Shame on those that refuse the vaccine

[Dr.Winston_OBoogie]

@Miller

Most food allergies aren’t fatal, they just make you feel sick. If little Johnny in the 19th century is sick all the time, and nobody knows what “celiac disease” is yet, then the solution is “Let little Johnny be sick, and hope he gets over it, or at least doesn’t die from it.”

Or, Johnny and his parents notice it’s worse after eating half a loaf of bread, and start feeding him more potatoes and rice.

Count me in the “there’s more allergies because more people are testing for allergies now” camp, with a small amount of “Allergic to peanuts, therefore we’re treating it as if it’s life threatening” tossed in.

@Saintly_Loser

Every child has special food needs and allergies and can only eat organic food picked and packaged by indigenous virgins paid a fair trade wage.

Throwing a birthday party for a kid is a nightmare. Me, I just want to go with pizza and an ice cream cake* (and believe me, the kids are on my side), but then the emails with every child’s special dietary needs start coming in…

And there’s a big difference between “My child will go into anaphylactic shock if they eat peanuts” and “can only eat organic food picked and packaged by indigenous virgins paid a fair trade wage”. I’m more than willing to work around the first; for the second, lighten up Francis. A bit of refined sugar at a party won’t turn your little precious into a serial killer.

[Atamasama]

@Miller

I suspect there is a strong component of “people didn’t have as much access to medicine, and medicine wasn’t as advanced,” involved, though. Most food allergies aren’t fatal, they just make you feel sick. If little Johnny in the 19th century is sick all the time, and nobody knows what “celiac disease” is yet, then the solution is “Let little Johnny be sick, and hope he gets over it, or at least doesn’t die from it.”

I think there is a whole crap ton of truth in this statement. When I was a kid certain foods gave me headaches. Hot dogs, lunch meat, pickles, raisins (dried fruits in general in fact), and so on. Really nasty headaches. I grew up disliking those foods and hated when my parents forced them on me.

Later I found out that all of the foods that gave me headaches which I was “so dramatic” about as a kid are high in sulfites and I am pretty confident I was allergic to them.

Asthma and Sulfites Allergies

I also had severe asthma as a child (and as an adult until mid-late 30s) and apparently sulfite sensitivity is very rare among the general population but not that rare among people with asthma (anywhere from 5-10% of people with asthma have it). Now, I didn’t have the symptoms typically listed as being a sulfite reaction, except maybe an upset stomach and/or dizziness, but I definitely had headaches.

Fortunately I seem to have grown out of that along with the asthma. I absolutely love hot dogs (though I don’t eat them all that often), and a lot of the foods that made me sick as a kid are fine for me now.

[Tibby]

On the one hand, dying unnecessarily during a pandemic is very sad. On the other hand, putting others at risk because of your willful ignorance of the benefits of vaccines and masks is both idiotic and assholish. On the third hand, reducing the population by a sizable sum (e.g. the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic infected ~500 million people and killed ~50 million— ~3% of the world population) is no doubt good for the Earth’s biosphere. On the fourth hand (pretend we’re quadrumana), reducing the population of [primarily] idiotic, assholish people is a net gain for the human gene pool.

…so, I have mixed feelings.

[Ziberian]

@kaylasdad99

There’s a vast stretch of real estate between a reasonable degree of confidence that government overreach can’t happen and a reasonable degree of confidence that government overreach won’t happen, and your apparent unwillingness to set one toe into that vast stretch suggests that your “freedom-loving” inflexibility is based more in timidity than in rationality. But then, your risk-evaluation skills have already been called into question.

Government overreach won’t happen!!! Did you completely miss the Trump presidency? And the current laws against masking, etc by Republican governors? Of course, you probably don’t consider any of their actions government overreach since you’re okay with any laws so long as it’s for the greater good. And make no mistake, DeSantis absolutely believes he’s serving the greater good. Which makes my point – you cannot always assume government mandates will fit your criteria for ‘the greater good’. And, if you don’t think government will overreach given an opportunity, you’re either very young or very sheltered.

My risk evaluation skills are excellent, which is why I don’t need a nanny state. Had you read my original comment, you would know that I believe seatbelts save lives, and that I support Covid vaccinations. It’s not seatbelts I oppose, it’s government mandates on seatbelts. And I’m tired of trying to explain the difference to people so afraid of life/death they would sacrifice all freedoms rather than live with any risk. So let’s close this down and get back to the topic of the thread.

[Akaj]

@Tibby

… reducing the population of [primarily] idiotic, assholish people is a net gain for the human gene pool.

