8 ms·

Even if true, so what? It's their bodies. They should be allowed to choose, just like you are.

cbg0 5y ago
Nobody's saying they're not allowed to choose, this is more of a discussion about how some people may never really be truly satisfied with the safety of a vaccine regardless of how many studies are published and how much information on the subject is available. While I'm a big fan of people having a choice, due to the large amount of misinformation out there people are dying. We have people in my country that could have gotten the vaccine but didn't because of Facebook conspiracies and are now refusing oxygen in hospitals because they're afraid their lungs will explode - due to Facebook conspiracies.
delecti 5y ago
I can absolutely judge someone for a decision that I want them to have the right to make. It's absurd to suggest I shouldn't be able to. There's no good reason for the majority * of people to avoid the COVID vaccines. They're making a dumb decision. * Of course there are exceptions, but it's a small percent
enumjorge 5y ago
Again with this argument. This particular decision with their bodies is harming others. Getting really drunk and driving home is also a decision about your body. So is smoking inside restaurants. Those have been illegal for a while. For those of us who got the vaccine, we’re still having to take precautions because of the delta variant spikes, largely from people who didn’t get a vaccine. Where is our choice?
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  There is a great chasm between direct action resulting in tragedy and inaction for the preservation of autonomy having an infinitesimally small probability of directly resulting in tragedy. Comparing choosing to drive drunk with not choosing to take a particular action that has an infinitesimally small probability of directly causing tragedy are not remotely comparable.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    Inaction is a deliberate choice. It doesn't matter if it's driven by some misguided notion of "autonomy". Deliberately choosing not to get vaccinated is about as close a comparison with drunk driving as you can get. People are deliberately choosing to behave recklessly, with possible deadly results for others. The only difference is one reckless choice is against the law and one is not.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      No it really isn't a valid comparison and you're clearly more of an ideologue than someone interested in examining the entirety of the situation critically. If the vaccines are effective, then the only people at risk are those that refuse to get it. Everyone is subject to the consequences of their autonomous choice alone. The same is true for potential long term negative effects of the vaccines. Those that refuse to get it are subject to the potential long term effects of COVID, if they get it. And those that get the vaccine are guaranteed to be subject to the long term effects of having done so. Either you believe the vaccines work or you don't. The variants dominated highly vaccinated places like the UK and Israel, so don't blame the unvaccinated for bringing it about. The selective pressure applied to the virus by leaky vaccines is far greater than natural immunity.
      - xur17 5y ago
        > If the vaccines are effective, then the only people at risk are those that refuse to get it. Everyone is subject to the consequences of their autonomous choice alone. Vaccines aren't a binary 100% or 0% effective tool, it's somewhere in the middle. If my 10 coworkers all get the vaccine, it reduces the probability of me contracting the virus, even if I got vaccinated myself. There is a communal aspect to the vaccine that you are missing here.
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        Basically every other vaccine is, that's why they're not leaky.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  > we’re still having to take precautions because of the delta variant spikes, largely from people who didn’t get a vaccine That's because the manufacturers lied about efficacy in the first place. The whole theory for these mRNA vaccines was that by targeting the 'spike' protein, the vaccine would be resistant to mutant strains because that protein is what binds to the ACE2 receptors and allows infection. If that protein were to mutate, then no binding, no infection. > Where is our choice? You choice was to fund therapeutics that cure the disease, or try to enforce mandates. You chose wrong, now you live with the choice.
  - acdha 5y ago
    When exactly did the manufacturers lie about efficacy? Be specific, and cite your sources.
    - linuxftw 5y ago
      From 1, page 42 > Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group. Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group. Why are there suspected but not confirmed cases of COVID-19? The document doesn't say. But here's what we know: not all participants received PCR tests to confirm their status, only those that presented some set of symptoms. 1: https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download
  - oblio 5y ago
    > You choice was to fund therapeutics that cure the disease, or try to enforce mandates. You chose wrong, now you live with the choice. You do know that there's a ton of investment going into curing Covid, right? But you can't just "magic" a cure out of thin air.
- dolni 5y ago
