Aaron Rodgers and Covid
terp said:
First my stance is this. An individual owns their body. A guy doesn't get to make a speech and then people need to take a medical treatment because he says so...or they become 2nd class citizens. First and foremost, I am not ok with that.
Second, we have a ton of data at this point. We know who is at risk. It is the old and the sick. This is crystal clear in the numbers. We should take measures to protect those people. What we should not be doing is telling everyone that they have to be jabbed. Further, we should not be pushing these treatments on young children who face a remote risk(despite the hype of this past summer). Other than that, we should let people live their lives as they see fit. If the business owner wants people to wear masks, show proof of vaccination, or what have you, then go nuts. The other business owners should not be punished. People can choose who they do and do not want to do business with accordingly.
But in typical fashion the left needs to go full authoritarian and the same solution has to apply to everybody. And the once evil pharmaceuticals are now essentially charities run by saints. BTW: did anyone see that Pfizer is trying to delay their full data release for 55 years?
If one has a product that everyone has to take and they can't sue you if it hurts them, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that one would push the necessity of repeated use of this hear product. Gotta get that YoY growth going!
Yet, I'm quite sure that you support the side that is barring business owners from imposing mask mandates in their own businesses. Why isn't that even worse and why have you not commented on that?
PVW said:
Yes, that's the obvious follow up question. Basically, someone in terp's position could respond to me in two ways. They could say that even if the virus is as deadly as claimed, it's still doesn't justify mitigation measures and that people dying is a necessary price for freedom. In which case, the risk to older people and others at great risk is moot.
Or, they could concede the point but insist that the risk really is only high for people who are older or have health issues. At which point the questions becomes, ok, how do you think such people should be people should be protected, and how large do you think that population is, exactly?
Even vaccine mandates leave people free to make their own decisions about their bodies. No one is going to be physically forced to vaccinate. It simply means your personal decisions don't come without responsibilities.
It should be an easy concept for the "freedom" contingent to grasp. There are always rights AND responsibilities. If one doesn't acknowledge the responsibilities, one shouldn't get offended when that's rightly deemed selfishness.
ml1 said:
Even vaccine mandates leave people free to make their own decisions about their bodies. No one is going to be physically forced to vaccinate. It simply means your personal decisions don't come without responsibilities.
It should be an easy concept for the "freedom" contingent to grasp. There are always rights AND responsibilities. If one doesn't acknowledge the responsibilities, one shouldn't get offended when that's rightly deemed selfishness.
Hence the relevance of asking someone with Terp's views how they think the virus spreads. If this is an extremely contagious respiratory virus spread through the air, then the someone's choice not to get vaccinated and to go out maskless in public isn't a personal decision, it's them making a decision about what everyone they come into contact with should do with their bodies -- a "your body, my choice" stance.
PVW said:
Hence the relevance of asking someone with Terp's views how they think the virus spreads. If this is an extremely contagious respiratory virus spread through the air, then the someone's choice not to get vaccinated and to go out maskless in public isn't a personal decision, it's them making a decision about what everyone they come into contact with should do with their bodies -- a "your body, my choice" stance.
Precisely. I am "old" by most definitions. So everyone agrees that it is to my benefit to get vaccinated. Unfortunately the vaccine is only, let us say, 95% effective. Therefore must my freedom be curtailed because others have the right to not be vaccinated and not wear masks in public spaces. If the unvaccinated have the right to dine in any of the places listed by Jaime in another thread does not that deprive me of the right to do so?
STANV said:
Unfortunately the vaccine is only, let us say, 95% effective.
And a reminder of shoshannah’s reminder of what this would mean and how vaccines work: It would mean that, in an adequately vaccinated population, your chances of becoming infected were 95% less than someone who was unvaccinated, not that you had a 5% chance of becoming infected in any population.
STANV said:
Math is not my strength. But that wasn't my point.
Our points differed. Yours merely gave mine a point of reference. Thank you for that.
Seat belts don't work either if you don't use them.