@powder Again, if the disease were more serious you would agree with the principles.

@powder It drastically reduces it, and the symptoms from it. The argument still stands. For the sake of argument though, imagine this disease caused death in 95% of those that contracted it without the vaccine and only 5% with it and reduced the likelihood of transmission by 80%. It doesn't stop transmission, but you're telling me you wouldn't support measures that encouraged (not forcibly administered) injections?

@powder "A virus that killed 95% would not spread very far as the vectors would die before they can spread it."
False. My fictitious disease did not detail incubation period, infectious period, or time line for lethality. Just because something is super lethal doesn't mean it'll kill you fast. Pancreatic cancer is about 90% lethal but that shit can take YEARS to kill you.

"If the threat/ risk was so great and the vaccine effective enough, it would sell itself."
Also false. There are people who will not trust the government/ scientists/ doctors/ the"elite" / etc. no matter what is at stake. Look at current vaccines children are required to have for school. There is a growing population of anti-vaxing parents that won't vaccinate their children with vaccines that are 100% effective and tested safe and known for DECADES. There are tons of stupid motherfuckers that would refuse it no matter what, and the rest of the population should have the right to be protected from them with restrictions placed on the unvaccinated (like them not being allowed in school).

@powder Your claim that the only reason to coerce vaccination is herd immunity is false. Even if you don't believe it reduces the risk of transmission, it definitely reduces the risk of death or hospitalization. These reduced risks come with financial benefits for society at large and reduced strain on healthcare systems. The fact that the rest of your argument is predicated on that initial assumption invalidates it, but I will say that people can't be trusted not to lie about their infection/recovery status, so it's not that it won't be taken into account, it's that it can't be taken into account. (Should we allow parents to claim they don't need required vaccinations for school because their child caught and recovered from the disease?)

@powder Dragged off? From the table at a restaurant? You have to know that doesn't make any sense. First, you'd be carded at the door and you'd never make it to the table, which I'm fine with if the variants keep getting worse. Secondly, if a police unit comes because you're breaking the rules it would be no different than if you forced your way into a school with your child who wasn't allowed to be there because of their incomplete vaccination status or your refusal to comply with a store's no shirt no shoes policy.

"Moreover, it’s increasingly clear that those who recovered from covid-19 are better protected if they also get vaccinated. Numerous studies have found that vaccination after infection stimulates a substantial antibody response that’s more robust than either recovery or vaccination alone. A report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that such vaccinated people have half the risk of reinfection compared with previously infected people who remained unvaccinated."
So even if you have antibodies, it still doesn't make sense not to require the vaccine for certain things.

@powder aha, you advocate Pol Pot's killing fields here in Australia?

@powder or Adolf's gas chambers?

@powder and will the termination ceiling be set at 21, 25, 30, 40 or 50 years of age?