[throwaway316943]

This is snarky but poses a real question. If we ban people from spaces or events due to their vulnerability to COVID then why do we not do the same for those vulnerable to other diseases? Flu is a good example for the young and elderly since it poses a significant risk. It would strain the argument but you could make a case for banning the obese from fast food restaurants based on this reasoning as well.

[skytreader]

Don't forget what makes COVID19 so insidious: without testing, it takes time before an infected contagious person shows symptoms. By the time they decide to stay off public spaces, they have already potentially spread the virus.

With the common flu, you know almost instantly so you stay home to recover.

Fat people know their condition and it's their choice to eat fast food anyway. And obesity is also non contagious.

[charbonneau]

> Symptoms can begin about 2 days (but can range from 1 to 4 days) after the virus enters the body. That means that you may be able to pass on the flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick. Some people can be infected with the flu virus but have no symptoms. During this time, those people may still spread the virus to others.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/spread.htm

[skytreader]

For comparison:

> People with COVID-19 have had a wide range of symptoms reported – ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus. Anyone can have mild to severe symptoms.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s... (emphasis added)

[throwaway316943]

The only people they would need to protect are other unvaccinated people who have made the choice to take whatever risk there is in going unvaccinated. The choice to not be vaccinated involves knowing that you may contact the virus from someone else and may become very ill or die. Attempting to protect someone by taking away their ability to make that choice is equivalent to removing the option to eat enough food to become obese.

[skytreader]

> Attempting to protect someone by taking away their ability to make that choice is equivalent to removing the option to eat enough food to become obese.

We do that to obese people already. It's called a diet. Some of them even go farther than mere "prescriptions" but with psychological tricks to keep people on track. Also, really, comparing obesity to COVID19 is an apples to oranges thing. Obesity is not even viral.

What you're missing is that in all these measures that seem so controversial (lockdowns, vaccination campaigns) preserving an individual's life/health is secondary to the main goal, a means to an end. The main goal is to not overwhelm the public healthcare infra.

No one cares if you want to go to a concert when you're ill but when that illness has the potential to strain public health resources, then that's a different story entirely.

[gruez]

> Don't forget what makes COVID19 so insidious: without testing, it takes time before an infected contagious person shows symptoms. By the time they decide to stay off public spaces, they have already potentially spread the virus.

but AFAIK even vaccinated people can spread the virus?

[skytreader]

As I mentioned in another comment, let's not forget that preventing spread through all these measures is all in service of a greater goal: avoiding strain on public health infra.

To put it another way, it doesn't matter if vaccinated people can still catch and spread the virus (any virus, even) as long as this infection chain does not result to an unmanageable pipeline of people who might need intensive medical care. In this context, the main benefit (but by no means only) of vaccines is the decreased hospitalization rate.

[gruez]

> As I mentioned in another comment, let's not forget that preventing spread through all these measures is all in service of a greater goal: avoiding strain on public health infra.

If the ends justifies the means, what other public health interventions should we carry out, even in cases where there's no direct harm to society[1]? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. Should we have blood pressure/cholesterol "passports" to pressure people into being healthier?

[1] ie. you getting infected and infecting other people, as opposed to the more tenuous link of you getting infected, having to go to the emergency room, causing the emergency room to go over capacity and causing someone to die because of lack of care

[skytreader]

> Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. Should we have blood pressure/cholesterol "passports" to pressure people into being healthier?

Is heart disease exponentially contagious with the potential to strain medical resources in a matter of days?

Again, these aren't interventions against social freedoms, rather an intervention to prevent a public service from being DDoSed, so to speak. The measures a matter of _hospitalization_. It's pointless to compare a "cause of death" metric to a "plain case count" metric.

[gruez]

>Is heart disease exponentially contagious with the potential to strain medical resources in a matter of days?

How is this relevant when vaccinated people are still contagious?

>Again, these aren't interventions against social freedoms, rather an intervention to prevent a public service from being DDoSed, so to speak.

Just like banning encryption isn't against social freedoms, but rather an intervention to prevent baddies from winning?

[javagram]

Because covid is 10-50x more deadly than the flu, it makes more sense to advocate for precautions against it.

Just got my flu shot this week, but even for the young and healthy covid is more dangerous than the flu, except possibly in young children ages 0-12.