I don't support those protests as they're run mostly by antivaxxers and anti-regulation groups.
But, there can be good and very bad legislation with the same general goal. Imagine Marine Le Pen, Orban, or Erdogan mandating or issuing passports on anything. In Europe there are already enough parties you don't want to have such power.
So, imo, first, there must be a clear understanding how far the lawmaker can go. Then, there should be a clear framework centered around the drug approval process, rather than the political process, with explicit and conditioned norms who can and cannot be mandated (a comprehensive system for exceptions is just as important as the design of the mandate). After all, such encroachment on personal rights can't be regulated merely by one's good intentions.
What are you arguing against? You do realize there’s no passport being made here, right? It’s literally just requiring a vaccine in order to use public services which already happens with schools.
I don’t think that’s how that works, but I’d have to look into it. We have all the answers because this has been a thing for decades.
EDIT: It’s hard to sort through all the COVID vaccine exemption bullshit, but it looks like you still pay taxes for the school system even if your child can’t go there, since it’s based on where you live.
I'm not against the vaccine, i'm vaccinated myself, but i'm against how much the governments wants to force us to do something like this, this is only one thing, what would the next thing be.
But again, it’s been this way for decades and nobody has said anything against it. It’s part of participating in society. You can’t kill people, by fist or by blade, by breath or by sneeze. If you’re choosing to risk lives, you don’t get to participate in society.
Some are recommended, some are required, some are specific situations. 2006 is the oldest I could find, but I don’t know French so it’s probably easier for someone who does to find a better one.
That's a bit scary, luckily we're having the freedom in my country to decide for ourself, and at the same time we're probably doing better than most other countries.
I obviously agree with the concept that you shouldn't be allowed to intentionally harm others in a society (ie murder, assault, etc), but it seems rather arbitrary as to where we draw the line. Covid is not a "sure thing" in the sense that trying to murder someone requires a certain level of intent and execution. Virus transmission does not (at least in this context). It isn't certain that you have/will pass Covid, and it isn't certain that if you did someone will be seriously harmed. I don't see a logical or moral consistency with the argument that not being vaccinated is tantamount to a societal crime, but in California for instance it is no longer a felony to knowingly infect someone with HIV, a virus that has a much higher certainty of serious, life changing/ending implications. Why are we selectively and unequally advocating for this?
Nothing has a 100% chance of death, especially with modern medicine. People survive gunshot wounds, car crashes, stabbings, poisons, etc. all the time. If your argument is that there has to be a certain likelihood of harm, then there's no winning against you because you can just keep changing it.
Personally, I would stick to the "your rights end where mine begin" mindset and say that if you are intentionally trying to hurt someone, regardless of how likely, you don't have that right. Knowingly infecting someone with HIV is still illegal, just not a felony. Knowingly infecting someone with COVID should also be illegal. If you decide you want to ignore rules because you feel like it, you should be separated from society because you obviously have no sense of morals whatsoever.
Lastly, why the fuck are you replying to a 16 day old comment?
Generally our laws are structured around the concept that the punishment should fit the crime. More serious crimes result in more serious punishment. That obviously isn't true across the board, but I think that's the generally accepted intent. Would you rather have Covid, a disease in which you have a 99% chance of full recovery, or HIV, a disease that up until very recently had nearly a 100% death rate, and years of complications? For me it's a no-brainer. With that in mind, I think the "punishment" for Covid should be orders of magnitude less harsh than that for HIV transmission. In practice, preventing someone from travel, work, public access, etc is significantly more harsh than a simple misdemeanor.
My point in all this is not to necessarily equate covid to HIV, but to make the point that the fervor towards covid and covid restrictions don't track with our own previously established metrics on how to handle other public health situations. It feels like an authoritarian overreach.
But seatbelt and drunk driving laws are from the government. You know why? Because it saves lives.
Kinda like vaccines do.
Sometimes the population is too dumb to do the thing that is safest for everyone. So the government has to step in lest 616k more Americans die from covid. It's not like they're pushing for mandating we all...go vegan. It's a matter of public health and safety.
It is not the same, but even if you see it that way, it's an extension of that control. Such power won't be used only when it is right, at very least it is a new direction the legislative process can evolve in, and even now you have to ensure that special cases aren't ignored as an insignificant statistic.
There is always a crisis that needs to be solved and the suggested approach is coincidentally without any other alternatives and no need for a review.
127
u/EmperorGeek Aug 07 '21
In the United States. There is a whole list of Vaccinations that are REQUIRED for school attendance.