The real issue is whether a government can force a citizen against their will to submit to an invasive medical procedure except in extreme cases, and even then.
A government that can force to you submit to an invasive medical procedure, quarantine, limit on freedom of movement or association, or shut down a private business for a pathogen with a fatality risk comparable to COVID-19 has no limitation on what it can force citizens to do.
Or what it will do to them.
If COVID-19 had a fatality rate of even 10-20% (never mind 30-50% which Smallpox or Bubonic Plague approach or exceed) we wouldn't be having these kinds of discussions.
If COVID-19 were that deadly, people would be clamoring for a vaccine, any vaccine (even one that had a 40% success rate and carried serious side effects) we would be voluntarily quarantining, and even barricading ourselves in our domiciles which we would protect with firearms from unwanted infected people (which in this case could be both vaccinated and unvaccinated people)
But COVID-19 is NOT that pathogen.
Bottom Line: We should protect those who need it and wish to be protected, and those who are vulnerable and unable to make the choice themselves. And those protections should range from quarantines and vaccines to effective treatments, whatever is available.
—If COVID-19 had a fatality rate of even 10-20% (never mind 30-50% which Smallpox or Bubonic Plague approach or exceed) we wouldn’t be having these kinds of discussions.
TBut it was fatality rates that high, and higher, that drove the vaccine development.
“Adjusted mortality from COVID-19 decreased from 25.6% in March 2020 to 7.6% in August 2020”
https://www.cdc.gov/library/covid19/pdf/2020-11-24-Science-Update_FINAL_public.pdf
I saw somewhere that SoAfrica was up around 43% initially. It was scary.
In-hospital treatment has become more fine-tuned, meds more targeted, as time passed and research papers cranked out. Vaccination has taken hold, (and, some may argue, the social distancing/handwashing/self-awareness etc. measures adopted contributed) and the death rate dropped from 7..6% in August 2020 to 1.8% and now hovering around 1.6% ontheaverage. It will likely drop further. But that’s not where we started. And as you said, with a 20% mortality people would be clammoring for a vaccine and indeed, they did. With elites elbowing seniors out of the way for it.
It’s a known that the virus is able to inflict damage from day one. So, while a person may survive, and not even be symptomatic, there is still the factor of short or long term disability. As in war, some of those who might have died in the 24% mortality group had they caught the disease earlier in the year, but were saved by medical advances, are still casualties - walking wounded. And that also has to be considered when judging the impact of the virus itself, rather than pointing to a mortality rate that has changed over time.
just my thoughts
I don’t support any vaccine mandate period. It’s a personal choice, not government.
“The real issue is whether a government can force a citizen against their will to submit to an invasive medical procedure.”
Yes. That is the bottom line. Absolutely.
"Repents"; It really is a religion for the godless.
That makes the most sense both from a medical point of view and a civil liberties view.
Amen
Emphatically agree. Well said.
i generally agree with your last bottom line statement
with the caveat i don’t want anything forced on anyone who doesn’t want it, people gave to determine their own kedical risks without one “choice” resulting in punitive treatment and penalites by society
because then its just bullying and govt coercion
and that’s not a real choice, its under duress and fear of threats by a govt with essentially infinite resources to throw at you