NationStates

It's an extremely selfish thought to not care about the public health and that you would rather see it compromised or be indifferent about what's happening.

Shameful, really.

Valentine Z wrote:It's an extremely selfish thought to not care about the public health and that you would rather see it compromised or be indifferent about what's happening.

Shameful, really.

I care far more about the freedom to choose what goes into your body.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Valentine Z wrote:It's an extremely selfish thought to not care about the public health and that you would rather see it compromised or be indifferent about what's happening.

Shameful, really.

I care far more about the freedom to choose what goes into your body.

I mean, I would like it too, but you know, we are talking about being vaccinated with something that has tried and tested over so many times.

I'm not saying that we should become guinea pigs to some unknown vaccines or some weird medication.

It is not unknown stuff that is injected into the body. It is well-known, well-tried, and it helps people.

You, on the other hand, only think about yourself, using the "freedom to choose" as an excuse to cover the fact that you just couldn't give a damn about everyone around you and wanted them to die from a preventable disease.

Valentine Z wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I care far more about the freedom to choose what goes into your body.

I mean, I would like it too, but you know, we are talking about being vaccinated with something that has tried and tested over so many times.

I'm not saying that we should become guinea pigs to some unknown vaccines or some weird medication.

It is not unknown stuff that is injected into the body. It is well-known, well-tried, and it helps people.

You, on the other hand, only think about yourself, using the "freedom to choose" as an excuse to cover the fact that you just couldn't give a damn about everyone around you and wanted them to die from a preventable disease.

I mean, forcing medical procedures on an adult in order to save the life of another person being considered acceptable leads us to some pretty bad conclusions.

Galloism wrote:

Valentine Z wrote:
I mean, I would like it too, but you know, we are talking about being vaccinated with something that has tried and tested over so many times.

I'm not saying that we should become guinea pigs to some unknown vaccines or some weird medication.

It is not unknown stuff that is injected into the body. It is well-known, well-tried, and it helps people.

You, on the other hand, only think about yourself, using the "freedom to choose" as an excuse to cover the fact that you just couldn't give a damn about everyone around you and wanted them to die from a preventable disease.

I mean, forcing medical procedures on an adult in order to save the life of another person being considered acceptable leads us to some pretty bad conclusions.

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that it should be made mandatory in the way of "Please vaccine or you will be a danger to society, like literally."

I'm not talking about jailing or dragging someone out of the house just because they are not vaccinated. An unvaccinated person is a danger to most communities, so if they aren't vaccinated due to freedom of choice, just ban them from entering somewhere, I guess.

Valentine Z wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean, forcing medical procedures on an adult in order to save the life of another person being considered acceptable leads us to some pretty bad conclusions.

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that it should be made mandatory in the way of "Please vaccine or you will be a danger to society, like literally."

I'm not talking about jailing or dragging someone out of the house just because they are not vaccinated.

Ah, then that's acceptable.

An unvaccinated person is a danger to most communities, so if they aren't vaccinated due to freedom of choice, just ban them from entering somewhere, I guess.

We do have to consider economic realities too. If we bar them from leaving their house or going to any public place because they're not vaccinated, you either be ready to support them for the rest of their lives or be ok with them dying from the effects of poverty.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Valentine Z wrote:It's an extremely selfish thought to not care about the public health and that you would rather see it compromised or be indifferent about what's happening.

Shameful, really.

I care far more about the freedom to choose what goes into your body.

I care far more about me, my family and friends, and my potential future children not being exposed to disease for pretty much no valid reason.

Galloism wrote:

Valentine Z wrote:
I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that it should be made mandatory in the way of "Please vaccine or you will be a danger to society, like literally."

I'm not talking about jailing or dragging someone out of the house just because they are not vaccinated.

Ah, then that's acceptable.

An unvaccinated person is a danger to most communities, so if they aren't vaccinated due to freedom of choice, just ban them from entering somewhere, I guess.

