It attempts to fit a pre-conceived view onto the world, that "no-vaxers" must be dumb the same way "flat-earthers" are and this helps you rationalize away digital content you personally disagree with without having to engage with it.
I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle.
Many people, whether anti-vax or not, would like to be able to receive medical advice and treatment from a person of their own choosing. But this is illegal, at least in most places HN commenters are likely to be found. So "seeking medical treatment from the same 'elitist establishment'" is nothing more than "seeking medical treatment, legally".
The analogy is actually flawed for a different reason: it simply sets up a one way bias. If you want to force people to put a price on their beliefs, get rid of all the subsidies for vaccines and all the liability for the manufacturers. Make people pay for their own shots and then allow those who get injured to sue the manufacturers for damages.
Well, we could do that but actually we don't have to. We already know what the outcome is: the outcome is there are no COVID vaccine manufacturers at all, because complete legal immunity to damage claims was a mandatory criteria for them to sign contracts with governments. Liability allowed = no vaccines.
So the market spoke already, and it seems to suggest the opposite of what's being implied above.
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranorma...
I would argue that there is no subjectively felt risk.
It isn't that we as society decided to care for these people when they fall ill. They nonetheless have a higher risk of dying from an infection with Sars-CoV-2. The risk is there - they just do not feel it, because the felt risk of some wonky chip implant or other imagined side effects feels bigger.
These people have over time constructed a world view for themselves (with lots of help from YouTube, Facebook and other places to find "inspiration" for said world view) that is not only constructed around this one fear.
To me esp. these COVID deniers feel (and I have no data to back that up) like they are grasping for straws of (felt) control in a world they feel is out of their control. They say: I do not let the state vax me. Because now they are in control of at least something. Then they need to make the fact go away that they just handed the control over to a virus. So the nearly logical next step is to either not believe the virus is real, or to believe it doesn't hit you or believe, if it hits you your immune system is fit enough to deal with it, because it isn't as dangerous as the big bad state wants you to believe.
It is a rabbit hole to go down - one fear/believe/feeling out of control leading to the next piece of the puzzle in your new world view were you are in control.
And the politicians doing the exact opposite thing that scientists recommend as well as science (by definition) not being able to provide 100% certainty and easy answers (because well life isn't made up of easy answers) are not equipped to make these people feel in control (because they are not - nobody is).
So I feel (as said - I have no data) the problem lies deeper. Either (some) humans just want/need easy answers or we as a society have not learned to teach ourselves from early on, that there are no certainties and control is a myth and how to deal with greys and uncertainty.
On the other hand - if one actually looks at the numbers, these people may seem loud and a big mass on said (social) platforms (probably amplified by the algorithms) but are a very tiny minority in reality.
If this is accepted as an appropriate way of dealing with no-vaxers then the entire intellectual edifice of state-sponsored healthcare is at risk. You'll probably see some superficially surprising positions where (1) anti-vaccers are human scum willingly endangering us all and (2) it is necessary that we offer them high quality medical treatment. Note that it is a reasonable and consistent worldview, although probably not the intuitive one to someone who doesn't hold it.
I'm all for the idea, personally. People should pay their own medical costs. But it isn't a universally tolerable solution for how to handle the vaccine resistant (especially in the medical community, I assume).
One of the reasons I got vaccinated (despite having a fear of needles) is the fact my mother has COPD and I want to protect her. One could argue that's a selfish reason, ie. I want my children to know one of their grandmother (their grandfathers, including my father, having passed away before they knew them).
That's my personal reasoning, I also want to get out of this crisis and I don't wish it upon anyone to lose a loved one. Its a matter of compassion. I believe -perhaps naively- we all have someone to lose, one way or another. Though it may seem support for COVID-19 regulations is dwindling across the globe (and it is), the group who's firmly against is and remains an active, relatively small amount of loudmouths.
If you follow the above narrative, there's an understandable urge to that in order to defeat the problem, we can convince people to follow the COVID-19 regulations, to get vaccinated, etc. But what happens is that people double down within the cult-esque echo chamber. And such echo chamber is there in both examples (antivax and flat earth). So the urge, while understandable, we must abstain from, as its like 'energy put into a black hole'.
Funny little story: Back when I still had Facebook, I joined a Facebook group called Flat Earth Society ('we have members all around the globe'), thinking it was actually a joke, like I'd call 'The Illuminatus Trilogy'. I took me while (Poe's Law) till I figured these people actually weren't joking; they were dead serious. Its like someone who makes a terrible joke with bad taste, until you realize at some point, that they're serious about it. E.g. they really wanna eat a human being, not just jokingly.
Most serious illnesses will compromise the immune system. A compromised immune system will make you more vulnerable to any infection. So the most common and most spread infection will then also naturally be the most common one to trigger death.
If someone has aids, which is a decease that compromises the immune system, and then dies from pneumonia. Did they die from pneumonia or aids?
The statistics are a total mess in my opinion and any being professed with any exactitude should be taken with a grain of salt.
Money is a very bad medium to talk about probability and human reasoning because doing so supposes that all dollars are worth the same when in reality they are anything but. Your last dollar is more valuable than your hundredth dollar which is more valuable than your thousandth dollar which is far more valuable than your millionth dollar. Giving someone ten million dollars does not make a hundred times as much difference to their lives as giving them one hundred thousand.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
VSL
Framing it as them knowingly sacrificing the equivalent of $100 k for no good reason ("belief!") is dishonest to the complexity of the problem.