4 ms·
> My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations wh
by bart_spoon 5y ago
> My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death.
You keep failing to see the logic in this argument you are making. The point is that the government will allow the individual to make whatever medical decisions they want to to the extent it only affects themselves and the people legally in their care, like children. You are not allowed to make those choices when they harm the health and well-being of those that fall outside that purview. You can smoke all you want, and harn your kids with second hand smoke, the same way you can choose not to get vaccinated and harm your children by refusing to let them get vaccinated. But once your choice affects the people around you, your freedom is restricted. You can’t smoke in public areas. And now some governments are making it so you can’t be unvaccinated in public areas. There is no hypocrisy here, if anything it’s the only logically consistent stance. The only difference is that you can “turn off” smoking when you go into public, and can’t do the same for being unvaccinated. But that is an issue for the unvaccinated individual to deal with.
This isn’t even restricted to medical interventions. If I own a private race track, I can drive however I want to, at whatever speed I want, in whatever kind of vehicle I want. But as soon as I want to use a public roadway, there are a litany of restrictions to those freedoms I am subject to, from the speed and the direction I can go, to the type of vehicle I can drive, because not doing so can negatively impact other people. Every society on the planet has had some form of restrictions of personal freedom when they start negatively impacting other members of society in a significant way. And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way.
- ghaff 5y agoTo the children point specifically, the state rightly gives wide latitude for parental decisions and actions before it is considered child abuse. Mistakes certainly happen (in both directions) but for the most part society draws a reasonable line based on current norms.
- miles 5y ago> And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way. Getting vaccinated can also harm oneself in a significant way: Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html Being forced to vaccinate in order to maintain one's livelihood is simply beyond the pale: Covid-19: Mandatory vaccination violates fundamental right to livelihood, says Meghalaya High Court https://scroll.in/latest/998409/covid-19-mandatory-vaccination-violates-fundamental-right-to-livelihood-says-meghalaya-high-court https://scroll.in/latest/998409/covid-19-mandatory-vaccinati... "Vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live."