We do have to consider economic realities too. If we bar them from leaving their house or going to any public place because they're not vaccinated, you either be ready to support them for the rest of their lives or be ok with them dying from the effects of poverty.

Well, when you put it that way, it makes sense, too. It's like, going back a few posts, if you want freedom of choice, I will say "Go ahead". But at the same time, make it so that it is needed for some locations, i.e. those hotspots with more immunocompromised or vulnerable people around.

I assume that California has a moderate amount of population density (11th in US, I heard), so an unvaccinated person carrying measles will prove to be quite a danger.

Valentine Z wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean, forcing medical procedures on an adult in order to save the life of another person being considered acceptable leads us to some pretty bad conclusions.

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that it should be made mandatory in the way of "Please vaccine or you will be a danger to society, like literally."

I'm not talking about jailing or dragging someone out of the house just because they are not vaccinated. An unvaccinated person is a danger to most communities, so if they aren't vaccinated due to freedom of choice, just ban them from entering somewhere, I guess.

My thoughts exactly. Dont want you or your children to get vaccinated? Fine then. You're not allowed to enter public facilities due to the unnecessary risk you will cause.

Highever wrote:

Valentine Z wrote:
I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that it should be made mandatory in the way of "Please vaccine or you will be a danger to society, like literally."

I'm not talking about jailing or dragging someone out of the house just because they are not vaccinated. An unvaccinated person is a danger to most communities, so if they aren't vaccinated due to freedom of choice, just ban them from entering somewhere, I guess.

My thoughts exactly. Dont want you or your children to get vaccinated? Fine then. You're not allowed to enter public facilities due to the unnecessary risk you will cause.

Can we define "public facilities"?

Galloism wrote:

Valentine Z wrote:
I mean, I would like it too, but you know, we are talking about being vaccinated with something that has tried and tested over so many times.

I'm not saying that we should become guinea pigs to some unknown vaccines or some weird medication.

It is not unknown stuff that is injected into the body. It is well-known, well-tried, and it helps people.

You, on the other hand, only think about yourself, using the "freedom to choose" as an excuse to cover the fact that you just couldn't give a damn about everyone around you and wanted them to die from a preventable disease.

I mean, forcing medical procedures on an adult in order to save the life of another person being considered acceptable leads us to some pretty bad conclusions.

I am of the opinion that parents not vaccinating their kids is essentially child endangerment, and as such the kids should be removed for the brief amount of time needed to vaccinate them before being returned to their parents. If an adult is somehow not vaccinated, then that is their choice, but the government is under no obligation to provide services to them while they place others in danger.

Neutraligon wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean, forcing medical procedures on an adult in order to save the life of another person being considered acceptable leads us to some pretty bad conclusions.

I am of the opinion that parents not vaccinating their kids is essentially child endangerment, and as such the kids should be removed for the brief amount of time needed to vaccinate them before being returned to their parents. If an adult is somehow not vaccinated, then that is their choice, but the government is under no obligation to provide services to them while they place others in danger.

Can we define "services"?

Galloism wrote:

Highever wrote:My thoughts exactly. Dont want you or your children to get vaccinated? Fine then. You're not allowed to enter public facilities due to the unnecessary risk you will cause.

Can we define "public facilities"?

I was thinking schools and hospitals most importantly, as i dont want you endangering others kids and immunocompromised people.

Highever wrote:

Galloism wrote:Can we define "public facilities"?

I was thinking schools and hospitals most importantly, as i dont want you endangering others kids and immunocompromised people.

So if a person has a heart attack, tough luck you should have gotten vaccinated? Go die?

EMTs are required to check vaccination status before transporting?

Galloism wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:I am of the opinion that parents not vaccinating their kids is essentially child endangerment, and as such the kids should be removed for the brief amount of time needed to vaccinate them before being returned to their parents. If an adult is somehow not vaccinated, then that is their choice, but the government is under no obligation to provide services to them while they place others in danger.

Can we define "services"?

They would not be allowed in government facilities, They would not be allowed to fly. Public hospitals would be an exception.

