Marcus9

Hilarious comparison, because it's actually like holding a getaway driver responsible... which is exactly how the law does work.

The taxi cab driver would be relevant in February of 2020 when it was new and unknown. If you're going out in public today unvaccinated, you're knowingly complicit in spreading covid.

That's a fair assessment, my initial comment only focused on one half of the balance you're highlighting.

The problem is, you know what I don't want to have put in my body even more than the vaccine? The coronavirus. The fact that it's some anti-vax luddite coughing on my kid and putting the virus in their body that way instead of a nurse administering a shot is just a minor implementation detail.

We've banned leaded gasoline and smoking indoors because we recognize the harm caused to others, even if it's hard to directly pin-point a specific cigarette to a cancer case. We need to pull society into the 21st century and acknowledge that spreading viruses has the same dynamic.

Since we can't effectively hold people liable for the damage they cause (eg, suing or imprisoning the person who negligently spread the disease when someone gets hospitalized or dies) I don't see any practical option other than requiring the vaccine. Maybe the liability model could work- if you went out in public unvaccinated, you're held liable for the medical expenses, missed work or wrongful death of the people you exhaled the virus onto.

Yes, literally thousands of times on a wide range of issues.

* Predictions that increased carbon in atmosphere would lead to higher average temperatures -> has happened. * Predictions that extreme weather events like "once in a hundred years" floods would become more common -> has happened. * Predictions that wildfire season would start earlier in the spring and end later in the fall -> has happened. * Predictions that we'd see reductions in glaciers and arctic ice -> has happened. * Predictions that we'd see a collapse in biodiversity and mass extinctions -> has happened.

Scientists can't tell you exactly where an electron is and how fast it's moving, but they can still predict how it interacts with things around it.

It's weird to pretend this is about "one's medical history" when it's clearly about minimizing risk of harm to others.

People need to accept the reality that spreading a disease is causing harm, and that preventing people from causing harm is a core function of the rules of society.

Spreading disease is unique- unlike assault or robbery or rape or murder it doesn't require the harmer to intend to cause harm, so many people resist accepting that they are hurting other people.

We need to update our societal understanding of causing harm to understand it includes harm which was unintentional, unknown, or done passively.

My guess would be that the super-mobility of people is the difference.

When I was in high school, I had over 30 friends who I was close with- we had classes together during the day, sports practices together in the evening, and spent our weekends together at the same social gathers.

Then we all scattered for college, and social networks broke down as each of us individually were now nodes on separate, non-connected groups. We had our "college friends" and our "high school friends" who mostly didn't know one another or interact.

Then we all scattered again for jobs after college and our friendships became increasingly strained, difficult and disconnected. Our high school best friend was a thousand miles away and living a very different life now. Our college friends only got together as a group at weddings and bachelor parties. Our new 20-something friend groups were constantly in flux as people got into serious relationships, focused on careers or moved around.

If I'd grown up in the 1950s and stayed in my hometown after high school along with all my friends, I'd have a rich, deep history with 30+ friends. Instead, I have 100 people who I was close to for a few years at a time but who I'm only presently close with a few.