3 ms·
This position leads to inevitable follow up question: if vaccination reduces only personal risks, and does not prevent infection spread, why forcing it on anyon
by Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
This position leads to inevitable follow up question: if vaccination reduces only personal risks, and does not prevent infection spread, why forcing it on anyone? If a person is unwilling to vaccinate and accepts the higher risk of a negative outcome, let him decide for himself, no?
- maxerickson 5y agoThe vaccines do reduce transmission, even if they don't prevent it. You have to pretty much be willfully ignoring this fact to not understand it at this point.
- petefromnorth 5y agoThe majority of western countries did this. Optional vaccines, restricted from public gatherings if you choose to not get it.
- dekhn 5y agovaccines do not only reduce personal risks. Can you please form a better argument?
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoBefore I form 'a better argument' for you, can you please make an argument yourself about the effects of the vaccines besides reducing personal risks? To note: I'm personally vaccinated, but people who think it is OK to restrict personal freedoms of other people based on very fluid and agenda-driven narrative about the current state of the 'scientific consensus' do not get much respect from me. Maybe it is because I'm from a country where personal freedoms are routinely abused and I value them much more than people who take these freedoms for grated.