4 ms·
Except that the resources that are going to care for the unvaccinated might block someone who is vaccinated from needed medical care. It also increases the amo
by mattzito 5y ago
Except that the resources that are going to care for the unvaccinated might block someone who is vaccinated from needed medical care. It also increases the amount of exposure someone who IS vaccinated needs to contend with, and as is mentioned over and over again, vaccines are imperfect. A colleague of mine has an elderly father who is vaccinated and in the ICU with Covid. The odds are much higher that he was infected by an unvaccinated person.
Also smoking is a terrible example - we tax cigarettes highly to discourage smoking because it’s a drag on our medical system. We ban the act of smoking in a wide variety of locations because it has an impact on other peoples health. Some buildings even disallow people to smoke in their private homes, and some cities disallow smoking in offices. We put restrictions on almost every aspect of smoking because it doesn’t only affect the smoker.
- EricE 5y ago>Except that the resources that are going to care for the unvaccinated might block someone who is vaccinated from needed medical care. This was the great excuse euthanasia advocates used for aborting babies with disabilities. Some great company you are keeping there.
- lxgr 5y agoSurely you can‘t be comparing administering a vaccine (which has much fewer adverse effects than the disease of which it prevents severe outcomes) to euthanasia?
- mattzito 5y agoAside from the absurdity of comparing recommended vaccination as a responsible social welfare act to the murder of children, the comparison isn’t even apt. My point was about short-term and critical healthcare resources, and the eugenics argument was about long term waste of societal resources. If anything, the smoking comparison is a little more apt because smokers ARE long term drains on societal resources. But still no one is arguing about killing smokers.