The vaccine doesn't fully protect the receiver. In other words, they are still put in danger by the actions of unvaccinated people.
My point is that you have to be reasonable and draw a line somewhere between respecting people's liberties, and holding them responsible / preventing them from harming other people.
For instance, if someone wakes up with a sore throat and dry cough but does not postpone a visit to their grandparents in an old-folks home, shouldn't that person be held accountable for the danger they are putting other people in?
Not going to disagree here as that's the information I've heard as well. As someone who sees the situation from the outside however, let me tell you that you are the frog in the boiling pot. The goalpost of the claimed efficacy of the vaccine has moved almost to a point where they are barely acceptable. Again, you are the frog in the pot so it's seems okay because it was only yesterday that you were told the vaccine
> holding them responsible / preventing them from harming other people.
But you also have to draw a line between putting people who aren't sick at threat of blood related health issues including myocarditis for young men (who are not at high risk of death), and period irregularities for young women (who again are not at a high risk of death).
> if someone wakes up with a sore throat and dry cough but does not postpone a visit to their grandparents in an old-folks home, shouldn't that person be held accountable for the danger they are putting other people in?
Absolutely! The old-folks better do their due diligence to tell people they think could make them sick to stay away from them. They'd better hold other people around them accountable or else they could die!
They can also take the vaccine if they believe Dr. Fauci.
Or if they believe Joe Rogan they can acquire Ivermectin and take it along with the other drugs quick and early.
Or if they don't believe Joe Rogan but believe the doctors he talks to, they can take what the specific doctors he interviews recommends. For example, sunlight, vitamin d, and exercise, as an example.
Or if they believe Donald Trump they can take monoclonal antibodies.
Or if they believe Gwyneth Paltrow they can buy a mystical egg from goop.com.
Or if they believe Kenneth Copeland ministries they can bow down to let Jesus to exercise judgement on Covid 19.
But that's all going back to individual responsibility. You can't get the state to impose that unto the individual, because no one can guarantee who is at power in the state. To you Joe Biden might be the second coming of Christ, the protector from covid, the abolisher of student loans. To someone else he could be an lying, cheating(on his first wife), geriatric, people pleasing, pedophilic (or at least very creepy towards young girls) career politician. What if he chooses to keep in power the people who lined his pockets and I happen to disagree that their mandated drug which they profit from is the best solution to the problem? What if I don't believe Dr Fauci represents the way, the science, and the light?
Since I can guess your political leanings, and I can guess your biases, and we're coming up with theoretical possibilities, what if Joe Rogan becomes president, then mandates a treatment of "horse dewormer" based on evidence he hears from a doctor who has friends who hold patents on said horse dewormer?
Will you now be hold yourself responsible and prevent yourself from harming others by shoving a vial of horse dewormer into your good self? Then would you impose your friends and everyone they know shove a horse dewormer vial up into their good selves?
To be honest I don't know what you would do, whether you're a "submit to all authority" type, or if you're a "other side is a bad guy" type, or a "we have to fight this together type". But I know what I would say, because I'd say the exact thing I'm saying now: the state should not have that kind of power, and the individual needs to take responsibility.
What I'm getting at is that this isn't a question of health. This is an issue of state power. The health implications have no regards because the mandating of anything at that level is, by the standards upon which this country was founded upon, unconstitutional.
My point is that you have to be reasonable and draw a line somewhere between respecting people's liberties, and holding them responsible / preventing them from harming other people.
For instance, if someone wakes up with a sore throat and dry cough but does not postpone a visit to their grandparents in an old-folks home, shouldn't that person be held accountable for the danger they are putting other people in?