No I mean having empathy and being considerate, not physically caring. And if I did mean physical caring, again how does those with adverse events not then qua

No I mean having empathy and being considerate, not physically caring. And if I did mean physical caring, again how does those with adverse events not then qualify for being an 'inconvenience' to those who have to care for them. Though I believe you are only referring to government/business actions that impact you rather than the inconvenience of personal care? > Government policy to protect unvaccinated people. Government policy !== health. Protecting them by punishing them so you can be 'free?' Odd. Do you not see at all how the vaccine is not in this case forming a health solution (otherwise considering the vaccine still spreads covid there'd be continued lockdowns for all anyway to protect everyone...) but controls for their own sake? > Myself, obviously So why do you care what decision others make about it? Direct your frustration at those making policy calls, not those used as justification. > "But it's ok to limit the liberties of the drunk because 'risk?' Everyone can drive or no one can drive." You're free to choose not to drink or to drink. To correct the analogy, how about we restrict those that like a drink from being able to drive at all because risk? > This argument would make sense if curtailing the spread was the ultimate goal, but it's not Funny, it was earlier this year. Amazing how the narrative changes over time and people just follow it along, with the usual 'oh but they're learning about it all the time and making the best decisions they can.' Which obviously highlights they're making bad decisions, but not now? https://twitter.com/Sentinel2NO/status/1471886835152560130?s=20 https://twitter.com/Sentinel2NO/status/1471886835152560130?s... > Everything is a tradeoff. If you're vaccinated, you're less of a risk than if you aren't a) you're not near 0 risk though and b) Not if you're under 40 years old with no comorbidities. Especially for those under 20, the vaccine risk (by nature of risk of being impacted == 1.0 by getting jabbed vs risk of actually contracting covid, let along having a serious reaction or spreading it) is not clearly behind the covid risk. Now we head into the logic gymnastics where we are vaccinating the young to protect others, who have been vaccinated and protected, leaving only the unvaccinated for the young to protect, except we don't care about them because 'they made their choice.' So why again are we vaccinating the young, considering vaccination doesn't prevent spread and the young are the lowest risk group by a large distance? Also remembering that earlier in the year the young already didn't readily catch or spread covid, so why now?