3 ms·

I don't think it needs to be compulsory. And I do not mean this in a deontological way regarding what is morally wrong or not; I mean it in the utilitarian sens

I don't think it needs to be compulsory. And I do not mean this in a deontological way regarding what is morally wrong or not; I mean it in the utilitarian sense. As humans, we already have tools to make people conform. Like when someone refuses to shower, they will probably be viewed as disgusting. If someone says something derogatory, we tend to punish them somehow. I think the same process can occur in this case. People who increase other people's risk of acquiring a disease should face some type of cost for that. Just let people be people and antivaxxers will eventually be ostracized.

ekianjo 5y ago
> People who increase other people's risk of acquiring a disease should face some type of cost for that. I wonder how you feel about AIDS or HIV positive patients.
- rafaelero 5y ago
  They are kind of ostracized. That's why they feel compelled to be open about their status before going into a relationship. It is a pretty shitty situation, but it is what it is. If HIV had no negative connotation, people would be much less careful and would put more people at risk.
13years 5y ago
> People who increase other people's risk of acquiring a disease should face some type of cost for that. And what if it is the opposite of what you think? Still in favor? There are increasing reports of the vaccinated being primary spreaders. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...