  > Getting really drunk and driving home is also a decision about your body. So is smoking inside restaurants. Smelly analogy is smelly. You're talking about the difference between very specific behaviors being prohibited versus blacklisting half of the population from participating in society with vaccine mandates (many of whom are black, by the way). It's not even close to a valid comparison. I get the sense that the overlap of people who are pro-mandatory-vaccine and pro-choice is pretty high, being that they are both liberal positions. "My body, my choice" is just fine for women's reproductive rights, even if it meant taking away a baby's chance to live. All of a sudden "my body, my choice" doesn't sound so good? I got both of my shots but I am so tired of people blaming anti-vaxxers. Give me a vaccine good enough that I don't have to worry about it. Today, I'm literally going to get a COVID test despite having both my vaccine doses. Why? Apparently my government isn't capable of providing useful guidance to keep me safe. We keep hearing about masks, but the mandate got dropped and there was never any talk about mandating the clearly superior KN95 or N95 masks. Anti-vaxxers have been consistent from the beginning that they're not getting vaccinated. You know whose position keeps changing? FDA & CDC. Whether it's how effective the vaccine is, what the side effects are, do we need to wear masks, how much social distancing is required, whether or not a booster is useful... You and everyone else blaming anti-vaxxers are letting the government redirect blame for its own failures.
  - oblio 5y ago
    > Why? Apparently my government isn't capable of providing useful guidance to keep me safe. We keep hearing about masks, but the mandate got dropped and there was never any talk about mandating the clearly superior KN95 or N95 masks. > Anti-vaxxers have been consistent from the beginning that they're not getting vaccinated. You know whose position keeps changing? FDA & CDC. Whether it's how effective the vaccine is, what the side effects are, do we need to wear masks, how much social distancing is required, whether or not a booster is useful... > You and everyone else blaming anti-vaxxers are letting the government redirect blame for its own failures. Science adapts and adjusts based on new information. The lack of willingness to adapt when confronted with new evidence has an unfortunate name.
    - 5y ago
- umvi 5y ago
  > So is smoking inside restaurants. But not smoking in your car or at home. There are tons of American parents who hotbox their kids with cigarette or marijuana smoke on a daily basis which not only harms them with second hand smoke but increases their chances of smoking themselves by an astronomical factor. Parents legally harm their children constantly by setting bad diet patterns (child obesity), or substance abuse patterns just to name a few ways. Should we make that illegal and have the state raise those kids?
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Your argument is essentially that because we don't / cannot outlaw all ways to harm others, we cannot justify making other laws to avoid harming others? You are also strawmanning to assume that laws that punish bad parenting would immediately skip to the state raising the kids.
    - umvi 5y ago
      It's not an argument but a question. Should we try to minimize harm in society at the expense of individual freedoms, and if so how far do we take it? Having the state raise kids is being seriously discussed in places like Harvard Law Review as an ideological harm reduction measure. Should any freedom that could possibly be abused to harm others (such as right to own a gun, right to refuse a vaccine, right to own and drive a car, etc.) be eventually outlawed, leaving only freedoms that let you harm yourself?
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        Cherry picking moments to ask targeted questions is more or less a form of persuasive arguing. All laws restrict freedoms to protect the wider society. This isn't a novel concept. Not being able to murder is a freedom deprived of you. The question of "should any freedom that could possibly be abused to harm others be eventually outlawed" is obviously "No". Law is not the only tool to encourage better behavior. But passing laws to outlaw any of your examples doesn't mean we're saying "Yes" anymore than outlawing murder does. Those are just specific laws. The question is "which freedoms should be restricted to prevent individuals from harming others". Your original framing of the question makes it an all or nothing case, but its not. The state does deprive people of rights to raise their kids if they're really awful parents. That does not mean that making smoking in a car with kids illegal guarantees that this would be the associated punishment.
antattack 5y ago
"Even if true, so what? It's their bodies. They should be allowed to choose, just like you are." Is this still true if unvaccinated takes a hospital bed away from someone else or increases insurance costs to everyone else due to more expensive care?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  Replacing “unvaccinated” with “obese” here gives an argument for forcing obese people on diet against their will.
  - antattack 5y ago
    It's unamerican to force people to do something. However, smokers, for example, pay higher insurance premiums and alcohol is taxed higher.
