This is an extremely poor comment.

How does not wanting a child to get an infectious disease get extrapolated to never going near a car? They are not comparable at all.

Also OP is not asking you to stay home. They are merely concerned about minimizing harm to their child (as parents do) and hoping the <5 y.o. vax approval comes sooner than later.

But you spread the virus, so it's not just about your own personal experience.

You spread it too. Assuming we're both vaccinated, we both spread it at an equal rate. I accept the risk of sharing air with you. If you don't, in my opinion, it's your responsibility to avoid contacts with me.

That's not relevant. The original point was: "If you want to continue locking your self up fine, I don't care. Just don't try to force others to do the same."

That's a terrible response because regardless of your vaccination status, you still have an impact. Just saying "I make my choices, you make yours" is a complete misunderstanding of the entire viral nature of this.

He was pointing out OPs unfounded fear, and how only OP is responsible for coping with it. It has nothing to do with the virus.

Welcome to living in a society, Some how we flipped the script on what freedom means.

If you do not accept the risk of coming in contact with things like the Common Cold, Flu, and now COVID, then you need to structure your life to be hermit, not have society bow to your fears

Exactly. Why should I have to isolate for YOUR fears? YOU should isolate, if you're worried.

If you haven't already, research the term "safetyism."

Why should I have to not drink and drive? If you're worried about car accients, you should stay off the roads!

You’re comparing people who want to live normal lives to drunk drivers?

What an absolutely ridiculous comparison

There are plenty of immunocompromised people of working age for whom vaccines simply do not work, and who cannot work from home due to the nature of their work. These people can't isolate, even if they're worried.

Ignoring the abhorrent – yet apparently acceptable to you – idea that these people should be left to die (due to what I can only guess is some sort of naive ideation of a "survival of the fittest" concept), these people dying and being hospitalized will certainly have a negative effect on the health system and economy. While their lives may not be of interest to you, surely you can appreciate the risk of a fragile economy.

>There are plenty of immunocompromised people of working age for whom vaccines simply do not work, and who cannot work from home due to the nature of their work. These people can't isolate, even if they're worried.

Why were we willing to let these people die in 2019 and earlier? I don't remember being told to go out of my way to protect immunocompromised people from the flu, colds, and other viruses. Were we just a more savage society back then?

We both know the answer is no. It's unfortunate that immunocompromised people are vulnerable but it's not something we can fully control in society. It's up to them and their close relatives to be as careful as they can as society cannot function in isolation forever.

> Why were we willing to let these people die in 2019 and earlier?

This is implying that the situation pre-2020 was the same as it was during the pandemic. Is the argument really "it's just the flu"?

> It's unfortunate that immunocompromised people are vulnerable but it's not something we can fully control in society.

Indeed, it's not something we can fully control, hence we do our best.

Ultimately, my comment was in response to the idea that people who are worried should simply isolate. I gave an example of why that's fallacious. You can argue all you want about how victims are inevitable, how covid is now endemic, etc., but then say it as it is: "I don't care for the lives of the vulnerable". That would be a more factual and sincere statement.

immunocompromised people are not a new thing, somehow they survived before covid

You stop people from getting elective surgeries and seriously disrupt society by being out and about eating indoors or not taking proper precautions. This isn't hard to understand. Hospitals are buckling under the weight of cases. Even if you personally recover from it, some do not or the impact of your decisions is far beyond what you personally feel.

It's an absurd point and highlights the ignorance around the entire problem. Your personal choices have consequences far outside of whether you personally suffer or end up hospitalized.

The panic over the Covid pandemic has been a great leap forward in this transformation of Western societies away from a representative republic or democracy.

In the technocracy we are transforming into those that happen to occupy the territory are under the care, custody, and control of the administrative state and then there are those who are noncompliant. So from that viewpoint it is perfectly logical to deny the things the administrative state provide to the noncompliant, because in the technocratic administrative state the people are granted privileges instead of the state deriving its representative power from the people. Read more here [1].

[1] https://www.takimag.com/article/prisoners-of-the-new-order/

So do people who are vaccinated and catch covid, sadly.

The vaccines don't prevent anyone from spreading the virus. The CDC Director just said it.