[spywaregorilla]

The societal risk of infecting immuno compromised people with random generic disease is small. Scale matters. Similarly you're not allowed to walk around new york if you're confirmed to be carrying a novel strain of ebola.

Permitting individuals to choose to be vaccinated and building owners to choose to forbid vaccinated people seems reasonable to me. Sacrificing individual freedoms for the mutual benefit of the larger group is the very core concept of society.

[nickthemagicman]

What's the correct scale though?

To a large number of people.... a survivability of 99.99% is an acceptable risk for people to go out in society freely, like you have with most age groups in Covid.

To some people ONE death is too many because the value of a human life is priceless.

What's the correct, scientifically determined, objective scale of people dying, to allow the government to turn things into a medical fascist state?

My argument is that there is no objectively correct 'scale' because it's not a scientific measure therefore doesn't matter.

It's just the news and government yelling scary death numbers until enough kind-hearted but ignorant people are scared enough to sacrifice their freedoms.

[spywaregorilla]

1) Things don't fall into the set of {objective, irrelevant}. There is also "subjective". Which is why we vote to agree on things as a group.

2) There are middle grounds between fascist states and passing some regulations

3) The news being a fearmongering whore doesn't invalidate the fact that some of what it reports may be a genuine threat

4) The right of america has historically fond of "if you don't like it, you can go to another country". Surely it's strictly less impactful to say "if you don't like it, you can work from home".