4 ms·

I'm not sure you both are talking about the same thing. The argument has nothing to do with the pain of a "quick prick", nor people's physical pain tolerances.

I'm not sure you both are talking about the same thing. The argument has nothing to do with the pain of a "quick prick", nor people's physical pain tolerances. I also suspect (some) people are refusing to wear masks for reasons other than the physical discomfort. Speaking for myself, I grew up like you described, and still have a fairly large risk tolerance. I'm currently recovering from 'wounds' over a large portion of my body from outdoor activities. That doesn't mean I'm going push what I perceive to be unnecessary medical treatment on my hypothetical kids. The two are not mutually exclusive.

blagie 5y ago
You do realize each of those "wounds" put chemicals you're unfamiliar with inside your body? Each time an insect stings you, or a plant pricks you, stuff gets inside? With plants, a lot of the chemicals are there to harm you; plants don't want to be touched or eaten. You do realize viruses change your DNA in ways which are untested and poorly understood? Nature is chemistry too. Many of those wounds are the same level of "unnecessary medical treatment" as the vaccine, only without safety studies, etc. Now, I totally get how not wearing a mask is a pro-Trump political statement, or how people are fearful of needles, but it's not the same as "child sacrifice."