3 ms·

I guess I meant that the restrictions are justified based on the harm prevention to your neighbours, rather than to yourself (I didn't mean to imply that it's b

I guess I meant that the restrictions are justified based on the harm prevention to your neighbours, rather than to yourself (I didn't mean to imply that it's based on some ratio). In that sense, if a vaccine purely reduced transmission even without offering any other protection, mandating it could still be justified for certain activities, just like a driver's license is considered reasonable today. I'm sure driver's licenses were considered very controversial restrictions on personal freedom back when they were first introduced.

throwawaythekey 5y ago
> restrictions are justified based on the harm prevention to your neighbours Taken to the extreme this kind of thought becomes pretty anti-human (thanos, global warming) > mandating it could still be justified for certain activities Yeah it could be justified for sure - I just don't think there's any way of ignoring that it's a judgement call/balance.
- jbay808 5y ago
  I definitely think both extremes become... extreme. The freedom to drink alcohol while driving your car down the sidewalk without a license as people dive out of your way is also pretty anti-human! Of course, we could allow that freedom and then just penalize people in court when they happen to injure others with their car. But it might be even more dangerous to set a precedent where you can take someone to court for transmitting a virus to you, or get charged with murder for being part of a transmission chain that results in a death. Anyway, so I agree with you that it's about balance, and I do agree that Canada's policies are not getting that right (and, in many instances, lacking common sense).