That said, allowing civil suits to punish people that gave you a virus that killed you, would be effective to keep both vaxed and unvaxxed careful and staying at home while sick. Hard to prove where you got it, but just a few successful suits will keep people honest.
Mea culpa, though: the chart I remember was of cases not spread/fan-out. I guess it is pretty hard to judge who is spreading it and who is not, in the public. Most articles tend to measure viral shedding or load as an indicator, which does support my stance, but that's science journalism which has been wrong a lot lately. I won't ask any HN reader to make a conclusion based on what I claimed.
Oh please. The hyperbole is getting real old.
If you know that you feel sick, and haven’t been vaccinated, yet go to work at a nursing home and end up spreading a breakthrough infection that kills an immunocompromised resident, is that not manslaughter? How is it different from knowingly getting in a car when intoxicated, and then causing a deadly accident?
Considering you can be contagious before you feel sick, I think the point is even more valid.
I don't have the slightest idea. It would be like making sugar or alcohol illegal as it merely involves the person wearing the seatbelt or helmet.
Else, you run the risk of being infected, not knowing it, passing it onto other people who "have made a personal choice", involuntary manslaughtering them (unless you're religious, then you've biblically murdered them); or, alternatively, you run the risk of ending up in the ICU, and now somebody who did get the vaccine now needs that ICU bed, and they die because you're wasting a perfectly good ICU slot because you "made a personal choice."
Your rights end where the rights of others begin, this is the fundamental rule of modern western society above all others. Be very careful when you think that doesn't apply to you, not all mistakes can be corrected.