> Government policy to protect unvaccinated people.
Government policy !== health. Protecting them by punishing them so you can be 'free?' Odd. Do you not see at all how the vaccine is not in this case forming a health solution (otherwise considering the vaccine still spreads covid there'd be continued lockdowns for all anyway to protect everyone...) but controls for their own sake?
> Myself, obviously
So why do you care what decision others make about it? Direct your frustration at those making policy calls, not those used as justification.
> "But it's ok to limit the liberties of the drunk because 'risk?' Everyone can drive or no one can drive."
You're free to choose not to drink or to drink. To correct the analogy, how about we restrict those that like a drink from being able to drive at all because risk?
> This argument would make sense if curtailing the spread was the ultimate goal, but it's not
Funny, it was earlier this year. Amazing how the narrative changes over time and people just follow it along, with the usual 'oh but they're learning about it all the time and making the best decisions they can.' Which obviously highlights they're making bad decisions, but not now?
https://twitter.com/Sentinel2NO/status/1471886835152560130?s...
> Everything is a tradeoff. If you're vaccinated, you're less of a risk than if you aren't
a) you're not near 0 risk though and b) Not if you're under 40 years old with no comorbidities. Especially for those under 20, the vaccine risk (by nature of risk of being impacted == 1.0 by getting jabbed vs risk of actually contracting covid, let along having a serious reaction or spreading it) is not clearly behind the covid risk. Now we head into the logic gymnastics where we are vaccinating the young to protect others, who have been vaccinated and protected, leaving only the unvaccinated for the young to protect, except we don't care about them because 'they made their choice.' So why again are we vaccinating the young, considering vaccination doesn't prevent spread and the young are the lowest risk group by a large distance? Also remembering that earlier in the year the young already didn't readily catch or spread covid, so why now?
You said this:
> Why do we not still care for the unvaccinated regardless of their reasons or situations for being so?
The inconvenience si "caring for the unvaccinated", at least that's how I interpreted your comment. If you meant something different please let me know.
> caused specifically by unvaccinated people and not government policy?
Government policy to protect unvaccinated people.
> So who exactly are you protecting with vaccination then?
Myself, obviously.
> why pretend to understand the motives of the unvaccinated to make them the 'enemy?'
I didn't make them "the enemy". They can do whatever I want, I just don't want any limitation on myself to protect them from their choices.
> But it's ok to limit the liberties of the unvaxed because 'risk?' Everyone has rights or no one has rights.
"But it's ok to limit the liberties of the drunk because 'risk?' Everyone can drive or no one can drive."
> But being vaccinated doesn't stop it spreading while you're out
This argument would make sense if curtailing the spread was the ultimate goal, but it's not. Preventing hospitalizations/deaths is the ultimate goal. If I go into a room with vaccinated people and give them all COVID but nobody is hospitalized, then that's fine. I don't think this is so hard to understand.
> You don't care about not making people sick, you care that your freedoms aren't restricted.
Everything is a tradeoff. If you're vaccinated, you're less of a risk than if you aren't. At some point, life has to go on. Or should we have been in perpetual lockdown for centuries so people didn't die of the flu as well?