3 ms·

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 cl

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.

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.