4 ms·

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.
- batch12 5y ago
  If a vaccinated person can transmit covid, doesn't the same issue exist?
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    Just like with drunk driving accidents, it is not binary.
    - ghostwriter 5y ago
      It’s also impossible to establish that one particular person infected another particular person. Drunk driving accidents are precise on actors.
    - batch12 5y ago
      And not the same thing at all. It's dishonest to say: > An unvaccinated person attending a public gathering risks other people's lives as well. Because it implies there is no risk for the vaccinated to spread disease.
      - lostmsu 5y ago
        Are you saying it is dishonest to blame drunk driving because it implies there's no risk for the sober to hit people on the roads?
        batch12 5y ago
        You seem to be arguing for the sake of it. I feel that my statement was pretty clear. If I am communicating poorly, I apologize, but there isn't much more I can add.
        lostmsu 5y ago
        I am arguing for the sake of reason. Your statement was pretty clear, but based on a false assumption.
tshaddox 5y ago
> Driving drunk doesn’t imply violating driver’s own bodily integrity against their choice. I'm not sure what you mean. Police would use force to stop a drunk driver from driving drunk.
- ghostwriter 5y ago
  The prerequisites of the applied force in the case of drunk driving would be driver’s acts of volition to choose to get drunk and to choose to drive afterwards. What are the prerequisites of the applied force in the case of staying unvaccinated? What are the acts of volition that justify the force?
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    The force would be used to prevent unvaccinated people from participating in certain activities (like attending public indoor gatherings). It’s very directly analogous to drunk driving.

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.
batch12 5y ago
If a vaccinated person can transmit covid, doesn't the same issue exist?
- lostmsu 5y ago
  Just like with drunk driving accidents, it is not binary.
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    It’s also impossible to establish that one particular person infected another particular person. Drunk driving accidents are precise on actors.
  - batch12 5y ago
    And not the same thing at all. It's dishonest to say: > An unvaccinated person attending a public gathering risks other people's lives as well. Because it implies there is no risk for the vaccinated to spread disease.
    - lostmsu 5y ago
      Are you saying it is dishonest to blame drunk driving because it implies there's no risk for the sober to hit people on the roads?
      - batch12 5y ago
        You seem to be arguing for the sake of it. I feel that my statement was pretty clear. If I am communicating poorly, I apologize, but there isn't much more I can add.
        lostmsu 5y ago
        I am arguing for the sake of reason. Your statement was pretty clear, but based on a false assumption.

tshaddox 5y ago

> Driving drunk doesn’t imply violating driver’s own bodily integrity against their choice. I'm not sure what you mean. Police would use force to stop a drunk driver from driving drunk.

ghostwriter 5y ago
The prerequisites of the applied force in the case of drunk driving would be driver’s acts of volition to choose to get drunk and to choose to drive afterwards. What are the prerequisites of the applied force in the case of staying unvaccinated? What are the acts of volition that justify the force?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  The force would be used to prevent unvaccinated people from participating in certain activities (like attending public indoor gatherings). It’s very directly analogous to drunk driving.