Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>>Those who are anti-vax for any preventable, deadly disease choose their individual freedom over their community's safety. Such is their right. In turn, it is the right of the community to protect itself against the risk these people introduce.

False. Vaccination protects you the individual from being infected, thus eliminating the risk the unvaccinated poses to you. Which in turn eliminates your ethical right to impose conditions upon them..

>>Anyone may drive their car without a seatbelt on your property, but if they wish to use public roads, they must sacrifice a little bit of individual freedom and wear one.

This is like wise a TERRIBLE argument, if you support individual liberty (which clearly you do not) then you would understand that my not wearing a seat belt poses no risk to your safety, as such you have no ethical right to impose such a mandate on me.

My insurance company may as part of a private contract I enter into them voluntary but not the government on behalf of "society"

Government is neither my parent nor my master.

In reality the Seat belt mandated was an example of regulatory capture by the insurance companies, it to protect insurance profits not public safety

>>The same goes for public schools, better referred to as the only school a poor person can afford to attend. Communities should be allowed

I take it then you are in favor of School Choice, where each parent is given a voucher for X dollars they can redeem at the school of their choice.

I bet your not..... (I am)




> False. Vaccination protects you the individual from being infected, thus eliminating the risk the unvaccinated poses to you.

False. Vaccinations reduce your ability to catch specific diseases and reduce the probability of enduring symptoms at full strength.

The risks the unvaccinated impose are not eliminated, and the unvaccinated in larger numbers will continue to impose a threat against the people that can't get vaccinated for medical reasons or are immunocompromised.


And you believe both of those are justifications for violating an persons Body Automomy, their human rights not to have medical treatments done to them with out their consent?

That seems to be a very Authoritarian respone, and one that has lead to very dark places through out human history, that is not a power I willing to give to any government

The corner stone of modern medicine is "informed Consent" the keyword there is Consent. You just want to toss away Consent because of (IMO) irrational fear.

The vaccination provides me with adequate protection, I do not need to impose a medical treatment on someone against their will, it is sad that others feel they need to.


I didn't say anything about withholding information or forcing anyone to do anything.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: