If we follow this line of thinking, we don't have to go far before we decide to force everyone to do exactly what we _think_ is right, justified by some hand wavy science or moral belief.

There is disagreement in society; we aren't all drones with a hive mind. One person's justification for what he thinks is best is just that, one person's justification. Someone else might think they can poke holes in his arguments, and who is to say which is right? No one. They can go about doing according to their personal beliefs.

There are some conventions in society, but once we start encroaching on the gray area, then society becomes oppressive to the minorities who dissent. Our society can clearly see older societies that did it, but fail to see when they are doing it. Just because you think you are absolutely right doesn't mean you have the right to compel others to do it. And, just consider, you might just be wrong... but of course not, our society is so enlightened, it couldn't be wrong...

Well put and I couldn't agree more that diversity is essential for robust and fair ecosystems.

> And, just consider, you might just be wrong

And it's okay to be wrong, so long as one keeps an open mind and considers all the available evidence.

For example, consider that people who have been infected and recovered have robust and durable immunity that is proving to be at least equally as effective as vaccination [1][2].

It would be a waste to force these people to be vaccinated, especially when there are many other people who would greatly benefit from those doses (eg in developing countries with limited access to modern healthcare facilities).

[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf

[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...

Well, it's a lot more than a waste.

Recall that mRNA vaccines work by forcing your cells to produce spike protein, which is then detected as an infection leading to those cells being damaged or destroyed by the immune system. If you have already fought off COVID then being injected with the vaccine can only damage your body. It cannot help because you are already immune. And it's not the case that your pre-existing immunity means less damage: it means more, because when your body has never seen the spike protein before it has to build its own immune response in parallel to the mRNA particles degrading and the spike protein manufacturing falling away. The effect of the vaccine doesn't last long so by the time the immune system is fully ramped up the spikes aren't being made much anymore anyway. But if you are fully immune already, then your immune system can start destroying the mRNA 'infected' cells immediately, so far more will end up being attacked.

The more you investigate exactly how these mRNA vaccines work, the more questions are raised. And unfortunately there are remarkably few answers out there in the literature.

I don't know why you would equate seatbelts and vaccines, when with one you are requiring people to add a foreign material into their bodies. Seems like a terrible comparison. I'm sure there are many people who oppose compulsory vaccination but would be ok with mandatory seatbelts.

You could turn the argument around. Seat belts pretty much only protect the person wearing the seat belt, while vaccines protect the population in general by stopping the spread of Covid.

So people should have the freedom to harm themselves by not wearing a seat belt but vaccines should be mandatory to stop covid from spreading everywhere.

> vaccines protect the population in general by stopping the spread of Covid

This is a bit too strongly worded, and is borderline misinformation.

The current mRNA vaccines are imperfect - they do not provide sterilizing immunity - and consequently people who are vaccinated can still be infected and transmit the virus.

There is a small but growing subset of the scientific literature raising concerns about this - the keywords you can search for are vaccine induced immune escape. But I'll save you some time and link you to an accessible peer-reviewed paper on the subject as an introduction [1].

FWIW I agree that vaccines are useful - particularly for vulnerable demographics - and present very low risk of complications for an individual. That said, many people are unaware of the potential second order consequences of mass vaccination.

Furthermore, many people are unaware that previously infected and recovered individuals have robust and durable immunity to SARS-CoV-2 [2][3]. These are strong arguments for a strategically targeted vaccination campaign - the opposite of compulsory vaccination for everyone.

[1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/

[2] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf

[3] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...

Thank you for the references criticaltinker.

Seatbelts do improve the safety for other people. Car crashes are not always just bang and then the rescuers come and maybe save survivors. A good blow to the head from being flung about can daze or knock you out, and you may lose control of the vehicle after that. If you're wearing a seatbelt there is a much greater chance you stay conscious and still have partial or full control of the vehicle after a minor collision. So hopefully it doesn't turn into a much worse one.

Here in Ontario, you can let your 14 year old drive around without a seatbelt, or a license, in a car on private property. But on public roads, seatbelts. That seems reasonable to me.

If you're in the back seat of a car, without a seat belt, in a collision you may turn into a projectile which can potentially injure or even lead to the death of someone in the front seat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3InF19dzlM

Except that the powers-that-be just admitted that vaccinated people carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated.

Only if they have a breakthrough infection - and that is very rare.

From a variant that only exists because of unvaccinated people. This is where a lot of the frustration comes from.

