All things Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

[Altair]

The point I'm trying to make is, I'm supportive of a person's freedom to choose whether or not they receive a vaccine. I'm equally supportive of governments', employers', and society at large's freedom to do what is necessary to protect people, whether that is restricting services, changing employment status, etc.

A person can choose to not get vaccinated, but that person will experience personal consequences as governments, employers, society protect the healthcare system, workforce, general population.

Funny, I thought that's what vaccines were for.

 

[Mick]

Funny, I thought that's what vaccines were for.

At least a significant majority of Canadians are being sensible.

Like I said, those who refuse to be vaccinated can expect consequences, while the rest of us get on with it.

 

[Loachman]

A person can choose to not get vaccinated, but that person will experience personal consequences as governments, employers, society protect the healthcare system, workforce, general population.

So you favour forcing/coercing people to undergo medical procedures - and a still-experimental one, in this particular case - against their will.

Roger.

Where else has that sort of thing occurred in the past, or is occurring now?

What else should people be forced or pressured/strong-armed into doing?

I spent the first sixteen years training and preparing to defend against one of those regimes, had a few personal glimpses of parts of it, and viewed a small piece of its aftermath after it finally fell.

I also know/have known/have had lengthy conversations with people who lived in those sorts of places.

No, thank-you. I have more than enough understanding of how that crap works and I want no part of it. Nobody else would, either, if they had any real idea about what their lives would become.

 

[mariomike]

As of Monday, August 2, all New York City and Hospital staff must show proof of a Covid 19 vaccine, or a weekly negative Covid 19 test.

 

[Altair]

At least a significant majority of Canadians are being sensible.

Like I said, those who refuse to be vaccinated can expect consequences, while the rest of us get on with it.

Uh...huh.

So I guess anyone with a kid under 12 can no longer go out in public as well?

 

[Mick]

So you favour forcing/coercing people to undergo medical procedures - and a still-experimental one, in this particular case - against their will.

Roger.

Where else has that sort of thing occurred in the past, or is occurring now?

What else should people be forced or pressured/strong-armed into doing?

I spent the first sixteen years training and preparing to defend against one of those regimes, had a few personal glimpses of parts of it, and viewed a small piece of its aftermath after it finally fell.

I also know/have known/have had lengthy conversations with people who lived in those sorts of places.

No, thank-you. I have more than enough understanding of how that crap works and I want no part of it. Nobody else would, either, if they had any real idea about what their lives would become.

Did I say that?

Or did I say "freedom to choose"?

 

[Loachman]

Or did I say "freedom to choose"?

You also said:

I'm equally supportive of governments', employers', and society at large's freedom to do what is necessary to protect people, whether that is restricting services, changing employment status, etc.

Or, in other words, "choose what we tell you to do or suffer consequences".

Some freedom.

Some choice.

 

[Mick]

Uh...huh.

So I guess anyone with a kid under 12 can no longer go out in public as well?

Glad we're staying rational here.

Who said anything about being banished from public life, let alone communism?

But ... those who are unvaccinated may have to contend with more difficulty travelling internationally, quarantine upon arrival etc.

Are YOU in favour of mandating vaccines? I'm not. I'm in favour of a person's freedom to choose. But choices have consequences.

 

[Mick]

You also said:



Or, in other words, "choose what we tell you to do or suffer consequences".

Some freedom.

Some choice.

Part of being in a society. We live this every day.

edit to add:

Society has norms - those who decide to live outside those norms can expect consequences of varying degree.

 

[Loachman]

Forced medical procedures are not part of being in any free society.

 

[Mick]

Forced medical procedures are not part of being in any free society.

Neat. I agree. Again, no one is being forced now, and I'm not advocating such measures. At all.

I am saying that you have a choice, and with that choice comes consequences, such as inconveniences at the border etc.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A person can choose [x], but that person will experience personal consequences as governments, employers, society protect the healthcare system, workforce, general population.

Substitute anything deemed undesirable or bad for "[x]". A guiding principle without limits.

 

[Altair]

Glad we're staying rational here.

Who said anything about being banished from public life, let alone communism?

But ... those who are unvaccinated may have to contend with more difficulty travelling internationally, quarantine upon arrival etc.

Are YOU in favour of mandating vaccines? I'm not. I'm in favour of a person's freedom to choose. But choices have consequences.

You may need to better explain what you mean by

A person can choose to not get vaccinated, but that person will experience personal consequences as governments, employers, society protect the healthcare system, workforce, general population.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

At least a significant majority of Canadians are being sensible.

Like I said, those who refuse to be vaccinated can expect consequences, while the rest of us get on with it.

Part of being in a society. We live this every day.

edit to add:

Society has norms - those who decide to live outside those norms can expect consequences of varying degree.

In a broad sense, that's blackmail and coercion. You also need to define sensible. Sensible to you? Or sensible to them, their rights and control of their own bodies?
Societal norms? There has been no such thing in the last two years.
Besides, if they are part of your solution, they'll have been vaccinated. Why are you worried about it? Unvaccinated people pose no risk to you, right?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Society has norms - those who decide to live outside those norms can expect consequences of varying degree.

Bullshit. If some characteristic of gender, culture, sexuality, ancestry, etc were attached to the overwhelming majority of people affected by this virus it would be taboo to even think about discriminating against them in any way.

Step back in time 35 years and explain what consequences people with HIV should face.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Bullshit. If some characteristic of gender, culture, sexuality, ancestry, etc were attached to the overwhelming majority of people affected by this virus it would be taboo to even think about discriminating against them in any way.

Step back in time 35 years and explain what consequences people with HIV should face.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Again, bullshit. At the time, people were discussing which limitations might be imposed to arrest the spread. And at the time, people pointed out the obvious discrimination against civil liberties aimed at gay men.

 

[Mick]

You may need to better explain what you mean by

A person can choose to not get vaccinated, but that person will experience personal consequences as governments, employers, society protect the healthcare system, workforce, general population.

I'm wondering where all the classic liberals, personal choice and freedoms people have gone.

This nanny state nonsense made sense while we were not vaccinated, but now that we are, we should just be given the choice to decide what risks we want to accept as individuals.

I am arguing some of those risks include hassles at the border (i.e. quarantine until negative test). Or, employers mandating masks or working from home, or otherwise altering working environments.

There will always be a discussion about balancing the individual rights vs social responsibility.

That's all I'm attempting to express. Perhaps clumsily.

 

[ModlrMike]

Isn't the whole point of a society a collection of people who work together for the common good?

Is it reasonable that some members of the group do not work towards the common good, yet reap the rewards? Shouldn't action, or inaction have consequences? /rhetorical questions

 

[Mick]

In a broad sense, that's blackmail and coercion. You also need to define sensible. Sensible to you? Or sensible to them, their rights and control of their own bodies?
Societal norms? There has been no such thing in the last two years.
Besides, if they are part of your solution, they'll have been vaccinated. Why are you worried about it? Unvaccinated people pose no risk to you, right?

Okay, then let's use the societal norms of the last10 years.

This probably won't satisfy your question, but perhaps "sensible" is broadly defined by the governments we elect, and the experts they rely on?

I'm not "worried" about anyone's vaccination status, I am simply stating that those who choose not be be vaccinated must do so with an understanding of the consequences of that decision. As more Canadians become fully vaccinated, perhaps these consequences will diminish.

People are free to choose. I want it to stay that way.