5 ms·

Nothing. I shouldn't need to do anything to protect you. You are but a stranger, as are most people in the world. And quite frankly, I don't care about you. Nor

Nothing. I shouldn't need to do anything to protect you. You are but a stranger, as are most people in the world. And quite frankly, I don't care about you. Nor you, I would assume, I. Outside of this conversation, we will likely never meet. So long as I am not actively trying to harm you, I would think that would suffice. I hope you too don't burden yourself with protecting each and every being you see on the streets. So long as you've bestowed yourself protection conferred by the vaccine, I see no reason for you to go out of your way to jab a dose of Pfizer at each unvaccinated individual you encounter.

rich_sasha 5y ago
I do burden myself with these questions. My car has to be road safe for others. I can’t install razor wire on its outside - maybe makes me safer, maybe it’s just something I fancy, but I can’t. If I drive an oversized lorry into your car, which I can’t drive properly, you’d be justifiably angry, not just that it happened but that it was reckless and avoidable. Plenty more examples if you like (building regs, gun laws, other areas of health etc), as a society we decided it’s ok to limit some personal liberties so we’re not endangering others. If a humanist argument doesn’t apply, then well, tough. I’m in a majority demanding that a minority doesn’t make life significantly more dangerous for me. So if you’re not getting a vaccine, what do you do instead? EDIT the “I don’t care” argument runs out much more quickly. If you don’t care about my safety, why should I care about your convenience?
- TheRealNGenius 5y ago
  You're fine to burden yourself, just as I choose to not burden myself. We have that choice. Yeah, we decide it's okay to limit personal liberties, that's pretty fair. But forcing a vaccine onto someone is not a limit on personal liberty. It is much more than that. It's the complete disregard for that person's liberty. This is the forceful application of a medical procedure onto an unwilling participant. That is not freedom. It's fine to be in a majority demanding a minority doesn't make life more difficult for yourself. Heck, I'd count myself in many of those categories. But unvaccinated people are doing NOTHING to make life more difficult for others. It is expressly the lack of doing anything to harm others. To assume otherwise is simply the misattribution of blame. And since I don't care about your safety, you shouldn't care about my convenience either. That's the point. Worry about your own safety, and don't self-righteously impose your own ideals onto another. If you want to protect yourself, then you're free to do so - you have the vaccine do you not?
  - Klinky 5y ago
    >But unvaccinated people are doing NOTHING to make life more difficult for others. They are taxing the healthcare system, in some areas overwhelming it. COVID hospitalization and eventual death is typically not quick, often 4 - 6 weeks taking up ICU resources. They are spreading the virus more rampantly than the vaccinated and literally killing people, often each other. If we could trace viral spread back to each specific individual who passed the virus on and hold that individual criminally and civilly liable for their actions, then maybe we can have the lecture on personal liberties and behaving responsibly at their own discretion, because then they'd actually have some skin in the game. We can't do that, so we're already being forced to socialize the detrimental outcomes caused by antivaxxers. Society can certainly ask for something in return for the limited liability granted to these antivaxxers and place limits on those who continue to make little to no effort to reduce their potential harm to those around them and society in general.
    - TheRealNGenius 5y ago
      If the healthcare system is being taxed, why are you not pointing fingers at the failures of the healthcare system? Just because someone is unvaccinated does not mean that they are taking up ICU resources. Neither are they literally killing people - that would be the virus' doing. Your point about tracing viral spread has some merit. But what you would find is that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are both spreaders of the virus. It may lean more on one side, but you're effectively reducing this into an us vs. them problem, and labelling antivaxxers as if the whole spectrum of human opinion can be expressed neatly into two distinct categories. Look, I'm not saying that we can't ask for limits so that we can feel safe in general as a society. There are certainly those who engage in more risky behavior by not wearing masks, gathering in large groups, etc. But it is important to remember that unvaccinated people are not the ones causing harm - it is the virus. To blame this minority and hence enact procedures to forcefully inject a foreign substance into their body against the subject's will is certainly of no historic precedent in Germany.
      - Klinky 5y ago
        When, in many areas, 90% of ICU resources are devoted to unvaxed COVID cases, most of the problem is the unvaxed. Should we build entire hospitals solely for the unvaxed now? When measuring negligence based on attempted mitigations taken to prevent harm or death of others, antivax would likely be considered extremely negligent, based on little to no efforts taken to reduce risk to others, or even intentional actions that purposefully increased risk. Saying the virus kills and not the carrier/spreaders is like saying the car killed the person it hit, not the driver of the car. If you want to drive around your body with a deadly and extremely contagious disease, without mitigations, be careful who you crash into. No one is forcibly injecting anyone, just society limiting access of those who do not care to limit their potential harm.

