4 ms·

My body is not about me? Which people around me are more affected when I take vaccine than me?

by effie 5y ago

colinmorelli 5y ago
The elderly and immunocompromised people you are related to, spend time with, and care about. Or, hell, even those that you don't, but just happen to come in close contact with. Also, nobody said your body is not about you. GP suggested the vaccine is not about you. Indeed, it's not. We vaccinate not to protect ourselves, but to protect society by reducing the spread of disease. The fact that it will also protect you is of course great as well. This is nothing new, and has been the same for every other vaccine.
- effie 5y ago
  > The elderly and immunocompromised people you are related to, spend time with, and care about. Or, hell, even those that you don't, but just happen to come in close contact with. No they aren't, because I can and do limit my risk to such people in other ways. And they can and should limit that risk as well themselves, in other ways than getting others vaccinated. Why? Because the space outside your home isn't some "safe space" where you won't ever get infected. As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. There are other people with different health strategies out there, even people who are not afraid to get infected. > We vaccinate not to protect ourselves, but to protect society Society changes, and it does not need protection via compulsory vaccines, except the 1984 kind. People and their rights need protection.
  - squiggleblaz 5y ago
    > As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. This is a stupid proposal for a rule. I call it a proposal, because even a cursory study of the evidence shows it is not a description of general practice, and doesn't reflect the laws that most societies have enacted for themselves. If it were the actual rule, then you would never be able to eat any food. Most people have the decency to stay home when they're sick, unless they fear for their security by doing so, out of consideration for other people's health. Most people take reasonable measures when making and storing food, even in the absence of laws creating some obligation, because they have consideration for the health of those who will eat it.
    - effie 5y ago
      Rules have exceptions, if somebody is in business of providing food, of course there are expectations and rules. When you go out in the street or to a pub, there is no expectation and no rule that everybody is completely sterile. Your health is primarily your responsibility, not other random people's you may encounter.
  - cma 5y ago
    > As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. This is like saying people should be able to drive on the opposite side of the road.
    - effie 5y ago
      They are able to do that de facto, just in some countries not by the rules. Traffic rules are very different than compulsory vaccination, the benefit/harm is much greater for traffic rules.
decremental 5y ago
Like they say, "my body, my choice."
- igetspam 5y ago
  Two problems: 1. You can't use that defense in one situation and ignore it in another 2. The thing you're mocking (abortion) has individual consequences, where the thing you're arguing against (vaccination) has community consequences If you are the only viable human victim of the decision, then it is your body and your choice. But just like being a suicide bomber, it's the victims around you that have to be considered. I don't give a crap if you blow yourself up in the woods or in your garage, as long as you don't hurt anyone else.
  - decremental 5y ago
    Abortion is murder. It's an individual's choice to take the life of another. It has a direct and immediate consequence unlike the theoretical consequence of not taking the Covid vaccine. At any rate, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are someone who advocates for abortion then you abdicate your moral standing on getting vaccinated. And I would say 1 million murdered babies every year has a much more profound impact on our society and civilization than some people getting sick.
  - foolinaround 5y ago
    Having an abortion is not just about individual consequences, but it affects another life. And this life is absolutely defenseless. One can argue that those who like to protect themselves can do it, regardless of whether folks around them have been vaccinated or not. Therefore, the vaccination scenario cannot be equated to that of a suicide bomber, whereas the abortion scenario can.
igetspam 5y ago
Those you do not kill by being a carrier.
- effie 5y ago
  Why would I kill them? That is some assumption you are making. A person can limit their infection risk to others in other ways.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  any one can be a carrier, vaccinated or otherwise the probability is just lesser [1]. My understanding is that vaccination is supposed to reduce the severity of the covid-19 disease, if you were to contract it. It does not prevent you from the viral infection itself. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/vaccine-q-a-can-a-fully-vaccinated-person-carry-spread-covid-19/ar-BB1gC9fi https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/vaccine-q-a-can-a-f...

