by our free health service. Smokers are a burden on society. People driving polluting cars are a burden on society. Facebook is a burden on society. Not young healthy innocent people who just want to go about life, enjoy their time on this planet, work and socialise.
If normal healthy people are a danger to other people by just walking normally through life and breathing air normally is putting others in danger, maybe those "others" are the burden on society.
A roll of the die is not 50 percent (that'd be the flip of a coin); I take it English is not your native language, so just for the record what I meant was "it's down to luck".
This latest comment proves one thing: you're a burden on society whether you want to admit it or not (and whether you're vaccinated has long stopped being relevant, this attitude is a problem). You're just trying to rationalize yourself away by trying desperately to find people "worse" than you. McDonalds eh? Come off it.
Your arguments are so off base they're not even worth debating. Done wasting time with you.
> Society has tradeoffs. Paying taxes is one of them. Getting vaccinated is another.
Who decided all this, how, when, and why were they entitled to do so?
> You're being asked to
... take a risk. As far as I know nobody guarantees that those COVID vaccines are without any dangerous side-effect, therefore there is a risk.
In my opinion a referendum is the only way to exhibit what you take for granted: before any vaccination campaign, more than 50% voters have to explicitly ask for a "mandatory vaccination". We had plenty of time to organize this in 2020.
> ... take a risk. As far as I know nobody guarantees that those COVID vaccines are without any dangerous side-effect, therefore there is a risk.
Covid is a risk as well. And it's a risk not only for yourself, but for other people, both around you and complete strangers. There are some people that are can't be vaccinated at all, they are at higher risk of dying or having severe long term side effects if they get Covid.
I understand this approach, however as there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path.
Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster.
Moreover people feeling very threatened by the COVID can extra-protect themselves, and even refuse contact with non-vaccinated people (I'm OK with this). Another take: I want everyone to stop driving because I want to walk exactly as I wish (without taking cars into account), and also people emitting exhaust gas are threatening my health.
If all this leads to coerce some into taking a risk because others want to reduce the impact on their lives of another risk, I can see some social long-term problem. "Coercing into solidarity" should ring a bell.
> Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster.
… but given that COVID is a risk, as GP was saying, then a world without vaccines is indeed a recipe for disaster.
I want to stress how little sense your post makes if you consider that COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine (and it UNARGUABLY IS -- COVID is known to be a risk, and is known to cause illness and death to several magnitudes more than even the less severe side effects we're getting from vaccines). Your last paragraph for example argues against itself: If you're not taking the vaccine, you're forcing a (much larger) risk onto others because you want to avoid taking a (much smaller) risk yourself.
COVID is a bigger risk. Period. Not just "to the elderly", but to you, too. The potential issues with COVID vaccines, even if they've been around less long than most other ones, cannot come close to the risks of COVID, no matter how fit, young and healthy you are.
Hundreds of millions have been infected with COVID. Billions have taken the vaccine. The former has resulted in a worldwide shitshow. The latter has allowed us to start reopening things.
You say "but there's a risk!" like it's some kind of gotcha. There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. For example, driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Getting vaccinated is a negligible risk, and its upshot is significant, for you AND EVERYONE ELSE too.
I never advocated against any vaccine, only against mandatory vaccination. In my opinion it is for each person to decide for himself.
> COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine
Maybe. Probably, in my opinion. But this is not a fact.
Thalidomide was considered OK. As a baby (in the 60's) I drank thanks to baby-bottles containing bisphenol-A, then at 40 years of age I was sterile.
Consider all drugs approved, sold, then withdrawn because they proven too dangerous ('Mediator' and the undergoing 'opioid crisis' are well-known cases, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs lists some other ones). Consider phtalates, asbestos, DDT, ... many things were OK, then became disasters.
You answer in good faith, and thank you for doing so! My point is: I doubt you can read the future and, right now, know for sure how to balance risk. Nobody knows. Therefore I maintain: there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path.
Moreover mandatory vaccination will be interpreted as an aggression/oppression by many and is therefore dangerous.
> There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot.
I agree, and as nobody reads the future each one has to decide for himself. We may advocate, however stating "facts" about long-term effects is at best naive.
> driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking.
Some may disagree. Consider, for example, non-drivers rarely (if even) using a car: they breath exhaust gas and, as pedestrians, may be hurt by a car. Consider future generations, probably unable to drive ICE cars but 'enjoying' the effects of their exhausts.
Anyone can adopt any opinion, including "the upshot makes it worth taking", but it isn't a justification when it comes to coerce people into taking a risk they refuse.
