Heart inflammation. Weighing of peronal risk factors, e.g., age or lack of comorbitities. Weighing social factors, e.g., prevalence of breakthrough infections and concomittant low value to 'health of society' from inconvenience of one or two injections that are required to achieve official vaccination.
I'm not prejudging how an individual's assessment of risks and benefits might shake out and I personally feel it's not a huge deal either way. That said, I very greatly disagree with the sense of entitlement baked into the comment I'm responding to, e.g., that I and all others should collectively drop everything and abandon all personal preferences and goals to focus single-mindedly on defeating the virus. The flaws with the majoritiarian premise are at least three-fold. 1. We most certainly will not defeat the virus in any way-- history teaches that we will at best coexist with it. 2. The viral risks are not infinite and easily may be overshadowed in many cases by life circumstances-- I am not required to quit my life and livelihood to serve majority sensibilites or lack thereof. 3. Before this pandemic I had some sense that my choices are personal, sometimes private, and always mine-- the pandemic has made me realize those sentiments are not universal, but have not persuaded me I'm wrong.
> that I and all others should collectively drop everything and abandon all personal preferences and goals to focus single-mindedly on defeating the virus
This is SO dramatic! It's just a vaccine! It's done in less than an hour! Wearing a mask is not fucking hard! What happened to American tenacity and strength in the face of adversity? How do these things even make your life harder?
We beat small pox, polio and other terrible diseases with the all in approach. Please take the shot and convince everyone you know to do so as well. If we eradicate this... it's gone.
This is an emotional appeal that has been used to justify countless atrocities in countless civilizations. A rational society shouldn't be thinking in such blanket and qualitative ways
Actions are bad because of their nature, not because of how they are reasoned for. And any given reason can be used to justify bad or good actions; that doesn't taint the reasoning.
That is to say, judging an action solely by its reason is intellectually lazy; Especially because you can just interrogate the action and its effects themselves.
To make it clear: Saying getting vaccinated is dangerous because the 'greater good' is also used to justify atrocities seems like something profound, but it actually lacks any insight whatsoever.
In this case though the greater good is very easily expressed in a quantitative way: more vaccinated people means less people dead and incapacitated by the virus.
It's not an emotional appeal though. It's pretty clear that a high vaccination rate will be beneficial to the overall health and prosperity of a population. I don't care about people getting vaccinated because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy, I care about them getting vaccinated so that we can ramp down restrictions and get closer to normality.
> a high vaccination rate will be beneficial to the overall health and prosperity of a population.
Then say that, don't say "the greater good". The "greater good" means very different things to Nazis or Islamist terrorists. We should encourage people to say what they mean, not vague and meaningless phrases like "greater good".
What kind of silly response is this? Of course a rational society would look at the impact of individual decisions extrapolated over the collective.
If nobody got the covid vaccine, would things be better or worse across our society than they are now? Simple question, simple answer, but something you are ignoring and thus you aren't rational.
There is no blanket logic here. This is not an atrocity. This is an instance of global pandemic, literally a 100-year natural disaster affecting all of humanity. It's not some slippery slope about your "freedom", stop trying to make it into one.
>Two doses of either vaccine still provided at least the same level of protection as having had COVID-19 before through natural infection; people who had been vaccinated after already being infected with COVID-19 had even more protection than vaccinated individuals who had not had COVID-19 before. [my emphasis added]
COVID vaccines aren't eligible for the VICP and have a laundry list of horrific side-effects, that's plenty of reason for any reasonable person.
> It's just selfishness and not caring about the greater good and health of society, your neighbours, colleagues, friends or family.
You can say the same about fat people, smokers, drinkers, and all other people who take unnecessary risks of any kind. They're all burdens on the healthcare system that reduce access and affordability for everyone else.
> You can say the same about fat people, smokers, drinkers, and all other people who take unnecessary risks of any kind. They're all burdens on the healthcare system that reduce access and affordability for everyone else.
They cannot kill someone by walking by them in a grocery store.
I'm not prejudging how an individual's assessment of risks and benefits might shake out and I personally feel it's not a huge deal either way. That said, I very greatly disagree with the sense of entitlement baked into the comment I'm responding to, e.g., that I and all others should collectively drop everything and abandon all personal preferences and goals to focus single-mindedly on defeating the virus. The flaws with the majoritiarian premise are at least three-fold. 1. We most certainly will not defeat the virus in any way-- history teaches that we will at best coexist with it. 2. The viral risks are not infinite and easily may be overshadowed in many cases by life circumstances-- I am not required to quit my life and livelihood to serve majority sensibilites or lack thereof. 3. Before this pandemic I had some sense that my choices are personal, sometimes private, and always mine-- the pandemic has made me realize those sentiments are not universal, but have not persuaded me I'm wrong.