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      Yeah, smoking is just about the only thing the insurance companies are legally allowed to upcharge for. That’s one of the main reasons Obamacare was passed in the first place. The whole reality is now completely dystopian. We have people calling for denying healthcare to people who took “my body, my choice” as a right, because they voluntarily chose to not take the vaccine. However, these same people would be completely appalled by the idea of letting a drug addict die on the street from overdose, even though it is also a result of their voluntary choice to take drugs. The very same people who call for denying people things like a right to eat at a restaurant or get groceries without vaccine passport, claim that requiring ID to vote is a violation of civil rights, and all that despite the fact that black Americans are least vaccinated group in US. Total insanity.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        Requiring an ID to vote is a violation of civil rights purely because local governments make it difficult for poor people to get IDs for free. If everyone was issue a government ID for free, this would be a nonissue. I'm not aware of any grocery stores requiring a vaccine passport, but in general, the bar for a private business allowing customers in should be a lot more malleable fluid that voting restrictions. It's not a contradiction of principles to point this out even if poor black people are among the lowest vaccination groups.
geofft 5y ago
The comment above is asking "how many employers, colleges, etc. are now willing and legally able to require vaccination." You're welcome to choose not to get vaccinated, and not to go to any such employers, colleges, etc.
NineStarPoint 5y ago
Because in cases like this, the choice they’re making with their body can be directly responsible for the hospitalization and death of other people in their vicinity. Vaccines aren’t fool proof, every person who doesn’t take the vaccine is an increased chance for those who did take the vaccine to get exposed to a breakthrough case. I know I wouldn’t want to work in person at any place that didn’t have a vaccine mandate. Once vaccines are approved for children, I think people’s options should be to either vaccinate their child or homeschool them, since if I had children I wouldn’t want them exposed to the unvaccinated. The federal and state governments forcing everyone to get the shot would be a step too far for me, but I’m very much in support of it being hard to be a part of society if you refuse to take one of the most basic steps to protect other people in it.
- odessacubbage 5y ago
  are you overweight, elderly or otherwise immunocompromised? if not your risk of hospitalization or death [from covid19] is miniscule. >it being hard to be a part of society if you refuse to take one of the most basic steps to protect other people in it. there are a huge number of diseases you can knowingly spread with far more severe long term consequences while still being 'part of society'. frankly i do not think free and democratic societies can survive while trying to also fulfill the moral compunction not to let anyone die ever from transmittable illness, it is simply at odds with our biology. we, like all mammals are walking bags of filth and disease and no amount of indefinite containment will ever change that reality.
  - hendersoon 5y ago
    If you're in the western world, catch COVID right now, and aren't vaccinated, even if you aren't immunocompromised, diabetic, elderly, or obese odds are your chances of dying from COVID are higher than any other disease you've caught in your life. Now it's true that chance is probably somewhere around 0.3% assuming you don't live in an area where hospitals are out of ICU beds and vents. But it's your _life_ at risk.
    - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 5y ago
Yes. I should be allowed to choose whom I want to associate with, too, and exclude those who represent a larger infectious disease risk. That's the rub. We need to make it effortless for people to make these choices.
p_j_w 5y ago
It's my car, I should be allowed to choose to drive it drunk.
- foolfoolz 5y ago
  drive it drunk on gvt owned roads? where you have a license to operate it if you abide by specific rules? and you lose the license if any of them are broken? that’s a very different comparison to something like going to a private business what about driving drunk on your own land away from anyone
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    >that’s a very different comparison to something like going to a private business Governments regulate comings and goings of people to and from private businesses all the time. We don't allow people under 21 to go to bars or people under 18 to go to strip clubs, for example. >what about driving drunk on your own land away from anyone If you wanna walk around on your own land away from anyone without getting vaccinated and/or while having covid? Have at it.
specto 5y ago
Yep just like I was required to get vaccines to go to school when I was younger and so was everyone else.
sxcurry 5y ago
Because they're fouling up everything for everybody else. Where I live (Oregon) if I were to get hit by a car and need an ICU bed, odds are I'd be put on a stretcher in a hall somewhere. All the ICU beds are filled with unvaccinated people denying that they have Covid.
kalleboo 5y ago
If it was ethical to require them to opt-out of medical treatment if they got sick, then maybe sure.

