2 ms·
> they avoid internalizing the costs of their decisions. You don't know that. There are ways to take precautions to the benefit of your fellow citizens that d
by akira2501 5y ago
> they avoid internalizing the costs of their decisions.
You don't know that. There are ways to take precautions to the benefit of your fellow citizens that do not involve taking the vaccine. There's more than one way to be civil.
> And no one is being held down and coerced to receive a shot.
No.. but you're limiting their rights under the guise that their decisions must be harming someone. You're engaged in penalizing behavior without actually establishing any guilt. It's disturbing that this is bandied about so readily.
- orf 5y ago> You don't know that. There are ways to take precautions to the benefit of your fellow citizens that do not involve taking the vaccine. That's certainly true, but I expect the intersection between "people who don't trust vaccines" and "people who don't take any precautions" to be overwhelming.
- akira2501 5y agoWhat is this expectation based on? What if it was only true for 50% of the unvaccinated, would that still justify this approach? At what rate would it be justified?