5 ms·

>>> One has to believe at some point that liberty is worth a certain amount of risk. Others will be taking a risk for your liberty, that is where it becomes un

by ngc248 5y ago

>>> One has to believe at some point that liberty is worth a certain amount of risk. Others will be taking a risk for your liberty, that is where it becomes unacceptable. We live in a society and individual freedoms must be balanced by the responsibilities towards your fellow man.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
colechristensen 5y ago
This misses the point. "Liberty" isn't the freedom to put yourself at risk with no consequences to anyone or anything else. It is recognizing that there must be, at some point, a prioritization of giving people choices that might impact others. >individual freedoms must be balanced by the responsibilities Must be balanced not obliterated by "responsibilities".
- ngc248 5y ago
  >>> "Liberty" isn't the freedom to put yourself at risk with no consequences to anyone or anything else. >>> It is recognizing that there must be, at some point, a prioritization of giving people choices that might impact others. There will always be a set of people who prioritize themselves over others and in the case of corona as we have seen it just takes 1 selfish person to start the snowballing effectt. We are seeing actual Zombie movie tropes playing out in real life coz of this corona pandemic. even if 98% of people get vaccinated, the holdout population maybe enough to incubate and spread new variants.
  - throwaway_12_12 5y ago
    Do you really believe what you have written here? People who chose not to take a jab are zombies to you?
    - detaro 5y ago
      That's not what they wrote.
White_Wolf 5y ago
Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but arent those that don't want the vaccine a risk just for themselves? If they want to risk it it's their problem/choice. One thing everyone seems to ignore is those people that have immunity/antibodies and don't actually need a vaccine. Why is that? As far as I managed to read here and there not even the shot I had protects me from catching or spreading the virus. It only reduces(at least I hope) the damage done when infected even though my age group should be ok-ish even without.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Whichever vaccine you had, it has a high chance (90ish percent) of preventing any detectable infection, and as a corollary being contagious. If you do lose the odds and develop an infection, the rates of various outcomes are all better. i.e. very low chance of death or ICU visit, very high chance of no or extremely mild symptoms People don’t have a good understanding of statistics, of how to treat risk, or of basic disease dynamics.
  - wait_a_minute 5y ago
    Is this the same with antibodies from having had covid already?
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      There is less signal to noise when it comes to reinfections because the data is just harder to come by, but the preliminary evidence shows that reinfections do happen, but quite rarely (some numbers from a few waves of infections showed only 1 out of 150 positive results were from people who had tested positive previously). There has also been evidence that intensity of infection is correlated to post-infection immunity (i.e. if you were asymptomatic you have less immunity than if you were hospitalized) It is reasonable to believe that having had an existing infection will boost your immunity against future infections and that both vaccines and previous infections will protect you on a diminishing basis, say, for a year or two. (based on existing covid evidence and the behavior of immunity to other coronaviruses which are common in humans which are usually very mild and referred to as a "cold")

by ngc248 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

colechristensen 5y ago

This misses the point. "Liberty" isn't the freedom to put yourself at risk with no consequences to anyone or anything else. It is recognizing that there must be, at some point, a prioritization of giving people choices that might impact others. >individual freedoms must be balanced by the responsibilities Must be balanced not obliterated by "responsibilities".

ngc248 5y ago
>>> "Liberty" isn't the freedom to put yourself at risk with no consequences to anyone or anything else. >>> It is recognizing that there must be, at some point, a prioritization of giving people choices that might impact others. There will always be a set of people who prioritize themselves over others and in the case of corona as we have seen it just takes 1 selfish person to start the snowballing effectt. We are seeing actual Zombie movie tropes playing out in real life coz of this corona pandemic. even if 98% of people get vaccinated, the holdout population maybe enough to incubate and spread new variants.
- throwaway_12_12 5y ago
  Do you really believe what you have written here? People who chose not to take a jab are zombies to you?
  - detaro 5y ago
    That's not what they wrote.

White_Wolf 5y ago

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but arent those that don't want the vaccine a risk just for themselves? If they want to risk it it's their problem/choice. One thing everyone seems to ignore is those people that have immunity/antibodies and don't actually need a vaccine. Why is that? As far as I managed to read here and there not even the shot I had protects me from catching or spreading the virus. It only reduces(at least I hope) the damage done when infected even though my age group should be ok-ish even without.

colechristensen 5y ago
Whichever vaccine you had, it has a high chance (90ish percent) of preventing any detectable infection, and as a corollary being contagious. If you do lose the odds and develop an infection, the rates of various outcomes are all better. i.e. very low chance of death or ICU visit, very high chance of no or extremely mild symptoms People don’t have a good understanding of statistics, of how to treat risk, or of basic disease dynamics.
- wait_a_minute 5y ago
  Is this the same with antibodies from having had covid already?
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    There is less signal to noise when it comes to reinfections because the data is just harder to come by, but the preliminary evidence shows that reinfections do happen, but quite rarely (some numbers from a few waves of infections showed only 1 out of 150 positive results were from people who had tested positive previously). There has also been evidence that intensity of infection is correlated to post-infection immunity (i.e. if you were asymptomatic you have less immunity than if you were hospitalized) It is reasonable to believe that having had an existing infection will boost your immunity against future infections and that both vaccines and previous infections will protect you on a diminishing basis, say, for a year or two. (based on existing covid evidence and the behavior of immunity to other coronaviruses which are common in humans which are usually very mild and referred to as a "cold")