[lovich]

You have a pro choice right to not get injected. You don’t have a pro choice right to not get the vaccine, not get tested, and move about freely amongst others because you are now violating others bodily autonomy en masse by spreading disease.

If you aren’t fine with someone walking around firing a gun randomly in the air because the bullets “might” land on someone then I don’t see how you can be fine with someone walking around during a pandemic with no sorts of proof that they aren’t spreading the disease at a high rate.

Both behaviors are a not guaranteed to cause harm, but the likelyhood has risen high enough to warrant preventative measures

[TrispusAttucks]

I was under the mistaken belief that vaccinated people could still spread the virus. Thanks for the correction. Which begs the question. Who are we protecting? That group has chose to not be protected. The argument is circular.

Disclaimer: I support vaccination. I do not support authoritarian mandates in this case.

[lovich]

Vaccinated people can still spread the virus _if they have a breakthrough infection_.

Since they have a radically lower incident of infection compared to the non vaccinated, the rate of transfer of Covid for the two groups is in no way equivalent.

Thanks for the opportunity to correct your misunderstanding.

Disclaimer: I do support people’s right’s to make decisions for themselves. I do not support people foisting their negative externalities on the rest of society under the guise that their actions have no side effects.

[TrispusAttucks]

Enjoying this exchange!

A "breakthrough infection" is still an infection, No? It seems that sophisticated semantics are being used in media to veil underlying weakness in the arguments and premises and move the goal post.

> That group has chose to not be protected.

The side effects of people choosing not to get vaccinated is that they will get sicker because they choose not to get vaccinated, Yes?

It is not my business if they self-risk getting sicker, or if they consume to much sugar, or don't exercise enough, or sky-dive.

Surely you can see how this narrative becomes a circular self contradictory "double bind" [1] that could go on forever. It's a very fascinating way to indirectly exert control [2].

[1] A double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more reciprocally conflicting messages. In some scenarios (e.g. within families or romantic relationships) this can be emotionally distressing, creating a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), such that the person responding will automatically be perceived as in the wrong, no matter how they response. This double bind prevents the person from either resolving the underlying dilemma or opting out of the situation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind)

[2] Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them difficult both to respond to and to resist. ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind)

[lovich]

Enjoying the exchange as well!

>A "breakthrough infection" is still an infection, No? It seems that sophisticated semantics are being used in media to veil underlying weakness in the arguments and premises and move the goal post.

What is the per capita rate of infection between the unvaccinated population and the vaccinated population? I feel like you may be unaware that the while the vaccinated and unvaccinated population spread Covid at the same rate when they are infected, you seem to not understand that the vaccinated population gets infected at a far lower rate than the unvaccinated population.

>The side effects of people choosing not to get vaccinated is that they will get sicker because they choose not to get vaccinated, Yes?

>It is not my business if they self-risk getting sicker, or if they consume to much sugar, or don't exercise enough, or sky-dive.

Ah, ok. Maybe we need to make sure we have a baseline understanding of reality.

Do you, or do you not believe in the concept of negative externalities? For example, if I walk into public and lay out a pile of radioactive waste do you believe that

A:This is not an acceptable action in society because it hurts others

B: It is acceptable because no one has been hurt yet and we cannot constrain someone's actions until they have damaged someone else in a provable manner

C:a third option I have not thought of, as I am open to new kinds of thinking.

[TrispusAttucks]

I do believe in negative externalities!

But! If choosing to prevent one negative externality causes another negative externality, well you're proper fucked now! Hence the "double bind".

Now in regards to your proposed question. Radioactive waste is a totally different issue. So that's a hard A!

Now if the question is:

If an unvaccinated person walks into a public space filled with other vaccinated and unvaccinated people all of which made their own personal choice based on their personal circumstances.

C.) Well that's just life right? Freedom is inherently risky. Life for that matter.