7 ms·

"I can’t recall when I last heard someone demanding the freedom to drive without wearing a seat belt." Come on up to New Hampshire here in the States and sugge

"I can’t recall when I last heard someone demanding the freedom to drive without wearing a seat belt." Come on up to New Hampshire here in the States and suggest a seat belt law. You'll get all the "freedom demanding" you can handle.

Izkata 5y ago
And anyway, buses and trains don't even have seat belts.
- Rexxar 5y ago
  Long distance buses have seat belts in Europe.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    And nobody uses them and it's not enforced.
  - yvt 5y ago
    Same in Japan and legally enforced.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  The driver has a seat belt. This is the foundation for why seat belts are mandated to begin with -- it is far easier to lose control of a car when you're unbelted, and that is a huge risk to everyone else on the road. Beyond that, it's probably a matter of practicality that passengers aren't required to be belted in. It would significantly reduce the capacity of public transit. A better option might be to protect the driver from projectile humans. AFAICT that's exactly how modern buses are designed.
  - tzs 5y ago
    Also buses are generally much more massive than the vehicles they collide with, leading to much lower forces on bus passengers than on car passengers. I don't know if this applies to general passenger buses or just school buses, but in the US they have closely spaced seats with energy-absorbing seat backs that limit the force on each passenger and how far the passenger can move in a collision. Smaller school buses (under 10k pounds) are required to have lap and/or shoulder belts at all seating positions.
rootusrootus 5y ago
Yeah, I don't have to go any farther than my brother-in-law. He refuses to wear a seat belt because it is required by law.
- azinman2 5y ago
  It’s very sad to me that a major current of US politics is so anti-govt for anti-govt sake, rather than sound reason, that such behavior even occurs to people. What’s even worse is much of the libertarian/right wing anti-gov furor is pushed by lobbyists and “think tanks” both funded by major industries that want to avoid any kind of regulation.. yet it gets boiled down and refined into culture wars that people happily will absorb into their own psyche. As much as freedom of speech and decentralization is important, constant attacks on this and that in isolation lead to the incorrect conclusion that everything must be thrown away. It’s a product of no one person, but many contribute to the entire macro problem, which means no one also will accept responsibility for the entire mess that were now in such that half the country doesn’t want to save their own and others lives despite a dangerous pandemic by using a safe and paid for vaccine alternative.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > libertarian ... want to avoid any kind of regulation Much of what people know about libertarians comes from its opponents. Actual libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect peoples rights, while maximizing their freedom. Proper regulations would be aimed at preventing one group of people from hurting others. "For their own good" regulations, though, are not libertarian. Adults should be allowed the freedom to make their own choices about themselves. P.S. I got fully vaccinated at the earliest opportunity.
    - danaris 5y ago
      Most of what I know of libertarians I learned from people calling themselves libertarians on the Internet. Were they libertarians? Well, I can't say for certain, but I think that seriously trying to argue they weren't gets well into No True Scotsman territory. Regardless, almost every self-proclaimed libertarian I have ever come across has absolutely argued against government regulations, with the possible exception of those supporting property rights.
briefcomment 5y ago
I don't know why you would equate seatbelts and vaccines, when with one you are requiring people to add a foreign material into their bodies. Seems like a terrible comparison. I'm sure there are many people who oppose compulsory vaccination but would be ok with mandatory seatbelts.
- kamkazemoose 5y ago