> mandatory vaccination will be interpreted as an aggression/oppression by many and is therefore dangerous.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it "dangerous", but … it might be reckless, yes. I've been myself during COVID very vocally opposed to over-cautious rules that didn't take into account political climate (because overly aggressive rules may create future antivax advocates). I wrote about this here if you'd like to read: https://tildes.net/~health.coronavirus/ve8/covid_19_in_belgi...
> Therefore I maintain: there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path.
It sounds like the main thing we're disagreeing on is how much weight is given to an unknown risk of an unknown chance, that may or may not happen in the future.
This is all weighted against the fact that COVID has known risks, today, and further unknown risks, today as well. Furthermore, you don't seem to take into account the fact that catching COVID may in fact do all the things you dread from a vaccine and then more. It's a virus. A disease that rewrites your DNA, fucks with your blood, spreads, mutates, comes back for more. I don't see how you can possibly put this on the same scale as a vaccine which, while I grant you has unknowns and has risks, still has been thoroughly both in clinical trials (I'm myself part of a clinical trial for a vaccine, CureVac) and in the real world.
I cannot read the future, no. But your argument essentially relies on you reading the future for the virus, rather than the vaccine. Since neither of us can read the future, it makes sense to make decisions based on what is more likely to happen: Long-term issues from the vaccine vs long-term issues from COVID. The latter is more likely to happen, because there are both known short and long term issues from COVID as well as unknown ones. Whereas the vaccine only has unknown ones of any significance, at this point.
More US children have died from Covid than US people die from lightning strikes in 10 years, so I wonder if you've not quite compared like for like there.
That is true, and I see the chances of being killed by lightning are pretty slim. So the chances of any child in the US dying from covid-19 turns out to be about 70 times as much as that child dying from lightning. Still, extremely unlikely.
Israelis have killed family members of mine for the crime of living in an apartment building that happened to contain a couple of Hamas members.
I have no sympathy for Israel, whatsoever. They take pride in murdering my people and stealing our homes.
That whole neighborhood is now a very charming, up and coming, gentrifying Israeli settlement filled with nice patriotic young jewish families. Stolen in the name of Abraham because of those 2 alleged Hamas members.
> Israelis have killed family members of mine for the crime of living in an apartment building that happened to contain a couple of Hamas members.
Reading this is heart breaking, I'm sorry for your losses. I personally do not approve of the actions Israel is taking against Palestine but unfortunately this is an entirely different conversation and going there will probably cause disagreement across the board, causing posts to be flagged and/or removed.
A tweet reply says, "It's not a lock down. This is a requirement for tests of the unvaccinated, and this time at their expense and not at the expense of the state."
I wish we could lockdown Israel, keep their soldiers, their backpackers and their politicians from infecting the rest of the world with their zionism. Dirty thieving murderers.
What is Zionism to you ? The word means different things to different people. Bernie Sanders is (according to him) a Zionist, is he a thieving murderer?
Jews think that they are better, more special" than the rest of the world, because of their silly books, and this sense of entitlement is what has both caused all of their historical problems and justified all of their modern atrocities.
Can I create a religion, and use that religion to steal your home? If you fight back against me for stealing your home, can I kill your children and say I did it in the name of my god, and then the world will say "OK we're cool with that"?
A few years back I backpacked into Kosovo from Macedonia with a bunch of people I met at a Hostel. There were 2 Israelis backpacking the world after having done their offensive service, as Israelis tend to do.
After the rest of us had crossed, these guys spent a solid 30 minutes trying to haggle with the border guard, who eventually got tired of the nonsense, stamped a denial on their passports, and physically pushed away from the doors.
That's pretty much my experience with every occupier I've met in Palestine and New York. They weren't just being cheap, they clearly felt entitled to something more than the rest of us goyim.
As to bernie sanders? Shrug. He's just another loud-mouthed New Yorker who speaks instead of listening and tries to force his ideas of righteousness on a populace who primarily disagrees with him. Sounds about right bro.
63 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 84.0 ms ] threadSee: restrictions on dangerous weapons, childhood vaccinations, taxes, mandatory evacuation orders, safety regulations, …
This is not true. We can eradicate a virus without vaccinating every single person. That's how we eradicated smallpox.
> And I also reject all that nonsense that people must get vaccinated to create herd immunity. People, especially young people can also get immunity through infection. I had COVID and I was immune since then.
People, even young people, can die from Covid. Or get long term lung damage and other side effects.
to choose to not get vaccinated when it's not medically necessary for you to avoid it means you are endangering those who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons.
