4 ms·

Some people were in the "willing to take that risk" from the beginning, and were relentlessly demonized. Now it's OK though if everyone feels that way.

some_furry 5y ago
Now it's OK if they're sufficiently vaccinated* Vaccines weren't widely available back then
- khazhoux 5y ago
  What's the * ?
  - some_furry 5y ago
    Correction of the post I was replying to
ceejayoz 5y ago
Being willing to take on the risk yourself and being willing to inflict it on others aren't the same thing. If you could drive drunk without risking other people, it'd be more societally acceptable. Similarly, now that vaccination is widely available for at-risk groups, it's a bit more acceptable to take actions that spread the virus that puts those folks at risk.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Nobody is inflicting anything on anyone. It is your responsibility to protect yourself to the level that you feel is necessary.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  > Similarly, now that vaccination is widely available for at-risk groups... It was widely available a year ago. The most at risk groups were the first and most comprehensively vaccinated. What gives? If the conditions for re-opening were met a year ago why were we wearing masks outdoors and whatnot this whole time? Comments like these seem like little more than mental gymnastics to justify having held an opinion that didn't age well w.r.t. the various degrees of covid measures we've endured. Edit: Fine then, call it 6mo. Regardless, I'd be very interested to see someone provide in a "better than just saving face" quality defense of why businesses have been at reduced capacity, government services have been limited in their accessibility, etc, etc. beyond the point at which the vulnerable were vaccinated and why we're continuing to have this debate. I know information was less great then but we have it now. How do people oppose re-opening wholesale-ish. I foresee nursing homes keeping some precautions but the DMV, using covid as an excuse for why I can't register a car at a certain service location, being masked at outdoor venues, come on.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > It was widely available a year ago. A year ago today 0.4% of the American population was fully vaccinated. 3.1% had had a first dose. https://imgur.com/a/aUpVwtb https://imgur.com/a/aUpVwtb
  - hooande 5y ago
    Who makes the decision that covid is over and no one has to wear masks any more? There's no central authority here. Business and government offices are closed not because of any mandate, but because people don't feel safe going there. Rightly or wrongly. You're acting like there's someone who can just declare a national preoccupation to be over. As always, your problem isn't the government. It's that the majority of your fellow citizens do not agree with you.
mattnewton 5y ago
Well, they demonized for doing so on the back of the current medical system, which was very close to being completely overwhelmed. Omicron has made this the case again, though what changed in the meantime was the messaging after the vaccine. It was true that while you were immunized you could take these risk, but Omicron changed that and the messaging didn't change.
honkdaddy 5y ago
I can't help but feel that the state of US politics from 2016 onwards plays a role in this. Many early COVID skeptics who pushed for a more laissez faire style of government intervention were also Trump supporters. After the events on 1/6/2020, Trump supporters were even further entrenched as the nation's new bogeyman, and any views they hold as a collective have been systematically cut down the last several years. This is further evidenced in the article, in which literally the _very first line_ is a mild dunk on the GOP. Why do Americans do this? Why must literally any policy decision be chiefly looked at through the lens of Red vs. Blue? This is coming from a Canadian whose frequently frustrated that one can't voice any concerns about COVID policy without being lumped in with a crowd which I otherwise share almost nothing in common with.
dhc02 5y ago
There is an important difference. In the first year of the pandemic, the people you're talking about were okay with the personal risk, which is fine, but also ignoring, downplaying, or refusing to care about the risk to others who couldn't protect themselves. Which is less okay in my opinion. But now, the vast majority of people still at risk have chosen not to protect themselves. So vaccinated individuals choosing to live life normally are increasing the chances the virus spreads, but not increasing the risk of serious injury or death to the defenseless and vulnerable.
yongjik 5y ago
Taking the risk to spread it after two years of the virus not going away is questionable; taking the same risk at the beginning when nobody had any idea how bad it could become is pure lunacy.
dundarious 5y ago
It was never just a personal risk, so yes, those people were rightly scolded. Now that there are effective vaccines (and effective treatments here now/coming soon), it is more like a personal risk.

