5 ms·

With COVID rife, and too few people vaccinated, the outcome of "people also need to move on, and live freely" is spread, mutation, infection, and many many deat

• bserge 5y ago
  Got Covid, got the vaccine, will get the fucking "boosters", will wear mask and be careful. Now fuck off with any other restrictions, that's where I think the line is.
  • halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
    That’s great for you, now get the other 40% of the country on board and we can “fuck off with any other restrictions”. Your anger should be directed at the unvaxxed because that’s what’s driving policy right now.
    • version_five 5y ago
      Honestly it would be much more productive to reject people who want to tell others how to live, than try and whip ourselves into a frenzy over some external enemy like you are advocating. This is not only sociopathic - basically dehumanizing others, it never ends well, even for those who think they're on the "right" side now, and to the point of the discussion, doesn't actually solve anything except fulfill people's worse base desires to project their fear onto an enemy.
      • halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
        In modern society there are implicit and explicit ways by which we force each other to live, whether that’s through laws or social norms. This isn’t any different.
        • betwixthewires 5y ago
          And the liberally minded of us have been fighting against a world where we tell people how to live for decades. We don't want to live in that world. You want to give that world a fresh breath of life out of fear? You're right it isn't any different, which is why we should all oppose it. Just be a use things are a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way.
          • halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
            There simply is no way to run humanity at-large without these laws and norms. What's the alternative? Anarchy? At what point are laws "good enough" yet we still have a functioning society? It's *so easy* to say "we don't want to be told what to do" but then expect all the comforts of modern society. It's such a nieve take.
            • betwixthewires 5y ago
              You know what's a pretty naive take? Handwaving social control as necessary to maintain "the comforts of modern society." How exactly does one follow from another? What does that statement even mean? The alternative... A world where the only things that are illegal are infringements on someone else's rights. Why does it have to be anarchy or social conformity and control? It's not a dichotomy. Literally every time some group opposed some social control the bellyachers came out with the anarchy argument. No more segregation, let the women vote, let gay people do what they want, let people smoke weed... Good enough is simple, really simple: let everyone do whatever they want except infringe on the rights of others. What "comforts of modern society" do we lose by simplifying our rule set down to that?
              • CRConrad 5y ago
                > You know what's a pretty naive take? Handwaving social control as necessary to maintain "the comforts of modern society." How exactly does one follow from another? What does that statement even mean? It means you don't shit on your neighbour's porch. It means you don't park in a handicap space, knock the old biddy who wanted it out of her wheelchair after she laboriously has got out of her car further away from the shop, and give her the finger as you walk away laughing. It means you don't spit your boss in the face; don't cheat on your taxes, your creditors, or your wife; don't drive drunk or fuck toddlers in the arse. It means all that, and a million other things like it. Are you OK with that, or is any of the above something that you insist on your "right" to indulge in? If not, then what the fuck is different about your "right" not to care whether you're coughing death-in-agony in the face of everyone you meet, that you must insist on that?!?
    • chrismcb 5y ago
      No. The unvaxxed aren't driving policy. I live in a county with an almost 90% vaccination rate, and we are one of the few places with a vaccine passport.
    • geoduck14 5y ago
      >now get the other 40% of the country on board Why does that have to be the standard? Why can't you accept alternatives? Perhaps covid antibodies from contracting the virus instead of vaccine? Or a negative covid test? Or masks? Or germicidal light to clean air? Or restricted public involvement? Why must we follow those SPECIFIC standards before we can be free?
    • betwixthewires 5y ago
      I'm one of those people that has not been vaccinated and chooses not to and will not. You don't need to get me on board, you're vaccinated. Leave me to the consequences of my decision. If I'm going to die, let me die. And fuck off with the restrictions.
      • halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
        The issue is your decisions not only affect YOU. That's the entire point. If you're spreading COVID, it affects all of us. If your actions only affected you, nobody would care at all.
        • betwixthewires 5y ago
          So that argument is dead, it has been definitively for a few months now, and the proof is in the article we are discussing in this thread. Vaccination is not preventing transmission. it only lowers the likelihood of severe illness, apparently. So yes, my actions do only affect me, and potentially those who have chosen to take the same risk as me. Those who are vaccinated have the level of protection they signed up for, I have the level of protection I signed up for.
          • halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
            And that severe illness is what is clogging up the healthcare system, putting a strain on those who do not have COVID and seek treatment. Again, still affecting everyone else.
