5 ms·

Society has tradeoffs. Paying taxes is one of them. Getting vaccinated is another. Those tradeoffs are made to protect the weaker members of society so that ev

Society has tradeoffs. Paying taxes is one of them. Getting vaccinated is another. Those tradeoffs are made to protect the weaker members of society so that everyone, even the less fortunate, gets a fairer shot. In return, you get all the advantages of said society. This idea that you're protesting tyranny or something is absurd. You're being asked to give up a few hours of your time and some muscle pain to fight back against something that is plaguing the entire planet. You want to be selfish? Okay, but then go live on your own and don't go and contaminate other members of our society. You want to be selfish but still go to restaurants and concerts and airports and what not? Well what the fuck can I tell ya.

dustinmoris 5y ago
BBC presenter died of blood clot from the jab: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-presenter-died-blood-clot-20695064 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-presenter-die... Mandating a medicine which many people don't really need is yet the most unethical dystopian thing of our current times. This is nothing like paying taxes because no tax bill has caused someone to die from side effects. Also I know that those side effects are extremely rare, but if you force it on 100% of the population then you know that there will be some who will be affected and you are essentially willingly killing some in order to protect others. That is completely unethical in principle. And I repeat, I am pro vaccine, but not forcefully applied to everyone. It should be a choice. I was happy to get vaccinated because I wasn't afraid of any side effects. But I also wasn't afraid of COVID so there's that.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  When you're talking about side effects that are this rare, I can guarantee you that the side effects of just about anything are just as frequent. "Nobody has died from a tax bill" is nonsense. If you give it more than a moment's thought, you'll realize that there's probably plenty of people who have in fact died as a side effect of any type of unexpected bill, and that can include tax bill. Your premise that "many people don't really need" the vaccine for a highly infectious, highly transmissible disease is flawed from the get go. If you don't get the vaccine, you will catch COVID at one point or another, especially as its transmissibility goes up. And if you catch it, it's just a roll of the die whether you suffer side effects from it or not. This isn't about being scared of it or not, it's about numbers. Regardless on whether you suffer side effects, you will be a transmission vector. And if you do suffer side effects, you'll be a burden on society. It is in fact society's responsibility to prevent this from happening. I'm not a fan of nanny states, but when so many people are so eager to be not only selfish but a danger to themselves, fuck it all to hell, I'm pro mandatory vaccination at that point. I'd never have been pro mandatory vaccines until I found out just how many anti-vax people there are. Funny how that works: The more of them there are, the more we need to make them mandatory.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dustinmoris 5y ago
    > "Nobody has died from a tax bill" is nonsense. If you give it more than a moment's thought, you'll realize that there's probably plenty of people who have in fact died as a side effect of any type of unexpected bill, and that can include tax bill. Don't be ridiculous. That is just plain ridiculous. > If you don't get the vaccine, you will catch COVID at one point or another Vaccinated people also continue to catch COVID. The vaccine doesn't shut the entry points, just helps your body to fight it off when it enters you. > And if you catch it, it's just a roll of the die whether you suffer side effects from it or not. A roll of the die means 50% chance and that is just ridiculous again. The vast majority of people and close to 100% of young healthy people have no lasting effects whatsoever of an infection. I agree the effects are different for different people, but it's not a roll of the die. That statement is just complete stupid nonsense. > Regardless on whether you suffer side effects, you will be a transmission vector. Only people with enough viral load will have enough virus to spill it. This is why asymptomatic or minor infections like those of vaccinated people have a near zero chance of transmission. This is precisely why double vaccinated people don't need to quarantine in many countries anymore. > And if you do suffer