That's conjecture. A conclusion from this study[1] is that vaccines correlate with dominance of fitter variants. That suggests that it's possible that vaccines allow them to propagate.

"the decline in lineage diversity was indeed correlated with increased rates of mass vaccination. Furthermore, the decline in lineage diversity was coupled with increased dominance of the B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.1.617 (delta) and P.1 (gamma) variants of concern, suggesting that these variants may be “fitter” SARS-CoV-2 lineages.”

[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v...

> That's conjecture. A conclusion from this study

I suppose the big downside of the flood of preprints on COVID19 is that any particular position can be supported, however briefly, with some study before peer review [hopefully] cleans things up.

It sounds like you're arguing that vaccination helps fuel variants because without vaccination there wouldn't be any hinderance to the original virus rampaging through the population and thus no selection pressure. Though as people developed natural immunity, I don't see how we wouldn't end up in the same place, just with more dead people.

I don't think we can conclude natural immunity and vaccine immunity would result in the same outcomes. Vaccines wouldn't exist if we thought that being vaccinated and not being vaccinated resulted in the same thing. If those differences exist, it's not outlandish to think there may be differences in evolved virulence and severity too. That's certainly conjecture too though.

It is because these vaccines are very weak or leaky vaccines. They don't stop spread. This enhances the selective pressure.

A related short discussion on the matter

https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/Natural-Vs-Vacci...

Good point - just wanted to mention: see my comments elsewhere in the thread for more peer-reviewed papers that further support the idea you mentioned.

> From a variant that only exists because of unvaccinated people

I don't blame you for believing this because rhetoric from Fauci and others is constantly pushing this idea.

But if you want to be well informed you should at least be aware of a couple major counterpoints.

First, people who have been infected and recovered have robust and durable immunity that is at least equally as effective as vaccination [1][2].

Second, the current mRNA vaccines induce a highly targeted immune response to the spike protein, which - when coupled with mass vaccination - applies tremendous selective pressure on the virus [3][4][5]. This can actually further enhance the fitness of the virus. I've linked to several more peer reviewed papers to further demonstrate my points [6][7][8] - these are serious concerns being put forth by highly regarded researchers at top institutions in the country.

[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf

[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...

[3] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/

[4] SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion by the B.1.427/B.1.429 variant of concern https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie...

[5] mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6

[6] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016...

[7] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of theoretical predictions and empirical tests https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...

[8] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fj...

> while vaccines protect the population in general by stopping the spread of Covid.

This is common misconception about the COVID-19 vaccines and about several other vaccines. They don’t necessarily stop infection/transmission, but reduce the symptoms and prevent you from ending up in the ER.

Those who downvoted can find this basic information on CDC, WebMD, JH, BMJ, etc

Yeah, I don't have to go any farther than my brother-in-law. He refuses to wear a seat belt because it is required by law.

It’s very sad to me that a major current of US politics is so anti-govt for anti-govt sake, rather than sound reason, that such behavior even occurs to people. What’s even worse is much of the libertarian/right wing anti-gov furor is pushed by lobbyists and “think tanks” both funded by major industries that want to avoid any kind of regulation.. yet it gets boiled down and refined into culture wars that people happily will absorb into their own psyche.

As much as freedom of speech and decentralization is important, constant attacks on this and that in isolation lead to the incorrect conclusion that everything must be thrown away. It’s a product of no one person, but many contribute to the entire macro problem, which means no one also will accept responsibility for the entire mess that were now in such that half the country doesn’t want to save their own and others lives despite a dangerous pandemic by using a safe and paid for vaccine alternative.

> libertarian ... want to avoid any kind of regulation

Much of what people know about libertarians comes from its opponents. Actual libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect peoples rights, while maximizing their freedom. Proper regulations would be aimed at preventing one group of people from hurting others.

"For their own good" regulations, though, are not libertarian. Adults should be allowed the freedom to make their own choices about themselves.

P.S. I got fully vaccinated at the earliest opportunity.

Most of what I know of libertarians I learned from people calling themselves libertarians on the Internet.

Were they libertarians? Well, I can't say for certain, but I think that seriously trying to argue they weren't gets well into No True Scotsman territory.

Regardless, almost every self-proclaimed libertarian I have ever come across has absolutely argued against government regulations, with the possible exception of those supporting property rights.

Hang out with a bunch of libertarians and eventually they'll start arguing about who's more libertarian.

