No, once everyone who wants it is vaccinated, their health is their problem not mine. If anyone is still scared of unvaccinated people, they can keep themselves at home forever, they don't get to force medical choices and restrictions on others.
Actually, they do. Being vaccinated from an infectious disease is part of your civic duties, to help protect those who can't be vaccinated for various reasons.
If anyone is scared of getting vaccinated due to nonsense conspiracy theories, they can keep themselves at home forever, they don't get to force a deadly disease on others.
> If those 100 people are still worried about that, they can choose to keep themselves locked away forever.
You must be trolling, no way you're so self-centered.
"I like to drive with 200km/h through cities, those who don't like it or are scared of my driving can stay home"
"I like to take my aggressive pitbull for a walk without a leash, if you don't like it you can stay home"
"I like to play with guns, if you don't like me handling guns in public you can stay home"
It's all recklessness, and of course not acceptable. You know what's the better solution for those 100 vaccinated people? To force you to stay at home. Because they're 100, and you're 1. It's not the whole world that needs to adapt to you, it's the other way around.
Nice army of straw men. You're trying to redefine literally existing in public as recklessness.
Self-centered? The people demanding the nonvaccinated cease existing in society because of their fears are the selfish ones. I'm saying nothing about anyone else's choices or activities whatsoever. Restricting someone else's behavior and bodily autonomy is the selfish act.
100 people forcibly removing 1 person from society who has done nothing wrong? That's a concentration camp. This is mob rule, you're just okay with it because you're part of the mob.
You can't walk naked on the street, despite it "doing no harm", because of other people's sensitivities. You need to adapt to the society, it's not the society's duty to adapt to you.
If it bothers enough people, you can't do it. Call it law, call it mob rule, call it whatever you wish - it's just how the world works.
Exactly, it's not societies duty to adapt to you, and some societies are more beholden to principles surrounding liberty; there are plenty of other more authoritarian societies available for those who want more restrictions.
And the 100 vs 1 argument is very poorly thought out; we have just had a year of people shut in their homes for the sake of the few who were at risk. For the argument to suddenly swing on its axis, it would strongly suggest an authoritarian thrilled at the opportunity to exercise their will on others.
This isn't some theoretical scenario - we have plenty of experience with other infectious diseases. People choosing not to be vaccinated creates opportunities for the disease to spread and either infect those who can't be vaccinated (young children, immunocompromised people etc), or gives the disease opportunities to mutate and evade the vaccine in the future.
Your right to not be vaccinated does not trump public health concerns, or shouldn't.
I think people should get vaccinated, but 'think of the children' is not a strong argument since they seem to be at very low risk of becoming seriously ill or death compared to every other age category.
I was discussing in a more general context of vaccination rights/obligations, even though for the particular case of Covid19 you are right.
Note however that we still don't know exactly what long-term consequences Covid19 may have, so even with this, if we can avoid infecting young children, we should.
Vaccines work - but they are not 100% effective. If an unvaccinated, COVID positive person comes in close contact with 100 people that are vaccinated, a number of them will get sick. Way less than had they not been vaccinated. But way more than is acceptable.
Is it? Far fewer of them still will get severe symptoms. And this of course requires the unvaccinated person to actually be infected. From what I read, my risk (of at least an unpleasant time) is worse if that person had some other virus instead, since I'm much more likely to catch it and guaranteed to have unpleasant symptoms if so. At some point there needs to be a cutoff in risk level where it's low enough for a free society.
A bigger concern in my mind is that as long as the virus is spreading it is mutating, potentially becoming dangerous again to the vaccinated too. But this seems to be increasingly not likely with this particular category of viruses.
