Vaccines still allow for transmission. That there may be lower infection rates for Delta and Omicron - may - isn't part of that fact, unless I claim to present a big picture, which I clearly fucking didn't.
If the virus were 50% fatal that would be a *250x* increase in mortality rate for 18-44 yos... That's the difference between dying in a pedestrian accident, and dying by lightning strike.
Even if I conceded that in such a situation, extreme measures might trump human rights - which I don't, because human rights are inalienable - would mandating vaccines actually help? Would people not voluntarily take them, and have wildly increased social pressure to take them?
And once people were mandated into taking a vaccine, how often would it be boosted: every 6 months? Would Pfizer be allowed to keep their contracts secret, and allowed to prevent other countries from sharing vaccines or making their own? Even when other countries have abysmal vaccination rates?
At what point would the vaccination boosters stop? When 90% of the population has been through the virus? Or never, because a new variant could come along? What if they start raising the prices, and only the wealthy can stay alive?
And this is all assuming that in this alternate universe, the vaccines actually prevent transmission. Which ours don't.
Fun thought experiment; I suggest you think about it a bit more.
Let's see if we can nail it down. If we had a vaccine that perfectly prevented transmission, and the virus had a 50% mortality rate, would your proposed human right be flexible, or does it remain a societal suicide pact?
Is it possible for two human rights to be in conflict with each other?
That's not a Gish Gallop, those are all relevant points. If you choose not to see that, that's on you. Because there is a profit motive, and there are secret contracts, and there are profound inequalities in global distribution.
But sure, let's "nail it down" in this hypothetical fantasy, where vaccines perfectly stop transmission and the virus is orders of magnitude more lethal:
You still don't have a right to put Pfizer's goop into people who don't want it. Clear?
And, if the vaccination perfectly prevented transmission, then people who don't take it would only be hurting themselves. Your argument falls apart completely.
Except for people that can't get vaccinated, which while is a minority isn't a small amount. People have rights, unless those rights interfere with other people's rights. You don't have the right to be a walking bio weapon. I don't think you should be forced to be vaccinated, but I think society has a right to place restrictions on where you can go if you choose to remain infectious.
Re those who can't get vaccinated, once again: Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Do you get it?
... A walking Bioweapon?
Please, tell me - if you can - what the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) is, in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission or death.
If you can't tell me that, then you have no leg to stand on to accuse people of being "walking bioweapons" (jesus h christ). And once you find any of those 4 NNTVs, I think you'll be more than a little surprised, if you have any intellectual honesty at all
> the hypothetical was: "where vaccines perfectly stop transmission and the virus is orders of magnitude more lethal".
As I said: "if the vaccination perfectly prevented transmission, then people who don't take it would only be hurting themselves".
- The argument already caved in on itself. The logic fail was hilarious. And you're still arguing? Pfffft, feck off.
> way to move the goal post. Why is the requirement to stop a single case?
Because you called unvaccinated people "walking bioweapons", and I'd like you to try and quantify that for yourself. Don't you like knowing what you're talking about? The NNVT exists for that purpose.
Please don't come back at me with more poorly thought through accusations; at my limit for the day.
You seem to be letting your emotions rule and not following the thread you started.
Your point was: vaccines don’t prevent infections. Even if vaccines were hypothetically 100% effective at preventing infections then there is still no point in putting restrictions on the unvaccinated since those vaccinated would be perfectly protected.
My question was, given the above what about people that can’t get the vaccine for various reasons? We’ll have “walking bio weapons” that are dangerous to them.
Basically how far does individual freedom extend with you? Does it go so far as putting other people at risk?
If the virus were 50% fatal that would be a *250x* increase in mortality rate for 18-44 yos... That's the difference between dying in a pedestrian accident, and dying by lightning strike.
Even if I conceded that in such a situation, extreme measures might trump human rights - which I don't, because human rights are inalienable - would mandating vaccines actually help? Would people not voluntarily take them, and have wildly increased social pressure to take them?
And once people were mandated into taking a vaccine, how often would it be boosted: every 6 months? Would Pfizer be allowed to keep their contracts secret, and allowed to prevent other countries from sharing vaccines or making their own? Even when other countries have abysmal vaccination rates?
At what point would the vaccination boosters stop? When 90% of the population has been through the virus? Or never, because a new variant could come along? What if they start raising the prices, and only the wealthy can stay alive?
And this is all assuming that in this alternate universe, the vaccines actually prevent transmission. Which ours don't.
Fun thought experiment; I suggest you think about it a bit more.