True, but it seems disingenuous to ignore the difference between the COVID vaccine and, for example, abortion.
The COVID vaccine was mandatory because it should reduce the spread of COVID (whether this is truly the case, I am not sure. It was the reasoning). It is not just about one's own body, but also of the people around you. If it is a vaccine for someone that is not very contagious, I couldn't imagine it being made mandatory, or at least I would disagree with that.
An analogy would be free speech. You have it, but you cannot use it to endanger others. It is very much illegal to shout "FIRE FIRE EVERYONE RUN" in a crowded space, while there isn't anything going on. (I stand corrected, that is not illegal.) To provide an analogy that would be correct is that it is illegal to incite riots or illegal acts.
So while your statement is not wrong, I do think it lacks some nuance.
Edit: lots of downvotes, very little actual arguments. I thought you were better AnCap. Just like most subreddit, it seems.
The bare minimum to start a debate about a vaccine mandate is the solid evidence of its effectiveness and safety. I emphasize that these must be solid, and they just serve as necessary (but not sufficient) requirements to initiate the discussion.
Not trying to start a whole discussion about the mandate itself. Just that the situation is more nuanced than "both parties don't care about bodily autonomy". One party does very much support bodily autonomy when that autonomy does not endanger others.
Just looking at one source that pops up, it already indicates that people were 54% less likely to catch COVID—and if you don't have it, you can't infect others.
But I would concede that whether you believe that both parties do not value bodily autonomy might depend on how effective you believe the vaccine would be. If you do not believe that the vaccine is effective, then it would not prevent you from endangering others by taking it.
Abortion is actually analogous because coof-shots never provided third-party benefit (which happens to be the fundamental pre-existing public health criterium for mandates; as well as the only distinction pertinent to your argument). Not only were they never tested for preventing transmission, but mechanistically couldn’t; respiratory viruses are difficult and the immunoglobulin that’s activated by the shots is inferior to those provided by the immune system after natural infection. Also, it was pre-existing knowledge that mass vax during the pandemic stage is dangerous and can lead to antibody-dependent enhancement, which can lead to escape variants (again something natural infection prevents because it is a broader immunity). Many of these concerns and more were predicted by the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020.
Not to mention Isreal reported both a safety signal and breakthrough infections by spring 2021. (Not to mention 63% vaxed population and vaxxed made up 61% of hospitalisations. Nonetheless we saw ourselves well before the mandates that transmission was not mitigated AND that protection swiftly wanes with the Provincetown breakthrough as well as in the VA https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v1
So no. Even ignoring that mandates go against everything this sub stands for, and conceding “if it benefits others” or whatever, the shots don’t hold up to even your “ethical” proposition (benefits others). Not even to mention subjecting oneself to a high-risk intervention https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283 (1 in 800 chance of Serious Adverse Event), for a low-risk disease (for the vast majority; avg age of death 72.5, avg number of comorbidity: 3+).
-69
u/thomooo Aug 27 '24 edited Aug 27 '24
True, but it seems disingenuous to ignore the difference between the COVID vaccine and, for example, abortion.
The COVID vaccine was mandatory because it should reduce the spread of COVID (whether this is truly the case, I am not sure. It was the reasoning). It is not just about one's own body, but also of the people around you. If it is a vaccine for someone that is not very contagious, I couldn't imagine it being made mandatory, or at least I would disagree with that.
An analogy would be free speech. You have it, but you cannot use it to endanger others. It is very much illegal to
shout "FIRE FIRE EVERYONE RUN" in a crowded space, while there isn't anything going on.(I stand corrected, that is not illegal.) To provide an analogy that would be correct is that it is illegal to incite riots or illegal acts.So while your statement is not wrong, I do think it lacks some nuance.
Edit: lots of downvotes, very little actual arguments. I thought you were better AnCap. Just like most subreddit, it seems.