This post exemplifies everything that is wrong with today's discourse from those who consider themselves to be "reasonable." > But the vaccine is effective at

This post exemplifies everything that is wrong with today's discourse from those who consider themselves to be "reasonable." > But the vaccine is effective at slowing the spread. When children are vaccinated, it doesn't just protect them, but protects all the adults they interact with. The point is if the risk of the vaccine to kids (non zero, in evidence of heart inflammation) is higher than COVID (which is low), it is arguably a bad idea to give it to them, and it is definitely unethical to mandate it to parents. Pivoting it to questions of spread is deflecting. > The claim that "vaccinated people can still catch the disease and spread it to others" is misleading because it carries the implication Stop. "Carries the implication" is not reasoning, it is a rhetorical trick. The point being made was clear, and you took a part out of context to beat it up with a "implication." The point being made is anyone who is still acting like the vaccine can get us to herd immunity is foolish. This was part of the stated goals of the vaccine, memory holes aside. The point isn't to claim the vaccine is a bad idea to take, the point is to point out the foolishness of those who continue to think if we could just push it hard and fast enough, we could end the disease. These people still exist, or at least, given the increased authoritarianism, are acting that way. > It essentially boils down to "The vaccine isn't 100% effective, so why bother?" "Essentially boils down to" - more weasel words! The point being made is lots of people claim to be waving the flag of science and objectivity, and can't even do basic risk analysis or keep up with the evolving knowledge we have. You took a very good post and turned it into an army of strawmen to knock down, and also tried to tag the person involved as an anti-vaxxer. Horrible stuff, really.