5 ms·

Cannot understand how the faces of software freedom are the first to forfeit actual freedom Also the vaccines are practically irrelevant unless someone is worr

Cannot understand how the faces of software freedom are the first to forfeit actual freedom Also the vaccines are practically irrelevant unless someone is worried about being hospitalized. All governments and vaccine manufactures have been clear, vaccine does not prevent transmission Edit: People pointing out that vaccines do prevent transmission after all... In that case what is the problem with people choosing to be unvaccinated?

Spivak 5y ago
Liberty != Freedom If you allow unvaccinated people you force people to make the choice between their safety and a bunch of additional restrictions like reduced capacity, social distancing, mask wearing, and individuality portioned food. High freedom, low liberty. If you ban the unvaccinated then everyone can roam freely unencumbered by all those safety precautions. Low freedom, high liberty. I know which one I think is better.
- TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
  Or you can just treat the unvaccinated like adults and let them behave as their own risk tolerance allows. That means no required masks, social distancing, or security theater like individually portioned food. High freedom, high liberty, high choice
  - Spivak 5y ago
    That doesn’t work when your actions affect more than just yourself. If my risk tolerance is high (which it is since I have a friend who has a compromised immune system and can’t risk being a carrier even though I’m vaccinated) and yours is low then we have an unresolvable problem. If you’re allowed to go around freely then my liberty is reduced because now I have to take precautions against being around you where I otherwise wouldn’t. But if you’re not then I get my liberty back as the cost of your freedom of choice. You cannot have all three. Someone is going to lose, it’s just a question of who and how much.
    - TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
      That's a good argument before the vaccine was released. Now the vaccine is available to all who want it. Only those who don't want it remain. Why should they be shamed and forced to take something that is only available because of an emergency use authorization?
      - haswell 5y ago
        Because the vaccines are still only 90-95% effective. As a fully vaccinated individual, I've relaxed my own precautions quite a bit, as is appropriate. However, there are still situations that make me uncomfortable, and I'll still put a mask on / sanitize regularly / etc when I'm in those situations (mostly if I'm interacting with people I know are anti-vax or are unable to get the vaccine for some reason (my brother falls into the 2nd category due to health issues)). One of the primary reasons to attend a conference is to talk to strangers. This often involves meals, drinks, close proximity. No one is being shamed here. Shaming would be creating a separate section at the conference for unvaccinated attendees and literally shaming them.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        guilhas 5y ago
        Then maybe, as fully vaccinated, you would be much safer from not traveling in cars than avoiding contact with unvaccinated As a unvaccinated individual I never took any precaution, except the strictly mandatory to not get stoned in the public square Me or my family will not live in fear of very low probability chances
        haswell 5y ago
        I have a history of health issues that are relevant here, and I evaluate risk based on those health issues. Not every circumstance is the same, and while I do understand that the risk is low, and while I have drastically lowered the precautions I take, I still take this seriously, especially considering the current vaccination rates (they're pretty low). > As a unvaccinated individual I never took any precaution That's your right as an individual; however, that does not reflect the recommendations of most health professionals, nor does it reflect the reality of the global situation. Of course not everyone that skips precautions will get sick, but don't misinterpret your good fortune / luck as an indicator that the behavior was/is safe.
- thu2111 5y ago
  Are you arguing vaccines don't work? The whole point of getting one is it makes you immune so it doesn't matter if other people have it. This total distortion of what vaccines are about is dystopian. Vaccines are about protecting the person who takes them. If a few people who didn't take them renders the vaccine useless for everyone else, that means it's not a vaccine
  - haswell 5y ago
    I understand what you're trying to say, but it makes two problematic assumptions: 1. That vaccines are 100% effective. 2. That vaccines are only about the person who takes them. On #1, this is easy: the best COVID vaccines currently available are around 95% effective. Some are less. That leaves a meaningful chance that despite the vaccination I might still get sick. This provides a nice segue to #2: As the percentage of vaccinated individuals increases, the chances that I'll get sick due to that remaining 5% decreases. This is a core tenet of herd immunity: folks who are not protected by the vaccine (or cannot be due to health issues) are still protected by the fact that everyone around them is protected. This doesn't mean it's safe to not be vaccinated - one need only look at measles outbreaks to validate this - but the point of getting the vaccine is about more than just the individual, it's about the population as a whole.
    - thu2111 5y ago
      Exactly. You are arguing that vaccines don't work to protect people from infection but do work to prevent transmission, which is a complete inversion of what vaccines are normally understood to do. You believe the vaccines don't actually work, or rather, that everyone should act as if they don't, which amounts to the same thing At some point I think you have to accept that your stance is an unfalsifiable form of collectivism. You are insisting that everyone injects themselves with something potentially dangerous to reduce your own risk from extremely small to extremely small, on the back of completely novel and extremely questionable claims, and damn the risk to everyone else.
      - haswell 5y ago
PraetorianGourd 5y ago
Please don’t spread misinformation. There is ample real world and laboratory evidence that mRNA vaccines prevent asymptomatic infection and transmission https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
- Miner49er 5y ago
  You're both spreading misinformation. It clearly says that they "reduce asymptomatic infection and transmission", not prevent.
  - PraetorianGourd 5y ago
    Reduction is a form of prevention. For an unknown quantity of the vaccinated, transmission appears to be prevented. The unknown quantity is important but we are learning more every day.
    - ppf 5y ago
      How does the reduction in transmission due to the vaccine, differ from the reduction in transmission due to being unvaccinated but currently asymptomatic?
      - PraetorianGourd 5y ago
        The studies and real world data thus far show a reduction in _all_ infections, not just symptomatic infection. The trials for approval only really measured symptomatic infection, so it was unknown whether the vaccines prevented all infections (sterilizing immunity) or just symptomatic infections. So the difference is that a non-vaccinated asymptomatic carrier can still infect others as they are _infected_. Whereas the vaccinated person never becomes an asymptomatic carrier in the first place.
        ppf 5y ago

Spivak 5y ago

Liberty != Freedom If you allow unvaccinated people you force people to make the choice between their safety and a bunch of additional restrictions like reduced capacity, social distancing, mask wearing, and individuality portioned food. High freedom, low liberty. If you ban the unvaccinated then everyone can roam freely unencumbered by all those safety precautions. Low freedom, high liberty. I know which one I think is better.

TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
Or you can just treat the unvaccinated like adults and let them behave as their own risk tolerance allows. That means no required masks, social distancing, or security theater like individually portioned food. High freedom, high liberty, high choice
- Spivak 5y ago
  That doesn’t work when your actions affect more than just yourself. If my risk tolerance is high (which it is since I have a friend who has a compromised immune system and can’t risk being a carrier even though I’m vaccinated) and yours is low then we have an unresolvable problem. If you’re allowed to go around freely then my liberty is reduced because now I have to take precautions against being around you where I otherwise wouldn’t. But if you’re not then I get my liberty back as the cost of your freedom of choice. You cannot have all three. Someone is going to lose, it’s just a question of who and how much.
  - TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
    That's a good argument before the vaccine was released. Now the vaccine is available to all who want it. Only those who don't want it remain. Why should they be shamed and forced to take something that is only available because of an emergency use authorization?
    - haswell 5y ago
      Because the vaccines are still only 90-95% effective. As a fully vaccinated individual, I've relaxed my own precautions quite a bit, as is appropriate. However, there are still situations that make me uncomfortable, and I'll still put a mask on / sanitize regularly / etc when I'm in those situations (mostly if I'm interacting with people I know are anti-vax or are unable to get the vaccine for some reason (my brother falls into the 2nd category due to health issues)). One of the primary reasons to attend a conference is to talk to strangers. This often involves meals, drinks, close proximity. No one is being shamed here. Shaming would be creating a separate section at the conference for unvaccinated attendees and literally shaming them.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - guilhas 5y ago
        Then maybe, as fully vaccinated, you would be much safer from not traveling in cars than avoiding contact with unvaccinated As a unvaccinated individual I never took any precaution, except the strictly mandatory to not get stoned in the public square Me or my family will not live in fear of very low probability chances
        haswell 5y ago
        I have a history of health issues that are relevant here, and I evaluate risk based on those health issues. Not every circumstance is the same, and while I do understand that the risk is low, and while I have drastically lowered the precautions I take, I still take this seriously, especially considering the current vaccination rates (they're pretty low). > As a unvaccinated individual I never took any precaution That's your right as an individual; however, that does not reflect the recommendations of most health professionals, nor does it reflect the reality of the global situation. Of course not everyone that skips precautions will get sick, but don't misinterpret your good fortune / luck as an indicator that the behavior was/is safe.
thu2111 5y ago
Are you arguing vaccines don't work? The whole point of getting one is it makes you immune so it doesn't matter if other people have it. This total distortion of what vaccines are about is dystopian. Vaccines are about protecting the person who takes them. If a few people who didn't take them renders the vaccine useless for everyone else, that means it's not a vaccine
- haswell 5y ago
  I understand what you're trying to say, but it makes two problematic assumptions: 1. That vaccines are 100% effective. 2. That vaccines are only about the person who takes them. On #1, this is easy: the best COVID vaccines currently available are around 95% effective. Some are less. That leaves a meaningful chance that despite the vaccination I might still get sick. This provides a nice segue to #2: As the percentage of vaccinated individuals increases, the chances that I'll get sick due to that remaining 5% decreases. This is a core tenet of herd immunity: folks who are not protected by the vaccine (or cannot be due to health issues) are still protected by the fact that everyone around them is protected. This doesn't mean it's safe to not be vaccinated - one need only look at measles outbreaks to validate this - but the point of getting the vaccine is about more than just the individual, it's about the population as a whole.
  - thu2111 5y ago
    Exactly. You are arguing that vaccines don't work to protect people from infection but do work to prevent transmission, which is a complete inversion of what vaccines are normally understood to do. You believe the vaccines don't actually work, or rather, that everyone should act as if they don't, which amounts to the same thing At some point I think you have to accept that your stance is an unfalsifiable form of collectivism. You are insisting that everyone injects themselves with something potentially dangerous to reduce your own risk from extremely small to extremely small, on the back of completely novel and extremely questionable claims, and damn the risk to everyone else.
    - haswell 5y ago

PraetorianGourd 5y ago

Please don’t spread misinformation. There is ample real world and laboratory evidence that mRNA vaccines prevent asymptomatic infection and transmission https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

Miner49er 5y ago
You're both spreading misinformation. It clearly says that they "reduce asymptomatic infection and transmission", not prevent.
- PraetorianGourd 5y ago
  Reduction is a form of prevention. For an unknown quantity of the vaccinated, transmission appears to be prevented. The unknown quantity is important but we are learning more every day.
  - ppf 5y ago
    How does the reduction in transmission due to the vaccine, differ from the reduction in transmission due to being unvaccinated but currently asymptomatic?
    - PraetorianGourd 5y ago
      The studies and real world data thus far show a reduction in _all_ infections, not just symptomatic infection. The trials for approval only really measured symptomatic infection, so it was unknown whether the vaccines prevented all infections (sterilizing immunity) or just symptomatic infections. So the difference is that a non-vaccinated asymptomatic carrier can still infect others as they are _infected_. Whereas the vaccinated person never becomes an asymptomatic carrier in the first place.
      - ppf 5y ago