5 ms·

Herd immunity is for the herd. The US is where it is because we have individuals willing to fight for individual rights. If casualty of individuals is the cos

Herd immunity is for the herd. The US is where it is because we have individuals willing to fight for individual rights. If casualty of individuals is the cost to keep individuality in this country then I say let it be. The vaccinated are protected and therefore you are safe (assuming you are vaccinated). So why do you need to proselytize your doctrine on those around you? You're allowed your own opinions, chant your religious beliefs, but don't turn it into law. You might believe a mandate might be the logical solution, and maybe by some computer models it will save the greatest number of people, but its still a breach of individual rights. I personally believe what makes the US great isn't the number of people but the quality of people. And I'd rather give up the quantity than the quality. Sure we may end up having a higher proportion of herd people if we dont mandate and many of the individuals end up dying, but we won't have a government that can control those individuals as easily, and that's what matters most.

mplewis 5y ago
- sunsunsunsun 5y ago
  Individuality at the expense of human life. Seems very selfish, especially when preventative measures are so simple.
  - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
    The individuals chose it for themselves. Yes very selfish indeed. Selfishness when it concern's ones own self is very much a good thing. Its being able to stand ones's ground. But what's even more selfish is imposing one's will onto another. That is narcissism. To believe that you know better for another than he knows for himself. That's not just selfishness, thats narcissism.
    - adbachman 5y ago
      I think I lost you. > narcissism Is "narcissism" here the choice to be an unvaccinated, unmasked spreader and therefore imposing your sickness on your community, or the imposition of public health requirements on yourself, personally?
      - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
        > Is "narcissism" here the choice to be an unvaccinated, unmasked spreader and therefore imposing your sickness on your community, or the imposition of public health requirements on yourself, personally? From my previous comment: > To believe that you know better for another than he knows for himself. That's not just selfishness, thats narcissism. I never said "unvaccinated, unmasked spreader". You're putting words into my mouth to fit your argument. The narcissism comes from "the imposition of public health requirements", to believe one knows "better for another than he knows for himself".
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  > > casualty of individuals is the cost to keep individuality > > This attitude disgusts me. Be better. You've said absolutely nothing. The entire response was to condescend. Many have died when people look downwards on others with disgust towards them without rationale. Just look at what hitler did to the rats he held power over. Its truly astounding narcissism to think oneself so much greater than another individual.
- thekashifmalik 5y ago
  Please follow the HN Guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
- throwaway51235 5y ago
- gcannonkjp 5y ago
  Your disgust means nothing to anyone. And chiding some one to "be better" is the height of smugness. You are not the arbiter or what is right or wrong.
Fernicia 5y ago
The vaccine doesn't fully protect the receiver. In other words, they are still put in danger by the actions of unvaccinated people. My point is that you have to be reasonable and draw a line somewhere between respecting people's liberties, and holding them responsible / preventing them from harming other people. For instance, if someone wakes up with a sore throat and dry cough but does not postpone a visit to their grandparents in an old-folks home, shouldn't that person be held accountable for the danger they are putting other people in?
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  > The vaccine doesn't fully protect the receiver. Not going to disagree here as that's the information I've heard as well. As someone who sees the situation from the outside however, let me tell you that you are the frog in the boiling pot. The goalpost of the claimed efficacy of the vaccine has moved almost to a point where they are barely acceptable. Again, you are the frog in the pot so it's seems okay because it was only yesterday that you were told the vaccine > holding them responsible / preventing them from harming other people. But you also have to draw a line between putting people who aren't sick at threat of blood related health issues including myocarditis for young men (who are not at high risk of death), and period irregularities for young women (who again are not at a high risk of death). > if someone wakes up with a sore throat and dry cough but does not postpone a visit to their grandparents in an old-folks home, shouldn't that person be held accountable for the danger they are putting other people in? Absolutely! The old-folks better do their due diligence to tell people they think could make them sick to stay away from them. They'd better hold other people around them accountable or else they could die! They can also take the vaccine if they believe Dr. Fauci. Or if they believe Joe Rogan they can acquire Ivermectin and take it along with the other drugs quick and early. Or if they don't believe Joe Rogan but believe the doctors he talks to, they can take what the specific doctors he interviews recommends. For example, sunlight, vitamin d, and exercise, as an example. Or if they believe Donald Trump they can take monoclonal antibodies. Or if they believe Gwyneth Paltrow they can buy a mystical egg from goop.com. Or if they believe Kenneth Copeland ministries they can bow down to let Jesus to exercise judgement on Covid 19. But that's all going back to individual responsibility. You can't get the state to impose that unto the individual, because no one can guarantee who is at power in the state. To you Joe Biden might be the second coming of Christ, the protector from covid, the abolisher of student loans. To someone else he could be an lying, cheating(on his first wife), geriatric, people pleasing, pedophilic (or at least very creepy towards young girls) career politician. What if he chooses to keep in power the people who lined his pockets and I happen to disagree that their mandated drug which they profit from is the best solution to the problem? What if I don't believe Dr Fauci represents the way, the science, and the light? Since I can guess your political leanings, and I can guess your biases, and we're coming up with theoretical possibilities, what if Joe Rogan becomes president, then mandates a treatment of "horse dewormer" based on evidence he hears from a doctor who has friends who hold patents on said horse dewormer? Will you now be hold yourself responsible and prevent yourself from harming others by shoving a vial of horse dewormer into your good self? Then would you impose your friends and everyone they know shove a horse dewormer vial up into their good selves? To be honest I don't know what you would do, whether you're a "submit to all authority" type, or if you're a "other side is a bad guy" type, or a "we have to fight this together type". But I know what I would say, because I'd say the exact thing I'm saying now: the state should not have that kind of power, and the individual needs to take responsibility. What I'm getting at is that this isn't a question of health. This is an issue of state power. The health implications have no regards because the mandating of anything at that level is, by the standards upon which this country was founded upon, unconstitutional.