cbg0 5y ago

Nobody's saying they're not allowed to choose, this is more of a discussion about how some people may never really be truly satisfied with the safety of a vaccine regardless of how many studies are published and how much information on the subject is available. While I'm a big fan of people having a choice, due to the large amount of misinformation out there people are dying. We have people in my country that could have gotten the vaccine but didn't because of Facebook conspiracies and are now refusing oxygen in hospitals because they're afraid their lungs will explode - due to Facebook conspiracies.

delecti 5y ago

I can absolutely judge someone for a decision that I want them to have the right to make. It's absurd to suggest I shouldn't be able to. There's no good reason for the majority * of people to avoid the COVID vaccines. They're making a dumb decision. * Of course there are exceptions, but it's a small percent

enumjorge 5y ago

Again with this argument. This particular decision with their bodies is harming others. Getting really drunk and driving home is also a decision about your body. So is smoking inside restaurants. Those have been illegal for a while. For those of us who got the vaccine, we’re still having to take precautions because of the delta variant spikes, largely from people who didn’t get a vaccine. Where is our choice?

defaultprimate 5y ago
There is a great chasm between direct action resulting in tragedy and inaction for the preservation of autonomy having an infinitesimally small probability of directly resulting in tragedy. Comparing choosing to drive drunk with not choosing to take a particular action that has an infinitesimally small probability of directly causing tragedy are not remotely comparable.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Inaction is a deliberate choice. It doesn't matter if it's driven by some misguided notion of "autonomy". Deliberately choosing not to get vaccinated is about as close a comparison with drunk driving as you can get. People are deliberately choosing to behave recklessly, with possible deadly results for others. The only difference is one reckless choice is against the law and one is not.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    No it really isn't a valid comparison and you're clearly more of an ideologue than someone interested in examining the entirety of the situation critically. If the vaccines are effective, then the only people at risk are those that refuse to get it. Everyone is subject to the consequences of their autonomous choice alone. The same is true for potential long term negative effects of the vaccines. Those that refuse to get it are subject to the potential long term effects of COVID, if they get it. And those that get the vaccine are guaranteed to be subject to the long term effects of having done so. Either you believe the vaccines work or you don't. The variants dominated highly vaccinated places like the UK and Israel, so don't blame the unvaccinated for bringing it about. The selective pressure applied to the virus by leaky vaccines is far greater than natural immunity.
    - xur17 5y ago
      > If the vaccines are effective, then the only people at risk are those that refuse to get it. Everyone is subject to the consequences of their autonomous choice alone. Vaccines aren't a binary 100% or 0% effective tool, it's somewhere in the middle. If my 10 coworkers all get the vaccine, it reduces the probability of me contracting the virus, even if I got vaccinated myself. There is a communal aspect to the vaccine that you are missing here.
      - defaultprimate 5y ago
        Basically every other vaccine is, that's why they're not leaky.
linuxftw 5y ago
> we’re still having to take precautions because of the delta variant spikes, largely from people who didn’t get a vaccine That's because the manufacturers lied about efficacy in the first place. The whole theory for these mRNA vaccines was that by targeting the 'spike' protein, the vaccine would be resistant to mutant strains because that protein is what binds to the ACE2 receptors and allows infection. If that protein were to mutate, then no binding, no infection. > Where is our choice? You choice was to fund therapeutics that cure the disease, or try to enforce mandates. You chose wrong, now you live with the choice.
- acdha 5y ago
  When exactly did the manufacturers lie about efficacy? Be specific, and cite your sources.
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    From 1, page 42 > Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group. Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group. Why are there suspected but not confirmed cases of COVID-19? The document doesn't say. But here's what we know: not all participants received PCR tests to confirm their status, only those that presented some set of symptoms. 1: https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download
- oblio 5y ago
