I would be very happy if my government did the same. What a relief it would be!
It's a public health measure, like public sanitation requirements, and driving a car that meets safety requirements. Unvaccinated people should be free to do whatever they want, short of risking infecting other people. Your freedom ends where your fist ends and my nose begins.
> Your freedom ends where your fist ends and my nose begins.
I see this used every time, if you pay close attention to the phrase you will notice that it can literally be used every time by every party.
There will be people thinking that you can't limit their "freedom" because a vaccine is out there at this point and those who fears for their lives can take it and forget about the virus (in most cases).
There will be people thinking that unvaxxed people should loose their "freedom" because they apparently have an increasing probability to infect others (which in most cases are vaccinated and would get a mild infection in most cases?).
I personally don't care about my unvaxxed friends, I hang out with them as I've always had and I do respect their choice. But I am biased towards individuals rights than "public health".
> There will be people thinking that you can't limit their "freedom" because a vaccine is out there at this point and those who fears for their lives can take it and forget about the virus (in most cases).
I don't understand this statement: Who is talking about limiting the freedom of vaccinated people and in what way?
> if you pay close attention to the phrase you will notice that it can literally be used every time by every party.
I don't see it at all. If I'm standing still and you punch me in the nose, how could both parties use that argument?
> I personally don't care about my unvaxxed friends, I hang out with them as I've always had and I do respect their choice. But I am biased towards individuals rights than "public health".
Your personal choice and 'respect' are irrelevant. You can not care about and 'respect' them choosing to drive the wrong way on the freeway with you in the car, but so what? They are still risking other people's lives.
> Who is talking about limiting the freedom of vaccinated people and in what way?
Vaxxed would like to limit unvaxxed "freedom" even though they are not threatened at all by them, this is what science has been telling us for at least 5 months: vaccines work, they drastically reduce breakthrough infection and death, I don't think I need to show you the data on that.
> If I'm standing still and you punch me in the nose, how could both parties use that argument?
The fact is that they are not punching your nose at all. If you don't want to get punched you have a free effective vaccine that will put a giant steel wall in front of you and protect your nose from punches. If you don't want to get vaxxed it's your responsibility to consider that you will get a punch in your nose sooner or later.
> Your personal choice is irrelevant.
I strongly agree with this, that's why I will never limit others based on something I want or think, ever.
> You can not care about and 'respect' them choosing to drive the wrong way on the freeway with you in the car, but so what?
Nobody is driving the wrong way, getting vaxxed is not mandatory at the moment so they are doing so legally.
> They are still risking other people's lives.
Let's pretend this is true (in my useless opinion it is not since everybody can take the vaccine and be safe), as far as I know vaxxed can still spread the virus. What we also know is that vaxxed people seems to get _less_ infected, but they could very well be infected too (recent UKHA data shows that on average vaxxed people will get infected with 60% less probability than unvaxxed). Since this is a matter of getting infected or not, I don't see why vaxxed (according to your phrase) are exempt from risking other people's live just because they have a 60% less probability of getting infected and spread the virus. Me and you could very easily spread the virus and risk other people's lives as an unvaxxed.
Well said, I agree with your points. Anyone who want the protection conferred by the vaccine in developed countries likely already has it. At this point, the unvaccinated are just used as scapegoats for why the pandemic isn't over. It's a great way for politicians to shift blame regarding criticisms of how they've been handling covid.
If your goal is exclusively to prevent transmission in itself vaccines aren't always they best way to do it. Isolation or biohazard suits are the way to go there.
If you require society to still keep working and for people to not die vaccines generally do a pretty good job of that.
If your goal is to prevent mutation of dangerous new variants vaccines are wildly effective.
Vaccines generally DO prevent transmission, just not this one, coronaviruses mutate too fast, and the vaccines only target the spike.
This vaccine can spark new mutations since vaccinated people can get it and the virus would mutate to attempt to work around the vaccine immunity.
GPs main point was people's freedoms should be restricted to stop the spread. My point was it doesn't stop the spread. So why restrict freedoms?
Vaccinated people will continue to spread the virus, whether it's slower or faster doesn't matter in the end, it will spread until it's endemic. (I believe it already is)
>whether it's slower or faster doesn't matter in the end, it will spread until it's endemic.
I'm not sure this is reasonable to assume. Below a certain threshold of transmissibility any virus (including this one) will die faster than it spreads, leading to eventual extinction of the virus.
Passing a driver's test doesn't fully prevent all car accidents, and yet we still require potential drivers to pass a test. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
There is no “freedom from being injected” or “freedom from spreading a virus” or “freedom from denying a vaccine, getting sick and straining the healthcare system”.
> There is no “freedom from being injected” or “freedom from spreading a virus” or “freedom from denying a vaccine, getting sick and straining the healthcare system”.
Actually, any authority not explicitly given to the government in the US Constitution is implicitly a right. See the Tenth Amendment. Also, wouldn't those fall under the right of privacy used to justify abortions or the right to due process protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
I would be okay with it if the unvaccinated are still allowed to go places given they can provide a negative test. But ideally, they shouldn't be barred.
I like to think of the covid vaccine as a potentially forced evolution of humanity, of which a certain subset of its constituents favor reducing the rights of those whom refuse it - a group that they were apart of not so long before.
Possibly yes, in principle.
If it is non-punitive, like most of the licenses in existence. For this a few points will need to be satisfied though, which, in my opinion are not, at present.
- It needs to be shown that significant difference exists in the degree of risk/harm reduction between "licensed" and "unlicensed". That reduction must be measured and quantified or qualified beyond reasonable doubt. The threshold of significance also must be socially agreed upon.
- Likewise, the very risk/harm to be reduced needs to be shown as being worth an essentially society-divisive measure. Again, the agreement needs to be reached on where exactly the the tolerance threshold is. Such that it is clear why the same mechanism is/was not applied to other things. Like, why we don't enforce it for seasonal flu, why we don't have blanket 10km/hr speed limit, and why when throwing a BBQ for friends one must not apply for permission and provide proof of recent "food handling safety" certificate.
- At the same time the requirement must be universal, no exception on any grounds, medical or not. Just like blind or mentally deficient person is unable to get PPL or DL, under any circumstances, even though the disability is not due to their choice.
- The latter must be recognized and "unlicensed" people must not be shamed or vilified. Conversely, creation of the alternative infrastructure must be encouraged, in order to bring these people back into society. Just like we do for people with other disabilities.
Otherwise it is just petty punitive crap. Like in Victoria, where "unlicensed" aren't allowed into KMart, but can run wild in Coles across the floor. Or not allowed into restaurant but happy to mingle in the food court. And honestly, so many measures for the last two years were just hostile and punitive and useless otherwise, it is not surprising that they tend to be rejected as a package, even when you can, arguably, sift one or two reasonable things from it.
> You might have a point if the vaccine fully prevented transmission or infection, but it doesn't.
No health or safety measure is perfect. By that standard, we wouldn't have any at all - we can't prevent all contamination of the food supply, so we would prevent none?
> Your freedom ends where your fist ends and my nose begins.
I know where your nose is. I don't know where this pandemic ends. Can you give a clear and fair number? Obviously people will never fully stop getting sick, but how low exactly before we're content?
It's a public health measure, like public sanitation requirements, and driving a car that meets safety requirements. Unvaccinated people should be free to do whatever they want, short of risking infecting other people. Your freedom ends where your fist ends and my nose begins.