If injury in a car accident where people are wearing seatbelts is relatively likely, that should totally change the narrative: - expecting seatbelts to prevent

If injury in a car accident where people are wearing seatbelts is relatively likely, that should totally change the narrative: - expecting seatbelts to prevent all traffic injuries becomes unrealistic (it never was but that doesn’t mean it’s useless - the herd immunity war was lost the moment vaccines became political, which was about 20 years ago) - My seatbelt won’t protect you from injury in the event of a crash, and vice versa (don’t confuse possibility with likelihood. Vaccines are still reducing severity and likely reducing the amount of virus that’s being shed e.g. through coughing. Seatbelts also protect other occupants from yourself becoming a projectile, but like vaccines, they don’t fully solve the problem) - seatbelt mandates to enter public roads are essentially pointless and possibly dangerous if they give a false sense of security. Only foolhardy, risk-taking seatbelt-wearing drivers will be on the road. (Passports are a tool to create a mandate in the absence of a mandate. If everyone was vaccinated delta wouldn’t have happened at all. In the absence of that, reducing the load on the hospital system is well worth the cost of the passport system) - The messaging should change to “wear a seatbelt to protect yourself and not burden the health service with your own injuries” (sure, but that’s kind of what the message already is and always has been) I wonder if the poster will understand the analogy that’s being made, or if too much face would be lost at this point?