There are various types (or degrees or flavors or something) of libertarianism. Minarchy [0] is one type, but doesn't seem to be the most vocal from what I've seen. There's even libertarian socialism [1]. The most vocal type seems to be anarcho capitalism [2] which is pretty much the no government whatsover group.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Libertarianism is a difficult philosophy for most people to accept, as it relies on order arising from chaos. (Even though all life on Earth is order arising from chaos.) Most people feel more comfortable with a law that forces their desired outcome.

> eventually they'll start arguing about who's more libertarian

As will adherents to every political persuasion. Some even go so far as to violently purge their impure members.

Regardless of what people call themselves, when they say things like "libertarianism means no government" and "libertarianism allows people to sell themselves into slavery" and "libertarians allow people to sell baby food laced with poison" they are not a credible source.

I have seen people who call themselves libertarians openly arguing that it should be legal for companies to sell poison in food—I don't believe baby food came up specifically, but that's a purely emotional addition, and shouldn't change the overall argument—because the free market would work it out.

You may not think they are credible, or libertarians, but I'll ask you not to deny my lived experience just to support your personal idea of what a libertarian is or should be.

I've heard some Democrats argue for some pretty awful things. I dismiss them as not credible representatives of the DNC.

Nobody thinks it's good for poisoned food to be sold.

The libertarian argument that you're almost certainly mischaracterizing there is about the pandora's box that is opened by allowing the government to decide what is or is not "poison" (which is of course an absurdly emotionally charged word picked by their opponents). Consider that some governments want to restrict sugary food on health grounds. Sugar isn't a poison but once you accept the principle that governments can ban companies from selling "poisoned" food, the definition of poison immediately comes under attack and sooner or later means almost nothing like what you'd expect.

That is a good point, but I was specifically talking about putting unambiguously deadly poison in baby food.

There are always going to be grey areas, such as the line between "safe" and "unsafe", and Libertarianism doesn't provide any guidance on where that line should be. The government's role is to define that line, and the courts to interpret it as part of checks and balances.

Do 'actual libertarians' get to control who gets to call themselves a libertarian?

Michigan politicians that like to label themselves as libertarian supported socializing the cost of vehicle accidents. Of course repealing an insurance mandate is pro 'personal freedom' on the surface, but in context of reality, all it does is transfer costs from a user fee to Medicaid, which is not libertarian at all.

Free speech is a Libertarian principle, so people can claim they are whatever floats their boat.

It's a natural, predictable counter reaction. The government has lied to people so often on so many different topics that now some illogical people habitually distrust all government statements, even the ones that are completely correct. Once credibility is lost it can take generations to rebuild.

Is that actually illogical or is it just Bayesian reasoning? Normally Bayesian reasoning is seen as a logical way to handle probability.

My sisters husband actively tells his 7 year old daughter not to wear a belt. He’s so stupidly anti-rules he’s willing to sacrifice his young daughter to it.

My father, in the 1960s, would not accept delivery of new cars unless the dealer installed seat belts. He'd never move an inch until everybody in it was belted up. It was the only car I ever rode in that had seat belts in it, for most of my childhood.

Seat belts have saved my life, and that of other family members.

My father was a libertarian, too.

Robert McNamara speaks about this in the documentary "The fog of war" - they identified the problem (people were dying in crashes), implemented a solution (seatbelts + signs reminding people they were there), but couldn't get people to use them. Thus is the human condition, I suppose.

Wow, that is definitely taking it too far. And not only is he putting his daughter in immediate physical danger, he is also inviting an intervention from the gov't if they find out. Definitely goes beyond my risk tolerance even if I don't care much for being told what to do.

And anyway, buses and trains don't even have seat belts.

The driver has a seat belt. This is the foundation for why seat belts are mandated to begin with -- it is far easier to lose control of a car when you're unbelted, and that is a huge risk to everyone else on the road.

Beyond that, it's probably a matter of practicality that passengers aren't required to be belted in. It would significantly reduce the capacity of public transit. A better option might be to protect the driver from projectile humans. AFAICT that's exactly how modern buses are designed.

Also buses are generally much more massive than the vehicles they collide with, leading to much lower forces on bus passengers than on car passengers.

I don't know if this applies to general passenger buses or just school buses, but in the US they have closely spaced seats with energy-absorbing seat backs that limit the force on each passenger and how far the passenger can move in a collision.

Smaller school buses (under 10k pounds) are required to have lap and/or shoulder belts at all seating positions.

Long distance buses have seat belts in Europe.

And nobody uses them and it's not enforced.

Same in Japan and legally enforced.