  You could turn the argument around. Seat belts pretty much only protect the person wearing the seat belt, while vaccines protect the population in general by stopping the spread of Covid. So people should have the freedom to harm themselves by not wearing a seat belt but vaccines should be mandatory to stop covid from spreading everywhere.
  - cpr 5y ago
    Except that the powers-that-be just admitted that vaccinated people carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated.
    - benjohnson 5y ago
      Only if they have a breakthrough infection - and that is very rare.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      From a variant that only exists because of unvaccinated people. This is where a lot of the frustration comes from.
      - briefcomment 5y ago
        That's conjecture. A conclusion from this study[1] is that vaccines correlate with dominance of fitter variants. That suggests that it's possible that vaccines allow them to propagate. "the decline in lineage diversity was indeed correlated with increased rates of mass vaccination. Furthermore, the decline in lineage diversity was coupled with increased dominance of the B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.1.617 (delta) and P.1 (gamma) variants of concern, suggesting that these variants may be “fitter” SARS-CoV-2 lineages.” [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v...
brobdingnagians 5y ago
If we follow this line of thinking, we don't have to go far before we decide to force everyone to do exactly what we _think_ is right, justified by some hand wavy science or moral belief. There is disagreement in society; we aren't all drones with a hive mind. One person's justification for what he thinks is best is just that, one person's justification. Someone else might think they can poke holes in his arguments, and who is to say which is right? No one. They can go about doing according to their personal beliefs. There are some conventions in society, but once we start encroaching on the gray area, then society becomes oppressive to the minorities who dissent. Our society can clearly see older societies that did it, but fail to see when they are doing it. Just because you think you are absolutely right doesn't mean you have the right to compel others to do it. And, just consider, you might just be wrong... but of course not, our society is so enlightened, it couldn't be wrong...
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  Well put and I couldn't agree more that diversity is essential for robust and fair ecosystems. > And, just consider, you might just be wrong And it's okay to be wrong, so long as one keeps an open mind and considers all the available evidence. For example, consider that people who have been infected and recovered have robust and durable immunity that is proving to be at least equally as effective as vaccination [1][2]. It would be a waste to force these people to be vaccinated, especially when there are many other people who would greatly benefit from those doses (eg in developing countries with limited access to modern healthcare facilities). [1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf [2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Well, it's a lot more than a waste. Recall that mRNA vaccines work by forcing your cells to produce spike protein, which is then detected as an infection leading to those cells being damaged or destroyed by the immune system. If you have already fought off COVID then being injected with the vaccine can only damage your body. It cannot help because you are already immune. And it's not the case that your pre-existing immunity means less damage: it means more, because when your body has never seen the spike protein before it has to build its own immune response in parallel to the mRNA particles degrading and the spike protein manufacturing falling away. The effect of the vaccine doesn't last long so by the time the immune system is fully ramped up the spikes aren't being made much anymore anyway. But if you are fully immune already, then your immune system can start destroying the mRNA 'infected' cells immediately, so far more will end up being attacked. The more you investigate exactly how these mRNA vaccines work, the more questions are raised. And unfortunately there are remarkably few answers out there in the literature.

Izkata 5y ago

And anyway, buses and trains don't even have seat belts.

Rexxar 5y ago
Long distance buses have seat belts in Europe.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  And nobody uses them and it's not enforced.
- yvt 5y ago
  Same in Japan and legally enforced.
rootusrootus 5y ago
The driver has a seat belt. This is the foundation for why seat belts are mandated to begin with -- it is far easier to lose control of a car when you're unbelted, and that is a huge risk to everyone else on the road. Beyond that, it's probably a matter of practicality that passengers aren't required to be belted in. It would significantly reduce the capacity of public transit. A better option might be to protect the driver from projectile humans. AFAICT that's exactly how modern buses are designed.
- tzs 5y ago
  Also buses are generally much more massive than the vehicles they collide with, leading to much lower forces on bus passengers than on car passengers. I don't know if this applies to general passenger buses or just school buses, but in the US they have closely spaced seats with energy-absorbing seat backs that limit the force on each passenger and how far the passenger can move in a collision. Smaller school buses (under 10k pounds) are required to have lap and/or shoulder belts at all seating positions.

rootusrootus 5y ago

Yeah, I don't have to go any farther than my brother-in-law. He refuses to wear a seat belt because it is required by law.

azinman2 5y ago
It’s very sad to me that a major current of US politics is so anti-govt for anti-govt sake, rather than sound reason, that such behavior even occurs to people. What’s even worse is much of the libertarian/right wing anti-gov furor is pushed by lobbyists and “think tanks” both funded by major industries that want to avoid any kind of regulation.. yet it gets boiled down and refined into culture wars that people happily will absorb into their own psyche. As much as freedom of speech and decentralization is important, constant attacks on this and that in isolation lead to the incorrect conclusion that everything must be thrown away. It’s a product of no one person, but many contribute to the entire macro problem, which means no one also will accept responsibility for the entire mess that were now in such that half the country doesn’t want to save their own and others lives despite a dangerous pandemic by using a safe and paid for vaccine alternative.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > libertarian ... want to avoid any kind of regulation Much of what people know about libertarians comes from its opponents. Actual libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect peoples rights, while maximizing their freedom. Proper regulations would be aimed at preventing one group of people from hurting others. "For their own good" regulations, though, are not libertarian. Adults should be allowed the freedom to make their own choices about themselves. P.S. I got fully vaccinated at the earliest opportunity.
  - danaris 5y ago
    Most of what I know of libertarians I learned from people calling themselves libertarians on the Internet. Were they libertarians? Well, I can't say for certain, but I think that seriously trying to argue they weren't gets well into No True Scotsman territory. Regardless, almost every self-proclaimed libertarian I have ever come across has absolutely argued against government regulations, with the possible exception of those supporting property rights.

briefcomment 5y ago

I don't know why you would equate seatbelts and vaccines, when with one you are requiring people to add a foreign material into their bodies. Seems like a terrible comparison. I'm sure there are many people who oppose compulsory vaccination but would be ok with mandatory seatbelts.

kamkazemoose 5y ago
You could turn the argument around. Seat belts pretty much only protect the person wearing the seat belt, while vaccines protect the population in general by stopping the spread of Covid. So people should have the freedom to harm themselves by not wearing a seat belt but vaccines should be mandatory to stop covid from spreading everywhere.
- cpr 5y ago
  Except that the powers-that-be just admitted that vaccinated people carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated.
  - benjohnson 5y ago
    Only if they have a breakthrough infection - and that is very rare.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    From a variant that only exists because of unvaccinated people. This is where a lot of the frustration comes from.
    - briefcomment 5y ago
      That's conjecture. A conclusion from this study[1] is that vaccines correlate with dominance of fitter variants. That suggests that it's possible that vaccines allow them to propagate. "the decline in lineage diversity was indeed correlated with increased rates of mass vaccination. Furthermore, the decline in lineage diversity was coupled with increased dominance of the B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.1.617 (delta) and P.1 (gamma) variants of concern, suggesting that these variants may be “fitter” SARS-CoV-2 lineages.” [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v...

brobdingnagians 5y ago

If we follow this line of thinking, we don't have to go far before we decide to force everyone to do exactly what we _think_ is right, justified by some hand wavy science or moral belief. There is disagreement in society; we aren't all drones with a hive mind. One person's justification for what he thinks is best is just that, one person's justification. Someone else might think they can poke holes in his arguments, and who is to say which is right? No one. They can go about doing according to their personal beliefs. There are some conventions in society, but once we start encroaching on the gray area, then society becomes oppressive to the minorities who dissent. Our society can clearly see older societies that did it, but fail to see when they are doing it. Just because you think you are absolutely right doesn't mean you have the right to compel others to do it. And, just consider, you might just be wrong... but of course not, our society is so enlightened, it couldn't be wrong...

criticaltinker 5y ago
Well put and I couldn't agree more that diversity is essential for robust and fair ecosystems. > And, just consider, you might just be wrong And it's okay to be wrong, so long as one keeps an open mind and considers all the available evidence. For example, consider that people who have been infected and recovered have robust and durable immunity that is proving to be at least equally as effective as vaccination [1][2]. It would be a waste to force these people to be vaccinated, especially when there are many other people who would greatly benefit from those doses (eg in developing countries with limited access to modern healthcare facilities). [1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf [2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
- native_samples 5y ago
  Well, it's a lot more than a waste. Recall that mRNA vaccines work by forcing your cells to produce spike protein, which is then detected as an infection leading to those cells being damaged or destroyed by the immune system. If you have already fought off COVID then being injected with the vaccine can only damage your body. It cannot help because you are already immune. And it's not the case that your pre-existing immunity means less damage: it means more, because when your body has never seen the spike protein before it has to build its own immune response in parallel to the mRNA particles degrading and the spike protein manufacturing falling away. The effect of the vaccine doesn't last long so by the time the immune system is fully ramped up the spikes aren't being made much anymore anyway. But if you are fully immune already, then your immune system can start destroying the mRNA 'infected' cells immediately, so far more will end up being attacked. The more you investigate exactly how these mRNA vaccines work, the more questions are raised. And unfortunately there are remarkably few answers out there in the literature.