[rovek]

Seems like a question of reciprocity and solidarity. I'm not sure if I agree with the sentiment of OP but I do understand frustration that those of us who had an inconsequentially small probability of falling ill to this virus have lost more than a year of the prime of our lives in an effort to protect others; others who will now enjoy all the freedoms we still don't have back despite there still being next to no risk to us.

[Pyramus]

> Seems like a question of reciprocity and solidarity.

I have to disagree here. There is neither reciprocity nor solidarity involved, because you gain/lose nothing by them having or not having additional freedoms.

Don't get me wrong I understand OP's frustration and that he/she feels treated unfairly. But OP's frustration is not rational. As harsh as it sounds OP's feelings are driven by envy.

[rovek]

I don't see that anything in your comment precludes reciprocation of unnecessarily conservative limitations on one's life.

It could be argued that keeping everyone home instead of just those at risk was irrational.

[Pyramus]

That's a completely different discussion whether the strategy was the right strategy in the first place, and unrelated to my argument.

What I'm saying is that given the current situation, player A (OP) loses nothing while player B (the vaccinated) gains something (also called a Pareto improvement). It is not rational for player A to oppose this new situation where B gains something.

[raxxorrax]

Problem with rationality is how it is defined. And yes, of course it is rational to be angry about it. It is also rational for humans to sometimes project this anger at wrong targets. It is still rational behavior because it fulfills a need, although it is classically defined differently of course.

[CRConrad]

> have lost more than a year of the prime of our lives in an effort to protect others

What, have you been dead for this last year? If not, you haven't "lost more than a year of the prime of our life". Silly hyperbole.

> we still don't have back despite there still being next to no risk to us.

Me, me, me... Yeah, who the fuck cares about risk to others, right? What you're writing comes off as the thinking of a self-centered asshole.

[ajsnigrutin]

Yep... young people gave up a year of their lives to "save grandmas", and now that grandmas are vaccinated, are still not allowed to go on a vacation or party, even though there's a higher chance of dying in the car driving to/from the party (for healthy individuals from those age groups).

[cr1895]

>young people gave up a year of their lives to "save grandmas"

It's disingenuous to suggest that throughout all of this, elderly people were somehow welcome to do as they pleased while the young were locked at home. Don't cast aside the immense suffering and loneliness of elderly people throughout this.