I don’t doubt the need to have this discussion about authoritarianism, but the exaggeration of comparing it to nazi times or apartheid (as this line of thinking inevitably implies) is utterly disrespectful to the victims of real regimes.
It is a false choice if one answer is discriminated against specifically. If that's OK, then persecuting religion is to be supported just by stating 'but they have a choice to change religion.'
Because you don't share a belief, does that make it OK to persecute others for it? Is their own informed view and decision about their health and how it might affect others to be over-ridden to suit yours? Is the truth 100% clear to justify yourself?
Obese people have the choice to stop eating, should we ban them from restaurants and medical services because of their 'choice?'
Fear makes people mean and willing to harm others for the sake of their own perceived risk avoidance (don't pretend it's all for the 'greater good' with all the other day to day suffering we contribute to at the cost of others) without a second thought.
I agree that vaccines are not the magic wand some science zealots would like them to be. Put what’s even clearer, is how the lack of vaccination affects and strains the national medical systems. Every decision has be taken with that as a beacon.
Novaxxers here aren’t simply free thinkers. They’re totalitarians attacking scientific proof, wishing that their magical thinking could be taken as reference by policymaking. They’re above all extreme individualists who put their personal choice in front of everyone else’s well being, out of principle.
They are, in other words, anti-social elements, that are willing to risk the well being of their fellow citizens for a libertarian choice often rooted in misconception and misinformation.
False. France has at some point subordinated access to non-covid related health services to vaccination status.
>They’re totalitarians attacking scientific proof, wishing that their magical thinking
Post a copy of your PhD please. Not only you are lying on easily verifiable facts as mentionned previously, but you obviously have no idea what is science and how it is made. There is a reason vaccination hesitancy is highest (~25%) amoung PhD level educated people: precisely because they know the limit of science and how it is manipulated in the public discurse.
Followed by the "high school or less" group at 20%, presumably for the same reasons, then?
Also, you balk at the GP calling antivaxxers "totalitarians", yet you say this in a comment below:
> I therefore propose to use an experimental vaccine using Guillotinine (a molecule related to quinine) and administer it to a selected test subjects such as Pfizer's and Moderna CEOs, CEO of big TV network as well as a few ministers of health and selected parliamentarians. I bet that covid will cease to be a thing in less than two weeks after injection.
Not taking a side but this is an ad hominem argument
> vaccination hesitancy is highest (~25%) amoung PhD level educated people:
could you share a source for this? sounds fascinating
We did not, where did you get this from?
But we should have had. If you are not vaccinated then you should be at the very end of the queue, when there is no risk for anybody else. If you die then you can be proud that you did it defending your freedom.
> Post a copy of your PhD please
Not OP but I do have a PhD (physics) and I ran to get my 3rd booster shot when it was available. Also because I looked at numbers and I happen to know how science is done (and what was messed up with statistics when reporting covid data, but that's another story)
So you mean people like Dr. Robert Malone (one of inventors of the mRNA vaccine) warnings long time ago about vaccine enhanced infections and low vaccine efficacy after he saw biodistribution data that was revealed after a FOIA request? And it looks like no one care about him beside "novaxxers".
Or like banning people from social media after they report data from VAERS database?
Or ignoring doctors that say we should look more into this vaccines side effects (because of they experiences, like chief pathologist at the University of Heidelberg that say people who die in connection with a vaccination should have to be examined more frequently)?
The comparison is still valid because the consequences could be the same if this doesn't stop.