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.