Can We Civilly Discuss Thoughts On Vaccination? A Poll. (1 Viewer)

[tonydead]

You just told me that if you had covid or flu like symptoms but didn't feel terrible, you would stil go visit people and not tell them you are sick. I am sensitive to that sort of callousness.

Would you rather have the truth or do you want me to consider your sensitivity first before I respond to you in the future?

Assuming you want the truth - I think you're being silly labeling that as callous.  

 

[LawFitz]

Right now? No, this is untrue.

Current 7-day average of COVID deaths in the U.S. is 846. Multiplied by 365 makes 308,790 deaths/year. That is the "right now" pace in a nation just over a 51% full vaccination rate.

Meanwhile, the CDC estimates that -- in the U.S. -- influenza has resulted in between 9 million – 45 million illnesses, between 140,000 – 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually since 2010.

Here is CDC data on US deaths by week, since the start of 2020...

Note the #s in the 16th column (Symptoms, Signs ... Not Elsewhere Classified). This is the catch-all column counting unexplained deaths. It was steady in the ~600/mo range until when?... Nov/Dec, 2020, when the vaxxes were released for public consumption. This weekly count has trended upward ever since, all the way to ~3-3.5k/week this past July. Is this field capturing vax deaths? How does it compare to weekly Covid deaths in this database? Hint: it's worse.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Weekly-Provisional-Counts-of-Deaths-by-State-and-S/muzy-jte6

Here's some additional food to chew upon... Check out the notable downtrends in weekly deaths attributed to the Flu, Diabetes, and Respiratory System Diseases since the beginning of 2020. These data support the idea that Covid is almost exclusively killing people who would have died either way, Covid, no Covid, vax, no vax.

 

[Doug B]

Does the flu typically overrun hospitals? When was the last time hospitals were begging for help due to the flu?

Hospitals by and large have not been overrun the past few months since the vaccine has been made available to everyone.  Perfect example of gaslighting. 

Who cares about the "past few months"? Things have changed recently. What was happening in May and June is not relevant right now.

 

[supermike80]

You can design the system but you still have to write the code for the specific program you need. They crammed that together in less than 6 months. So no, they have not been specifically making a Covid-19 vaccine since 2002.

No see they have been EXPLORING it since 2002..>Whatever the heck that means

 

[The Commish]

These arguments can't be real.

 

[Doug B]

Note the #s in the 16th column (Symptoms, Signs ... Not Elsewhere Classified). This is the catch-all column counting unexplained deaths. It was steady in the ~600/mo range until when?... Nov/Dec, 2020, when the vaxxes were released for public consumption. This weekly count has trended upward ever since, all the way to ~3-3.5k/week this past July. Is this field capturing vax deaths? How does it compare to weekly Covid deaths in this database? Hint: it's worse.

Link to the CDC's 'Weekly Provisional Counts of Deaths by State and Select Causes' chart that LawFitz is referencing since we've lost ~1 hour of posts. 

From the chart's 'Common Core' acknowledgements section at the top:

Number of deaths reported in this table are the total number of deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis, and do not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Data for 2019 and 2020 are provisional and may be incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. 

I think the reference to '2019 and 2020' has been carried over for a while and should be updated to something like 'over the last 12-24 months'. Accordingly, it appears to me that in general: the more recent the deaths are, the more likely they are as yet unclassified. I would expect the spring/summer 2021 numbers in the 'Not Elsewhere Classified' column to drop in the future as the individual death cases get worked through.
 

EDIT: And now all the lost posts have come back. Will make the recent part of the thread a lot easier to follow.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

These arguments can't be real.

We are suppose to take posters for their word.

 

[the moops]

Assuming you want the truth - I think you're being silly labeling that as callous.  

I am trying to understand you here. I really am.

You have covid like symptoms, but don't feel terrible. You are trying to tell me that you would still go to someone's house and hang out with them and not give them a heads up that you may in fact have covid?

 

[The Commish]

We are suppose to take posters for their word.

I think my favorite post in this thread is what I'll call a "vaccine skeptic" liking a post illustrating perfectly the effectiveness of the vaccines.  That's awesome sauce or an inadvertent and embarrassing self own.     

 

[tonydead]

I am trying to understand you here. I really am.

You have covid like symptoms, but don't feel terrible. You are trying to tell me that you would still go to someone's house and hang out with them and not give them a heads up that you may in fact have covid?

