3 ms·
Because the docs knew that far too many people would rather face risk to avoid doing what they’re told to do. And far too many people just don’t give a shit ab
by jleyank 9mo ago
Because the docs knew that far too many people would rather face risk to avoid doing what they’re told to do. And far too many people just don’t give a shit about other people. The npc’s aren’t real or pertinent.
- _m_p 9mo agoHow did taking it benefit other people?
- t-writescode 9mo agoThe best way to keep immunocompromised and people who literally can’t take vaccines safe is by having so much herd immunity that the likelihood they a virulent load of a virus cannot get to those people. A great way to get herd immunity is through mass vaccination.
- alex43578 9mo agoExcept herd immunity for COVID isn’t feasible or even possible. It mutates too much, the vaccines don’t confer effective enough immunity, etc. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality of this disease. I’m not immunocompromised, but I still modify my behavior to try and protect myself: mask on planes, avoid certain situations, etc.
- Itoldmyselfso 9mo agoIt's easy to say this in hindsight
- smt88 9mo ago- Reduced demand on emergency rooms and other limited medical resources - Decreased insurance claims, which are paid for by other patients in the form of premium increases - Prevented burdens on taxpayers from illness or premature deaths of workers (welfare payments, orphanned children, lawsuits, etc.) No one in a developed, Western society is an island. They borrow from society in childhood and pay society back as an adult. And they use common resources like drugs, hospitals, and (in the case of insurance) risk.
- ziml77 9mo ago> No one in a developed, Western society is an island And you know the anti-vaxxers know this because they also intersect heavily with the set who get very mad/judgemental about unemployed people or about people who don't eat well and exercise.
- alex43578 9mo agoIf we made everyone over 300lbs lose 100lbs, we’d also see those benefits. Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased. Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run).
- nolok 9mo agoYour point being ? That we should not do anything unless we do everything with no exception (that's an absurd way to view things and not a counter argument whatsoever), or that those things should be done (which is probably true but doesn't change his point at all) ?
- alex43578 9mo agoI'm agreeing that the current implementation of our public health system is a worst-of-all-worlds option. Weigh 500lbs, don't work, and drink a six pack a day? You get free healthcare via Medicaid, making the taxpayer shoulder your burden. Self-employed, 35, and can run a 7 minute mile, but broke a bone? Expect outrageous healthcare costs, deductibles, etc. The current approach to public health is the epitome of a moral hazard.