Highever wrote:

Galloism wrote:Can we define "public facilities"?

I was thinking schools and hospitals most importantly, as i dont want you endangering others kids and immunocompromised people.

So because of a choice by parents, a child is denied an education? Sounds pretty shitty to me.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Highever wrote:I was thinking schools and hospitals most importantly, as i dont want you endangering others kids and immunocompromised people.

So because of a choice by parents, a child is denied an education? Sounds pretty shitty to me.

Maybe parents should....not recklessly endanger their children then? What sounds really shitty to me is a parent endangering not only theirchildren, but other parents children because of their choice.

Neutraligon wrote:

Galloism wrote:Can we define "services"?

For instance they would have to home school their kid. Their kid would not be allowed in government facilities, They would not be allowed to fly. Public hospitals would be an exception.

So wait a minute, because you said that in the context of an adult not being vaccinated, the only downside if they don't have kids is not being allowed to fly?

Galloism wrote:

Highever wrote:I was thinking schools and hospitals most importantly, as i dont want you endangering others kids and immunocompromised people.

So if a person has a heart attack, tough luck you should have gotten vaccinated? Go die?

EMTs are required to check vaccination status before transporting?

Perhaps not....hospitals should probably be an exception. But they are still presenting a pretty big risk to others on the hospital.

Galloism wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:For instance they would have to home school their kid. Their kid would not be allowed in government facilities, They would not be allowed to fly. Public hospitals would be an exception.

So wait a minute, because you said that in the context of an adult not being vaccinated, the only downside if they don't have kids is not being allowed to fly?

I edited. The downside is they would not be able to meet with government representatives or use government buildings. Private locations can make their own decisions on if they accept unvaccinated people within them

Highever wrote:

Galloism wrote:So if a person has a heart attack, tough luck you should have gotten vaccinated? Go die?

EMTs are required to check vaccination status before transporting?

Perhaps not....hospitals should probably be an exception. But they are still presenting a pretty big risk to others on the hospital.

Hospitals are risky places anyway. Staph is a huge problem that no one talks about.

Neutraligon wrote:

Galloism wrote:So wait a minute, because you said that in the context of an adult not being vaccinated, the only downside if they don't have kids is not being allowed to fly?

I edited. The downside is they would not be able to meet with government representatives or use government buildings. Private locations can make their own decisions on if they accept unvaccinated people within them

Ah, ok, let me try again.

Neutraligon wrote:

Galloism wrote:Can we define "services"?

They would not be allowed in government facilities, They would not be allowed to fly. Public hospitals would be an exception.

So John the unvaccinated adult gets a speeding ticket and has to appear in court or he will be jailed. What happens next?

Galloism wrote:

Highever wrote:Perhaps not....hospitals should probably be an exception. But they are still presenting a pretty big risk to others on the hospital.

Hospitals are risky places anyway. Staph is a huge problem that no one talks about.

This is true. Maybe take extra precautionary measures to separate them from the more severely immunocompromised patients.

Highever wrote:

Galloism wrote:Hospitals are risky places anyway. Staph is a huge problem that no one talks about.

This is true. Maybe take extra precautionary measures to separate them from the more severely immunocompromised patients.

That's reasonable.

Galloism wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:I edited. The downside is they would not be able to meet with government representatives or use government buildings. Private locations can make their own decisions on if they accept unvaccinated people within them

Ah, ok, let me try again.

Neutraligon wrote:They would not be allowed in government facilities, They would not be allowed to fly. Public hospitals would be an exception.

So John the unvaccinated adult gets a speeding ticket and has to appear in court or he will be jailed. What happens next?

John would have to remote in for court, assuming of course he does not have a medical excuse for not being vaccinated. Prison guards on unvaccinated prisoners would be required by law to be vaccinated or they cannot be hired. Personally of the opinion that if you are going to work for the government in any capacity, one of the requirements should be vaccination or proof of being medically unable to vaccinate.