Only if they die before they reproduce. Unfortunately, most dying covidiots already have.

[Tibby]

@Akaj

Only if they die before they reproduce. Unfortunately, most dying covidiots already have.

Yes, but they are also putting their pre-reproductive age kids and other kids at mortal risk, which is very much on the “sad” hand.

[Atamasama]

Here is a graphic on how idiots reproduce.

[Buck_Godot]

You know what I’m going to come right out and say that I think government should be doing its best to protect its citizens from willfully or accidentally harming themselves. Yes, personal freedom and desires should be taken into account as part of the cost benefit analysis, but preventing self harm is a good thing in and of itself even if no one else is negatively affected.

When you see your kid climbing up to the top of the roof in his superman cape, you don’t say “Well so long as you doesn’t hit anyone on the way down, go for it. It’s your choice.” You stop him from doing it, and that is a good thing, even if he thinks you are being unfair and ruining his fun. To those who say, well that’s different he’s just a stupid kid, I will remind them that there is a whole lot of stupid adults.

[Miller]

@Ziberian

Government overreach won’t happen!!! Did you completely miss the Trump presidency?

Can you explain the connection between seatbelt laws and Donald Trump? Like, give an example of something Trump did in office that he wouldn’t have been able to do if we didn’t have stuff like seatbelt laws?

[Ziberian]

@Miller

Can you explain the connection between seatbelt laws and Donald Trump? Like, give an example of something Trump did in office that he wouldn’t have been able to do if we didn’t have stuff like seatbelt laws?

Kind of a silly question since I was just listing two examples of government overreach. But you knew that. So how about this… Seatbelt laws were a first step in the invasion of individual privacy by the government (this was the primary grounds for the court challenges). Acceptance of that minor invasion of privacy for the greater good, began the erosion of individual privacy to the point where a president (Trump) reading reporters (his critics’) private emails is acceptable. Trump believed his actions served the greater good of society because these critics were impeding his plans and his plans were going to make America great again. For the greater good! So you would support him on this, of course. No? Because this doesn’t fit your definition of ‘for the greater good’? That’s why you wanna think carefully before giving government control over personal choice about getting the Covid vaccine – Biden may not misuse the power to dictate this sort of choice, but if you think a future administration won’t, you’re out of touch with reality.

Look, it’s obvious that those arguing with me believe that sacrificing privacy for safety is always a good tradeoff. I don’t. Let’s drop it.

[Miller]

@Ziberian

So how about this… Seatbelt laws were a first step in the invasion of individual privacy by the government (this was the primary grounds for the court challenges). Acceptance of that minor invasion of privacy for the greater good, began the erosion of individual privacy to the point where a president (Trump) reading reporters (his critics’) private emails is acceptable. Trump believed his actions served the greater good of society because these critics were impeding his plans and his plans were going to make America great again.

So, you think that if we hadn’t started passing seat belt laws in the 1980s, forty years later Donald Trump wouldn’t have tried to read reporters emails? Seems to me, corrupt, venal leaders like Trump are going to do corrupt, venal things. Richard Nixon was spying on political opponents in the '70s, before we had seatbelt laws any where in the nation. The fact that the people who support social responsibility laws like seatbelt laws, tend to be the sort of people who oppose Donald Trump, and vice versa. If there’s a direct causal line from passing seatbelt laws in the '80s to electing Trump in the '20s, shouldn’t Trump’s base be largely made up of people who think things like seatbelt laws are a good thing?

@Ziberian

Look, it’s obvious that those arguing with me believe that sacrificing privacy for safety is always a good tradeoff.

Always? No. But a rational person can look at each case individually and decide it on it’s merits. Giving the government the ability to mandate vaccinations, or impose restrictions on the unvaccinated, will save hundreds of thousands of lives, and has literally no downside. Letting the president spy on his political opponents serves no purpose but to entrench the president in power and subvert the democratic purpose. Supporting the former doesn’t require supporting the latter. Legalizing the former doesn’t automatically legalize the latter. Refraining from implementing emergency measures in the middle of a pandemic won’t prevent later autocrats from trying to cheat their way to power.

[DavidNRockies]

@Ziberian

Look, it’s obvious that those arguing with me believe that sacrificing privacy for safety is always a good tradeoff. I don’t. Let’s drop it.

Not to pile on, here, and not even to ask you to stay engaged on this particular topic, but …

I think this is extremely germane to the OP. Maybe it’s at the center of it.

Without getting into whether or not quantum entanglement really implies that we’re all connected at some level, I think there’s a huge argument and disagreement about the degree to which one’s actions may affect others.