Freedom of choice can only extend to actions that have no effect on others.
But if you take (or not take) actions that causes harm for other people, then you do not get to claim freedom of choice when you are stopped.
Because if by this logic, you choose to drink and drive, and kills someone, you would claim that it's your freedom to drink!
It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. By all available evidence, the vaccines are "safe" for some level of "safe". What more evidence do you need?
Not getting the vaccine -> risk. Getting the vaccine -> smaller risk. Those are your two choices.
Also, your choice to not get vaccinated not only increases others risk of infection, pools of unvaccinated people allow for mutation, endangering the currently vaccinated as well.
If you are looking for the ability to 100% prove something, take up mathematics, and leave the rest of science to others.
It is actually rather easy to prove a negative:
This is called modus tollens and has been known since antiquity.This is not a hard fact but a matter of opinion, mainly of trust. Everyone is entitled to have one, and to chose for himself. Coercing some (for example to have them vaccinated) in the name of solidarity and preservation of society may lead to resentment and even hate. This is dangerous.
My take: such crisis (pandemics) arise because too much people live in too densely populated areas, and travel too much and too fast. Those who chose to live this way are threatening others. In a mature human society we may let subgroups chose, each for itself, instead of coercing everyone into sustaining a single way.
Trying to solve such crisis thanks to some hack (here: mandatory vaccination) is at best a kludge. Do some really think that, given the current state of affairs, there will be no other pandemics, that some new ones will not raise the ante, or that kludges will always be adequate?
As far as I know you are still free to drive a car even though you a good chance to kill people with it every single day.
Bad reasoning.
And if you do kill someone with your car you will be charged with vehicular manslaughter.
Similar laws exist that make it a crime to kill or injure others through recklessness or negligence in a wide variety of circumstances.
So I gather you're advocating for the government being able to charge the unvaccinated with manslaughter if a death can be attributed to their recklessly endangering others by refusing vaccination?
Edit: To be clear, I'm not advocating for such a thing, but if one is going to accuse another commenter of "bad reasoning", it's probably best to avoid doing the same.
You still have the freedom to drive your car while we all know very well that several dozens of thousands of people will die because we allow that kind of freedom. Let's not pretend otherwise.
And with that comes legally enforced consequences if you cause the death of another while exercising that freedom. That's how we deal with the situation where exercising one's freedoms violates the rights of another.
So, given your choice of analogy, in a world where individuals have the freedom to choose not to be vaccinated against a deadly disease, I assume you therefore support the idea that similar legally enforced responsibility should apply to those who exercise their freedom to go about unvaccinated, and in doing so cause the death of another.
Or would you care to choose another analogy where you are able to exercise a right in a way that both violates the rights of others while having absolutely no consequences?
Those tradeoffs are made to protect the weaker members of society so that everyone, even the less fortunate, gets a fairer shot.
In return, you get all the advantages of said society.
This idea that you're protesting tyranny or something is absurd. You're being asked to give up a few hours of your time and some muscle pain to fight back against something that is plaguing the entire planet.
You want to be selfish? Okay, but then go live on your own and don't go and contaminate other members of our society.
You want to be selfish but still go to restaurants and concerts and airports and what not? Well what the fuck can I tell ya.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-presenter-die...
Mandating a medicine which many people don't really need is yet the most unethical dystopian thing of our current times. This is nothing like paying taxes because no tax bill has caused someone to die from side effects.
Also I know that those side effects are extremely rare, but if you force it on 100% of the population then you know that there will be some who will be affected and you are essentially willingly killing some in order to protect others. That is completely unethical in principle.
And I repeat, I am pro vaccine, but not forcefully applied to everyone. It should be a choice. I was happy to get vaccinated because I wasn't afraid of any side effects. But I also wasn't afraid of COVID so there's that.
"Nobody has died from a tax bill" is nonsense. If you give it more than a moment's thought, you'll realize that there's probably plenty of people who have in fact died as a side effect of any type of unexpected bill, and that can include tax bill.
Your premise that "many people don't really need" the vaccine for a highly infectious, highly transmissible disease is flawed from the get go. If you don't get the vaccine, you will catch COVID at one point or another, especially as its transmissibility goes up. And if you catch it, it's just a roll of the die whether you suffer side effects from it or not. This isn't about being scared of it or not, it's about numbers.
Regardless on whether you suffer side effects, you will be a transmission vector. And if you do suffer side effects, you'll be a burden on society. It is in fact society's responsibility to prevent this from happening.