  > You choice was to fund therapeutics that cure the disease, or try to enforce mandates. You chose wrong, now you live with the choice. You do know that there's a ton of investment going into curing Covid, right? But you can't just "magic" a cure out of thin air.
dolni 5y ago
> Getting really drunk and driving home is also a decision about your body. So is smoking inside restaurants. Smelly analogy is smelly. You're talking about the difference between very specific behaviors being prohibited versus blacklisting half of the population from participating in society with vaccine mandates (many of whom are black, by the way). It's not even close to a valid comparison. I get the sense that the overlap of people who are pro-mandatory-vaccine and pro-choice is pretty high, being that they are both liberal positions. "My body, my choice" is just fine for women's reproductive rights, even if it meant taking away a baby's chance to live. All of a sudden "my body, my choice" doesn't sound so good? I got both of my shots but I am so tired of people blaming anti-vaxxers. Give me a vaccine good enough that I don't have to worry about it. Today, I'm literally going to get a COVID test despite having both my vaccine doses. Why? Apparently my government isn't capable of providing useful guidance to keep me safe. We keep hearing about masks, but the mandate got dropped and there was never any talk about mandating the clearly superior KN95 or N95 masks. Anti-vaxxers have been consistent from the beginning that they're not getting vaccinated. You know whose position keeps changing? FDA & CDC. Whether it's how effective the vaccine is, what the side effects are, do we need to wear masks, how much social distancing is required, whether or not a booster is useful... You and everyone else blaming anti-vaxxers are letting the government redirect blame for its own failures.
- oblio 5y ago
  > Why? Apparently my government isn't capable of providing useful guidance to keep me safe. We keep hearing about masks, but the mandate got dropped and there was never any talk about mandating the clearly superior KN95 or N95 masks. > Anti-vaxxers have been consistent from the beginning that they're not getting vaccinated. You know whose position keeps changing? FDA & CDC. Whether it's how effective the vaccine is, what the side effects are, do we need to wear masks, how much social distancing is required, whether or not a booster is useful... > You and everyone else blaming anti-vaxxers are letting the government redirect blame for its own failures. Science adapts and adjusts based on new information. The lack of willingness to adapt when confronted with new evidence has an unfortunate name.
  - 5y ago
umvi 5y ago
> So is smoking inside restaurants. But not smoking in your car or at home. There are tons of American parents who hotbox their kids with cigarette or marijuana smoke on a daily basis which not only harms them with second hand smoke but increases their chances of smoking themselves by an astronomical factor. Parents legally harm their children constantly by setting bad diet patterns (child obesity), or substance abuse patterns just to name a few ways. Should we make that illegal and have the state raise those kids?
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Your argument is essentially that because we don't / cannot outlaw all ways to harm others, we cannot justify making other laws to avoid harming others? You are also strawmanning to assume that laws that punish bad parenting would immediately skip to the state raising the kids.
  - umvi 5y ago
    It's not an argument but a question. Should we try to minimize harm in society at the expense of individual freedoms, and if so how far do we take it? Having the state raise kids is being seriously discussed in places like Harvard Law Review as an ideological harm reduction measure. Should any freedom that could possibly be abused to harm others (such as right to own a gun, right to refuse a vaccine, right to own and drive a car, etc.) be eventually outlawed, leaving only freedoms that let you harm yourself?
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      Cherry picking moments to ask targeted questions is more or less a form of persuasive arguing. All laws restrict freedoms to protect the wider society. This isn't a novel concept. Not being able to murder is a freedom deprived of you. The question of "should any freedom that could possibly be abused to harm others be eventually outlawed" is obviously "No". Law is not the only tool to encourage better behavior. But passing laws to outlaw any of your examples doesn't mean we're saying "Yes" anymore than outlawing murder does. Those are just specific laws. The question is "which freedoms should be restricted to prevent individuals from harming others". Your original framing of the question makes it an all or nothing case, but its not. The state does deprive people of rights to raise their kids if they're really awful parents. That does not mean that making smoking in a car with kids illegal guarantees that this would be the associated punishment.