Yes.  I'm vaccinated for Covid, my cough is 1000 times more likely just from breathing saw dust all day.

If they want to take precautions they can choose to not to invite me over.  They can choose to take people's temperature before letting people in.  For the super paranoid they could require a questionnaire or proof of a negative covid test.

I managed my risk, it's up to them to manage theirs.   Not my job.

Related - We're having 30+ people over for the annual BBQ this weekend.  I know many of them are vaccinated, I know for sure several are not.  That's their choice and there won't be any restrictions or questionnaires required.  

 

[tonydead]

I think my favorite post in this thread is what I'll call a "vaccine skeptic" liking a post illustrating perfectly the effectiveness of the vaccines.  That's awesome sauce or an inadvertent and embarrassing self own.     

Link?

Because I suspect you're having trouble identifying "vaccine skeptics".  

 

[KarmaPolice]

This questionnaire shtick. 

 

[the moops]

If they want to take precautions they can choose to not to invite me over.  They can choose to take people's temperature before letting people in.  For the super paranoid they could require a questionnaire or proof of a negative covid test. 

Or, instead of all this, you could just say to people "hey, I have a cough, it's probably from sawdust though, so you still all good with me coming over?"

Nobody is arguing you show proff of a negative test. We are arguing that you be a decent human and think of others in instances like this

 

[tonydead]

Or, instead of all this, you could just say to people "hey, I have a cough, it's probably from sawdust though, so you still all good with me coming over?"

Nobody is arguing you show proff of a negative test. We are arguing that you be a decent human and think of others in instances like this

  You can't be serious.  No thanks, I'm good.

 

[tonydead]

This questionnaire shtick. 

It's a solution that would alleviate all your concerns good buddy.  Try it.

It's wouldn't be any worse than, "Hey I have a tickle in my throat, thought you might want to know!"  

 

[The Commish]

Link?

Because I suspect you're having trouble identifying "vaccine skeptics".  

Well, actually, we can go with his very own label of "vaccine hesitant" if you prefer.  Either one is fine with me.  In this context, these are distinctions without a difference.

 

[Shutout]

If getting married or eating chicken saved countless lives, then yes, we would refer to that as refusing to get married or refusing to eat chicken

Amazingly, you missed the entire message of the post. 

The discussion is about, instead of pointless debate about efficacy of the vaccine depending on the person's viewpoint, was supposed to be about identifying better ways to have the discussion....with respect...and then following through on respecting other people's viewpoints. 

Keep failing to understand how you come across.  Keep trying to shoehorn your thoughts and strong-arming your way through things. I am sure it will improve your current position. 

 

[song]

Then compound that by taking away liability for injuries suffered from the vaccine. That gives me no confidence in the findings if they won't stand behind it. 

c'mon guys.  i tend to stand with you "vaccine" skeptics, but please educate yourselves re: vaccine liability.  vaccine liability has been eliminated or limited since 1986 and something called something like the Childhood Vaccine Injury Liability law.  it's nothing new.  what's new is changing the definition of vaccine in the last year to include the mRNA genetic therapies, presumably so they are covered.  interestingly, the CDC has a page on these liability limitations in which it justifies them by citing the years of trials vaccines undergo to demonstrate their relative safety.

 

[Insein]

c'mon guys.  i tend to stand with you "vaccine" skeptics, but please educate yourselves re: vaccine liability.  vaccine liability has been eliminated or limited since 1986 and something called something like the Childhood Vaccine Injury Liability law.  it's nothing new.  what's new is changing the definition of vaccine in the last year to include the mRNA genetic therapies, presumably so they are covered.  interestingly, the CDC has a page on these liability limitations in which it justifies them by citing the years of trials vaccines undergo to demonstrate their relative safety.

The pharma companies specifically asked for and received government intervention to prevent liability before they began creating the vaccines.  This was done under the Trump administration. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

"In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there's "willful misconduct" by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.

That means that for the next four years, these companies "cannot be sued for money damages in court" over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid."

 

[song]

The pharma companies specifically asked for and received government intervention to prevent liability before they began creating the vaccines.  This was done under the Trump administration. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

"In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there's "willful misconduct" by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.

That means that for the next four years, these companies "cannot be sued for money damages in court" over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid."

apologies.  you appear to be more educated than myself.  i am glad i provided an incentive for you to provide more evidence for your liability concerns. 

