I am in no position to make an informed decision on these vaccines and measures by myself, so I trust those who actually know what they are talking about.
How do you fight that kind of thing?
Here, however, we're talking about a highly contagious virus that's transmitted through air, which can be spread even if you don't have symptoms and even if you don't actively interact with someone (as opposed to, say, HIV). Vaccines seemed to lower the spread risk, although with the new variant that effect looks weaker. So deciding for yourself to not vaccinate has a high likelihood of effecting others.
To go back to the road analogy, this doesn't look so much like a nanny state as setting some ground rules. Like driving on the same side of the road, mandating lights, blinkers, etc.
This is absolutist thinking - "people can still get infected, so this does not help at all" - this not true in the slightest:
"it can still happen" is not the same "as it happens at the same rate as before". And "It's not perfect" isn't the same as "does not help".
vaccination reduces the rate of infection, a lot, so it does help, a lot. None of this is binary, thinking in absolutes will lead you to false conclusions.
Not sure why you’d want to suppress that truth. It’s just a little vague on how big the chances are.
You said the vaccine does not prevent people from getting infected. That is not true. The popular vaccines are about 95% effective. Also, people who are not infected do not transmit the virus -- that is a rather effective limit on transmission.
Apart from infections, the vaccine also reduces the severity of covid. The severity of covid-19 is the whole damn problem, BTW. If it wasn't making lots of people seriously sick we wouldn't be worrying about infections in the first place.
edit by the way the magical number for how effective the popular vaccines are against getting infected and being able to infect others, is not 95%. It’s 42% and dropping for the Pfizer vaccine.
It looks like your X*1.6 formula is made-up nonsense.
It’s weird, because to the extent you are able to convince anyone, you can, at best, get some people killed. What even is the point of that? Worse, your mealy arguments could only work on the poorest critical thinkers, so you’re picking on the weak — the very people who need a hand. IDK, I couldn’t feel good about myself, doing what you’re doing.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-42-in...
Which is just a random result for searching. I’m sure there other numbers to be found, but they are nowhere near 100%.
After all, why wouldn't they support keeping the vulnerable safe? Cost is only small sacrifice in bodily autonomy and clearly most effective thing to do.
A better comparison would be churches and bars.
When passports do finally fail, it's going to shame a lot of people in managerialist roles who disinhibited their cruelty when they thought they were going to be able to shut the objects of their contempt out of society.
Why would someone that is healthy risk ending up like that dead BBC presenter and leave their family behind for complete strangers?
Who gives you(or anyone) the right to decide what risks they should take and that their lives are worth less than anyone elses?
My mother is healthy even though she's almost 70 and she didn't have it. It's her choice. My wife didn't have it.It's her choice. Then again, she's in perfect health and 30 so for her the risks are next to none.
Small sacrifice? How about lock down the "vulnerable" like me(or worse) then and not screw up everyone else?
Even if you’re in your 30’s and in perfect health.
I absolutely agree that I’d much rather die from COVID than from the vaccine that is supposed to save me. But logically speaking, choosing to not take the vaccine doesn’t make any kind of sense.
It’s like choosing to drive a car because you might get hit by lightning if you take a walk.
Your chances of catching COVID aren't 100%, your chances of getting vaccinated are if you choose to do so.
>It’s like choosing to drive a car because you might get hit by lightning if you take a walk.
This argument also works in reverse.
note: I'm double vaccinated and urge others to vaccinate if they are medically able to do so.
Well, yes. Obviously we’re taking that into account when determining absolute chance to die from a certain thing.
> This argument also works in reverse.
It’s like choosing to take a walk (and risk getting hit by lightning, very very low chance) because you might get in a car accident if you drive a car (relatively high chance)?
Not sure I follow. Inverting it makes it reasonable.
If what you're saying is true and the vaccine itself is even more dangerous, the internet should be overflowing with countlesss stories of thousands of vaccine-induced deaths every single day. Instead, it's overflowing with stories of folks like your mother dying after spending weeks in complete agony not able to breathe on their own.
I'm not saying the vaccine is good or bad. What I am saying is: As long as it's not 100% safe people shouldn't be forced to have it (or coerced by any means).
Neither you or anyone else has the right to force(or coerce by limiting their freedoms) anyone to do anything that has even a 0,00000001 change of being detrimental to them. It's their life, their body, their choice.
If the excuse if to "protect the vulnerable" then lockdown people like me that are considered vulnerable and leave the healthy ones alone to mind their lives. I am aware that I'm at risk and it's my choice how I deal with it. What give anyone the right to make the decision for me?
If my mother chose not to have it... All I can and will do is respect her call. At the end of the day she paid for the priviledge to end up in a hospital bed if that is her choice. Her tax money at work. It's as simple as that.
Just like the anti-vaccine/science people think any sacrifice they have to make is too much?
God forbid you’d do something that helps your fellow man instead of yourself.