4 ms·

> Your freedom ends where your fist ends and my nose begins. I see this used every time, if you pay close attention to the phrase you will notice that it can l

> Your freedom ends where your fist ends and my nose begins. I see this used every time, if you pay close attention to the phrase you will notice that it can literally be used every time by every party. There will be people thinking that you can't limit their "freedom" because a vaccine is out there at this point and those who fears for their lives can take it and forget about the virus (in most cases). There will be people thinking that unvaxxed people should loose their "freedom" because they apparently have an increasing probability to infect others (which in most cases are vaccinated and would get a mild infection in most cases?). I personally don't care about my unvaxxed friends, I hang out with them as I've always had and I do respect their choice. But I am biased towards individuals rights than "public health".

wolverine876 5y ago
> There will be people thinking that you can't limit their "freedom" because a vaccine is out there at this point and those who fears for their lives can take it and forget about the virus (in most cases). I don't understand this statement: Who is talking about limiting the freedom of vaccinated people and in what way? > if you pay close attention to the phrase you will notice that it can literally be used every time by every party. I don't see it at all. If I'm standing still and you punch me in the nose, how could both parties use that argument? > I personally don't care about my unvaxxed friends, I hang out with them as I've always had and I do respect their choice. But I am biased towards individuals rights than "public health". Your personal choice and 'respect' are irrelevant. You can not care about and 'respect' them choosing to drive the wrong way on the freeway with you in the car, but so what? They are still risking other people's lives.
- mattrighetti 5y ago
  > Who is talking about limiting the freedom of vaccinated people and in what way? Vaxxed would like to limit unvaxxed "freedom" even though they are not threatened at all by them, this is what science has been telling us for at least 5 months: vaccines work, they drastically reduce breakthrough infection and death, I don't think I need to show you the data on that. > If I'm standing still and you punch me in the nose, how could both parties use that argument? The fact is that they are not punching your nose at all. If you don't want to get punched you have a free effective vaccine that will put a giant steel wall in front of you and protect your nose from punches. If you don't want to get vaxxed it's your responsibility to consider that you will get a punch in your nose sooner or later. > Your personal choice is irrelevant. I strongly agree with this, that's why I will never limit others based on something I want or think, ever. > You can not care about and 'respect' them choosing to drive the wrong way on the freeway with you in the car, but so what? Nobody is driving the wrong way, getting vaxxed is not mandatory at the moment so they are doing so legally. > They are still risking other people's lives. Let's pretend this is true (in my useless opinion it is not since everybody can take the vaccine and be safe), as far as I know vaxxed can still spread the virus. What we also know is that vaxxed people seems to get _less_ infected, but they could very well be infected too (recent UKHA data shows that on average vaxxed people will get infected with 60% less probability than unvaxxed). Since this is a matter of getting infected or not, I don't see why vaxxed (according to your phrase) are exempt from risking other people's live just because they have a 60% less probability of getting infected and spread the virus. Me and you could very easily spread the virus and risk other people's lives as an unvaxxed.
  - TheRealNGenius 5y ago
    Well said, I agree with your points. Anyone who want the protection conferred by the vaccine in developed countries likely already has it. At this point, the unvaccinated are just used as scapegoats for why the pandemic isn't over. It's a great way for politicians to shift blame regarding criticisms of how they've been handling covid.

wolverine876 5y ago

> There will be people thinking that you can't limit their "freedom" because a vaccine is out there at this point and those who fears for their lives can take it and forget about the virus (in most cases). I don't understand this statement: Who is talking about limiting the freedom of vaccinated people and in what way? > if you pay close attention to the phrase you will notice that it can literally be used every time by every party. I don't see it at all. If I'm standing still and you punch me in the nose, how could both parties use that argument? > I personally don't care about my unvaxxed friends, I hang out with them as I've always had and I do respect their choice. But I am biased towards individuals rights than "public health". Your personal choice and 'respect' are irrelevant. You can not care about and 'respect' them choosing to drive the wrong way on the freeway with you in the car, but so what? They are still risking other people's lives.

mattrighetti 5y ago
> Who is talking about limiting the freedom of vaccinated people and in what way? Vaxxed would like to limit unvaxxed "freedom" even though they are not threatened at all by them, this is what science has been telling us for at least 5 months: vaccines work, they drastically reduce breakthrough infection and death, I don't think I need to show you the data on that. > If I'm standing still and you punch me in the nose, how could both parties use that argument? The fact is that they are not punching your nose at all. If you don't want to get punched you have a free effective vaccine that will put a giant steel wall in front of you and protect your nose from punches. If you don't want to get vaxxed it's your responsibility to consider that you will get a punch in your nose sooner or later. > Your personal choice is irrelevant. I strongly agree with this, that's why I will never limit others based on something I want or think, ever. > You can not care about and 'respect' them choosing to drive the wrong way on the freeway with you in the car, but so what? Nobody is driving the wrong way, getting vaxxed is not mandatory at the moment so they are doing so legally. > They are still risking other people's lives. Let's pretend this is true (in my useless opinion it is not since everybody can take the vaccine and be safe), as far as I know vaxxed can still spread the virus. What we also know is that vaxxed people seems to get _less_ infected, but they could very well be infected too (recent UKHA data shows that on average vaxxed people will get infected with 60% less probability than unvaxxed). Since this is a matter of getting infected or not, I don't see why vaxxed (according to your phrase) are exempt from risking other people's live just because they have a 60% less probability of getting infected and spread the virus. Me and you could very easily spread the virus and risk other people's lives as an unvaxxed.
- TheRealNGenius 5y ago
  Well said, I agree with your points. Anyone who want the protection conferred by the vaccine in developed countries likely already has it. At this point, the unvaccinated are just used as scapegoats for why the pandemic isn't over. It's a great way for politicians to shift blame regarding criticisms of how they've been handling covid.