 

[The Commish]

apologies.  you appear to be more educated than myself.  i am glad i provided an incentive for you to provide more evidence for your liability concerns. 

This law has been on the books for 16 years.  It isn't new.  It doesn't uniquely exist for the COVID vaccines.  If one has a real concern about these laws, those concerns didn't originate recently.  They've had these concerns from the point this law was enacted.  

 

[Doug B]

This law has been on the books for 16 years.  It isn't new.  It doesn't uniquely exist for the COVID vaccines.  If one has a real concern about these laws, those concerns didn't originate recently.  They've had these concerns from the point this law was enacted.  

Additionally, without such a law, private companies lose incentive to work on vaccines at all. That would lead to two scenarios:

1) Vaccine research -- especially during an emergency like a pandemic --- would necessarily become a federal or state government function. Red tape would be difficult to cut through and a governmental vaccine-development system would likely not be especially nimble and responsive to real-time conditions. Imagine the FDA's temporal ethic compounded ten-fold.

2) Vaccine research would simply vacate the U.S. altogether. Our aggregated brainpower, innovation, and manufacturing capability would sit idle while Americans waited for some other country to come up with the breakthroughs and life-saving vaccines. And then we'd still have the "can't sue 'em" issue anyway.

 

[Insein]

Additionally, without such a law, private companies lose incentive to work on vaccines at all. That would lead to two scenarios:

1) Vaccine research -- especially during an emergency like a pandemic --- would necessarily become a federal or state government function. Red tape would be difficult to cut through and a governmental vaccine-development system would likely not be especially nimble and responsive to real-time conditions. Imagine the FDA's temporal ethic compounded ten-fold.

2) Vaccine research would simply vacate the U.S. altogether. Our aggregated brainpower, innovation, and manufacturing capability would sit idle while Americans waited for some other country to come up with the breakthroughs and life-saving vaccines. And then we'd still have the "can't sue 'em" issue anyway.

You are implying that these companies would forego the multi billion dollar government contracts because of the potential to lose a couple hundred million in liability should they do a bad job? I'd say that's a naive outlook. They threw out a garbage trade offer wanting Kamara for a backup TE thinking the government would counter them but instead got what they asked for. 

The PREP Act was a knee jerk reactionary choice for a pandemic that was mis-estimated as having 2.5m potential deaths by mid 2020 in the US alone. That obviously didn't come to pass but the decision to remove liability from Big Pharma was already set in stone. 

 

[the moops]

The 2.5 million was a high estimate assuming we did nothing. We did some, and ended up with 600,000 dead. Yay!

 

[Insein]

The 2.5 million was a high estimate assuming we did nothing. We did some, and ended up with 600,000 dead. Yay!

600k by now. That estimate was said 2.5m by June of 2020. That's what governments based their responses off of. 

 

[The Commish]

This law has been on the books for 16 years.  It isn't new.  It doesn't uniquely exist for the COVID vaccines.  If one has a real concern about these laws, those concerns didn't originate recently.  They've had these concerns from the point this law was enacted.  

Additionally, without such a law, private companies lose incentive to work on vaccines at all. That would lead to two scenarios:

1) Vaccine research -- especially during an emergency like a pandemic --- would necessarily become a federal or state government function. Red tape would be difficult to cut through and a governmental vaccine-development system would likely not be especially nimble and responsive to real-time conditions. Imagine the FDA's temporal ethic compounded ten-fold.

2) Vaccine research would simply vacate the U.S. altogether. Our aggregated brainpower, innovation, and manufacturing capability would sit idle while Americans waited for some other country to come up with the breakthroughs and life-saving vaccines. And then we'd still have the "can't sue 'em" issue anyway.

This is a bit of a tangent from what I was saying and I'm not sure I agree completely.  I've never bought the narrative that a fear of lawsuits would negate innovation primarily because the heavy lifting in all these cases is done by researchers usually NOT employees of these companies.  The research is done in hospitals and institutions of higher education.  The companies simply figure out how to monetize it (for the most part).  That reality is independent of the molasses like viscosity of our federal agencies.  Those researchers are the heart/soul of almost all innovation in these fields with companies sprinkling in a contribution here/there.

My overall point was that this new found "concern" for laws that have been on the books for almost two decades now doesn't seem all that genuine around these parts.  It seems to be the new talking point/rock to hide behind after the "FDA approved" one was taken away.  

