Author: SecondTry
Date: 2021-05-13 05:20
Fuzzy wrote:
> Liquorice,
>
> I have friends who have chosen not to vaccinate due to problems
> they have experienced with other vaccines. I don't understand
> why they should be discriminated against.
>
I think they should be discriminated against because their actions discriminate against more than themselves, but innocents as well.
Most of the people I know with post vaccine "problems" felt sick afterwards. It happens. It beats dying or killing others.
The only possible true contraindication to taking the vaccine is prior anaphylaxis to some of its components.
> Like I said - if you're not vaccinated, and you want to go out
> into society, then you're accepting the risks of doing so.
...as sure as those people, through their choice, are also imposing these risks on others, against their choice. Sure, others know that there are people out there who are not going to get vaccinated, so the risks of "others" going out and about is informed, but it's not as if "others" can stay inside forever, and those refusing vaccination only facilitate the emergence of mutant strains.
>
> If, as Tom mentioned, not all folks have been okay'd for the
> vaccine, then those folks should remain somewhat isolated until
> they can get the vaccine.
>
Confused as to your intent: the non-vaccinated should isolate or go out into society if offered the vaccine but choose not to take it? You seem to say both are okay.
>
> This isn't a pro-vaccine/anti-vaccine stance, it is an
> anti-descrimination stance.
Perhaps we disagree on who is truly being discriminated against. Your focus lies with not forcing people to take the shot (who benefit from those that do.) Mine lies with the risks to others from those who are choosing to not take the shot. I have no issue being selfish with those whose decisions are selfish to others.
Either we allow folks to make
> their own choices (and live/die by them), or we force others to
> live the way we want them to.
This is a great argument for sunscreen, not a pathogen that can kill others. Laws already exist to limit the actions of people whose risks don't affect others, like motorcycle helmets----the theory being the State pays for the vegetative state that perhaps wearing a helmet might have mitigated. Mandating behavior
that limits other's risk is less of a leap. It's already all around us, from building codes to the need for driver's licenses.
>
> By the way - I've been very unconcerned about my own health
> through this entire thing. The only reason I diligently wore
> masks and followed every single rule - was that I might
> help/save others. I fully understand doing things for the good
> of society.
I'm glad you care. You just don't think others should be forced to care. I have no issue forcing them. They are benefitting from the willingness of others to get the shot, and they can get it too. For all the freedoms we speak of, not one of them can be enjoyed if you're dead.
I just don't believe it applies to the
> vaccinated/unvaccinated debate at this stage in the game.
Fuzzy: here's a link to some of the 45 mobile morgue trucks in NYC during the height of the pandemic. I think it applied last year in this time, let alone now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-bodies.html
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
