Why should I, a fully vaccinated person, care about the "freedoms" of anti-vaxxers?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I seriously don't get this. And before anyone says it no it's not comparable to segregation or discrimination against minority groups because it's a fully self-selected group. People who refuse to be vaccinated are in that entirely because of their own choice and that choice alone.

People complain about this like they have to me in other threads, but no one has given me a compelling reason why I should give a sh!t if unvaccinated people can go to events or locations without vaccine cards when I myself can no problem. Why should I care about their rights to do so? How do vaccine mandates and vax card checks have any negative effect on me?

[TheReckoning]

“Why should I, a Christian, care about the “freedoms” of non-Christians?

And before anyone says it, it's not comparable to segregation or discrimination against minority groups because it's a fully self-selected group. People who refuse to be Christians are in that entirely because of their own choice and that choice alone.

People complain about this like they have to me in other threads, but no one has given me a compelling reason why I should give a sh!t if non-Christians can go to events or locations without proof of baptism when I myself can no problem. Why should I care about their rights to do so? How does Christian theocracy and baptismal certificate checks have any negative effect on me?”

Yes, I understand that these two things are not entirely equal, but if you accept freedom of religion to be a fundamental right, it’s not a huge stretch to say that refusing medical treatment is one, as well.

[Kingpoleon]

“Why should I, a Christian, care about the “freedoms” of non-Christians?

And before anyone says it, it's not comparable to segregation or discrimination against minority groups because it's a fully self-selected group. People who refuse to be Christians are in that entirely because of their own choice and that choice alone.

People complain about this like they have to me in other threads, but no one has given me a compelling reason why I should give a sh!t if non-Christians can go to events or locations without proof of baptism when I myself can no problem. Why should I care about their rights to do so? How does Christian theocracy and baptismal certificate checks have any negative effect on me?”

Yes, I understand that these two things are not entirely equal, but if you accept freedom of religion to be a fundamental right, it’s not a huge stretch to say that refusing medical treatment is one, as well.

Only a conservative movement influenced by libertine “thought” could seriously convince itself that 30%+ of the population being unvaccinated against a disease which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives is unimportant. Do you really not grasp just how dangerous a mutation could be, or the fact that the more unvaccinated people there are, the more likely a dangerous mutation is?

[TPIG]

“Why should I, a Christian, care about the “freedoms” of non-Christians?

And before anyone says it, it's not comparable to segregation or discrimination against minority groups because it's a fully self-selected group. People who refuse to be Christians are in that entirely because of their own choice and that choice alone.

People complain about this like they have to me in other threads, but no one has given me a compelling reason why I should give a sh!t if non-Christians can go to events or locations without proof of baptism when I myself can no problem. Why should I care about their rights to do so? How does Christian theocracy and baptismal certificate checks have any negative effect on me?”

Yes, I understand that these two things are not entirely equal, but if you accept freedom of religion to be a fundamental right, it’s not a huge stretch to say that refusing medical treatment is one, as well.

Only a conservative movement influenced by libertine “thought” could seriously convince itself that 30%+ of the population being unvaccinated against a disease which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives is unimportant. Do you really not grasp just how dangerous a mutation could be, or the fact that the more unvaccinated people there are, the more likely a dangerous mutation is?

This argument would hold more weight if the vaccines were a long-term inhibitor of transmission. The vaccines have been shown, after a number of months, to not be nearly as effective at preventing transmission (especially of the Delta variant) as initially thought. I'm 100% pro-COVID vaccine and don't even have an issue with state-level/private-sector mandates, but the argument that universal vaccination, at this point, would stop potential mutations doesn't seem to be the case.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

"The latest study examined the effect of vaccines on transmission more directly. It analysed testing data from 139,164 close contacts of 95,716 people infected with SARS-CoV-2 between January and August 2021 in the United Kingdom, when the Alpha and Delta variants were competing for dominance.

The authors found that although the vaccines did offer some protection against infection and onward transmission, Delta dampened that effect. A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha. And that was on top of the higher risk of having a breakthrough infection caused by Delta than one caused by Alpha.

Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus."

[Kingpoleon]

This argument would hold more weight if the vaccines were a long-term inhibitor of transmission. The vaccines have been shown, after a number of months, to not be nearly as effective at preventing transmission (especially of the Delta variant) as initially thought. I'm 100% pro-COVID vaccine and don't even have an issue with state-level/private-sector mandates, but the argument that universal vaccination, at this point, would stop potential mutations doesn't seem to be the case.

I want you to think about this argument you just made. Since the Delta mutation has lowered the effectiveness of preventing future mutations, further vaccination will… not lower the rate of more mutation?

[TPIG]

This argument would hold more weight if the vaccines were a long-term inhibitor of transmission. The vaccines have been shown, after a number of months, to not be nearly as effective at preventing transmission (especially of the Delta variant) as initially thought. I'm 100% pro-COVID vaccine and don't even have an issue with state-level/private-sector mandates, but the argument that universal vaccination, at this point, would stop potential mutations doesn't seem to be the case.

I want you to think about this argument you just made. Since the Delta mutation has lowered the effectiveness of preventing future mutations, further vaccination will… not lower the rate of more mutation?

Continued transmission of the virus is what creates the environment that allows for future variants to develop. The study mentioned highlights the fact that vaccinations, over time, are not effective in preventing transmission (and thus future variants). The vaccines are incredibly effective at reducing the seriousness of symptoms, not at reducing transmission over the long term.

[President Johnson]

BRTD, I get your frustration and share it. However, you also need to remember that too many unvaccinated getting infected and sick at the same time inevitably leads to the collapse of the healthcare system. No matter how strong that system is. Medical personell and nurses already work overtime and don't get paid the way they should. Let alone the unvaccinated are taking ressources in hospitals other patients urgently need. Unfortunately, heart attacks, strokes, cancer and traffic accidents don't pause because there's a global pandemic.

Unfortunately, you're going to see what happens in the next few weeks in Germany, where a third isn't vaccinated and infections are going through the roof. Hospitals in Saxony are already overloaded.

That said, I'm strongly in favor of restrictions for unvaccinated only, and personally would welcome a general vaccine mandate.

[Middle-aged Europe]

For the past two weeks or so I had increasingly attempted to respond to e-mails from anti-vaxxers and argue with them at work. It probably contributed to what was diagnosed as a moderate depressive episode on Thursday.

In that two-week span there was only a single person who said afterwords that he would, despite his reservations, at least consider getting vaxxed now. The rest responded with a mix of denial, conspiracy theories, and flatout bullsh**t, leading to frustration, anger, and a feeling of hopelessness in me.

As a form of self-protection I will therefore discontinue responding to them. And as the alternative course of action I also came around supporting a general vaccination mandate like in Austria now.