side effects, you'll be a burden on society. This is the biggest idiot statement I have ever read. Young healthy people who want to work, live life and socialise ARE NOT a burden on society. Do you know who is a burden on society? People who can't stop eating McDonalds, cake and drink Coca Cola and therefore need protection from a mild virus and who cost us so much public money with all their health issues being treated by our free health service. Smokers are a burden on society. People driving polluting cars are a burden on society. Facebook is a burden on society. Not young healthy innocent people who just want to go about life, enjoy their time on this planet, work and socialise. If normal healthy people are a danger to other people by just walking normally through life and breathing air normally is putting others in danger, maybe those "others" are the burden on society.
    - scrollaway 5y ago
      A roll of the die is not 50 percent (that'd be the flip of a coin); I take it English is not your native language, so just for the record what I meant was "it's down to luck". This latest comment proves one thing: you're a burden on society whether you want to admit it or not (and whether you're vaccinated has long stopped being relevant, this attitude is a problem). You're just trying to rationalize yourself away by trying desperately to find people "worse" than you. McDonalds eh? Come off it. Your arguments are so off base they're not even worth debating. Done wasting time with you.
natmaka 5y ago
> Society has tradeoffs. Paying taxes is one of them. Getting vaccinated is another. Who decided all this, how, when, and why were they entitled to do so? > You're being asked to ... take a risk. As far as I know nobody guarantees that those COVID vaccines are without any dangerous side-effect, therefore there is a risk. In my opinion a referendum is the only way to exhibit what you take for granted: before any vaccination campaign, more than 50% voters have to explicitly ask for a "mandatory vaccination". We had plenty of time to organize this in 2020.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  > ... take a risk. As far as I know nobody guarantees that those COVID vaccines are without any dangerous side-effect, therefore there is a risk. Covid is a risk as well. And it's a risk not only for yourself, but for other people, both around you and complete strangers. There are some people that are can't be vaccinated at all, they are at higher risk of dying or having severe long term side effects if they get Covid.
  - natmaka 5y ago
    I understand this approach, however as there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. Moreover people feeling very threatened by the COVID can extra-protect themselves, and even refuse contact with non-vaccinated people (I'm OK with this). Another take: I want everyone to stop driving because I want to walk exactly as I wish (without taking cars into account), and also people emitting exhaust gas are threatening my health. If all this leads to coerce some into taking a risk because others want to reduce the impact on their lives of another risk, I can see some social long-term problem. "Coercing into solidarity" should ring a bell.
    - scrollaway 5y ago
      This is very true: > Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. … but given that COVID is a risk, as GP was saying, then a world without vaccines is indeed a recipe for disaster. I want to stress how little sense your post makes if you consider that COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine (and it UNARGUABLY IS -- COVID is known to be a risk, and is known to cause illness and death to several magnitudes more than even the less severe side effects we're getting from vaccines). Your last paragraph for example argues against itself: If you're not taking the vaccine, you're forcing a (much larger) risk onto others because you want to avoid taking a (much smaller) risk yourself. COVID is a bigger risk. Period. Not just "to the elderly", but to you, too. The potential issues with COVID vaccines, even if they've been around less long than most other ones, cannot come close to the risks of COVID, no matter how fit, young and healthy you are. Hundreds of millions have been infected with COVID. Billions have taken the vaccine. The former has resulted in a worldwide shitshow. The latter has allowed us to start reopening things. You say "but there's a risk!" like it's some kind of gotcha. There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. For example, driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Getting vaccinated is a negligible risk, and its upshot is significant, for you AND EVERYONE ELSE too.

