We could do that for smoking too, but since smoking is a choice, we let people smoke and die. Why not do the same with the vaccines? As with smoking, the unvaccinated are taking all the risks.
Except that the resources that are going to care for the unvaccinated might block someone who is vaccinated from needed medical care. It also increases the amount of exposure someone who IS vaccinated needs to contend with, and as is mentioned over and over again, vaccines are imperfect. A colleague of mine has an elderly father who is vaccinated and in the ICU with Covid. The odds are much higher that he was infected by an unvaccinated person.
Also smoking is a terrible example - we tax cigarettes highly to discourage smoking because it’s a drag on our medical system. We ban the act of smoking in a wide variety of locations because it has an impact on other peoples health. Some buildings even disallow people to smoke in their private homes, and some cities disallow smoking in offices. We put restrictions on almost every aspect of smoking because it doesn’t only affect the smoker.
Surely you can‘t be comparing administering a vaccine (which has much fewer adverse effects than the disease of which it prevents severe outcomes) to euthanasia?
Aside from the absurdity of comparing recommended vaccination as a responsible social welfare act to the murder of children, the comparison isn’t even apt. My point was about short-term and critical healthcare resources, and the eugenics argument was about long term waste of societal resources. If anything, the smoking comparison is a little more apt because smokers ARE long term drains on societal resources. But still no one is arguing about killing smokers.
It has been happening for smoking, at least in some places. Speaking from experience in the US:
Smoking sections in restaurants have all but disappeared, taxes have increased on cigarettes dramatically, warning labels have been placed on boxes/cartons, and so on.
The process has been to try and remove second-hand smoke from those areas where it might affect non-smokers. Traveling abroad to China and Hong Kong a couple years ago it was almost unbearable dealing with people smoking everywhere.
Similar to how as a non-smoker my health risk is non-negligible being exposed to second-hand smoke, so too is my health at risk by unvaccinated individuals running around with higher viral loads increasing the chance and rate of breakthrough infections, and also increased risk of future mutations that could potentially bring about another pandemic.
Very clearly with smoking we've been moving towards a system where you can make whatever health choices you want as long as you aren't impacting the health of others - why should it be any different for vaccines of any kind?
<<Very clearly with smoking we've been moving towards a system where you can make whatever health choices you want as long as you aren't impacting the health of others - why should it be any different for vaccines of any kind?
I think we have long established that just me existing is not something people are willing to tolerate. Hell, just my presence impacts the life of others; sometimes even in a negative way. There is even a system to deal with issues like that. It is called civil law.
But why do we stop at smoking? Why aren't we going after farts and methane. After all, did you know that methane gas poisoning can cause death? Surely, if we researched it a little more, we would maybe find out that it causes cancer of something.
In Louisiana we don't let people smoke in lots of places.
No smoking in schools, no smoking in restaurants, no smoking in workplaces, no smoking in public buildings.
Is that not similar to Germany disallowing unvaccinated (and not naturally immune) from non-essential indoor shopping/leisure activities? Or requiring testing for employees who are not vaccinated/naturally immune?
Aside from the dangers of secondhand smoke (which we have laws to limit the impact of), you can't "catch" smoking from someone else. Unless they force-feed you cigarettes until you get addicted, anyway.
I guess the main difference is that covid patients can clog UIT very quickly and there isn't a lot that can be done beforehand. Smokers come in a more predictable and easier to manage way.
This is only true, because we've built enough rooms and trained and hired enough teams of people to take care of fat people. In my country, nurses are still paid more working as store clerks than in hospitals, so yeah...
And if many countries can mandate curfews, lockdowns, mandatory quarantenes etc., why not ban sugary foods, sugary drinks, fast food, etc.?
I mean.. I'm against any sort of bans, but generally, more people die from being fat than from covid itself.... if every life matters, why no theirs?
My best guess is that the power law governing covid epidemics growth poses a greater threat (in terms of costs and casualties) than slow evolving obesity crisis.
I guess we are pretty lucky that we don’t all have heart attacks simultaneously or it could be a real drag on the hospitals. But yes, the risks and concerns are absolutely equal between those two scenarios.
That's because you apparently can't read. The only thing I said was that treating sick people is why we have the healthcare system. If you think treating COVID patients is too much just triage differently and lower the priority, treat more important things instead. Don't force me to get a medical procedure against my will for the sake of the government healthcare infrastructure.
I can read words, but not minds. You asked a rhethorical question that didn't illustrate your position in the slightest. If you wanted to say "let people with COVID die on the streets so I can remain unvaccinated" then please just say that.
