I donât think thatâs how that works, but Iâd have to look into it. We have all the answers because this has been a thing for decades.
EDIT: Itâs 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 canât go there, since itâs 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, itâs been this way for decades and nobody has said anything against it. Itâs part of participating in society. You canât kill people, by fist or by blade, by breath or by sneeze. If youâre choosing to risk lives, you donât get to participate in society.
Some are recommended, some are required, some are specific situations. 2006 is the oldest I could find, but I donât know French so itâs 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.
If youâre scared of modern medicine I feel bad for you, and I really hope your country realizes they shouldnât allow you to enjoy the safety of modern medicine if you wonât participate in it.
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.
Basic arithmetic proves you wrong, but you donât care about that. You could very easily go to google, cdc, nhs, literally anyone, and do some basic division (deaths/cases) and see that before vaccines it was around 97.7%, and now itâs about 98.5%. So yeah, itâs just a bullshit right-wing lie that you keep peddling.
You do things every day that have at least a .5% chance of death. The fact that you would dismiss me and my points out of hand because of a .5% difference in the numbers we're citing is absurd and dishonest, but I guess it's much easier to call someone a shil and blow them off than actually take the time to refute their points.
Looks like everyone below 50 has a 99.6% survival rate according to the CDC. What happened to me being so "wildly off that you couldn't bear to converse with someone so anti-science"?
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.
2
u/DramDemon Aug 08 '21 edited Aug 08 '21
I donât think thatâs how that works, but Iâd have to look into it. We have all the answers because this has been a thing for decades.
EDIT: Itâs 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 canât go there, since itâs based on where you live.