The vax doesn't stop transmission, making this whole discussion largely moot.
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.
Segregating by vax status doesn't even hold weight according to the official science.
In relation to what Can? Can you explain this point further? I don't understand what you are trying to say here, sorry.
Vax mandates are a soft genocide when taken to their conclusion.
Can you explain further?
If you can't work, you can't afford to eat, therefore, you die of starvation. There is no rationalization for that, whatsoever.
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?