dustinmoris 5y ago

BBC presenter died of blood clot from the jab: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-presenter-died-blood-clot-20695064 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-presenter-die... Mandating a medicine which many people don't really need is yet the most unethical dystopian thing of our current times. This is nothing like paying taxes because no tax bill has caused someone to die from side effects. Also I know that those side effects are extremely rare, but if you force it on 100% of the population then you know that there will be some who will be affected and you are essentially willingly killing some in order to protect others. That is completely unethical in principle. And I repeat, I am pro vaccine, but not forcefully applied to everyone. It should be a choice. I was happy to get vaccinated because I wasn't afraid of any side effects. But I also wasn't afraid of COVID so there's that.

scrollaway 5y ago
When you're talking about side effects that are this rare, I can guarantee you that the side effects of just about anything are just as frequent. "Nobody has died from a tax bill" is nonsense. If you give it more than a moment's thought, you'll realize that there's probably plenty of people who have in fact died as a side effect of any type of unexpected bill, and that can include tax bill. Your premise that "many people don't really need" the vaccine for a highly infectious, highly transmissible disease is flawed from the get go. If you don't get the vaccine, you will catch COVID at one point or another, especially as its transmissibility goes up. And if you catch it, it's just a roll of the die whether you suffer side effects from it or not. This isn't about being scared of it or not, it's about numbers. Regardless on whether you suffer side effects, you will be a transmission vector. And if you do suffer side effects, you'll be a burden on society. It is in fact society's responsibility to prevent this from happening. I'm not a fan of nanny states, but when so many people are so eager to be not only selfish but a danger to themselves, fuck it all to hell, I'm pro mandatory vaccination at that point. I'd never have been pro mandatory vaccines until I found out just how many anti-vax people there are. Funny how that works: The more of them there are, the more we need to make them mandatory.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dustinmoris 5y ago
  > "Nobody has died from a tax bill" is nonsense. If you give it more than a moment's thought, you'll realize that there's probably plenty of people who have in fact died as a side effect of any type of unexpected bill, and that can include tax bill. Don't be ridiculous. That is just plain ridiculous. > If you don't get the vaccine, you will catch COVID at one point or another Vaccinated people also continue to catch COVID. The vaccine doesn't shut the entry points, just helps your body to fight it off when it enters you. > And if you catch it, it's just a roll of the die whether you suffer side effects from it or not. A roll of the die means 50% chance and that is just ridiculous again. The vast majority of people and close to 100% of young healthy people have no lasting effects whatsoever of an infection. I agree the effects are different for different people, but it's not a roll of the die. That statement is just complete stupid nonsense. > Regardless on whether you suffer side effects, you will be a transmission vector. Only people with enough viral load will have enough virus to spill it. This is why asymptomatic or minor infections like those of vaccinated people have a near zero chance of transmission. This is precisely why double vaccinated people don't need to quarantine in many countries anymore. > And if you do suffer side effects, you'll be a burden on society. This is the biggest idiot statement I have ever read. Young healthy people who want to work, live life and socialise ARE NOT a burden on society. Do you know who is a burden on society? People who can't stop eating McDonalds, cake and drink Coca Cola and therefore need protection from a mild virus and who cost us so much public money with all their health issues being treated by our free health service. Smokers are a burden on society. People driving polluting cars are a burden on society. Facebook is a burden on society. Not young healthy innocent people who just want to go about life, enjoy their time on this planet, work and socialise. If normal healthy people are a danger to other people by just walking normally through life and breathing air normally is putting others in danger, maybe those "others" are the burden on society.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    A roll of the die is not 50 percent (that'd be the flip of a coin); I take it English is not your native language, so just for the record what I meant was "it's down to luck". This latest comment proves one thing: you're a burden on society whether you want to admit it or not (and whether you're vaccinated has long stopped being relevant, this attitude is a problem). You're just trying to rationalize yourself away by trying desperately to find people "worse" than you. McDonalds eh? Come off it. Your arguments are so off base they're not even worth debating. Done wasting time with you.

natmaka 5y ago

> Society has tradeoffs. Paying taxes is one of them. Getting vaccinated is another. Who decided all this, how, when, and why were they entitled to do so? > You're being asked to ... take a risk. As far as I know nobody guarantees that those COVID vaccines are without any dangerous side-effect, therefore there is a risk. In my opinion a referendum is the only way to exhibit what you take for granted: before any vaccination campaign, more than 50% voters have to explicitly ask for a "mandatory vaccination". We had plenty of time to organize this in 2020.

nextaccountic 5y ago
> ... take a risk. As far as I know nobody guarantees that those COVID vaccines are without any dangerous side-effect, therefore there is a risk. Covid is a risk as well. And it's a risk not only for yourself, but for other people, both around you and complete strangers. There are some people that are can't be vaccinated at all, they are at higher risk of dying or having severe long term side effects if they get Covid.
- natmaka 5y ago
  I understand this approach, however as there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. Moreover people feeling very threatened by the COVID can extra-protect themselves, and even refuse contact with non-vaccinated people (I'm OK with this). Another take: I want everyone to stop driving because I want to walk exactly as I wish (without taking cars into account), and also people emitting exhaust gas are threatening my health. If all this leads to coerce some into taking a risk because others want to reduce the impact on their lives of another risk, I can see some social long-term problem. "Coercing into solidarity" should ring a bell.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    This is very true: > Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. … but given that COVID is a risk, as GP was saying, then a world without vaccines is indeed a recipe for disaster. I want to stress how little sense your post makes if you consider that COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine (and it UNARGUABLY IS -- COVID is known to be a risk, and is known to cause illness and death to several magnitudes more than even the less severe side effects we're getting from vaccines). Your last paragraph for example argues against itself: If you're not taking the vaccine, you're forcing a (much larger) risk onto others because you want to avoid taking a (much smaller) risk yourself. COVID is a bigger risk. Period. Not just "to the elderly", but to you, too. The potential issues with COVID vaccines, even if they've been around less long than most other ones, cannot come close to the risks of COVID, no matter how fit, young and healthy you are. Hundreds of millions have been infected with COVID. Billions have taken the vaccine. The former has resulted in a worldwide shitshow. The latter has allowed us to start reopening things. You say "but there's a risk!" like it's some kind of gotcha. There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. For example, driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Getting vaccinated is a negligible risk, and its upshot is significant, for you AND EVERYONE ELSE too.