It's really hard to sympathize with people fighting for the "right" to infect me with a disease.
The CDC themselves state that viral load is similar in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
And yes, people have the right to refuse medical treament; that's a human right. It's there for very good reasons, and there is broad agreement among civil liberties experts on that point.
You missed a pretty important bit of that statement.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var...
> However, like prior variants, the amount of viral genetic material may go down faster in fully vaccinated people when compared to unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people.
As for transmission, the CDC actually says the vaccines do help here. (Not stop, but reduce.) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythings...
> And yes, people have the right to refuse medical treament; that's a human right.
Most states in the US require a variety of vaccinations to enter public school. New York requires it even for private/religious schooling (https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/immunization/schools/sc...). Measles, DTaP, polio, etc. have widespread existing requirements predating COVID.
Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else.
The person I was replying to clearly inferred that vaccinated individuals don't infect others, and that's dangerously wrong.
As for schools requiring vaccines, there is a lot to take issue with there - mRNA vaccines are different, with no long term data, for a different virus. The mandated vaccines don't require biannual top ups, and are for viruses that actually threaten children themselves - school agechildren have a near-zero mortality risk form COVID.
But the fact remains, regardless of all the weeds we could get into there, and NY state law notwithstanding, **human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment**.
As I said, civil liberties groups have written on this at length, and been largely ignored. I think ignoring them requires a level of stupidity bordering on evil.
You left a pretty important bit out. Lying by omission is still lying.
> human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment
Thought experiment: If SARS-CoV-2 were as transmissible as it is currently, but 50% fatal, would you still hold that position?
Do human beings perhaps also have a right to life and a certain level of protection from others who might do them harm?
If the virus were 50% fatal that would be a *250x* increase in mortality rate for 18-44 yos... That's the difference between dying in a pedestrian accident, and dying by lightning strike.
Even if I conceded that in such a situation, extreme measures might trump human rights - which I don't, because human rights are inalienable - would mandating vaccines actually help? Would people not voluntarily take them, and have wildly increased social pressure to take them?
And once people were mandated into taking a vaccine, how often would it be boosted: every 6 months? Would Pfizer be allowed to keep their contracts secret, and allowed to prevent other countries from sharing vaccines or making their own? Even when other countries have abysmal vaccination rates?
At what point would the vaccination boosters stop? When 90% of the population has been through the virus? Or never, because a new variant could come along? What if they start raising the prices, and only the wealthy can stay alive?
And this is all assuming that in this alternate universe, the vaccines actually prevent transmission. Which ours don't.
Fun thought experiment; I suggest you think about it a bit more.
Let's see if we can nail it down. If we had a vaccine that perfectly prevented transmission, and the virus had a 50% mortality rate, would your proposed human right be flexible, or does it remain a societal suicide pact?
Is it possible for two human rights to be in conflict with each other?
But sure, let's "nail it down" in this hypothetical fantasy, where vaccines perfectly stop transmission and the virus is orders of magnitude more lethal:
You still don't have a right to put Pfizer's goop into people who don't want it. Clear?
And, if the vaccination perfectly prevented transmission, then people who don't take it would only be hurting themselves. Your argument falls apart completely.
... A walking Bioweapon?
Please, tell me - if you can - what the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) is, in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission or death.
If you can't tell me that, then you have no leg to stand on to accuse people of being "walking bioweapons" (jesus h christ). And once you find any of those 4 NNTVs, I think you'll be more than a little surprised, if you have any intellectual honesty at all
Also, way to move the goal post. Why is the requirement to stop a single case?
As I said: "if the vaccination perfectly prevented transmission, then people who don't take it would only be hurting themselves".
- The argument already caved in on itself. The logic fail was hilarious. And you're still arguing? Pfffft, feck off.
> way to move the goal post. Why is the requirement to stop a single case?
Because you called unvaccinated people "walking bioweapons", and I'd like you to try and quantify that for yourself. Don't you like knowing what you're talking about? The NNVT exists for that purpose.
Please don't come back at me with more poorly thought through accusations; at my limit for the day.
Your point was: vaccines don’t prevent infections. Even if vaccines were hypothetically 100% effective at preventing infections then there is still no point in putting restrictions on the unvaccinated since those vaccinated would be perfectly protected.
My question was, given the above what about people that can’t get the vaccine for various reasons? We’ll have “walking bio weapons” that are dangerous to them.
Basically how far does individual freedom extend with you? Does it go so far as putting other people at risk?
How does this translate into force everyone to take an experimental shot (with some number of side effects and deaths) every X months?
We see, right now, outside of "studies", I've seen in my own family and I'm not the only one, these vaccines do not stop transmission. They do not stop infection. Maybe they "reduce". They do not stop.
So parent posters histrionics about "right to infect me with disease" is just.. histrionics. The vaccinated can also infect him with a disease.
That was just a reframing you did to make them seem malicious, when they’re mostly indifferent, afraid or misinformed.