News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m... by jhallenworld on Sunday January 30, 2022 @09:20PM (#30143747)
Yeah, it's not nice but what should be done after the "natural" vaccination rate had been reached by rational argument alone?
Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m... by throwaway22032 on Sunday January 30, 2022 @09:28PM (#30143796)
I mean, the only reason for me to care if someone else is vaccinated is to the extent that I care for their wellbeing.

To me it's analogous to like, telling one of my overweight friends to go on a diet so that I can pay less for the NHS or something. They don't want the advice, it feels rude more than anything else (even explaining this feels a bit ick!)

If it was shown that we could eliminate sars-cov-2 via herd immunity I'd probably be a bit more keen to encourage it but I still don't think I'd support mandates unless we had some crazy ebola mutation and people started dying in massive numbers.

Re:Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific m... by skinkestek on Monday January 31, 2022 @03:05AM (#30145662)
> If it was shown that we could eliminate sars-cov-2 via herd immunity I'd probably be a bit more keen to encourage it but I still don't think I'd support mandates unless we had some crazy ebola mutation and people started dying in massive numbers.

Triple vaccinated and completely in agreement.

An argument can always be made that they fill up hospitals, but that same argument can be made against parachuting, being overweight, racing (or driving in general), all alcohol etc.

If choice is to meaningful it includes bad choices.