4 ms·

No more so than driving drunk.

d1a2n 5y ago
You'll make this analogy, but if I remind you that banning driving would save lives, you'll tell me "car accidents aren't contagious!" Your mind has been destroyed, and unfortunately there is no vaccine (remember, the definition can change).
- revax 5y ago
  >I remind you that banning driving would save lives This is not remotely comparable, banning driving would (for most people) require changing entirely your lifestyle. Getting a shot require a couple hours.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Banning driving would almost certainly cause more people to die for other reasons than those who currently die in automobile accidents.
- franga2000 5y ago
  What are you on about? Cars are actually a pretty good analogy. Banning cars is equivalent to a full lockdown - useful temporarily if the issue is getting out of control, but despite working well, takes so much away from us that it's definitely not worth it long-term. Banning drunk, unlicensed, etc. people from driving treats the issue more immediately without taking away ver much at all. Yes, drunkards won't get to drive, even if they're willing to risk it, so that's a negative effect for them, but society as a whole will gladly sacrifice that to protect everyone else (including them, even if they don't want it).
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I am certainly confused. Do you think drunk driving on shared roads should be allowed or prohibited? I'm also not interesting in discussing whether anyone's "mind has been destroyed," but I am interesting in discussing whether specific ideas are good ideas or bad ideas.
ghostwriter 5y ago
Driving drunk doesn’t imply violating driver’s own bodily integrity against their choice. A drunk driver risks other people’s lives and it’s a punishable crime.
- franga2000 5y ago
  An unvaccinated person attending a public gathering risks other people's lives as well.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    For some few exceptions. I am vaccinated and don't feel threatened by unvaccinated people at all. Yes, there are people with compromised immune systems, but I think it is on them to reduce the risk of exposure without having a mandate on vaccination.
    - franga2000 5y ago
      It's not just about immunocompromised people. The fewer people are vaccinated the quicker we get rid of the virus. If don't do it quickly, we're slowly "marinading" the virus in the vaccine, increasing chances for a vaccine-resistant mutation. It's kind of like why you're not allowed to stop a course of antibiotics half-way through.
      - ghostwriter 5y ago
        > The fewer people are vaccinated the quicker we get rid of the virus. There is no evidence that the virus can be get ridden of.
        franga2000 5y ago
        Well, we have gotten rid of other viruses in the past and it also makes sense in theory given what we know about viruses, so the burden of proof is on those claiming we can't.
  - 5y ago

You'll make this analogy, but if I remind you that banning driving would save lives, you'll tell me "car accidents aren't contagious!" Your mind has been destroyed, and unfortunately there is no vaccine (remember, the definition can change).

revax 5y ago
>I remind you that banning driving would save lives This is not remotely comparable, banning driving would (for most people) require changing entirely your lifestyle. Getting a shot require a couple hours.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Banning driving would almost certainly cause more people to die for other reasons than those who currently die in automobile accidents.
franga2000 5y ago
What are you on about? Cars are actually a pretty good analogy. Banning cars is equivalent to a full lockdown - useful temporarily if the issue is getting out of control, but despite working well, takes so much away from us that it's definitely not worth it long-term. Banning drunk, unlicensed, etc. people from driving treats the issue more immediately without taking away ver much at all. Yes, drunkards won't get to drive, even if they're willing to risk it, so that's a negative effect for them, but society as a whole will gladly sacrifice that to protect everyone else (including them, even if they don't want it).
tshaddox 5y ago
I am certainly confused. Do you think drunk driving on shared roads should be allowed or prohibited? I'm also not interesting in discussing whether anyone's "mind has been destroyed," but I am interesting in discussing whether specific ideas are good ideas or bad ideas.

ghostwriter 5y ago

Driving drunk doesn’t imply violating driver’s own bodily integrity against their choice. A drunk driver risks other people’s lives and it’s a punishable crime.

franga2000 5y ago
An unvaccinated person attending a public gathering risks other people's lives as well.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  For some few exceptions. I am vaccinated and don't feel threatened by unvaccinated people at all. Yes, there are people with compromised immune systems, but I think it is on them to reduce the risk of exposure without having a mandate on vaccination.
  - franga2000 5y ago
    It's not just about immunocompromised people. The fewer people are vaccinated the quicker we get rid of the virus. If don't do it quickly, we're slowly "marinading" the virus in the vaccine, increasing chances for a vaccine-resistant mutation. It's kind of like why you're not allowed to stop a course of antibiotics half-way through.
    - ghostwriter 5y ago
      > The fewer people are vaccinated the quicker we get rid of the virus. There is no evidence that the virus can be get ridden of.
      - franga2000 5y ago
        Well, we have gotten rid of other viruses in the past and it also makes sense in theory given what we know about viruses, so the burden of proof is on those claiming we can't.
- 5y ago