 

[The Commish]

And again...there was ONE study stating if we did nothing at all, we'd have had 1-2 million deaths in the first year.  There were a multitude of other studies all estimating between 300-500K depending on different paths we could possibly take.  We were never going to do "nothing", but it's rather clear the "something" we did missed the mark.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You are implying that these companies would forego the multi billion dollar government contracts because of the potential to lose a couple hundred million in liability should they do a bad job? I'd say that's a naive outlook. They threw out a garbage trade offer wanting Kamara for a backup TE thinking the government would counter them but instead got what they asked for. 

The PREP Act was a knee jerk reactionary choice for a pandemic that was mis-estimated as having 2.5m potential deaths by mid 2020 in the US alone. That obviously didn't come to pass but the decision to remove liability from Big Pharma was already set in stone. 

Might want to read this.  Sure it is an argument to get vaccinated (pre Covid) it addresses the history of vaccine profit margins and the threats to that market continuing and what sparked a relatively recent resurgence (again pre Covid).

 

[Skoo]

Hospitals by and large have not been overrun the past few month since the vaccine has been made available to everyone.  Perfect example of gaslighting.  

My wife's hospital is now 97% full.

Consequently, around 97% of people hospitalized for COVID are unvaccinated.

But by all means, let's keep playing the whatabout game!

 

[Skoo]

Besides which, the comment was aimed at individuals who believe that their perception of safety overrides everyone else's freedom at all costs. Frequently shouting death tolls to justify any government restriction in the name of "safety and security" for all. 

Those are just the facts. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my face begins. You have the freedom to do what you want until you are hurting others.

The government has asked us to stay home, wear masks when we go out, and get vaccinated. These are all clearly in the name of public health, not some authoritarian power grab.

The vaccine is FDA approved now. Experts the world over agree it's a very effective and safe vaccine. This is as good as it gets.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I find that I'm having a difficult time following covid-related arguments now.  When somebody upthread mentioned "radical authoritarians," I thought "Oh, he must be talking about those videos coming out of Australia."  It never occurred to me that he might be referring to mandatory vaccination in schools.  That's not meant as a criticism of that poster, which is why I'm not calling him out here.  It's just that people's opinions on this topic are now officially so all-over-the-place that it's hard to tell what people are talking about based on just the little snippets that get posted.

Back in the olden days of, say, six months ago, this was easy.  Everybody was -- to a rough approximation -- either a covid hawk or a covid dove.  The former took covid very seriously and were broadly supportive of masks and lockdowns, while the latter didn't view it as a major threat and generally opposed most mitigation measures.  Now, though, there are a bunch of different camps that overlap with each other on some topics but not others.  

Like people who are pro-vaccination but disagree on whether vaccination should be mandatory.  When you add in the existence of people who are anti-vaccination, this conversation becomes a lot more difficult to keep straight.

Or like people who are vaccinated but disagree on whether masking makes sense.  Again, adding in the anti-vaccination folks complicates this discussion, as does the technically separate issue of whether masks should be mandated or not.  

Or like the various overlapping discussions about mitigation measures in K-12 schools vs. mitigation measures in adult spaces.  (This one tends to get me -- I often find myself typing up an "anti-mask" response to a poster only to realize that they were just talking about masking in schools, which I don't really have a stance on).  

Not sure if anybody else has noticed this or not.  Just that the conversation seems more chaotic to me than it was just a few months back.

 

[tonydead]

My wife's hospital is now 97% full.

Consequently, around 97% of people hospitalized for COVID are unvaccinated.

But by all means, let's keep playing the whatabout game!

So not overrun then?  Hospitals are a business. 97% is just perfect. 

 

[Insein]

Those are just the facts. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my face begins. You have the freedom to do what you want until you are hurting others.

The government has asked us to stay home, wear masks when we go out, and get vaccinated. These are all clearly in the name of public health, not some authoritarian power grab.

The vaccine is FDA approved now. Experts the world over agree it's a very effective and safe vaccine. This is as good as it gets.

Spreading a virus is not swinging a fist. I can control my fist. I can choose to swing it wildly or keep it at my side. I can choose to punch you square in the face or completely miss you with a swing altogether. 

I do not control how a virus acts. I can't infect you at will nor can I prevent you from getting infected by my will regardless of my actions. If I stay home locked in a hermetically sealed chamber, you can still get infected. I can run naked through the streets sneezing on everyone and you can still not get it. My actions do not control whether you get infected from a virus. 

