>If a small but militant group insists in putting everyone at risk by intentionally and systematically violating basic health and safety precautions then the only hope society has is to mitigate this risk.
Who is militant? And they aren't putting "everyone" at risk. They are putting themselves at risk surely, but the risk doesn't really spread to people who have been vaccinated.
>You need to prove you are vaccinated when you travel internationally
I also need permission from the government of the country I'm visiting to come at all. They can add conditions if they want and I can choose accordingly.
>So why yes, obviously yes. Don't you agree? Or do you actually believe that an individual's whims and irresponsiblr and reckless behavior should simply put everyone else's life at risk just because?
I don't agree. I think people have lost perspective and have very little idea what the risks of various situations are and can't tell the difference between a risk that could kill millions and a risk that could kill hundreds and are happy to charge forwards to try to prevent any risk regardless of how small because "doing something" has become as a religious mandate.
>I mean, if you really valued freedom then wouldn't you be doing your hardest to ensure that everyone around you should, say, not risk death by an easily preventable disease in spite of everyone except you taking basic precautions?
Freedom is not trying to force everyone around me to do what I determine is best for them.
>do you feel the measles or tetanus shots violate your freedom?
Tetanus basically only spreads through deep puncture wounds with soiled implements. I guess if I didn't seem like I was out of my mind I would want my doctor to accept refusing treatment for a painful and life threatening disease that could only ever effect myself... The question "do you think shot violates your freedom?" really shows that you don't understand my point at all and will continue arguing past and around whatever I have to say.
I am opposed to de facto licensing of public activities based on a choice that should be mine to make. (I did indeed get vaccinated) When there was significant risk and incomplete vaccine access, different rules were acceptable, but only because of the large and temporary risk. Now that that risk is avoidable by anyone in the US who wants to avoid it, continuing to enable and enforce restrictions on everyday activities has gone too far, and normalizing the "papers please" activity does serious harm to our future freedoms.
> They are putting themselves at risk surely, but the risk doesn't really spread to people who have been vaccinated.
They _are_ putting those who have been vaccinated at risk since vaccinated people can still get sick. Also this ignores all of those who wish to, but can't be vaccinated for one reason or another.
Then may be you should complain to people who gave you the vaccine, instead of pushing others to take this thing that apparently does not work as advertised.
> Then may be you should complain to people who gave you the vaccine, instead of pushing others to take this thing that apparently does not work as advertised.
You clearly don't understand how vaccines work. No vaccine in history has ever kept all vaccinated people from getting sick.
An 80% efficacy may be good enough for you to take the vaccine. But for someone they might be looking for 95% efficacy to make it worthwhile for them.
But in no circumstance, I should be able to dictate that my threshold of efficacy should be good enough for you, and thus you should take it as well, so that my riskier choice will provide better ROI for me...
Honestly, what are you talking about? I was responding to this original quote:
> They are putting themselves at risk surely, but the risk doesn't really spread to people who have been vaccinated.
This is false because no vaccine provides 100% protection. You even here have agreed we me. Your point that people should complain to vaccine manufacturers about efficacy is both irrelevant and misguided.
Who is militant? And they aren't putting "everyone" at risk. They are putting themselves at risk surely, but the risk doesn't really spread to people who have been vaccinated.
>You need to prove you are vaccinated when you travel internationally
I also need permission from the government of the country I'm visiting to come at all. They can add conditions if they want and I can choose accordingly.
>So why yes, obviously yes. Don't you agree? Or do you actually believe that an individual's whims and irresponsiblr and reckless behavior should simply put everyone else's life at risk just because?
I don't agree. I think people have lost perspective and have very little idea what the risks of various situations are and can't tell the difference between a risk that could kill millions and a risk that could kill hundreds and are happy to charge forwards to try to prevent any risk regardless of how small because "doing something" has become as a religious mandate.
>I mean, if you really valued freedom then wouldn't you be doing your hardest to ensure that everyone around you should, say, not risk death by an easily preventable disease in spite of everyone except you taking basic precautions?
Freedom is not trying to force everyone around me to do what I determine is best for them.
>do you feel the measles or tetanus shots violate your freedom?
Tetanus basically only spreads through deep puncture wounds with soiled implements. I guess if I didn't seem like I was out of my mind I would want my doctor to accept refusing treatment for a painful and life threatening disease that could only ever effect myself... The question "do you think shot violates your freedom?" really shows that you don't understand my point at all and will continue arguing past and around whatever I have to say.
I am opposed to de facto licensing of public activities based on a choice that should be mine to make. (I did indeed get vaccinated) When there was significant risk and incomplete vaccine access, different rules were acceptable, but only because of the large and temporary risk. Now that that risk is avoidable by anyone in the US who wants to avoid it, continuing to enable and enforce restrictions on everyday activities has gone too far, and normalizing the "papers please" activity does serious harm to our future freedoms.