some_furry 5y ago

Now it's OK if they're sufficiently vaccinated* Vaccines weren't widely available back then

khazhoux 5y ago
What's the * ?
- some_furry 5y ago
  Correction of the post I was replying to

ceejayoz 5y ago

Being willing to take on the risk yourself and being willing to inflict it on others aren't the same thing. If you could drive drunk without risking other people, it'd be more societally acceptable. Similarly, now that vaccination is widely available for at-risk groups, it's a bit more acceptable to take actions that spread the virus that puts those folks at risk.

jaywalk 5y ago
Nobody is inflicting anything on anyone. It is your responsibility to protect yourself to the level that you feel is necessary.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
> Similarly, now that vaccination is widely available for at-risk groups... It was widely available a year ago. The most at risk groups were the first and most comprehensively vaccinated. What gives? If the conditions for re-opening were met a year ago why were we wearing masks outdoors and whatnot this whole time? Comments like these seem like little more than mental gymnastics to justify having held an opinion that didn't age well w.r.t. the various degrees of covid measures we've endured. Edit: Fine then, call it 6mo. Regardless, I'd be very interested to see someone provide in a "better than just saving face" quality defense of why businesses have been at reduced capacity, government services have been limited in their accessibility, etc, etc. beyond the point at which the vulnerable were vaccinated and why we're continuing to have this debate. I know information was less great then but we have it now. How do people oppose re-opening wholesale-ish. I foresee nursing homes keeping some precautions but the DMV, using covid as an excuse for why I can't register a car at a certain service location, being masked at outdoor venues, come on.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > It was widely available a year ago. A year ago today 0.4% of the American population was fully vaccinated. 3.1% had had a first dose. https://imgur.com/a/aUpVwtb https://imgur.com/a/aUpVwtb
- hooande 5y ago
  Who makes the decision that covid is over and no one has to wear masks any more? There's no central authority here. Business and government offices are closed not because of any mandate, but because people don't feel safe going there. Rightly or wrongly. You're acting like there's someone who can just declare a national preoccupation to be over. As always, your problem isn't the government. It's that the majority of your fellow citizens do not agree with you.

mattnewton 5y ago

Well, they demonized for doing so on the back of the current medical system, which was very close to being completely overwhelmed. Omicron has made this the case again, though what changed in the meantime was the messaging after the vaccine. It was true that while you were immunized you could take these risk, but Omicron changed that and the messaging didn't change.

honkdaddy 5y ago

I can't help but feel that the state of US politics from 2016 onwards plays a role in this. Many early COVID skeptics who pushed for a more laissez faire style of government intervention were also Trump supporters. After the events on 1/6/2020, Trump supporters were even further entrenched as the nation's new bogeyman, and any views they hold as a collective have been systematically cut down the last several years. This is further evidenced in the article, in which literally the _very first line_ is a mild dunk on the GOP. Why do Americans do this? Why must literally any policy decision be chiefly looked at through the lens of Red vs. Blue? This is coming from a Canadian whose frequently frustrated that one can't voice any concerns about COVID policy without being lumped in with a crowd which I otherwise share almost nothing in common with.

dhc02 5y ago

There is an important difference. In the first year of the pandemic, the people you're talking about were okay with the personal risk, which is fine, but also ignoring, downplaying, or refusing to care about the risk to others who couldn't protect themselves. Which is less okay in my opinion. But now, the vast majority of people still at risk have chosen not to protect themselves. So vaccinated individuals choosing to live life normally are increasing the chances the virus spreads, but not increasing the risk of serious injury or death to the defenseless and vulnerable.

yongjik 5y ago

Taking the risk to spread it after two years of the virus not going away is questionable; taking the same risk at the beginning when nobody had any idea how bad it could become is pure lunacy.

dundarious 5y ago

It was never just a personal risk, so yes, those people were rightly scolded. Now that there are effective vaccines (and effective treatments here now/coming soon), it is more like a personal risk.