[quote=logtroll] Sometimes crossing that boundary involves several steps though a murky transition from freedom to infringement, like what’s wrong with driving a little drunk if you don’t get in a wreck? If you wreck your own car, what business is it of anyone else?
Of course, if you involve someone else in your car wreck and cause damage to their property or to their body, you will be held responsible. That transition isn’t all that murky, and as a result we have laws against driving drunk that are intended to prevent people from indulging in a behavior that has a high probability of stepping on the rights of others.
The analogy between drunk driving and Covid is weak when looked at from the point of view of using masks and vaccines to protect yourself from catching the virus. But it is strong when viewed from the responsibility angle to not infect others through a failure to take adequate precautions in the face of a known danger.
The counter argument to the anti-mask/vaccine crowd is to make it clear that if a person willfully refuses to take precautions against transmitting the disease, they will be held responsible for any damage caused to others. That could include medical bills, compensation for lost income, disability support, or even manslaughter.
All great points and this thread is but one of innumerable thousands like it, both online, and in person, that have been argued to death.
But it appears that all of it fails because there's one more argument that deniers feel "trumps" the rest:
Yup, the big appro, the big magilla, the golden meatball..."You can't force me to take this, it's experimental, it's not proven, the FDA hasn't even granted it full approval!"
Yes, I realize you covered "scary" but I press for specifics when people say it's not FDA approved.
Pot isn't FDA approved but we put that in our bodies, and neither were the Tide Pods you ate last year when that became a TikTok challenge...did you stop to consider if you were putting a non-approved and NON-EDIBLE substance in your body?
I suppose this would be a good spot to insert a millennial doing one of those "duck lips" selfies, but you get the point.
FDA appro is maybe two to three weeks away, and when that shoe drops, a lot of things change.
Suddenly there's a whole lot more law and order on the side of businesses and government entities that wish to pass mandates.
I realize NY already did it and LA is about to follow, but both cities are at risk of lawsuits that challenge those vaccine mandates, until the FDA smashes those challenges with full appro.
It will be interesting to see just how far the needle moves when the folks hanging their hat on FDA appro decide to finally take the shot.
After that, all that's left are the historically loony CT nuts (on both left and right) and victims of Vlad's army of domestic anti-vax influencers.
If Joe is smart, he's already putting the finishing touches on a spate of "IT'S FDA APPROVED!!" public service announcements so they can hit the hopper the moment FDA issues the ruling.
And guess who else is listening with eager anticipation?
All those insurers. Once this stuff gets the full FDA imprimatur, everything changes on that playing field, too.