I'll change your view: we should just forcibly vaccinate them.
There are basically two approaches to achieving a high rate of vaccination. The first is what we've done with other vaccines for decades -- give a little bit of a carrot to get it done, but make it really tough to live an ordinary life if you don't. The main argument for this is that it preserves freedom, but what freedom is it preserving? The freedom to harm yourself, your kids, and the people around you? The freedom to do all that while greatly inconveniencing yourself and your kids, because you can't do anything you have to have shots to do? A weaker argument is that this will lead to the government being able to put whatever it wants in your bodies, but the ship has effectively sailed on that long ago. Whatever sense this approach originally made, it's quickly becoming untenable as anti-vaccine hysteria has grown from a small crank community to a huge chunk of the population.
The second approach is mandatory vaccination. Now maybe you have some exceptions for longstanding, sincerely-held religious beliefs. But everyone else? We can't tolerate their bullshit (or laziness, or even semi-legitimate skepticism) forever. This would be the more honest policy, as it comes out and says what the first policy is trying to do, and it's probably the only thing that would work at this point.
I agree with that! Also no exceptions for religions it's an unacceptable loophole. Just bribe their religious leaders to say their gods will be able to forgive them or something.
The freedom the first system you describe is preserving isn't the freedom of the unvaxxed to hurt themselves and their families. It's the freedom of everyone else to not have to be around those plague rats in places like grocery stores and such.
I really don't like the idea of forcing people to get a shot even if we know they should
I'm sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't force people to get shots, but we effectively already do. That's the goal of the first system -- to make it near-impossible to live a normal life if you don't get vaccinated -- so why not just be honest about it? You also have plenty of other stuff we're effectively forced to put in our bodies (everything from fluoride in public water to all the various pollutants we're swimming in). So why draw the line here?
The US knew there was a significant conspiracy minded libertarian population when they chose not to follow New Zealand's lead in dealing with the Pandemic. This is not on the Q cult, this is on the American government.
'in-person ddos' is such a painfully online expression
deleted by creator
The voluntary unvaxed should have medical care and all other social services withheld until they do the right thing cmv
I'll change your view: we should just forcibly vaccinate them.
There are basically two approaches to achieving a high rate of vaccination. The first is what we've done with other vaccines for decades -- give a little bit of a carrot to get it done, but make it really tough to live an ordinary life if you don't. The main argument for this is that it preserves freedom, but what freedom is it preserving? The freedom to harm yourself, your kids, and the people around you? The freedom to do all that while greatly inconveniencing yourself and your kids, because you can't do anything you have to have shots to do? A weaker argument is that this will lead to the government being able to put whatever it wants in your bodies, but the ship has effectively sailed on that long ago. Whatever sense this approach originally made, it's quickly becoming untenable as anti-vaccine hysteria has grown from a small crank community to a huge chunk of the population.
The second approach is mandatory vaccination. Now maybe you have some exceptions for longstanding, sincerely-held religious beliefs. But everyone else? We can't tolerate their bullshit (or laziness, or even semi-legitimate skepticism) forever. This would be the more honest policy, as it comes out and says what the first policy is trying to do, and it's probably the only thing that would work at this point.
I agree with that! Also no exceptions for religions it's an unacceptable loophole. Just bribe their religious leaders to say their gods will be able to forgive them or something.
The freedom the first system you describe is preserving isn't the freedom of the unvaxxed to hurt themselves and their families. It's the freedom of everyone else to not have to be around those plague rats in places like grocery stores and such.
I really don't like the idea of forcing people to get a shot even if we know they should
I'm sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't force people to get shots, but we effectively already do. That's the goal of the first system -- to make it near-impossible to live a normal life if you don't get vaccinated -- so why not just be honest about it? You also have plenty of other stuff we're effectively forced to put in our bodies (everything from fluoride in public water to all the various pollutants we're swimming in). So why draw the line here?
Technically you can filter your water so I don't quite agree with that line if thinking that compares it to fluoride and pollution.
But I do see your point that both systems are ultimately the same
The US knew there was a significant conspiracy minded libertarian population when they chose not to follow New Zealand's lead in dealing with the Pandemic. This is not on the Q cult, this is on the American government.
“IG mutual” is worse
what does the IG mean?
Instagram
In Game.
deleted by creator