antattack 5y ago

"Even if true, so what? It's their bodies. They should be allowed to choose, just like you are." Is this still true if unvaccinated takes a hospital bed away from someone else or increases insurance costs to everyone else due to more expensive care?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xyzzyz 5y ago
Replacing “unvaccinated” with “obese” here gives an argument for forcing obese people on diet against their will.
- antattack 5y ago
  It's unamerican to force people to do something. However, smokers, for example, pay higher insurance premiums and alcohol is taxed higher.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    Yeah, smoking is just about the only thing the insurance companies are legally allowed to upcharge for. That’s one of the main reasons Obamacare was passed in the first place. The whole reality is now completely dystopian. We have people calling for denying healthcare to people who took “my body, my choice” as a right, because they voluntarily chose to not take the vaccine. However, these same people would be completely appalled by the idea of letting a drug addict die on the street from overdose, even though it is also a result of their voluntary choice to take drugs. The very same people who call for denying people things like a right to eat at a restaurant or get groceries without vaccine passport, claim that requiring ID to vote is a violation of civil rights, and all that despite the fact that black Americans are least vaccinated group in US. Total insanity.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      Requiring an ID to vote is a violation of civil rights purely because local governments make it difficult for poor people to get IDs for free. If everyone was issue a government ID for free, this would be a nonissue. I'm not aware of any grocery stores requiring a vaccine passport, but in general, the bar for a private business allowing customers in should be a lot more malleable fluid that voting restrictions. It's not a contradiction of principles to point this out even if poor black people are among the lowest vaccination groups.

geofft 5y ago

The comment above is asking "how many employers, colleges, etc. are now willing and legally able to require vaccination." You're welcome to choose not to get vaccinated, and not to go to any such employers, colleges, etc.

NineStarPoint 5y ago

Because in cases like this, the choice they’re making with their body can be directly responsible for the hospitalization and death of other people in their vicinity. Vaccines aren’t fool proof, every person who doesn’t take the vaccine is an increased chance for those who did take the vaccine to get exposed to a breakthrough case. I know I wouldn’t want to work in person at any place that didn’t have a vaccine mandate. Once vaccines are approved for children, I think people’s options should be to either vaccinate their child or homeschool them, since if I had children I wouldn’t want them exposed to the unvaccinated. The federal and state governments forcing everyone to get the shot would be a step too far for me, but I’m very much in support of it being hard to be a part of society if you refuse to take one of the most basic steps to protect other people in it.

odessacubbage 5y ago
are you overweight, elderly or otherwise immunocompromised? if not your risk of hospitalization or death [from covid19] is miniscule. >it being hard to be a part of society if you refuse to take one of the most basic steps to protect other people in it. there are a huge number of diseases you can knowingly spread with far more severe long term consequences while still being 'part of society'. frankly i do not think free and democratic societies can survive while trying to also fulfill the moral compunction not to let anyone die ever from transmittable illness, it is simply at odds with our biology. we, like all mammals are walking bags of filth and disease and no amount of indefinite containment will ever change that reality.
- hendersoon 5y ago
  If you're in the western world, catch COVID right now, and aren't vaccinated, even if you aren't immunocompromised, diabetic, elderly, or obese odds are your chances of dying from COVID are higher than any other disease you've caught in your life. Now it's true that chance is probably somewhere around 0.3% assuming you don't live in an area where hospitals are out of ICU beds and vents. But it's your _life_ at risk.
  - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rootusrootus 5y ago

Yes. I should be allowed to choose whom I want to associate with, too, and exclude those who represent a larger infectious disease risk. That's the rub. We need to make it effortless for people to make these choices.

p_j_w 5y ago

It's my car, I should be allowed to choose to drive it drunk.

foolfoolz 5y ago
drive it drunk on gvt owned roads? where you have a license to operate it if you abide by specific rules? and you lose the license if any of them are broken? that’s a very different comparison to something like going to a private business what about driving drunk on your own land away from anyone
- p_j_w 5y ago
  >that’s a very different comparison to something like going to a private business Governments regulate comings and goings of people to and from private businesses all the time. We don't allow people under 21 to go to bars or people under 18 to go to strip clubs, for example. >what about driving drunk on your own land away from anyone If you wanna walk around on your own land away from anyone without getting vaccinated and/or while having covid? Have at it.

specto 5y ago

Yep just like I was required to get vaccines to go to school when I was younger and so was everyone else.

sxcurry 5y ago

Because they're fouling up everything for everybody else. Where I live (Oregon) if I were to get hit by a car and need an ICU bed, odds are I'd be put on a stretcher in a hall somewhere. All the ICU beds are filled with unvaccinated people denying that they have Covid.

kalleboo 5y ago

If it was ethical to require them to opt-out of medical treatment if they got sick, then maybe sure.