[loxias]

> "How did we get to a point..."

Every day, we all make tradeoffs as part of the price to pay for living in society. This is not a new thing. (and I assert it's counterproductive and anti-social behavior (harmful to society, the opposite of pro-social, not meaning "introverted") to assert that it is.)

I can't build a DIY rocket powered car and drive it around town. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

I can't even drive a store bought car without a drivers license. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

I can't open a restaurant and sell food without some sort of license/permit from the city. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

(I recently learned the hard way that) I can't even build a new wall in my home without having the design approved and permitted. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

I can't attend school (public or private) without DTaP, Polio, and MMR vaccines, making it a de facto requirement of life.

These are all restrictions on personal liberty that we accept up as part of the social contract.

And yet, somehow, there is this (literally!) sickening idea going around that it's a "new thing" to require _this specific_ vaccine. Considering the fact that we know that being un-vaccinated will eventually hurt people (by increasing transmission, and hastening the onset of a disastrous mutation), I'm terrified and enraged that it's not being treated similarly to driving drunk.

[BackBlast]

> I can't attend school (public or private) without DTaP, Polio, and MMR vaccines, making it a de facto requirement of life.

> These are all restrictions on personal liberty that we accept up as part of the social contract

Historically it had been trivially easy to fill out a form and go to public school without vaccines everywhere I've lived.

The purpose of the form is to know who to send home from school if there is a break out of a disease that is relevant to those who choose not to vaccinate. A very accommodating position.

This policy is now potentially being changed to hard requirements with no escape valve for good or ill. It is factually incorrect to say it had always been this way. This is a material change to policy, fights in legislatures about vaccine mandates have been brewing for at least two decades that I have seen. You can expect a lot of lawsuits and legislative battles along these lines as well.

[landemva]

'I can't even drive a store bought car without a drivers license.'

If you are a corporation or business, that is generally true. If you are using a conveyance in your personal capacity, then you are not regulated unless you voluntarily sign up to be licensed. Your choice.

"For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 75 Mont. 240, 243 P. 1073 (1926)"

[loxias]

Thanks for this! (really) And thanks for a great citation.

I don't have a drivers license. I always assumed driving a car without a license, registration, and proof of insurance was illegal and would get me in trouble. I admit, I didn't research this aspect before writing my above comment (tho I did research the vaccine requirements, my source is a government website).

Now I don't quite know what to think! Can I legally drive a car on public roads in California?

[importantbrian]

I'm late to the party on this but before you go trying to drive without a license what OP posted is untrue. Here's is a good write up about it from Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/supreme-court-rules-driver...

[s1artibartfast]

In the case of the parent article, the equivalent framing to add to the list is:

I can't rely on my naturally acquired immunity with 80+> efficacy instead of a vaccine with 90% efficacy to go to work. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

[u801e]

What study shows 80% or greater efficacy for primary immunity versus secondary immunity via vaccination? Do they go into detail regarding how long the immunity lasts, and whether it covers varients? Viruses that cause the flu or common cold change from season to season, so immunity (either primary or secondary) doesn't really protect against a subsequent varient.

[s1artibartfast]

>What study shows 80% or greater efficacy for primary immunity versus secondary immunity via vaccination

The CDC claims being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated. Most vaccines are 90+ effective. Say for example moderna is 95.3% effective, natural immunity would be 89% (100% - 4.7% x 2.34)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

>Do they go into detail regarding how long the immunity lasts, and whether it covers varients?

There is a lot of information missing on duration, but we know people who were infected with SARS-CoV-1 still have antibodies 20 years later. Natural infection triggers an immune response on many more parts of the virus than the vaccine, so protection against variants should also be good or better than the original vaccine, but not better than a booster vaccine tailored specifically to a given variant.

[criticaltinker]

> being un-vaccinated will eventually hurt people (by increasing transmission, and hastening the onset of a disastrous mutation)

Your statement is missing the sorely needed nuance that individuals with immunity acquired through natural infection are at least equally well protected as vaccinated individuals. That is the consensus in the scientific consensus literature right now.

This fact is the central argument of the lawsuit presented in the OP.

It's imperative to move beyond the dualistic framing of these discussions as "vaccinated versus unvaccinated". At this point it's borderline misinformation to continue with such rhetoic.

[smorgusofborg]

People acquire natural immunity by being a danger to themselves and others. This professor is effectively and advertisement campaign for covid Parties to get back to work without needing the acceptable risk by being an insanely negligent factor in public health. I don't see any point in creating a public health process to find people who have safe levels naturally acquired by no negligence of their own to not cause more problems by performing this testing.