And I think the continuum tends to be:

• Liberals believe that there is more connectedness; therefore, effects
• Conservatives believe that there is less connectedness; therefore, effects

But some of these things really shouldn’t be up for debate – crime and punishment, substance abuse, sickness and disease, poverty, drunk driving, highly infectious diseases, and … I would argue … things like seat belts, drunk driving, and motorcycle helmets.

What one calls the slippery slope, or the ‘erosion of freedom and personal liberty,’ another might call a growing awareness that you swinging your fist is striking my face (ie, that your actions are causing others deleterious consequences).

[In Economics, see: externalities]

And each should – to @Miller 's point – be argued on its merits.

But reasoning backward from “Freedum” or “Nanny State” or “Socialism” or any other reflexive, non-negotiable dogma (again: picking on the ubiquitous dynamic, and not – in this case – you) is not only unhelpful, but destructive on any number of levels.

The Refusniks (a/k/a Spreadnecks) … are killing people (among the myriad other issues they daily create).

[Typo_Negative]

The right holding on to their stupidity with all their might.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/an-attendee-at-the-alabama-trump-rally-said-she-wanted-trump-to-reveal-that-he-was-still-president-echoing-the-conspiracy-theory-that-grips-the-republican-party/ar-AANAYWB?li=BBnbfcL

On Friday, Dr. William Smith, chief medical officer for Cullman Regional, [told CBS42]that he views the rally as “a potential super-spreader event.”

[Slash1972]

@Ziberian

Seatbelt laws were a first step in the invasion of individual privacy by the government (this was the primary grounds for the court challenges)

What if, instead of a law, insurance companies just said “We are not going to cover your medical bills if you get in an accident without wearing a seatbelt”

would you be ok with that?

[Senegoid]

@Typo_Negative

On Friday, Dr. William Smith, chief medical officer for Cullman Regional, [told CBS42]that he views the rally as “a potential super-spreader event.”

This, in a county particularly hard-hit with Covid cases currently, with 100% ICU beds occupied.

[Kimstu]

@Ziberian

Seatbelt laws were a first step in the invasion of individual privacy by the government (this was the primary grounds for the court challenges).

Pretty sure that the government (fed and state) has had legal restrictions on various things people are allowed to do with their property since before seatbelt laws came on line starting in the '80s. Not being allowed to purchase prescription medications without a valid doctor’s prescription is an example that springs to mind.

[The_Librarian]

Individuals suck at evaluating risk.

Driving a car is by far the most dangerous activity we all engage in on a regular basis.
Per hour/mile riding a horse is more dangerous, but that is offset by the numbers of hours/miles we drive cars around.
Second thing that is most likely to kill you is a bad diet or smoking.

Now you can argue that it is “government overreach” to make seatbelts mandatory but there are very little (no) decisions that have saved more lives than those laws. If protecting the lives of its citizens is not a proper role for government then I do not know what government is for.

I would argue that keeping some hospital capacity available for other people than the goddamn antivaxxers is likewise a government role.
(If you stay on your own property and do not receive visitors your point about “society at large” might cut wood but most folks think that the supermarket is also part of their property and that the delivery guy is not a visitor)

You can call it “the nanny state”. The thing is that most people are idiots and do in fact need a nanny. If there were no seatbelt or DUI laws traffic fatalities would explode in short order, likewise for speed limits, motorcycle helmets and vaccines (mandatory vaccines are not exactly a new thing)

TL;DR individuals suck at evaluating risk. Society (civilization) is about collective measures to mitigate risk.

[Gyrate]

@Tibby

the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic infected ~500 million people and killed ~50 million— ~3% of the world population

< sarcasm >

Look, that’s a 97% survival rate. I don’t know why people got so worked up about it.

< /sarcasm >

[Jackmannii]

I’m hoping that a good thing to come out of the Covid-19 pandemic is that we’ll be better prepared for a truly devastating one - say, a highly contagious disease with a 30% mortality rate.

Until then, we have the luxury of slippery slope arguments and debates about whether prohibiting the unvaccinated from eating at restaurants is akin to pasting a yellow star on them and shipping them off to Auschwitz.

[Gyrate]

@Jackmannii

I’m hoping that a good thing to come out of the Covid-19 pandemic is that we’ll be better prepared for a truly devastating one - say, a highly contagious disease with a 30% mortality rate.

I think the opposite has become evident - no matter how deadly the disease, there will be idiots deliberately engaging in dangerous behaviors because “freedom”.