My body is not about me? Which people around me are more affected when I take vaccine than me?

by effie 5y ago

My body is not about me? Which people around me are more affected when I take vaccine than me?

The elderly and immunocompromised people you are related to, spend time with, and care about. Or, hell, even those that you don't, but just happen to come in close contact with. Also, nobody said your body is not about you. GP suggested the vaccine is not about you. Indeed, it's not. We vaccinate not to protect ourselves, but to protect society by reducing the spread of disease. The fact that it will also protect you is of course great as well. This is nothing new, and has been the same for every other vaccine.

effie 5y ago
> The elderly and immunocompromised people you are related to, spend time with, and care about. Or, hell, even those that you don't, but just happen to come in close contact with. No they aren't, because I can and do limit my risk to such people in other ways. And they can and should limit that risk as well themselves, in other ways than getting others vaccinated. Why? Because the space outside your home isn't some "safe space" where you won't ever get infected. As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. There are other people with different health strategies out there, even people who are not afraid to get infected. > We vaccinate not to protect ourselves, but to protect society Society changes, and it does not need protection via compulsory vaccines, except the 1984 kind. People and their rights need protection.
- squiggleblaz 5y ago
  > As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. This is a stupid proposal for a rule. I call it a proposal, because even a cursory study of the evidence shows it is not a description of general practice, and doesn't reflect the laws that most societies have enacted for themselves. If it were the actual rule, then you would never be able to eat any food. Most people have the decency to stay home when they're sick, unless they fear for their security by doing so, out of consideration for other people's health. Most people take reasonable measures when making and storing food, even in the absence of laws creating some obligation, because they have consideration for the health of those who will eat it.
  - effie 5y ago
    Rules have exceptions, if somebody is in business of providing food, of course there are expectations and rules. When you go out in the street or to a pub, there is no expectation and no rule that everybody is completely sterile. Your health is primarily your responsibility, not other random people's you may encounter.
- cma 5y ago
  > As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. This is like saying people should be able to drive on the opposite side of the road.
  - effie 5y ago
    They are able to do that de facto, just in some countries not by the rules. Traffic rules are very different than compulsory vaccination, the benefit/harm is much greater for traffic rules.

decremental 5y ago

Like they say, "my body, my choice."

igetspam 5y ago
Two problems: 1. You can't use that defense in one situation and ignore it in another 2. The thing you're mocking (abortion) has individual consequences, where the thing you're arguing against (vaccination) has community consequences If you are the only viable human victim of the decision, then it is your body and your choice. But just like being a suicide bomber, it's the victims around you that have to be considered. I don't give a crap if you blow yourself up in the woods or in your garage, as long as you don't hurt anyone else.
- decremental 5y ago
  Abortion is murder. It's an individual's choice to take the life of another. It has a direct and immediate consequence unlike the theoretical consequence of not taking the Covid vaccine. At any rate, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are someone who advocates for abortion then you abdicate your moral standing on getting vaccinated. And I would say 1 million murdered babies every year has a much more profound impact on our society and civilization than some people getting sick.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  Having an abortion is not just about individual consequences, but it affects another life. And this life is absolutely defenseless. One can argue that those who like to protect themselves can do it, regardless of whether folks around them have been vaccinated or not. Therefore, the vaccination scenario cannot be equated to that of a suicide bomber, whereas the abortion scenario can.

igetspam 5y ago

Those you do not kill by being a carrier.

effie 5y ago
Why would I kill them? That is some assumption you are making. A person can limit their infection risk to others in other ways.
foolinaround 5y ago
any one can be a carrier, vaccinated or otherwise the probability is just lesser [1]. My understanding is that vaccination is supposed to reduce the severity of the covid-19 disease, if you were to contract it. It does not prevent you from the viral infection itself. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/vaccine-q-a-can-a-fully-vaccinated-person-carry-spread-covid-19/ar-BB1gC9fi https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/vaccine-q-a-can-a-f...