3 ms·

> nobody has a right to spread a deadly disease Including the vaccinated, who can still spread it, so I guess we must lock them up since they are already vacci

> nobody has a right to spread a deadly disease Including the vaccinated, who can still spread it, so I guess we must lock them up since they are already vaccinated, and we can't stop them from spreading the virus otherwise. Saying that people don't have a right to spread the virus is disingenuous. The reality is that people don't have a right to be free from sickness or death. You can only make personal decisions about risk you are willing to take. To force other people to do things to make you safe is not a right.

EricE 5y ago
What's even more ridiculous about this line of "reasoning" is it completely ignores the fact that animals can carry and spread COVID too. Are they going to advocate that we capture and vaccinate all the animals that humans can or could come in contact with? It's utterly preposterous - but anyone that doesn't agree with them are the irrational ones. Propaganda and emotions running amok.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Well… some animals are dangerous. You can get deadly diseases from them, or simply be directly killed by them for lunch or the lulz. So, I strongly suggest people get vaccinated so, at least, they don’t infect the bear that eats them.
rbanffy 5y ago
> Including the vaccinated, who can still spread it True, but when vaxxeds spread to other people who are vaccinated, nobody dies. It’s the unvaccinated who endanger themselves (their problem) and others (society’s problem) with their unwillingness to help. We should isolate the unvaccinated for their own protection. > Saying that people don't have a right to spread the virus is disingenuous. Try to deliberately infect someone with a disease such as AIDS, HPV, or smallpox and let me know what the law says about that. > You can only make personal decisions about risk you are willing to take. You can’t, for instance, drink and drive. It’s not your personal decision the moment your decision endangers others. > To force other people to do things to make you safe is not a right. Someone who insists in DUI and kills people regularly will end up being forced to live in a prison.
- ghoward 5y ago
  > We should isolate the unvaccinated for their own protection. Didn't the Nazis say the same thing about the Jews? > Try to deliberately infect someone with a disease such as AIDS, HPV, or smallpox and let me know what the law says about that. There is a massive difference between deliberate spreading and not. You know this. > You can’t, for instance, drink and drive. It’s not your personal decision the moment your decision endangers others. There is a massive difference between not allowing people to do an action that makes others unsafe and forcing people to take an action that you believe makes you safer.
the_why_of_y 5y ago
> The reality is that people don't have a right to be free from sickness or death. May I recommend you read article 2(2) of the German constitution at your convenience.
- ghoward 5y ago
  Read it, and I think you missed the irony that the right of "physical integrity" could also be, and is more likely to be, the right to not have the government control your body, such as forcing people to take a vaccination. If you believe that the right to physical integrity in the German constitution is to make it your right to not get sick, how much more is it the right of others to not have you make medical decisions for them?
  - the_why_of_y 5y ago
    Your question has been answered by a German appellate court in 1959 in regard to a smallpox vaccination mandate, in BVerwG I C 170.56 paragraph 21. https://openjur.de/u/2347742.html https://openjur.de/u/2347742.html Wikipedia says there are cases pending in German supreme court regarding a recent measles vaccination mandate; the court has so far refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the mandate and left the question open for decision in the main trial (see paragraph 18). https://openjur.de/u/2201133.html https://openjur.de/u/2201133.html

EricE 5y ago

What's even more ridiculous about this line of "reasoning" is it completely ignores the fact that animals can carry and spread COVID too. Are they going to advocate that we capture and vaccinate all the animals that humans can or could come in contact with? It's utterly preposterous - but anyone that doesn't agree with them are the irrational ones. Propaganda and emotions running amok.

rbanffy 5y ago
Well… some animals are dangerous. You can get deadly diseases from them, or simply be directly killed by them for lunch or the lulz. So, I strongly suggest people get vaccinated so, at least, they don’t infect the bear that eats them.

rbanffy 5y ago

> Including the vaccinated, who can still spread it True, but when vaxxeds spread to other people who are vaccinated, nobody dies. It’s the unvaccinated who endanger themselves (their problem) and others (society’s problem) with their unwillingness to help. We should isolate the unvaccinated for their own protection. > Saying that people don't have a right to spread the virus is disingenuous. Try to deliberately infect someone with a disease such as AIDS, HPV, or smallpox and let me know what the law says about that. > You can only make personal decisions about risk you are willing to take. You can’t, for instance, drink and drive. It’s not your personal decision the moment your decision endangers others. > To force other people to do things to make you safe is not a right. Someone who insists in DUI and kills people regularly will end up being forced to live in a prison.

ghoward 5y ago
> We should isolate the unvaccinated for their own protection. Didn't the Nazis say the same thing about the Jews? > Try to deliberately infect someone with a disease such as AIDS, HPV, or smallpox and let me know what the law says about that. There is a massive difference between deliberate spreading and not. You know this. > You can’t, for instance, drink and drive. It’s not your personal decision the moment your decision endangers others. There is a massive difference between not allowing people to do an action that makes others unsafe and forcing people to take an action that you believe makes you safer.

the_why_of_y 5y ago

> The reality is that people don't have a right to be free from sickness or death. May I recommend you read article 2(2) of the German constitution at your convenience.

ghoward 5y ago
Read it, and I think you missed the irony that the right of "physical integrity" could also be, and is more likely to be, the right to not have the government control your body, such as forcing people to take a vaccination. If you believe that the right to physical integrity in the German constitution is to make it your right to not get sick, how much more is it the right of others to not have you make medical decisions for them?
- the_why_of_y 5y ago
  Your question has been answered by a German appellate court in 1959 in regard to a smallpox vaccination mandate, in BVerwG I C 170.56 paragraph 21. https://openjur.de/u/2347742.html https://openjur.de/u/2347742.html Wikipedia says there are cases pending in German supreme court regarding a recent measles vaccination mandate; the court has so far refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the mandate and left the question open for decision in the main trial (see paragraph 18). https://openjur.de/u/2201133.html https://openjur.de/u/2201133.html