Nobilizing your opinion on morality doesn't justify your lack of understanding of vaccine mandates. This is exactly the counterpoint I made to OP that you're doing now.
But I suspect you know that, which is why you're not addressing my comment.
I don't get it. If you knew you were going to get so upset about and be averse to discussing the answer on your anti-vaxx opinion, why did you even ask about it?
I am not upset at all. I am just demonstrating the point of OP: no matter how many points in common I can have with you, you are still calling me anti-vaxx, i.e, you are more focused in using a "term that squash conversation and have a purpose to see them shunned" than in finding ways to resolve differences with harmony.
IOW, you destroy all chance of a nuanced conversation and you will not accept anything except total submission to your line of thinking. This is the pure essence of Fascism.
There is no nuanced conversation when one participant asks a question and then vaguely hand-waves other comments while refusing to address the answer on how they're wrong about R0 goals with viral mandates.
This bad-faith pattern of behavior here is more to my original point about antivaxxers seeking to nobilize their own opinion as a matter of their identity, rather than being genuinely interested in discussing or investigating facts.
If you couldn't find the sibling comment and needed me to copy-paste the comment, you could've just said so...
---
Herd immunization was estimated to be reached with 60-70% of vaccination. I'd be totally in favor of as much campaigning as possible to get to those levels. I was rushing to get the vaccines whenever I could just to contribute to this number.
At the same time, I don't think it is morally justifiable to force anyone to inject a substance in their bodies.
Even if the number was higher, I was still encouraging people to get the vaccine. Even when it was clear that vaccine was not that effective to stop infection or reduce spread, I would still tell people "at least it can help you to build up your own immunity". But I would never defend the idea that people should be forced or compelled to get the vaccine.
The sibling comment (the one that I originally responded) stated that "I don't understand vaccines because individual effects are not as potent without the herd effects" and that "if you oppose mandates, you don't understand vaccines and you are anti-vax"
Your "argument" (or whatever passed for one) was "you lack a critical understanding of how vaccines work, so you are inclined (sic?) to be anti-vaxx"
The issue of both the sibling comment and your own is that they assume that any two people with the same information can only reach the same "logical" conclusion. My response was an attempt to show that this is not true.
- It is possible to simultaneously (a) understand the concept of herd immunization, (b) take the vaccine and campaign for others to do the same and (c) still be against vaccine mandates.
- It is possible to simultaneously (a) understand the importance of keeping R0 low, (b) take the vaccine and campaign for others to do anything possible to reduce spread and (c) still be against vaccine mandates.
- It's not because someone is against vaccine mandates, that the person is anti-vax.
Does it help if I lay everything out like this, or would you need me to pre-chew it a bit for you?
Good job at proving OP's point.