rich_sasha 5y ago

I do burden myself with these questions. My car has to be road safe for others. I can’t install razor wire on its outside - maybe makes me safer, maybe it’s just something I fancy, but I can’t. If I drive an oversized lorry into your car, which I can’t drive properly, you’d be justifiably angry, not just that it happened but that it was reckless and avoidable. Plenty more examples if you like (building regs, gun laws, other areas of health etc), as a society we decided it’s ok to limit some personal liberties so we’re not endangering others. If a humanist argument doesn’t apply, then well, tough. I’m in a majority demanding that a minority doesn’t make life significantly more dangerous for me. So if you’re not getting a vaccine, what do you do instead? EDIT the “I don’t care” argument runs out much more quickly. If you don’t care about my safety, why should I care about your convenience?

TheRealNGenius 5y ago
You're fine to burden yourself, just as I choose to not burden myself. We have that choice. Yeah, we decide it's okay to limit personal liberties, that's pretty fair. But forcing a vaccine onto someone is not a limit on personal liberty. It is much more than that. It's the complete disregard for that person's liberty. This is the forceful application of a medical procedure onto an unwilling participant. That is not freedom. It's fine to be in a majority demanding a minority doesn't make life more difficult for yourself. Heck, I'd count myself in many of those categories. But unvaccinated people are doing NOTHING to make life more difficult for others. It is expressly the lack of doing anything to harm others. To assume otherwise is simply the misattribution of blame. And since I don't care about your safety, you shouldn't care about my convenience either. That's the point. Worry about your own safety, and don't self-righteously impose your own ideals onto another. If you want to protect yourself, then you're free to do so - you have the vaccine do you not?
- Klinky 5y ago
  >But unvaccinated people are doing NOTHING to make life more difficult for others. They are taxing the healthcare system, in some areas overwhelming it. COVID hospitalization and eventual death is typically not quick, often 4 - 6 weeks taking up ICU resources. They are spreading the virus more rampantly than the vaccinated and literally killing people, often each other. If we could trace viral spread back to each specific individual who passed the virus on and hold that individual criminally and civilly liable for their actions, then maybe we can have the lecture on personal liberties and behaving responsibly at their own discretion, because then they'd actually have some skin in the game. We can't do that, so we're already being forced to socialize the detrimental outcomes caused by antivaxxers. Society can certainly ask for something in return for the limited liability granted to these antivaxxers and place limits on those who continue to make little to no effort to reduce their potential harm to those around them and society in general.
  - TheRealNGenius 5y ago
    If the healthcare system is being taxed, why are you not pointing fingers at the failures of the healthcare system? Just because someone is unvaccinated does not mean that they are taking up ICU resources. Neither are they literally killing people - that would be the virus' doing. Your point about tracing viral spread has some merit. But what you would find is that both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are both spreaders of the virus. It may lean more on one side, but you're effectively reducing this into an us vs. them problem, and labelling antivaxxers as if the whole spectrum of human opinion can be expressed neatly into two distinct categories. Look, I'm not saying that we can't ask for limits so that we can feel safe in general as a society. There are certainly those who engage in more risky behavior by not wearing masks, gathering in large groups, etc. But it is important to remember that unvaccinated people are not the ones causing harm - it is the virus. To blame this minority and hence enact procedures to forcefully inject a foreign substance into their body against the subject's will is certainly of no historic precedent in Germany.
    - Klinky 5y ago
      When, in many areas, 90% of ICU resources are devoted to unvaxed COVID cases, most of the problem is the unvaxed. Should we build entire hospitals solely for the unvaxed now? When measuring negligence based on attempted mitigations taken to prevent harm or death of others, antivax would likely be considered extremely negligent, based on little to no efforts taken to reduce risk to others, or even intentional actions that purposefully increased risk. Saying the virus kills and not the carrier/spreaders is like saying the car killed the person it hit, not the driver of the car. If you want to drive around your body with a deadly and extremely contagious disease, without mitigations, be careful who you crash into. No one is forcibly injecting anyone, just society limiting access of those who do not care to limit their potential harm.