I agree we should be realistic and truthful about consequences for our decisions, but I do not think stigma will help improve the situation. It is more likely to lead to resentment, and polarisation.
You sound as if you live in a weird parallel universe where we don't stigmatise those people.
It's not difficult to find people who think along all or some of these lines: Obese people are ugly gluttons, drinkers are a danger to others and themselves and have no self control, extreme sports athletes are crazy, people who have children in their forties are inconsiderate and will get retard babies.
The reason we don't get worked up about those as much as about covidiots, is that the groups you mention don't endanger anyone else. The one exception is extreme sports (think drag racing, not wingsuit flying), and that's why we require those athletes to buy insurance.
Looking forward to statistics supporting your assertion.
It's pretty simple: we stigmatize people whose choices place undue burden on others' ability to live safely.
Driving drunk?
Driving 90/55 on a crowded road?
Indiscriminately discharging a firearm into the air?
Exposing people to typhi salmonella after being established as a carrier?
Exposing people to HIV (and other STDs) knowingly?
Choosing to be unvaccinated against covid?
We seem to have a pretty consistent pattern here, and considering that remaining unvaccinated increases spread and increases everyone's risk of death (especially those who can't receive the vaccine), stigmatization of those who choose not to vaccinate without sound medical grounds fits this easy binary filter.
But doesn't California's SB 239 mean that a lot of people don't believe this anymore? And don't most people who think SB 239 was a good thing also hate people who don't want the vaccine?
From my reading, Cali HSC 120290 criminalizes knowingly transmitting any STD, which fits the bill for stigmatization. I'm guessing your point is it seems like transmitting any STD is a misdemeanor now, whereas in the past, only HIV would be tagged — with a felony, specifically. Right?
I'd venture that it's an adjustment with the times, specifically that HIV is no longer a death sentence especially as drugs for HIV come upon patent expiration in ~6 years time.
Still a stigma, and it still impairs a person's ability to have a normal romantic life, but it's no longer murder-adjacent.
I mean seriously, is there anyone out there who prefers getting an STD (let alone a very serious one) then getting punched in the face for example or getting your home broken into?
So unvaccinated cause harm to others indirectly by burding the healthcare system. And one also does that by socially acceptable stuff like motorcycling (or maybe that's a plus if one is organ donor?).
> The viral load declined more rapidly for those who were fully vaccinated than those who were unvaccinated. However, investigators noted that vaccinated individuals did not have a lower peak viral load than those who were vaccinated.
Tldr: there's probably a window where vaccinated people can transmit the virus as effectively as unvaccinated people, but that window is almost certainly shorter.
While that's probably not helpful in household settings, it's still plenty useful in cutting disease spread during short terms in confined spaces.
Your points were addressed implicitly, but I can do so explicitly at your behest:
Obesity and alcoholism aren't preventing people with other conditions from seeking medical care because the current medical system (at least in western nations) can account for and manage these conditions successfully, unlike COVID which has consistently resulted in resource, capacity, and utility shortages throughout the pandemic thereby posing an undue risk to general welfare and the lives of others.
I also say this as someone who's been both obese and not obese: unlike a decision to refuse a life-saving vaccine, refusing to eat is far, far harder. And as someone who refuses to drink specifically because I know my own tendencies towards addiction, I empathize with those who started drinking socially and suddenly found themselves trapped by the vice grip of an alcohol abuse disorder.
None of these compare to to choosing to refuse a vaccine without sound medical grounds.
There's nothing much to debate here; the topics you flagged are pretty personal topics for me, so I'll gladly and passionately defend against their misuse in debate.
And I think I agree with you, that the essential difference is how easy it is to get vaccinated.
I probably come to different conclusions because I know people for whom it's not "easy". This is because they are fearful of vaccines, mistrust authority, are uneducated or are paranoid. I think there is a parallel between an alcoholic slowly ruining their life through denial of the effects of drinking, and someone refusing a useful vaccine due to fear. In both cases, stigma may help them change course, but in my experience is is more likely to entrench the behaviour. Thus I don't think it should be used.
At some point people need to stop being so lenient on health suppliers. They are implicitly demanding society trashes itself to avoid them having to hire and train. It's endemic now, there is no cure, the treatment is mostly still oxygen+drugs. There's no excuse.
https://www.wfae.org/health/2021-09-30/novant-says-9-of-10-c...