I am responding to your comment - you say that asserting your rights by not taking the vaccine won't end the pandemic, while I am saying that taking it won't end it either.

Almost as if reducing mortality/hospitalization is an irrelevant metric to you.

Almost as if an abstract social construct as “rights” is more important to you than actual health.

Yes, personal freedom is to me infinitely more important than the health of others.

Is your freedom primary?

Like if a group of people banded together and said that they didn't want to associate with unvaccinated people, should they have the freedom to do that without interference from the unvaccinated?

And our personal freedoms are worth enough to us to justify limiting our exposure to people like you. You have no right to impose yourself on us.

If that were true, and you were willing to allow me the same level of freedom as you demand for yourself then surely my freedom to harm you trumps your well-being?

Your freedom to attack me physically? No, because you don't have to do anything not to attack me - you just don't.

Your freedom not to get vaccinated? Evidently, since getting vaccinated is a medical procedure. I can't force you to go through it.

Freedom *noun* the power to act, think and speak as one wants.

I can physically attack you if I want to and in your very own words my freedom is infinitely more important than your health.

What is confusing you?

I suppose you also think Typhoid Mary got a raw deal?

What on earth makes you think your personal freedom is more important than the health of others?

You have no right to harm others.

You seem to misunderstand the entire reason the U.S. was created.

Don't like it, leave. Seriously.

Note that the Supreme Court validated Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, supporting the right of the government to mandate vaccines (remember, George Washington mandated vaccines for his troops) and showing that the power of the state ultimately trumps the freedoms of people.

Honestly, you're making arguments (in multiple comments) that make you look petulant, rather than providing a reasonable argument againt vaccine mandates.

The Supreme Court also validated slavery and other actions that proved to be incredibly damaging to the society.

As for George Washington, if you are attempting to make the argument that the government has a right to inoculate it’s military soldiers during war time against a disease, so be it, there is your precedent to argue upon. Furthermore, Washington has a habit of requiring many things, including the Militia Acts which required every able bodied male to own a military firearm. I don’t currently see an argument to enforce that idea. Pick and choose.

But using his small pox inoculation program from the 1700’s and a tiny military of rag tag farmer soldiers as a basis to go after an entire free and educated society of hundreds of millions in the 2000’s for an experimental vaccine, you are stretching this further than it could go.

The information is out there for people to make decisions now. They’ve made it, make a better argument.

If you're referring Dred Scott, I agree the Supreme Court validated slavery (this is at least one of the causes of the Civil War). That is, the decision had such consequence that the nation was nearly split, and after the war, several amendments were added that overrode the Court.

I don't see anybody gearing up to have a civil war over vaccines, just a bunch of "make a better argument for why you have the right to tell me I have to do this, with economic or social consequences if I don't" responses. The military already exited folks who didn't comply with COVID vaccines, and the Biden administration has already requested that the SC officially rule on workplace mandates (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A244/206997/2021...).

The penalty in the case is irrelevant to the nature of the government's power. Also equating vaccines to apartheid is unrealistic and in poor taste.

No, it is very much relevant. And, systematic denial of employment, education, access to government services etc to a group based on a medical condition very much is apartheid. It is in poor taste to deny it, but I guess the apologists in South Africa were legalistically talking about “nature of the government’s power” too.

As it happens I am a naturalized South African - married to a black woman who had to endure apartheid.

I recited your argument to her and I am quoting her response in saying… “you are a f-ing idiot - I had no choice in being born black and I had no way of becoming white to avoid the consequences of apartheid. The unvaccinated have a choice - they are just choosing not to exercise it.”

You have falsely equated the two scenarios by abstracting away the thing which matters most: the choice to improve your situation.

If discrimination is only wrong because of lack of choice of the discriminated trait, then why is it wrong to discriminate based on people's religion? Or would you say that it isn't?

I would say that there is not a single non-religious human being on this planet.

Human rights are a religion - they don’t exist. We made them up so we can coexist; and so that we can improve the quality of our lives.

What makes discrimination wrong is that it diminishes the well-being of the discriminated against.

So you are welcome to insist that your well-being is being diminished by vaccine mandates but it would be a peculiar argument since most people are choosing to vaccinate because it improves their well-being.

You seem to be struggling with the fact that objective morality is a social construct.

It's not about WHO makes the decision. It's about the inherent quality of the decision being made irrespective of who makes it.

Of course it's your choice to drive your car into a wall at 200km/h, but in the way society uses the word "objectively" and "true" it is objectively true that driving into a wall at 200km/h is detrimental to your well-being. And it is objectively true that in doing so you are making a bad decision.

In the same way that is objectively true that seatbelts save lives, it is objectively true that vaccines save lives. Therefore not doing what's conducive to your well-being is a bad choice.

The metrics, measurements and methods used to arrive at these conclusions are as objective as empiricism allows for.

>Those who don't want to vaccinate also choose to do so because it improves their well-being

Yes. They using the exact same words. Are you convinced by their arguments? I am not.

What I am convinced of is how intellectually dishonest they are in parroting words without bringing evidence to the table.

The reality of the situation seems to be that we have all decided upon the proper collective course of action and you are the one who is in denial.

You are the one who seems to have no clue why nations form, why this particular nation came into being, and what demands it has made over and over upon its citizens for the benefit of their fellow Americans. If you do not like it then you are the one who should leave. We, the many, are happy to show you the door and will help you pack your bags. Seriously.

“We, the many, believe so much in the narrative that these vaccines are effective, despite the consistent spread of the disease it was aimed to stop, so much so that we will kick anyone out of society that does not agree with the collective mob. Most of which who are scientifically illiterate and get their news from talking heads and the revolving door of medical officials/pharma execs.”

Is this what you’re saying?

Galileo is rolling over in his grave.

Edit: also you didn’t decide shit.

Why do you keep pretending that any intervention/strategy for dealing with the pandemic which isn't 100% effective is 0% effective?

In my proffessional experience faux-perfectionists tend to be rather incompetent pragmatists.

You seem to misunderstand the entire reason humans form societies.

Strength in numbers. Economies of scale. Division of labour.

The collective well-being of individuals.

If you don’t like all the social perks and safety nets you are enjoying - go be a hermit.

"We must do something. This is something."