 

[Skoo]

So not overrun then?  Hospitals are a business. 97% is just perfect. 

Sure, only difference being no one dies when Best Buy runs out of iPhones.

 

[tonydead]

Sure, only difference being no one dies when Best Buy runs out of iPhones.

What percentage of the 97% of capacity is covid related?

 

[Skoo]

Spreading a virus is not swinging a fist. I can control my fist. I can choose to swing it wildly or keep it at my side. I can choose to punch you square in the face or completely miss you with a swing altogether. 

I do not control how a virus acts. I can't infect you at will nor can I prevent you from getting infected by my will regardless of my actions. If I stay home locked in a hermetically sealed chamber, you can still get infected. I can run naked through the streets sneezing on everyone and you can still not get it. My actions do not control whether you get infected from a virus. 

Ummm...not from you I can't.

Your argument is not logical.

 

[Skoo]

What percentage of the 97% of capacity is covid related?

I don't know the percentage, the important part is that COVID patients are starting to take up more and more of the beds.

But hey, like you said, it's a business! If a few people die waiting to get in, that just means business is doing well!

 

[Insein]

I find that I'm having a difficult time following covid-related arguments now.  When somebody upthread mentioned "radical authoritarians," I thought "Oh, he must be talking about those videos coming out of Australia."  It never occurred to me that he might be referring to mandatory vaccination in schools.  That's not meant as a criticism of that poster, which is why I'm not calling him out here.  It's just that people's opinions on this topic are now officially so all-over-the-place that it's hard to tell what people are talking about based on just the little snippets that get posted.

Back in the olden days of, say, six months ago, this was easy.  Everybody was -- to a rough approximation -- either a covid hawk or a covid dove.  The former took covid very seriously and were broadly supportive of masks and lockdowns, while the latter didn't view it as a major threat and generally opposed most mitigation measures.  Now, though, there are a bunch of different camps that overlap with each other on some topics but not others.  

Like people who are pro-vaccination but disagree on whether vaccination should be mandatory.  When you add in the existence of people who are anti-vaccination, this conversation becomes a lot more difficult to keep straight.

Or like people who are vaccinated but disagree on whether masking makes sense.  Again, adding in the anti-vaccination folks complicates this discussion, as does the technically separate issue of whether masks should be mandated or not.  

Or like the various overlapping discussions about mitigation measures in K-12 schools vs. mitigation measures in adult spaces.  (This one tends to get me -- I often find myself typing up an "anti-mask" response to a poster only to realize that they were just talking about masking in schools, which I don't really have a stance on).  

Not sure if anybody else has noticed this or not.  Just that the conversation seems more chaotic to me than it was just a few months back.

The argument gets murky when each side acts in bad faith by labeling the other side as something they are not. 

It began back in December the moment someone mentiones the word "Anti-Vax" to label those that were hesitant about taking this brand new untested cure for C19. I knew right then where this was going. People who don't want this "vaccine" are not Anti-Vax. I've taken my measles, mumpss, rubella, tetanus, etc shots throughout my life. I've skipped the annual flu shots as I felt I don't need them. Others have as well and no one bats an eye. But this shot was inherently made political and now we're at a point where we have closet authoritarians coming out labeling people as criminals for making a choice not to inject an unknown substance into their system.

 

[Skoo]

People who don't want this "vaccine" are not Anti-Vax.

The dictionary would like to have word with you here, lol.

And no need to put "vaccine" in quotes, it's an FDA-approved vaccine. 

It's real. And it's spectacular.

 

[Insein]

Ummm...not from you I can't.

Your argument is not logical.

My actions didn't prevent you from getting infected. Hence, I have no control over whether you get infected or not. Only your actions can take measures to reasonably reduce the risk of it. 

 

[Insein]

The dictionary would like to have word with you here, lol.

And no need to put "vaccine" in quotes, it's an FDA-approved vaccine. 

It's real. And it's spectacular.

This is what I'm talking about. And why I go back to my previous assertion about this thread. There can be no civil discussion about this topic when people are so scared on one side they label the other as monsters. 

 

[Skoo]

My actions didn't prevent you from getting infected. Hence, I have no control over whether you get infected or not. Only your actions can take measures to reasonably reduce the risk of it. 

False.

If you don't come near me, wear a mask, get vaxxed, you have control over whether you infect me or not. Same if you are infected and don't do any of that.

Again, your argument is just not logical.

