> you might be opposed to this policy if: { 1...2...3 }
You listed three reasons that people might be opposed to the vaccine itself, not merely the policy. None of these are applicable to my particular group, of which there are many:
4. You are pro-vaccine and anti-covid, but strictly opposed to insane and tyrannical government overreach by the very same people who literally murdered tens of thousands of elderly nursing home patients in 2020 by intentionally exposing them to COVID patients.
It's strange you didn't even consider this option, as if meek, bootlicking obedience to authority - specifically, authority that has already demonstrated that they don't care at all about preventing COVID deaths - is to you as water is to a fish.
> take your chances with coronavirus, which you will get sooner or later, and spread it.
This is patently ridiculous. I am fully vaccinated, but the research is clear - I can carry an infection just as effectively in my nasal cavity as my antivax cousin. Showing my card at the door does PRECISELY NOTHING to prevent spread. The Times, no friend to the antivax crew, grudgingly admitted this a few days ago:
It's quite obvious at this point, that vaccination protects ME, and ME alone. Pretending that vaccination status confers magical sainthood and capital-P Purity amongst its devotees is old hat.
And enacting actual unconstitutional policy predicated on old science is even worse.
I'm still waiting, after a year and a half, for any governments, anywhere, to mandate the ONLY thing that the science is VERY CLEAR will ACTUALLY dramatically reduce COVID fatalities among everyone under 70: mandatory weight loss for the obese.
But something tells me you won't advocate for THAT particular policy position, will you?
This emotionally charged language isn't helpful to a rational discussion. I think your comment would be stronger without it.
> I am fully vaccinated, but the research is clear - I can carry an infection just as effectively in my nasal cavity as my antivax cousin. Showing my card at the door does PRECISELY NOTHING to prevent spread.
I'm pretty sure this is untrue, but not positive. The communication has been very confusing. As I understand it, you can get a high viral load, but it declines much more rapidly in vaccinated people.
> mandatory weight loss for the obese.
This would obviously be far far more invasive than getting two shots. Why support this form of government tyranny, in your words, rather than another?
> This would obviously be far far more invasive than getting two shots.
This is not prima facie evident, at all. For many people, being rationed to 1500kcal per day would be much less invasive than a foreign substance being forcibly injected into your body. Annoying and restrictive, yes, but definitely not invasive.
Further, if we accept the premise (I don't) that governments can mandate any and all measures to ensure public health, why not measures that we know for a fact WILL result in improvements? The effects of COVID on the obese are absolutely DEVASTATING compared to normal weight people. Calorie rationing would have definitely saved lives, just assuredly as if the silly mask mandates around the country specified actually effective masking with N95-P100 filtration instead of accepting virtually useless cloth as good enough.
But that's not what we do, is it? We have the worst of both worlds: we have (1) governments violating our rights in the name of public health with mandates that (2) are pure, useless, ineffective theater.
We shouldn't be mandating anything at the cost of freedom, but if we DO, we should at least make it count with mandates that WORK.
> For many people, being rationed to 1500kcal per day would be much less invasive than a foreign substance being forcibly injected into your body. Annoying and restrictive, yes, but definitely not invasive.
I'm sorry, but the government telling you how much food you're allowed to eat, 3 times a day, essentially for your entire life is so obviously more restrictive than a vaccine mandate. Have you ever actually counted calories, or eaten 1500 a day for months or more on end? I've done both, and it's incredibly disruptive. In studies, people are not very successful at complying with calorie restrictions. How does the government enforce this?
I could understand an argument that both are too invasive (though I'd disagree), but not that controlling what people eat is less invasive. The vaccine is safe, has been studied, costs you nothing financially and very little in time. It does not cause you to upend your entire lifestyle for something you do every single day for as long as you're alive.
> We have the worst of both worlds: we have (1) governments violating our rights in the name of public health with mandates that (2) are pure, useless, ineffective theater.
Is this referring to mask mandates? It looks like masks are reasonably well supported by evidence:
You listed three reasons that people might be opposed to the vaccine itself, not merely the policy. None of these are applicable to my particular group, of which there are many:
4. You are pro-vaccine and anti-covid, but strictly opposed to insane and tyrannical government overreach by the very same people who literally murdered tens of thousands of elderly nursing home patients in 2020 by intentionally exposing them to COVID patients.
It's strange you didn't even consider this option, as if meek, bootlicking obedience to authority - specifically, authority that has already demonstrated that they don't care at all about preventing COVID deaths - is to you as water is to a fish.
> take your chances with coronavirus, which you will get sooner or later, and spread it.
This is patently ridiculous. I am fully vaccinated, but the research is clear - I can carry an infection just as effectively in my nasal cavity as my antivax cousin. Showing my card at the door does PRECISELY NOTHING to prevent spread. The Times, no friend to the antivax crew, grudgingly admitted this a few days ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/29/health/cdc-masks-vaccinat...
It's quite obvious at this point, that vaccination protects ME, and ME alone. Pretending that vaccination status confers magical sainthood and capital-P Purity amongst its devotees is old hat.
And enacting actual unconstitutional policy predicated on old science is even worse.
I'm still waiting, after a year and a half, for any governments, anywhere, to mandate the ONLY thing that the science is VERY CLEAR will ACTUALLY dramatically reduce COVID fatalities among everyone under 70: mandatory weight loss for the obese.
But something tells me you won't advocate for THAT particular policy position, will you?