5 ms·

Couldn't it play out the other way? As case numbers drop, people think that the vaccination isn't necessary anymore?

by pbuzbee 6y ago

dgritsko 6y ago
Yeah, I think this is a definite possibility too. The next few months should be interesting.
chrisco255 6y ago
With a 99.9% survivability rate for people under 50, it really isn't necessary for a large portion of the population.
- muttled 6y ago
  You have to think beyond yourself. There will be at-risk groups that are also not able to take the vaccine but are protected by closing the infection vectors from others.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Those at-risk groups should be prioritized for the vaccine and the rest of the population should be free to choose for theirselves, since they have sovereignty over their own bodies.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      But they don't have sovereignty over their neighbors. If you want to make that argument, fine, but they have to not infect anybody if they get it. They can't cough in public, ever. They can't sneeze. They can't even breathe. Doing so is affecting other peoples' sovereignty over their bodies.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        No. Diseases are nothing new in the world, my friend. Individual rights did not die just because a novel coronavirus about 20-30% deadlier than the flu showed up. Sorry, these debates were settled when far worse diseases were around than Covid-19, including smallpox, polio, measles, yellow fever, Rocky Mountain fever, Spanish flu, tuberculosis, HIV, and more. You don't get to dictate what others do with their bodies. Your risk factor is on YOU. If you want the vaccine, which is supposedly only 90% effective (notably less than the 99.9% effectiveness of young immune systems), then you can get the vaccine. End of story.
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        So you see people as being free to infect others but not free to not be infected. And you see that as "individual rights". Now, if you're arguing that people shouldn't be forced to be vaccinated, I agree with you. But you could make the same argument that people shouldn't be forced to wear masks, and I'd say "then don't allow them into the store".
        chrisco255 6y ago
        Right. It's called liberty. No one ever said freedom came without risks. In fact, the people who fought for it often died for it. And they set it in stone: Live Free or Die. The reason is simple, if you're afraid of death, then your fear of death will be used to control you. I think if people want to live in a bubble they should be free to live in a bubble. And if they want liberty over medical tyranny they have that right. Businesses should be free to set their own policies and I should be free to choose which businesses I go to based on which policies I'm comfortable with.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

Couldn't it play out the other way? As case numbers drop, people think that the vaccination isn't necessary anymore?

dgritsko 6y ago

Yeah, I think this is a definite possibility too. The next few months should be interesting.

chrisco255 6y ago

With a 99.9% survivability rate for people under 50, it really isn't necessary for a large portion of the population.

muttled 6y ago
You have to think beyond yourself. There will be at-risk groups that are also not able to take the vaccine but are protected by closing the infection vectors from others.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Those at-risk groups should be prioritized for the vaccine and the rest of the population should be free to choose for theirselves, since they have sovereignty over their own bodies.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    But they don't have sovereignty over their neighbors. If you want to make that argument, fine, but they have to not infect anybody if they get it. They can't cough in public, ever. They can't sneeze. They can't even breathe. Doing so is affecting other peoples' sovereignty over their bodies.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      No. Diseases are nothing new in the world, my friend. Individual rights did not die just because a novel coronavirus about 20-30% deadlier than the flu showed up. Sorry, these debates were settled when far worse diseases were around than Covid-19, including smallpox, polio, measles, yellow fever, Rocky Mountain fever, Spanish flu, tuberculosis, HIV, and more. You don't get to dictate what others do with their bodies. Your risk factor is on YOU. If you want the vaccine, which is supposedly only 90% effective (notably less than the 99.9% effectiveness of young immune systems), then you can get the vaccine. End of story.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        So you see people as being free to infect others but not free to not be infected. And you see that as "individual rights". Now, if you're arguing that people shouldn't be forced to be vaccinated, I agree with you. But you could make the same argument that people shouldn't be forced to wear masks, and I'd say "then don't allow them into the store".
        chrisco255 6y ago
        Right. It's called liberty. No one ever said freedom came without risks. In fact, the people who fought for it often died for it. And they set it in stone: Live Free or Die. The reason is simple, if you're afraid of death, then your fear of death will be used to control you. I think if people want to live in a bubble they should be free to live in a bubble. And if they want liberty over medical tyranny they have that right. Businesses should be free to set their own policies and I should be free to choose which businesses I go to based on which policies I'm comfortable with.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]