          • mft_ 5y ago
            Out of (genuine) interest, would you be willing to sign a document denying yourself hospital care in the event you contracted COVID and your condition required hospitalisation?
      • CRConrad 5y ago
        Sure. But then go out into the wilderness and die under some fucking tree, so you don't take a bed in the ICU from some poor fucker who needs it not because of their own stupidity.
• throw10920 5y ago
  > So... how do you weigh up loss of human life on a massive scale, against "living freely"? You know that the vaccine has been available for, like, nine months, right? Anyone who wanted to get it got it months ago, and has been rather safe. ICUs being full points to a problem with the medical system (and, at least in America, the medical system is well known to be broken), and if you don't want to fix that, there's a really easy political fix (which is to de-prioritize unvaccinated COVID patients, given that - again - there's a vaccine available, so if you willingly chose not to get it, then your medical care can wait until those who have unpreventable issues are helped). We're well past the point where you can make the argument that these restrictions are for the greater good, because we've been in a state where one's health is almost entirely one's personal responsibility (you either take the vaccine and you're safe, or you don't and you're not) for months now. If other people want to remain unvaccinated and that leads to them dying ("loss of human life on a massive scale"), they can do that.
  • mft_ 5y ago
    > there's a really easy political fix (which is to de-prioritize unvaccinated COVID patients) You've hit an important central issue: that Governments (and/or HC systems) aren't ready to take this step. As such, I suspect it might be a logically easy concept, but as a political step, maybe not so much. :)
  • 908B64B197 5y ago
    > and if you don't want to fix that, there's a really easy political fix (which is to de-prioritize unvaccinated COVID patients, given that - again - there's a vaccine available, so if you willingly chose not to get it, then your medical care can wait until those who have unpreventable issues are helped). It's political suicide to do so. Takes courage to do the right thing.
  • rsynnott 5y ago
    > there's a really easy political fix (which is to de-prioritize unvaccinated COVID patients, given that - again - there's a vaccine available, so if you willingly chose not to get it, then your medical care can wait until those who have unpreventable issues are helped). I mean, in the absence of a few thousand years worth of medical ethics, sure, that's an obvious step. But it's very much not how things are done. The only place where anything even vaguely like this happens is with organ transplants. In general, hospital triage is based on need; if the unvaccinated person with covid is sicker than the blameless road traffic accident victim, and there's one ICU bed, well, it doesn't matter that they brought it on themselves; the covid patient gets it, and good luck to the road traffic accident victim. This isn't _just_ a political issue (though it would also be a very difficult political issue); it is how the whole institution works. Triage based on vaccination status would be a very extreme move, much more so than mandatory vaccinations to work or than unvaccinated-only lockdowns.
• _carbyau_ 5y ago
  That is the tricky bit isn't it. In other aspects of life we clearly accept a certain amount of death and injury risk so as to allow things to happen. Think cars, motorbikes, planes etc. They do all result in events where people die. But we keep them because they provide a lot of utility to many many people. My view: Lockdowns absolutely help avoid disasters. But they are a temporary measure. Lockdown while people get vaxxed, procedures updated and social adoption of masks can occur and any other handy measure. Then the lockdowns have to be eased to shift the risk mitigation load onto these other measures. This is a complicated task. Every country/zone will have different trade offs. Everyone will have an opinion backed by an example from somewhere else. I think the best we can do is: - avoid disaster - give people a fair and equitable chance to save themselves via vaccination - implement sensible measures where possible/socially acceptable - open up slowly, adjust as neccessary - sadly, let the deliberately, knowingly unvaccinated fall as they may. While avoiding disaster...
  • spookthesunset 5y ago
    > procedures updated and social adoption of masks can occur and any other handy measure So forced masks forever?
    • _carbyau_ 5y ago
      You jumped on that particular point huh? My comment was primarily about lockdowns. Lockdowns AND masks are but tools for preventing COVID. Maybe you lockdown supertight until leadership decisions figured out, communicated and logistically sorted out. One of those decisions may be that some lockdown restrictions can be eased if people wear masks. IE relax one mitigation measure by using another. But that's up to each society to decide for themselves. My own opinion, once everyone is vaccinated as best as they will, ease lockdowns and mask usage in stages so that vaccines can be tested in real world conditions for effectiveness AND hospitalisation rates are kept under control. In an ideal future with covid, we'd have perfect vaccines, zero lockdown and zero masks. In reality, I think we can get pretty close but with vaccine booster shots instead.