4 ms·

I don’t think it helps their families. You know what does though, vaccines and this new anti-viral. So can I live my life and worry about own family and not so

I don’t think it helps their families. You know what does though, vaccines and this new anti-viral. So can I live my life and worry about own family and not someone’s I don’t know?

imajoredinecon 5y ago
> So can I live my life and worry about own family and not someone’s I don’t know? Unfortunately, no. We live in a society where sometimes we have to take collective action to prevent collective harm. Taking personally inconvenient measures to help fight an epidemic is a prime example.
- tdfx 5y ago
  And when you give a central authority permission to dictate these "inconvenient measures" to the population, what is the recourse when those authorities act in a contradictory, dishonest, or incompetent manner?
  - blacksqr 5y ago
    In a democracy, voting.
    - tdfx 5y ago
      In the two party system in the US, this isn't really a viable option. It's a strange place where you're not allowed to be both pro-choice and against intrusive government. It makes an even stronger case for reigning in the centralized power of federal and state bureaucrats because they're even less accountable.
- mostertoaster 5y ago
  Oh so you’re the one who insists we keep taking shoes off at the airport, and throw our toothpaste that might be a bomb into the trash receptacle next to the crowd of people. Yes there are collective actions we take, and the first two weeks of covid response might’ve been justified. But nothing since then. Maybe having to get tested to get on a plane. Natural immunity does lower your chances, but you’re saying nope for the collective good (the good you’ve decided on) you must do xyz. Bull crap. The emperor has no clothes.
- MisterMower 5y ago
  Help me understand the limiting principle in that logic. What prevents particularly egregious abuses of personal liberty using this as a pretext? For example, people might get struck by lightning walking by your house, so we must force you to install a lightening rod on your house to protect the collective. Where does it stop, and how do you make that determination?
  - epicide 5y ago
    The lightning example isn't really analogous. Sure, one or two people might get struck by lightning, but they're not then going to continue spreading lightning strikes once they leave my house. Moreso, those (non-existent) spreadable lightning strikes aren't going to mutate to get worse as they propagate. There isn't an easy or obvious answer to where it stops and how to determine that, but that goes both ways. We can't just have zero laws for fear that the laws might overextend themselves. Unfortunately, we have to deal with nuance either way.
- caeril 5y ago
  Except, no. Two important considerations: 1. The vaccine is extraordinarily effective at mitigating risk of hospitalization and death. 2. No current COVID vaccines are sterilizing. Vaccination confers only marginal reduction in ability to carry and transmit the virus (and even this, mainly due to duration, not due to viral load). Taken together, the "get vaccinated to protect me" canard is insane. I don't care if other people are vaccinated or not, because I am. Any other position is political, not scientific. There is a minor argument to be had over the (tiny) immunocompromised population, but it's important to bear in mind that this population already does conduct their lives with isolation, antiviral, antibacterial, and other safety protocols regardless of COVID. They did it before the pandemic, and they will after. Nothing changes for them regardless of vaccine uptake rates.

I don’t think it helps their families. You know what does though, vaccines and this new anti-viral. So can I live my life and worry about own family and not someone’s I don’t know?

imajoredinecon 5y ago

> So can I live my life and worry about own family and not someone’s I don’t know? Unfortunately, no. We live in a society where sometimes we have to take collective action to prevent collective harm. Taking personally inconvenient measures to help fight an epidemic is a prime example.

tdfx 5y ago
And when you give a central authority permission to dictate these "inconvenient measures" to the population, what is the recourse when those authorities act in a contradictory, dishonest, or incompetent manner?
- blacksqr 5y ago
  In a democracy, voting.
  - tdfx 5y ago
    In the two party system in the US, this isn't really a viable option. It's a strange place where you're not allowed to be both pro-choice and against intrusive government. It makes an even stronger case for reigning in the centralized power of federal and state bureaucrats because they're even less accountable.
mostertoaster 5y ago
Oh so you’re the one who insists we keep taking shoes off at the airport, and throw our toothpaste that might be a bomb into the trash receptacle next to the crowd of people. Yes there are collective actions we take, and the first two weeks of covid response might’ve been justified. But nothing since then. Maybe having to get tested to get on a plane. Natural immunity does lower your chances, but you’re saying nope for the collective good (the good you’ve decided on) you must do xyz. Bull crap. The emperor has no clothes.
MisterMower 5y ago
Help me understand the limiting principle in that logic. What prevents particularly egregious abuses of personal liberty using this as a pretext? For example, people might get struck by lightning walking by your house, so we must force you to install a lightening rod on your house to protect the collective. Where does it stop, and how do you make that determination?
- epicide 5y ago
  The lightning example isn't really analogous. Sure, one or two people might get struck by lightning, but they're not then going to continue spreading lightning strikes once they leave my house. Moreso, those (non-existent) spreadable lightning strikes aren't going to mutate to get worse as they propagate. There isn't an easy or obvious answer to where it stops and how to determine that, but that goes both ways. We can't just have zero laws for fear that the laws might overextend themselves. Unfortunately, we have to deal with nuance either way.
caeril 5y ago
Except, no. Two important considerations: 1. The vaccine is extraordinarily effective at mitigating risk of hospitalization and death. 2. No current COVID vaccines are sterilizing. Vaccination confers only marginal reduction in ability to carry and transmit the virus (and even this, mainly due to duration, not due to viral load). Taken together, the "get vaccinated to protect me" canard is insane. I don't care if other people are vaccinated or not, because I am. Any other position is political, not scientific. There is a minor argument to be had over the (tiny) immunocompromised population, but it's important to bear in mind that this population already does conduct their lives with isolation, antiviral, antibacterial, and other safety protocols regardless of COVID. They did it before the pandemic, and they will after. Nothing changes for them regardless of vaccine uptake rates.