I'm not a fan of nanny states, but when so many people are so eager to be not only selfish but a danger to themselves, fuck it all to hell, I'm pro mandatory vaccination at that point.
I'd never have been pro mandatory vaccines until I found out just how many anti-vax people there are. Funny how that works: The more of them there are, the more we need to make them mandatory.
Don't be ridiculous. That is just plain ridiculous.
> If you don't get the vaccine, you will catch COVID at one point or another
Vaccinated people also continue to catch COVID. The vaccine doesn't shut the entry points, just helps your body to fight it off when it enters you.
> And if you catch it, it's just a roll of the die whether you suffer side effects from it or not.
A roll of the die means 50% chance and that is just ridiculous again. The vast majority of people and close to 100% of young healthy people have no lasting effects whatsoever of an infection. I agree the effects are different for different people, but it's not a roll of the die. That statement is just complete stupid nonsense.
> Regardless on whether you suffer side effects, you will be a transmission vector.
Only people with enough viral load will have enough virus to spill it. This is why asymptomatic or minor infections like those of vaccinated people have a near zero chance of transmission. This is precisely why double vaccinated people don't need to quarantine in many countries anymore.
> And if you do suffer side effects, you'll be a burden on society.
This is the biggest idiot statement I have ever read. Young healthy people who want to work, live life and socialise ARE NOT a burden on society.
Do you know who is a burden on society? People who can't stop eating McDonalds, cake and drink Coca Cola and therefore need protection from a mild virus and who cost us so much public money with all their health issues being treated by our free health service. Smokers are a burden on society. People driving polluting cars are a burden on society. Facebook is a burden on society. Not young healthy innocent people who just want to go about life, enjoy their time on this planet, work and socialise.
If normal healthy people are a danger to other people by just walking normally through life and breathing air normally is putting others in danger, maybe those "others" are the burden on society.
This latest comment proves one thing: you're a burden on society whether you want to admit it or not (and whether you're vaccinated has long stopped being relevant, this attitude is a problem). You're just trying to rationalize yourself away by trying desperately to find people "worse" than you. McDonalds eh? Come off it.
Your arguments are so off base they're not even worth debating. Done wasting time with you.
Who decided all this, how, when, and why were they entitled to do so?
> You're being asked to
... take a risk. As far as I know nobody guarantees that those COVID vaccines are without any dangerous side-effect, therefore there is a risk.
In my opinion a referendum is the only way to exhibit what you take for granted: before any vaccination campaign, more than 50% voters have to explicitly ask for a "mandatory vaccination". We had plenty of time to organize this in 2020.
Covid is a risk as well. And it's a risk not only for yourself, but for other people, both around you and complete strangers. There are some people that are can't be vaccinated at all, they are at higher risk of dying or having severe long term side effects if they get Covid.
Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster.
Moreover people feeling very threatened by the COVID can extra-protect themselves, and even refuse contact with non-vaccinated people (I'm OK with this). Another take: I want everyone to stop driving because I want to walk exactly as I wish (without taking cars into account), and also people emitting exhaust gas are threatening my health.
If all this leads to coerce some into taking a risk because others want to reduce the impact on their lives of another risk, I can see some social long-term problem. "Coercing into solidarity" should ring a bell.
> Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster.
… but given that COVID is a risk, as GP was saying, then a world without vaccines is indeed a recipe for disaster.
I want to stress how little sense your post makes if you consider that COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine (and it UNARGUABLY IS -- COVID is known to be a risk, and is known to cause illness and death to several magnitudes more than even the less severe side effects we're getting from vaccines). Your last paragraph for example argues against itself: If you're not taking the vaccine, you're forcing a (much larger) risk onto others because you want to avoid taking a (much smaller) risk yourself.
COVID is a bigger risk. Period. Not just "to the elderly", but to you, too. The potential issues with COVID vaccines, even if they've been around less long than most other ones, cannot come close to the risks of COVID, no matter how fit, young and healthy you are.
Hundreds of millions have been infected with COVID. Billions have taken the vaccine. The former has resulted in a worldwide shitshow. The latter has allowed us to start reopening things.
You say "but there's a risk!" like it's some kind of gotcha. There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. For example, driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Getting vaccinated is a negligible risk, and its upshot is significant, for you AND EVERYONE ELSE too.
> COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine
Maybe. Probably, in my opinion. But this is not a fact.
Thalidomide was considered OK. As a baby (in the 60's) I drank thanks to baby-bottles containing bisphenol-A, then at 40 years of age I was sterile.