mplewis 5y ago

sunsunsunsun 5y ago
Individuality at the expense of human life. Seems very selfish, especially when preventative measures are so simple.
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  The individuals chose it for themselves. Yes very selfish indeed. Selfishness when it concern's ones own self is very much a good thing. Its being able to stand ones's ground. But what's even more selfish is imposing one's will onto another. That is narcissism. To believe that you know better for another than he knows for himself. That's not just selfishness, thats narcissism.
  - adbachman 5y ago
    I think I lost you. > narcissism Is "narcissism" here the choice to be an unvaccinated, unmasked spreader and therefore imposing your sickness on your community, or the imposition of public health requirements on yourself, personally?
    - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
      > Is "narcissism" here the choice to be an unvaccinated, unmasked spreader and therefore imposing your sickness on your community, or the imposition of public health requirements on yourself, personally? From my previous comment: > To believe that you know better for another than he knows for himself. That's not just selfishness, thats narcissism. I never said "unvaccinated, unmasked spreader". You're putting words into my mouth to fit your argument. The narcissism comes from "the imposition of public health requirements", to believe one knows "better for another than he knows for himself".
RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
> > casualty of individuals is the cost to keep individuality > > This attitude disgusts me. Be better. You've said absolutely nothing. The entire response was to condescend. Many have died when people look downwards on others with disgust towards them without rationale. Just look at what hitler did to the rats he held power over. Its truly astounding narcissism to think oneself so much greater than another individual.
thekashifmalik 5y ago
Please follow the HN Guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
throwaway51235 5y ago
gcannonkjp 5y ago
Your disgust means nothing to anyone. And chiding some one to "be better" is the height of smugness. You are not the arbiter or what is right or wrong.

Fernicia 5y ago

The vaccine doesn't fully protect the receiver. In other words, they are still put in danger by the actions of unvaccinated people. My point is that you have to be reasonable and draw a line somewhere between respecting people's liberties, and holding them responsible / preventing them from harming other people. For instance, if someone wakes up with a sore throat and dry cough but does not postpone a visit to their grandparents in an old-folks home, shouldn't that person be held accountable for the danger they are putting other people in?

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
> The vaccine doesn't fully protect the receiver. Not going to disagree here as that's the information I've heard as well. As someone who sees the situation from the outside however, let me tell you that you are the frog in the boiling pot. The goalpost of the claimed efficacy of the vaccine has moved almost to a point where they are barely acceptable. Again, you are the frog in the pot so it's seems okay because it was only yesterday that you were told the vaccine > holding them responsible / preventing them from harming other people. But you also have to draw a line between putting people who aren't sick at threat of blood related health issues including myocarditis for young men (who are not at high risk of death), and period irregularities for young women (who again are not at a high risk of death). > if someone wakes up with a sore throat and dry cough but does not postpone a visit to their grandparents in an old-folks home, shouldn't that person be held accountable for the danger they are putting other people in? Absolutely! The old-folks better do their due diligence to tell people they think could make them sick to stay away from them. They'd better hold other people around them accountable or else they could die! They can also take the vaccine if they believe Dr. Fauci. Or if they believe Joe Rogan they can acquire Ivermectin and take it along with the other drugs quick and early. Or if they don't believe Joe Rogan but believe the doctors he talks to, they can take what the specific doctors he interviews recommends. For example, sunlight, vitamin d, and exercise, as an example. Or if they believe Donald Trump they can take monoclonal antibodies. Or if they believe Gwyneth Paltrow they can buy a mystical egg from goop.com. Or if they believe Kenneth Copeland ministries they can bow down to let Jesus to exercise judgement on Covid 19. But that's all going back to individual responsibility. You can't get the state to impose that unto the individual, because no one can guarantee who is at power in the state. To you Joe Biden might be the second coming of Christ, the protector from covid, the abolisher of student loans. To someone else he could be an lying, cheating(on his first wife), geriatric, people pleasing, pedophilic (or at least very creepy towards young girls) career politician. What if he chooses to keep in power the people who lined his pockets and I happen to disagree that their mandated drug which they profit from is the best solution to the problem? What if I don't believe Dr Fauci represents the way, the science, and the light? Since I can guess your political leanings, and I can guess your biases, and we're coming up with theoretical possibilities, what if Joe Rogan becomes president, then mandates a treatment of "horse dewormer" based on evidence he hears from a doctor who has friends who hold patents on said horse dewormer? Will you now be hold yourself responsible and prevent yourself from harming others by shoving a vial of horse dewormer into your good self? Then would you impose your friends and everyone they know shove a horse dewormer vial up into their good selves? To be honest I don't know what you would do, whether you're a "submit to all authority" type, or if you're a "other side is a bad guy" type, or a "we have to fight this together type". But I know what I would say, because I'd say the exact thing I'm saying now: the state should not have that kind of power, and the individual needs to take responsibility. What I'm getting at is that this isn't a question of health. This is an issue of state power. The health implications have no regards because the mandating of anything at that level is, by the standards upon which this country was founded upon, unconstitutional.