 

[Skoo]

This is what I'm talking about. And why I go back to my previous assertion about this thread. There can be no civil discussion about this topic when people are so scared on one side they label the other as monsters. 

Where did I label anyone as monsters?

Oh right, I didn't.

Let's go back to the civil discussion I was trying to have before you changed the subject.

 

[Insein]

False.

If you don't come near me, wear a mask, get vaxxed, you have control over whether you infect me or not. Same if you are infected and don't do any of that.

Again, your argument is just not logical.

I can do none of those things and still not infect you. I can do all of those things and you can still get infected. The argument is perfectly logical for someone who understands logic. 

The fallacy in your logic is that you assume every person other than you is already infected and therefore needs to take these measures to prevent you from being infected instead of you doing what you feel is best to protect yourself.

 

[Doug B]

It began back in December the moment someone mentiones the word "Anti-Vax" to label those that were hesitant about taking this brand new untested cure for C19. I knew right then where this was going. People who don't want this "vaccine" are not Anti-Vax. I've taken my measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, etc shots throughout my life. I've skipped the annual flu shots as I felt I don't need them. Others have as well and no one bats an eye. But this shot was inherently made political and now we're at a point where we have closet authoritarians coming out labeling people as criminals for making a choice not to inject an unknown substance into their system.

Labels indeed.

 

[Skoo]

I can do none of those things and still not infect you. I can do all of those things and you can still get infected. The argument is perfectly logical for someone who understands logic. 

The fallacy in your logic is that you assume every person other than you is already infected and therefore needs to take these measures to prevent you from being infected instead of you doing what you feel is best to protect yourself.

I can't get infected by YOU.

Which means, logically, that if everyone followed those measures, no one would spread the virus.

I can understand that you came into this with a certain viewpoint, but you're simply not thinking logically. Viruses are passed from person to person. If people aren't together, the virus can't spread. Incredibly simple stuff.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Those are just the facts. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my face begins. You have the freedom to do what you want until you are hurting others.

The government has asked us to stay home, wear masks when we go out, and get vaccinated. These are all clearly in the name of public health, not some authoritarian power grab.

The vaccine is FDA approved now. Experts the world over agree it's a very effective and safe vaccine. This is as good as it gets.

Would you also apply this same argument to influenza?  Should the government be mandating masks during flu season?  Should it mandate that everyone get a flu shot?

Or what if it's not a respiratory disease?  Suppose instead that it's a disease that spreads primarily through gay sex.  Should the government ban anal sex in the name of public health?  Less provocatively, should the government be in a position to mandate that people use condoms?  

For those of us who are vaccinated, covid-19 is less of a threat to our health than influenza or AIDS.  So I honestly don't understand the rationale for breaking out the "swinging your fist" argument in this context when you obviously would reject it out of hand in other, more serious contexts.

 

[Doug B]

My actions didn't prevent you from getting infected. Hence, I have no control over whether you get infected or not. Only your actions can take measures to reasonably reduce the risk of it. 

See, I disagree here -- acting as a collective, society can do a lot to mitigate COVID spread.

If we're stuck on thinking of our personal response as "individual, individual, individual, INDIVIDUAL!!!" ... then yeah, it's more of a challenge.

 

[Insein]

I can't get infected by YOU.

Which means, logically, that if everyone followed those measures, no one would spread the virus.

I can understand that you came into this with a certain viewpoint, but you're simply not thinking logically. Viruses are passed from person to person. If people aren't together, the virus can't spread. Incredibly simple stuff.

There you go. So now where does your safety extend to my ability to live a normal life when just existing in an open space threatens you? Perhaps if you want the safety, you can stay locked away while the rest of us who are assuming the risk for ourselves can get on with our lives. 

 

[Skoo]

Would you also apply this same argument to influenza?  Should the government be mandating masks during flu season?  Should it mandate that everyone get a flu shot?

Or what if it's not a respiratory disease?  Suppose instead that it's a disease that spreads primarily through gay sex.  Should the government ban anal sex in the name of public health?  Less provocatively, should the government be in a position to mandate that people use condoms?  

For those of us who are vaccinated, covid-19 is less of a threat to our health than influenza or AIDS.  So I honestly don't understand the rationale for breaking out the "swinging your fist" argument in this context when you obviously would reject it out of hand in other, more serious contexts.

Yes, if 600,000 Americans were dying a year from any of those things, I would support government mandates to get them under control.

Is that weird?