As always though, it's not about you, it's about the people around you and the people around them. If we all acted selfishly all the time we'd all die.
Also, nobody said your body is not about you. GP suggested the vaccine is not about you. Indeed, it's not. We vaccinate not to protect ourselves, but to protect society by reducing the spread of disease. The fact that it will also protect you is of course great as well. This is nothing new, and has been the same for every other vaccine.
No they aren't, because I can and do limit my risk to such people in other ways. And they can and should limit that risk as well themselves, in other ways than getting others vaccinated. Why?
Because the space outside your home isn't some "safe space" where you won't ever get infected. As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. There are other people with different health strategies out there, even people who are not afraid to get infected.
> We vaccinate not to protect ourselves, but to protect society
Society changes, and it does not need protection via compulsory vaccines, except the 1984 kind. People and their rights need protection.
This is a stupid proposal for a rule. I call it a proposal, because even a cursory study of the evidence shows it is not a description of general practice, and doesn't reflect the laws that most societies have enacted for themselves.
If it were the actual rule, then you would never be able to eat any food. Most people have the decency to stay home when they're sick, unless they fear for their security by doing so, out of consideration for other people's health. Most people take reasonable measures when making and storing food, even in the absence of laws creating some obligation, because they have consideration for the health of those who will eat it.
When you go out in the street or to a pub, there is no expectation and no rule that everybody is completely sterile.
Your health is primarily your responsibility, not other random people's you may encounter.
This is like saying people should be able to drive on the opposite side of the road.
My understanding is that vaccination is supposed to reduce the severity of the covid-19 disease, if you were to contract it. It does not prevent you from the viral infection itself.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/vaccine-q-a-can-a-f...
- Asking the tiny fraction of the population who are immunocompromised to remain locked down until the safety of vaccines has been empirically verified?
- Or asking healthy humans to take an experimental vaccine with no recourse should they suffer adverse effects?
The moral thing to do is protect idiots from their own stupidity because we value their lives still, but recently I'm questioning that.
Then why can’t I sue should I have an adverse effect?
The definition of experimental has no relation to the ability to be sued.
When is the vaccine safe and no longer experimental, according to you? We have now given over 2 billion vaccine doses around the world.
Being selfish and risking others?
Being kind and not holding others hostage because you don't believe in science?
I'm in agreeance that people should get the vaccine, but I'm under no illusion that for a normal (selfish) person, the cost-benefit is a little wonky.
Perhaps a fair comparison would be if we required those who do not wish to get vaccinated to have a relevant medical degree to prove that they know what they're doing?
Agree with this statement as such.
Except that you do not have a right to force others to do anything that they are not in agreement with. You have a right to protect yourself and stay home. I support that. ( Just putting it the way opposite to how you have phrased it )
> Going out in public as a spreader is not a right
Anyone out in public could be a spreader, vaccinated or not. The science is not as clear yet. You should protect yourself.
> the people you infect should be able to hold you legally liable
Why only for Covid-19?
I'll admit that this does nothing for high-risk groups that can't safely vaccinate for one reason or another, but I don't see that as a good reason to try to encourage someone to do it that isn't comfortable.