4 ms·

> Aren't unvaccinated individuals the ones who made this decision? You may disagree with the conclusion of their dubious risk analyses, but if you choose not to

> Aren't unvaccinated individuals the ones who made this decision? You may disagree with the conclusion of their dubious risk analyses, but if you choose not to get vaccinated then all bets are off. This is the crux of it. They've made the decision, but when they fill up ICU beds and prevent sick or injured people from getting the quality of care that hospitals can provide, then their decision affects others (and this is not a hypothetical, it is happening daily). If unvaccinated people agree to sit home and not go into a hospital when they can't breathe, that would demonstrate that they're living with the consequences of their decision.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
If that's really the issue (it's not), then this can be addressed far more directly, by penalizing the unvaccinated when allocating ICU beds during shortages. But please be consistent and also penalize those who deliberately engage in other actions that put them at risk of needing medical care, like the obese, or those who abuse drugs and alcohol. What bothers me is the inconsistency. It's opportunistically seizing on the burden that choosing to not get vaccinated places on medical resources, in a way that the typical vaccine mandate supporter would never dream of doing with other high-risk behavior (e.g. men who engage in extensive high-risk intercourse with other men, making them 100X more likely to contract many STDs, including HIV). The political left's backing of the vaccine mandate is thoroughly unprincipled.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  There is no safe, free and effective vaccine against HIV, so these are not equivalent.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    That doesn't address my point.
    - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
      It’s a hypothetical. It also requires infringing on the rights of a protected class. Covid vaccines are being mandated for all.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        The burden that promiscuity-derived HIV imposes on the healthcare system is not hypothetical. And no, laws against high-risk sexual activity have to do with discriminating against a behavior, not a protected classes. Gay men are perfectly capable of being monogamous, and avoiding high-risk sexual activity. But yes, you are advocating that people have their rights infringed upon, when you advocate for a vaccine mandate. And worse, you're being blatantly inconsistent, based on shallow ideological considerations. Apparently virtue signalling as a supporter of gay rights, or supporter of the obese, is more important for vaccine mandate supporters than minimizing the costs that irresponsible behavior burdens society with. Or maybe minimizing the costs of irresponsibility isn't the real motivation at all - the real motivation is persecuting anti-vaxxer MAGA types, under the pretense of holding people responsible for the costs they burden society with.
        jasonlaramburu 5y ago
        You weaken your position by speculating about the motivations of those who support of the vaccine mandates. It is just as easy to speculate about the motivations of those who reject vaccines. Perhaps they just want to create chaos for the current administration. Your hypothetical HIV vaccine example is not relevant to the situation with Covid. As stated in the original post, the current mandate is to ensure workplace safety. It is not possible to contract HIV in an elevator or under normal workplace conditions.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Your hypothetical HIV vaccine example is not relevant to the situation with Covid. I never posed a hypothetical HIV vaccine example, and your deliberate mischaracterization of my point is another demonstration of the bad faith and manipulative tactics you employ.
- dimator 5y ago
  Sexual promiscuity does not clog up hospitals. Speeding motorists do not clog up hospitals. Obese people do not clog up hospitals. Covid patients disproportionately clog up ICUs. Surely you see that difference? If our health safety net (hospitals) were not being affected, then yes, covid promiscuity would be treated identically to any of the above. There's principles here that you don't want to acknowledge.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Sexual promiscuity imposes massive costs on the healthcare system. HIV treatment costs $1,800 to $4,500 per month, for life. The resources expended on treating those who contract HIV through high-risk sexual activity could have instead been used for medical research to cure other non-preventable diseases, if they hadn't engaged in that behavior. But of course, it goes without saying that the vast majority of vaccine mandate supporters have never considered supporting laws restricting high risk sexual behavior. They would never have even entertained the thought, no matter what the facts. Their hypocrisy is staggering.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

If that's really the issue (it's not), then this can be addressed far more directly, by penalizing the unvaccinated when allocating ICU beds during shortages. But please be consistent and also penalize those who deliberately engage in other actions that put them at risk of needing medical care, like the obese, or those who abuse drugs and alcohol. What bothers me is the inconsistency. It's opportunistically seizing on the burden that choosing to not get vaccinated places on medical resources, in a way that the typical vaccine mandate supporter would never dream of doing with other high-risk behavior (e.g. men who engage in extensive high-risk intercourse with other men, making them 100X more likely to contract many STDs, including HIV). The political left's backing of the vaccine mandate is thoroughly unprincipled.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago
There is no safe, free and effective vaccine against HIV, so these are not equivalent.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  That doesn't address my point.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    It’s a hypothetical. It also requires infringing on the rights of a protected class. Covid vaccines are being mandated for all.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      The burden that promiscuity-derived HIV imposes on the healthcare system is not hypothetical. And no, laws against high-risk sexual activity have to do with discriminating against a behavior, not a protected classes. Gay men are perfectly capable of being monogamous, and avoiding high-risk sexual activity. But yes, you are advocating that people have their rights infringed upon, when you advocate for a vaccine mandate. And worse, you're being blatantly inconsistent, based on shallow ideological considerations. Apparently virtue signalling as a supporter of gay rights, or supporter of the obese, is more important for vaccine mandate supporters than minimizing the costs that irresponsible behavior burdens society with. Or maybe minimizing the costs of irresponsibility isn't the real motivation at all - the real motivation is persecuting anti-vaxxer MAGA types, under the pretense of holding people responsible for the costs they burden society with.
      - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
        You weaken your position by speculating about the motivations of those who support of the vaccine mandates. It is just as easy to speculate about the motivations of those who reject vaccines. Perhaps they just want to create chaos for the current administration. Your hypothetical HIV vaccine example is not relevant to the situation with Covid. As stated in the original post, the current mandate is to ensure workplace safety. It is not possible to contract HIV in an elevator or under normal workplace conditions.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Your hypothetical HIV vaccine example is not relevant to the situation with Covid. I never posed a hypothetical HIV vaccine example, and your deliberate mischaracterization of my point is another demonstration of the bad faith and manipulative tactics you employ.
dimator 5y ago
Sexual promiscuity does not clog up hospitals. Speeding motorists do not clog up hospitals. Obese people do not clog up hospitals. Covid patients disproportionately clog up ICUs. Surely you see that difference? If our health safety net (hospitals) were not being affected, then yes, covid promiscuity would be treated identically to any of the above. There's principles here that you don't want to acknowledge.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Sexual promiscuity imposes massive costs on the healthcare system. HIV treatment costs $1,800 to $4,500 per month, for life. The resources expended on treating those who contract HIV through high-risk sexual activity could have instead been used for medical research to cure other non-preventable diseases, if they hadn't engaged in that behavior. But of course, it goes without saying that the vast majority of vaccine mandate supporters have never considered supporting laws restricting high risk sexual behavior. They would never have even entertained the thought, no matter what the facts. Their hypocrisy is staggering.