Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

long term effects.. like what?

like anything nearly as serious as the known long term effects of COVID?

I was watching local news this morning and they were interviewing a lady who was not yet vaccinated, and she said although she had no medical reason not to get vaccinated, she just was unsure about getting the vaccine.

She was wearing a mask, and said she was very concerned about the risks associated with the virus, and stated that she thought we should all just wear masks to help slow the spread.

So... I guess there's also that group of people.

Nah, you don't get it.

It's like in The Office where Michael Scott thinks you can get out of anything just by saying "I declare bankruptcy!"

All you have to say is that you're worried about nebulous long term effects that are not defined and you don't sound like an anti-vaxxer, you sound like you're just hesitant. When pressed about the long term effects, you don't have to define them because it hasn't been long-term yet--we don't know what they'll be!

Sarcastic superiority is not befitting of you.  It’s not your thing.  

I feel people have the right to make the decision

I just wish they were educated and informed before making the decision

I'm not the smartest guy.  I certainly don't think I'm superior to others.

I may feel I'm using superior logic to some.

making a decision based on, just because or because of my political stance, isn't something to be proud of.  IMO

What about those people who are educated. Extremely well educated and extremely well informed and are deciding not to take the vaccine because they feel they are young and healthy and their odds of having any serious complications are close to nothing. Are they just wrong or have they use the same fax as you and I to come to a different decision?

Why are you assuming that everybody that does not get the vaccination is not educated or misinformed?

Thank you for proving my point CW. 

anti vaxxers are generally thought to be those idiots that try to downplay or misinform about the vaccine.  The people I am talking about don’t do that. They just decided that they are healthy and will take their chance given the extremely low odds of serious health risks.

your legal comment is off topic.  It is NOT required by law.

Lastly, where is Fro man. He would be sooooo happy that you and bert are agreeing with him.
his premise and others in this thread is clearly one of assumed superiority. 

Either you agree with me “ or you an idiot”.

Look- either you believe people have a right to make that decision or you don’t.  There is not a right answer. But if you assume you have the right to make that decision for them because you are- by definition - smarter- you need to check your ego.

HB:

Why does Covid vaccination not follow the same logic as smallpox vaccinations and polio vaccinations did?  For 99% of the people who refuse to get vaccinated, it's politics.  They're on the side where they demonstrate fealty to their political leader by not getting vaccinated and not wearing masks, while demanding that the economy be fully opened up.

IMO, there are public health considerations that supersede an individual "right" to not be vaccinated.  That's just my opinion about morality of anti-vaxxing.

Legally, I say again, there is no constitutional right not to be vaccinated.  If there's no law mandating vaccination, then obviously, the anti-vaxxer can give the middle finger to everyone else in society and refuse to get vaccinated.  But if/when that law comes down, then anti-vaxxers can't hide behind their "rights."

Re your rhetoric below:

Look- either you believe people have a right to make that decision or you don’t.  There is not a right answer. But if you assume you have the right to make that decision for them because you are- by definition - smarter- you need to check your ego.

I do not assume that I personally have the right to make anybody's decision for them.  I do believe that the government--which we collectively control through our votes--can abridge certain rights during emergencies, and I suspect that you would to if Covid-19 weren't the issue.  There are many examples of government abridgements of "rights" during emergencies.  Burn bans during droughts.  Curfews during riots.  Quarantines during pandemics.  Speech limitations during wars.  Do you see those as being fundamentally different from the current situation with Covid?  If so, please explain why.

You implicitly expecting that I should never agree with anything OAM says is an example of the politicization of this issue.  He's left-of-center, therefore I am supposed to disagree with everything he posts.  That's wrong.  I don't check to see what you have posted, or what betarho has posted, or what Afro has posted, or what Utee has posted, and trim my argument accordingly.  I just post what I think is right in response to what I think is wrong.

There is a significant public health advantage in getting vaccinations widely spread.  It's not that it would mean a disease can't spread at all, but it would significantly limit the spread.  R naught etc.

The reason to get a flu vaccine is only somewhat to prevent you from getting the flu, the odds a flu vaccine keeps you from contracting the flu in a single year are very slight, in part because you don't get the flu in most years anyway.  But these things spread exponentially, it's pretty easy to model how even a somewhat effective vaccine limits spread in the public even if it doesn't help the individual.