5 ms·

I think part of the reluctance to get vaccinated also stems from the age-old "Americans have freedom" ideal, freedom to bear arms, freedom to refuse masks and t

by okprod 5y ago

I think part of the reluctance to get vaccinated also stems from the age-old "Americans have freedom" ideal, freedom to bear arms, freedom to refuse masks and the vaccine, etc. Personally, I don't believe I would die from any of the variants. However, I got the vaccine because I don't want to become one of the infected with longer-term problems, including permanently reduced lung capacity.

Grim-444 5y ago
Could you link to a single study that comes to the same conclusions about long term lung problems? Not an opinion piece, facts. Not Reddit/Twitter posts, an actual, scientific, study.
- raphlinus 5y ago
  https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2021210033 https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2021210033
- zachrose 5y ago
  How about a meta-analysis of several studies? Respiratory function in patients post-infection by COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis DOI: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2020.10.013
mason55 5y ago
It's so bizarre. Very few people would argue that they have the freedom to pump chemicals into the air that kill 1% of the population. You have the freedom to do what you want with your body but when it impacts me then that freedom stops being absolute and becomes more nuanced. If you don't want to be vaccinated then that's fine, but you're not allowed to put me at risk with your choice. I almost compare it to drunk driving laws. You can get as drunk as you want at home. But when you get into a car, your choices start to impact everyone else, and your right to get as drunk as you want and die in a single-car accident is trumped by my right to not be subject to undue risk when I'm in public. Even if the risk is low, maybe you've driven drunk 1000 times and never killed anyone, my right to be safe trumps your right to drive drunk.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > Very few people would argue that they have the freedom to pump chemicals into the air that kill 1% of the population The cigarette industry argued this for years past the discovery of passive smoking. In fact I'd say a large amount of 20th century industrial history has been discovering the long list of things that shave bits and pieces off the lives of people in aggregate and banning them - in the face of opposition saying they have a right to emit this and denying the harm.
  - imbnwa 5y ago
    > In fact I'd say a large amount of 20th century industrial history has been discovering the long list of things that shave bits and pieces off the lives of people in aggregate and banning them - in the face of opposition saying they have a right to emit this and denying the harm. Serious movie spoiler alert: this is literally what Soderbergh's latest film is about
- soco 5y ago
  I'm afraid we're way past logic in this kind of debate. You can give facts and comparisons and numbers until you drop and the others will just say "nope" and won't even bother to argue - because they already know, mind you.
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
The age-old saying that "Freedom to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" is something that Americans have a hard time with. It's particularly difficult to reason about probability of harm versus the value of exercising their freedom - if they choose to bear arms, for example, and harm people through poor execution, accidental discharge, or kids hurting themselves with found firearms around the home. It's like swinging your fist into the other man's nose and answering "oops, I meant to stop a millimeter short". Maybe you shouldn't be pointlessly swinging your fist in the first place, go find a punching bag somewhere safe instead. It's even more difficult when you want to compel someone to take positive action instead of preventing them from doing something prohibited. Personally, I don't believe I would die, either. I understand that the possibility of long-term problems is also low, though as an athlete I really value my lung capacity. However, I work with, am friends with, and am related to a lot of people who have far more risk. I believe I would be morally culpable if I failed to wear a mask, socially distance, or get the vaccine, and transmitted the pandemic to someone who did suffer from the illness.

by okprod 5y ago

Grim-444 5y ago

Could you link to a single study that comes to the same conclusions about long term lung problems? Not an opinion piece, facts. Not Reddit/Twitter posts, an actual, scientific, study.

raphlinus 5y ago
https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2021210033 https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2021210033
zachrose 5y ago
How about a meta-analysis of several studies? Respiratory function in patients post-infection by COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis DOI: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2020.10.013

mason55 5y ago

It's so bizarre. Very few people would argue that they have the freedom to pump chemicals into the air that kill 1% of the population. You have the freedom to do what you want with your body but when it impacts me then that freedom stops being absolute and becomes more nuanced. If you don't want to be vaccinated then that's fine, but you're not allowed to put me at risk with your choice. I almost compare it to drunk driving laws. You can get as drunk as you want at home. But when you get into a car, your choices start to impact everyone else, and your right to get as drunk as you want and die in a single-car accident is trumped by my right to not be subject to undue risk when I'm in public. Even if the risk is low, maybe you've driven drunk 1000 times and never killed anyone, my right to be safe trumps your right to drive drunk.

pjc50 5y ago
> Very few people would argue that they have the freedom to pump chemicals into the air that kill 1% of the population The cigarette industry argued this for years past the discovery of passive smoking. In fact I'd say a large amount of 20th century industrial history has been discovering the long list of things that shave bits and pieces off the lives of people in aggregate and banning them - in the face of opposition saying they have a right to emit this and denying the harm.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  > In fact I'd say a large amount of 20th century industrial history has been discovering the long list of things that shave bits and pieces off the lives of people in aggregate and banning them - in the face of opposition saying they have a right to emit this and denying the harm. Serious movie spoiler alert: this is literally what Soderbergh's latest film is about
soco 5y ago
I'm afraid we're way past logic in this kind of debate. You can give facts and comparisons and numbers until you drop and the others will just say "nope" and won't even bother to argue - because they already know, mind you.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

The age-old saying that "Freedom to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" is something that Americans have a hard time with. It's particularly difficult to reason about probability of harm versus the value of exercising their freedom - if they choose to bear arms, for example, and harm people through poor execution, accidental discharge, or kids hurting themselves with found firearms around the home. It's like swinging your fist into the other man's nose and answering "oops, I meant to stop a millimeter short". Maybe you shouldn't be pointlessly swinging your fist in the first place, go find a punching bag somewhere safe instead. It's even more difficult when you want to compel someone to take positive action instead of preventing them from doing something prohibited. Personally, I don't believe I would die, either. I understand that the possibility of long-term problems is also low, though as an athlete I really value my lung capacity. However, I work with, am friends with, and am related to a lot of people who have far more risk. I believe I would be morally culpable if I failed to wear a mask, socially distance, or get the vaccine, and transmitted the pandemic to someone who did suffer from the illness.