As someone who is against mandating the vaccine I think one point that is often missed in these discussions about "these people made their choice and now they reap the consequences" is that the risk of continuing and often more potent mutations of the virus increases in large part because of the population that opts not to vaccinate. Or in populations that for whatever reason cannot (yet) get vaccinated. The more potent mutations could eventually jump the vaccine and then even those of us who are jabbed could be fucked.
This exactly.
Just saying that anyone can get it who wants it is great. Wish for more vaccinations all you want*, but the reality is 40%+ of the US are unvaccinated. Are you just going to ignore or disregard them? Not provide them healthcare? Hospitals can still be overwhelmed with the Delta variant - and subsequent/potential others. How do you protect that 40% from themselves (collectively), or do you (royal) just not care?
*insert Bad Santa line here.
We're going to do what we always do when people do things that have (undue) risk. When those skiers jump out of helicopters and get caught in an avalanche, we go save them. When boaters get caught too far ashore in a storm they can't navigate, we go save them. When someone eats McDonald's and Diet Coke to the point they need a crane to get out of bed, we go help them. When people have unprotected sex and end up with an STD, we treat them.
Except those skiiers, boaters, McDonald's eaters, and bareback fuckers aren't creating 10s or potentially 100s of thousands of daily illnesses that continue to spread, many requiring hospitalization. Seems like a false equivalency. Actions and choices of undue risk are different from actions and choices that spread public un-health.
Everything I say is a false equivalency according to some. So be it. I tend to see the world as a more strategic place, whereas most people tend to see the world as a more tactical place. I've been dealing with this for going on 54 years now and I'm at peace with it. FOR ME, the false equivalency is and always has been in inserting YOUR judgement, in this case as to what is "undue".
Take that skier, and factor in the cost of saving that ONE person, and when you do that, make sure you add in all the training, all the equipment, all the readiness that goes into that ONE rescue that isn't a cat in a tree. Factor in the time drain from dedicating resources to that ONE rescue and what they could be accomplishing if they were allowed to spread their "touch" to the community at large.
Now contrast with the fact that there are ALREADY 10 or 100's of thousands of viruses out there that can make you seriously sick or kill you, and we're adding one more to the mix. If you're that worried about contracting an air-borne virus, you ought to be already. If that's the case, wear a mask; no one is stopping you, no one can tell you otherwise. THIS is the devil we know, so this is the devil we focus on. That doesn't make it the ONLY devil in our midst.
As for mutations,
despite the deplorable assholes that are dragging this country into the sewer because <GASP!> they don't vote like we do (I kid!, I kid!), we still have one of the better vaccination rates on the planet. I'm no virologist, but if the virus is going to mutate, I'm pretty sure its not going to say "well, let me stick it to those Trump-loving, "I will not consent" assholes living in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, how about that!". If you're going to play the odds, PLAY THE ODDS, not just the odds that fit the worldview or are confined to our little piece of geography. We've already done more than our share of improving our planet's chances of minimizing the potentiality of a mutation, and we're still very much exposed to the possibility of a mutation regardless of whether Eric, Jr. gets the shot. And if that mutation jumps the vaccine, it's going to jump the vaccine regardless.
I certainly do get the idea of doing everything we, individually, can do to help the population as a whole - and I've done it; I'm fully vaccinated, as is my entire immediate family other than my 13-year-old step son - but for me, some of this analysis and some of these concerns transcend that. And as much as some of us seem abhorred by the idea of a reinstitution of a mask/social distance environment, it's likely going to be the least restrictive means of addressing the public health issue (that's a requirement of law), since it can be applied regionally, and involves no invasion of personal privacy.
Topic: Coronavirus Thread v.2 (Read 195343 times)
