I do agree that these things should be discussed openly because this is an un precedented situation. We shouldn't accept a given situation whole heartedly without discussion when we do not know how new policies that are created today will be used in the future.
I have been fully vaccinated and living with a vaccine "passport" for at least 6 months and I have no issues with the process thus far. But I do have mixed feelings on it nonetheless because we cannot say with certainty that these policies won't change in the future and be used in new ways that are discriminatory.
It's a challenging situation and I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand I certainly believe in personal freedoms for the individual, but on the other hand I realize that we are a social species living in a society and do have a certain obligation to the group. The group is more important than the individual, a concept who's importance sort of falls on a spectrum that is dependent on the country that the individual lives in and the socioeconomic and political policies that govern it. Basically, does the individual live in a country with universal healthcare and government support for inability to work because of infection, or not? The situation really needs to be treated differently in these two countries. A country where the cost of healthcare and unemployment are the sole responsibility of the individual can allow more freedom because the burden of consequences fall solely on the individual. On the other hand, in a country with universal healthcare, the burden falls on society, so maintaining the group is more important than the freedom of the individual. It would be "fair" if individuals who choose not to be vaccinated had to give up their rights to free healthcare and government support for missed work for any and all covid related issues. That would be a "fair" system and fall within the "rules" of individual freedom, but it would be impossible to implement, it think.
The vax doesn't stop transmission, making this whole discussion largely moot. Segregating by vax status doesn't even hold weight according to the official science.
Vax mandates are a soft genocide when taken to their conclusion. If you can't work, you can't afford to eat, therefore, you die of starvation. There is no rationalization for that, whatsoever.
No, but it reduces severity of symptoms - which means there is a less chance of hospitalization and missed work. This is a valid consideration to political, social and economic planning for a given country and government, as I discussed.
In relation to what Can? Can you explain this point further? I don't understand what you are trying to say here, sorry.
Can you explain further?
Again this goes back to hard decisions that need to be made by governments and it's systems. Resources are not unlimited economically, especially in terms of healthcare and finances so I think this is where the personal choice aspect comes in. Choosing to not be vaccinated is a choice (excluding situations where there is a health concern stopping the individual. These may need a special consideration). In a universal healthcare situation, I don't understand the argument of choosing to go against governmental support by not accepting a free precaution (I.e. vaccine) but then also hedging ones bet and saying, I want government support if my decision fails and I get covid and need a ventilator? The problem with that is, if every person in society takes that stand then the system could potentially fail financially and economically.
Everything is a risk - getting vaxed and not getting vaxed but It sometimes feels like people want their cake and to eat it to. They say, I dont want to take the risk of getting a vaccine and I don't want a government to force me to get one. But, but, but... if I'm wrong and I do get sick, well then I definitely want the government to take care of me. Lol.
If an unvaxxed person is spreading the same amount of virus, segregating by health status makes no sense. By mandating the vaccine for employment, you prevent someone from living. It's like the Holodomor in Soviet Russia. We're not killing you but we're setting you up to no longer be able to live.
"If," is an important word there. I don't know if your statement has any truth to it tbh. Intuitively, I would think that a vaccinated person with a certain level of immunity would be less likely to develop symptoms. That's kind of the point of vaccines and there is plenty of longstanding evidence to prove that. Plenty of viruses have been eliminated from the population (human and animal) through vaccines.
This is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the case of government employment insurance.
I see that you are from Denver so your situation is a little different in the U.S. than elsewhere because healthcare is mostly privatized - the individual pays the bill if they get sick or injured. Most other Western countries have universal healthcare though, which raises a lot of different questions (which I originally raised) and which should be discussedand debated. In a universal healthcare system the government pays the bill if a person gets sick or injured, which actually means that the tax payers pay (i.e. society pays). In such a community based system the individual does have some obligation to the community, I think.
I'm starting to wonder if this conversation is on topic to what you originally posted about?