3 ms·
> One is a public health crisis and the other isn't. Conflating the two is an absurdity Well, it is called an analogy, isn’t it? No one said it is exactly the
by mkotowski 5y ago
> One is a public health crisis and the other isn't. Conflating the two is an absurdity
Well, it is called an analogy, isn’t it? No one said it is exactly the same.
> One person can only have one car crash, ever, […]
Except not. As people who can be infected, infect others, fall sick again, and so on. People can have multiple accidents with varying degree of charm for themselves and others. Also, you forget that car crashes can also have more than 2 vehicles involved, especially on highways.
> a disservice to any attempt at getting antivaxers to understand the seriousness of the situation.
Well, I took for granted I am not talking to one. I would certainly need to use a different approach then. The issue with antivaxxers is that the reasons for their behavior often seems orthogonal to logical arguments, and aligns more with emotional responses like fear of the unknown and political and/or religious views.
- noduerme 5y ago>> No one said it is exactly the same. Right, but my point is that the degree of risk and probability of harm an individual places on others is the only logical basis by which to determine the degree to which society should restrict or coerce certain behaviors. If we proceed from the idea that individuals should have as much freedom as possible, then on the scale of things society should concern itself with viz the individual's behavior, spreading an airborne virus with a 1.5% mortality rate demands much harsher measures than even speeding or drunk driving. Whereas not wearing a seatbelt or a helmet doesn't even register on the same scale. That's why it does matter that one thing is a public health hazard and the other is a personal one. They are of such different degree that they are materially totally incomparable to one another.