Consider all drugs approved, sold, then withdrawn because they proven too dangerous ('Mediator' and the undergoing 'opioid crisis' are well-known cases, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs lists some other ones). Consider phtalates, asbestos, DDT, ... many things were OK, then became disasters.
You answer in good faith, and thank you for doing so! My point is: I doubt you can read the future and, right now, know for sure how to balance risk. Nobody knows. Therefore I maintain: there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path.
Moreover mandatory vaccination will be interpreted as an aggression/oppression by many and is therefore dangerous.
> There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot.
I agree, and as nobody reads the future each one has to decide for himself. We may advocate, however stating "facts" about long-term effects is at best naive.
> driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking.
Some may disagree. Consider, for example, non-drivers rarely (if even) using a car: they breath exhaust gas and, as pedestrians, may be hurt by a car. Consider future generations, probably unable to drive ICE cars but 'enjoying' the effects of their exhausts.
Anyone can adopt any opinion, including "the upshot makes it worth taking", but it isn't a justification when it comes to coerce people into taking a risk they refuse.
I wouldn't go as far as calling it "dangerous", but … it might be reckless, yes. I've been myself during COVID very vocally opposed to over-cautious rules that didn't take into account political climate (because overly aggressive rules may create future antivax advocates). I wrote about this here if you'd like to read: https://tildes.net/~health.coronavirus/ve8/covid_19_in_belgi...
> Therefore I maintain: there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path.
It sounds like the main thing we're disagreeing on is how much weight is given to an unknown risk of an unknown chance, that may or may not happen in the future.
This is all weighted against the fact that COVID has known risks, today, and further unknown risks, today as well. Furthermore, you don't seem to take into account the fact that catching COVID may in fact do all the things you dread from a vaccine and then more. It's a virus. A disease that rewrites your DNA, fucks with your blood, spreads, mutates, comes back for more. I don't see how you can possibly put this on the same scale as a vaccine which, while I grant you has unknowns and has risks, still has been thoroughly both in clinical trials (I'm myself part of a clinical trial for a vaccine, CureVac) and in the real world.
I cannot read the future, no. But your argument essentially relies on you reading the future for the virus, rather than the vaccine. Since neither of us can read the future, it makes sense to make decisions based on what is more likely to happen: Long-term issues from the vaccine vs long-term issues from COVID. The latter is more likely to happen, because there are both known short and long term issues from COVID as well as unknown ones. Whereas the vaccine only has unknown ones of any significance, at this point.
If a virus can infect an unvaxed person with no mutations, there will be no incentive for a mutation to become the dominant strain.
There is no need to exaggerate.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w/
In vanishingly small numbers. But sure let's use hyperbole for everything in order to have a sane discussion.
Edit: typo.
I have no sympathy for Israel, whatsoever. They take pride in murdering my people and stealing our homes.
That whole neighborhood is now a very charming, up and coming, gentrifying Israeli settlement filled with nice patriotic young jewish families. Stolen in the name of Abraham because of those 2 alleged Hamas members.
Reading this is heart breaking, I'm sorry for your losses. I personally do not approve of the actions Israel is taking against Palestine but unfortunately this is an entirely different conversation and going there will probably cause disagreement across the board, causing posts to be flagged and/or removed.
* Thou shalt not suggest that people are more important than profits
* Thou shalt not write in a manner that differs from HN thoughtspeak in any way shape or form
* Thou shalt not differ from @Dang's political beliefs
* Thou shalt not criticize Capitalism
* Thou shalt not criticize Ayn Rand or his followers
* Thou shalt not criticize Capitalism
* Thou shalt not defend San Francisco
* Thou shalt love Rust
* Thou shalt not criticize Capitalism
* Thou shalt not criticize Israel
Can I create a religion, and use that religion to steal your home? If you fight back against me for stealing your home, can I kill your children and say I did it in the name of my god, and then the world will say "OK we're cool with that"?
A few years back I backpacked into Kosovo from Macedonia with a bunch of people I met at a Hostel. There were 2 Israelis backpacking the world after having done their offensive service, as Israelis tend to do.
After the rest of us had crossed, these guys spent a solid 30 minutes trying to haggle with the border guard, who eventually got tired of the nonsense, stamped a denial on their passports, and physically pushed away from the doors.
That's pretty much my experience with every occupier I've met in Palestine and New York. They weren't just being cheap, they clearly felt entitled to something more than the rest of us goyim.
As to bernie sanders? Shrug. He's just another loud-mouthed New Yorker who speaks instead of listening and tries to force his ideas of righteousness on a populace who primarily disagrees with him. Sounds about right bro.