"I can’t recall when I last heard someone demanding the freedom to drive without wearing a seat belt."
Come on up to New Hampshire here in the States and suggest a seat belt law. You'll get all the "freedom demanding" you can handle.
Come on up to New Hampshire here in the States and suggest a seat belt law. You'll get all the "freedom demanding" you can handle.
There is disagreement in society; we aren't all drones with a hive mind. One person's justification for what he thinks is best is just that, one person's justification. Someone else might think they can poke holes in his arguments, and who is to say which is right? No one. They can go about doing according to their personal beliefs.
There are some conventions in society, but once we start encroaching on the gray area, then society becomes oppressive to the minorities who dissent. Our society can clearly see older societies that did it, but fail to see when they are doing it. Just because you think you are absolutely right doesn't mean you have the right to compel others to do it. And, just consider, you might just be wrong... but of course not, our society is so enlightened, it couldn't be wrong...
> And, just consider, you might just be wrong
And it's okay to be wrong, so long as one keeps an open mind and considers all the available evidence.
For example, consider that people who have been infected and recovered have robust and durable immunity that is proving to be at least equally as effective as vaccination [1][2].
It would be a waste to force these people to be vaccinated, especially when there are many other people who would greatly benefit from those doses (eg in developing countries with limited access to modern healthcare facilities).
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
Recall that mRNA vaccines work by forcing your cells to produce spike protein, which is then detected as an infection leading to those cells being damaged or destroyed by the immune system. If you have already fought off COVID then being injected with the vaccine can only damage your body. It cannot help because you are already immune. And it's not the case that your pre-existing immunity means less damage: it means more, because when your body has never seen the spike protein before it has to build its own immune response in parallel to the mRNA particles degrading and the spike protein manufacturing falling away. The effect of the vaccine doesn't last long so by the time the immune system is fully ramped up the spikes aren't being made much anymore anyway. But if you are fully immune already, then your immune system can start destroying the mRNA 'infected' cells immediately, so far more will end up being attacked.
The more you investigate exactly how these mRNA vaccines work, the more questions are raised. And unfortunately there are remarkably few answers out there in the literature.
So people should have the freedom to harm themselves by not wearing a seat belt but vaccines should be mandatory to stop covid from spreading everywhere.
"the decline in lineage diversity was indeed correlated with increased rates of mass vaccination. Furthermore, the decline in lineage diversity was coupled with increased dominance of the B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.1.617 (delta) and P.1 (gamma) variants of concern, suggesting that these variants may be “fitter” SARS-CoV-2 lineages.”
[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v...
I suppose the big downside of the flood of preprints on COVID19 is that any particular position can be supported, however briefly, with some study before peer review [hopefully] cleans things up.
It sounds like you're arguing that vaccination helps fuel variants because without vaccination there wouldn't be any hinderance to the original virus rampaging through the population and thus no selection pressure. Though as people developed natural immunity, I don't see how we wouldn't end up in the same place, just with more dead people.
A related short discussion on the matter
https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/Natural-Vs-Vacci...
I don't blame you for believing this because rhetoric from Fauci and others is constantly pushing this idea.
But if you want to be well informed you should at least be aware of a couple major counterpoints.
First, people who have been infected and recovered have robust and durable immunity that is at least equally as effective as vaccination [1][2].
Second, the current mRNA vaccines induce a highly targeted immune response to the spike protein, which - when coupled with mass vaccination - applies tremendous selective pressure on the virus [3][4][5]. This can actually further enhance the fitness of the virus. I've linked to several more peer reviewed papers to further demonstrate my points [6][7][8] - these are serious concerns being put forth by highly regarded researchers at top institutions in the country.
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
[3] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/
[4] SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion by the B.1.427/B.1.429 variant of concern https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie...
[5] mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6
[6] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016...
[7] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of theoretical predictions and empirical tests https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
[8] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fj...
Here in Ontario, you can let your 14 year old drive around without a seatbelt, or a license, in a car on private property. But on public roads, seatbelts. That seems reasonable to me.
This is common misconception about the COVID-19 vaccines and about several other vaccines. They don’t necessarily stop infection/transmission, but reduce the symptoms and prevent you from ending up in the ER.
Those who downvoted can find this basic information on CDC, WebMD, JH, BMJ, etc
This is a bit too strongly worded, and is borderline misinformation.
The current mRNA vaccines are imperfect - they do not provide sterilizing immunity - and consequently people who are vaccinated can still be infected and transmit the virus.
There is a small but growing subset of the scientific literature raising concerns about this - the keywords you can search for are vaccine induced immune escape. But I'll save you some time and link you to an accessible peer-reviewed paper on the subject as an introduction [1].
FWIW I agree that vaccines are useful - particularly for vulnerable demographics - and present very low risk of complications for an individual. That said, many people are unaware of the potential second order consequences of mass vaccination.
Furthermore, many people are unaware that previously infected and recovered individuals have robust and durable immunity to SARS-CoV-2 [2][3]. These are strong arguments for a strategically targeted vaccination campaign - the opposite of compulsory vaccination for everyone.
[1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/
[2] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[3] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
As much as freedom of speech and decentralization is important, constant attacks on this and that in isolation lead to the incorrect conclusion that everything must be thrown away. It’s a product of no one person, but many contribute to the entire macro problem, which means no one also will accept responsibility for the entire mess that were now in such that half the country doesn’t want to save their own and others lives despite a dangerous pandemic by using a safe and paid for vaccine alternative.
Much of what people know about libertarians comes from its opponents. Actual libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect peoples rights, while maximizing their freedom. Proper regulations would be aimed at preventing one group of people from hurting others.
"For their own good" regulations, though, are not libertarian. Adults should be allowed the freedom to make their own choices about themselves.
P.S. I got fully vaccinated at the earliest opportunity.
Were they libertarians? Well, I can't say for certain, but I think that seriously trying to argue they weren't gets well into No True Scotsman territory.
Regardless, almost every self-proclaimed libertarian I have ever come across has absolutely argued against government regulations, with the possible exception of those supporting property rights.
You may not think they are credible, or libertarians, but I'll ask you not to deny my lived experience just to support your personal idea of what a libertarian is or should be.
The libertarian argument that you're almost certainly mischaracterizing there is about the pandora's box that is opened by allowing the government to decide what is or is not "poison" (which is of course an absurdly emotionally charged word picked by their opponents). Consider that some governments want to restrict sugary food on health grounds. Sugar isn't a poison but once you accept the principle that governments can ban companies from selling "poisoned" food, the definition of poison immediately comes under attack and sooner or later means almost nothing like what you'd expect.
There are always going to be grey areas, such as the line between "safe" and "unsafe", and Libertarianism doesn't provide any guidance on where that line should be. The government's role is to define that line, and the courts to interpret it as part of checks and balances.
There are various types (or degrees or flavors or something) of libertarianism. Minarchy [0] is one type, but doesn't seem to be the most vocal from what I've seen. There's even libertarian socialism [1]. The most vocal type seems to be anarcho capitalism [2] which is pretty much the no government whatsover group.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
As will adherents to every political persuasion. Some even go so far as to violently purge their impure members.
Michigan politicians that like to label themselves as libertarian supported socializing the cost of vehicle accidents. Of course repealing an insurance mandate is pro 'personal freedom' on the surface, but in context of reality, all it does is transfer costs from a user fee to Medicaid, which is not libertarian at all.
Seat belts have saved my life, and that of other family members.
My father was a libertarian, too.
Beyond that, it's probably a matter of practicality that passengers aren't required to be belted in. It would significantly reduce the capacity of public transit. A better option might be to protect the driver from projectile humans. AFAICT that's exactly how modern buses are designed.
I don't know if this applies to general passenger buses or just school buses, but in the US they have closely spaced seats with energy-absorbing seat backs that limit the force on each passenger and how far the passenger can move in a collision.
Smaller school buses (under 10k pounds) are required to have lap and/or shoulder belts at all seating positions.