I somewhat agree. But how do you make laws for forcing people to get vaccines, yet let them choose to have abortions, or refuse medical care, or eat garbage food, drink alcohol etc, for example?

Like, how would you define that on a societal level, and also have exceptions for situations the law doesnt account for?

These things dont exactly equate, but I can see why being forced by the government to get a vaccines irks some people. I think it all stems from them thinking that vaccines harm you, or cause autism or whatever. That and that we haven’t had a truly deadly pandemic or disease going around in living memory (thanks again to science and our predecessors getting vaccinated) that would cause people to prefer the vaccine over say polio. People are losing fath in institutions and we are not educating our children with critical thinking enough.

The wholesale adoption of pandemic rules was really wearing thin by the time the convoy took place. When Trudeau gave the interview where he called them racist and other things it really felt tone deaf to me. I know I’m not alone in neither welcoming them nor pretending I didn’t understand their frustration. I was not a fan of their tactics but I mean only in Ottawa could a protest pit truckers loudly partying on Parliament Hill against residents who were mostly complaining about the noise.

for stupid decisions that endanger others.

Sure. But there are plenty of reasons people had for refusing the vaccine that arent stupid at all. Including my cousin who is a pediatric ICU nurse and VERY well acquainted with vaccines and how they work. She was required to take the SARS vaccine and it physically damaged her immediately, and she now has heart complications that started right after she took her shot. So when the health board said she needed to take the Covid shot she pleaded her case as her heart couldnt take more damage if it were to have the same effect. They refused to grant her an exception so she retired from nursing instead. Not sure what part of that is ‘stupid’ but there wasnt exactly a lot of understanding - Trudeau made sure the message was that anyone who didnt take the shot was ‘unCanadian’ and most likely misogynists and racists and dont believe in science. Which was actually a pretty asshole thing to say. And why he’s not only no longer PM but he’s completely disappeared off the radar because the Liberal party doesnt want to remind Canadians of his existence.

So, she shouldn’t be working in that field. Her job is to care for others NOT get a nice retirement. Man nurse streo types real.

So, we’re on a boat. It starts leaking with these mysterious finger sized holes. Most people start sticking fingers in holes to stop the water, but there are a bunch of people that are worried their finger might get stuck, or a fish might come and bite it or divine intervention will save the boat - and they decide not to stick their finger in a hole, and just for good measure some of the people that won’t stick their finger in a hole go and make a few new holes. You think that’s ok? For a bunch of people to, not only not contribute to saving everyone, but actually make the situation worse? And for there to be no consequences??

Well if that choice is so bad for you then maybe don’t make it. That’s how choices work. I can choose to inject myself with bleach right now, I’d probably die, so I’m not going to make that choice. No one’s forcing me not to make that choice no one can stop me. That’s called consequence. It is beyond childish to think you should never face consequences for your choices. That’s not the same as being forced.

Lol. She did it exceptionally well for 30 years and there are many children alive today because of her care and YOU’RE going to pass judgement on her? LOL. Oh please.

I somewhat agree. But how do you make laws for forcing people to get vaccines, yet let them choose to have abortions, or refuse medical care, or eat garbage food, drink alcohol etc, for example?

Like, how would you define that on a societal level, and also have exceptions for situations the law doesnt account for?

These things dont exactly equate, but I can see why being forced by the government to get a vaccines irks some people. I think it all stems from them thinking that vaccines harm you, or cause autism or whatever. That and that we haven’t had a truly deadly pandemic or disease going around in living memory (thanks again to science and our predecessors getting vaccinated) that would cause people to prefer the vaccine over say polio. People are losing fath in institutions and we are not educating our children with critical thinking enough.

I somewhat agree. But how do you make laws for forcing people to get vaccines, yet let them choose to have abortions, or refuse medical care, or eat garbage food, drink alcohol etc, for example?

Like, how would you define that on a societal level, and also have exceptions for situations the law doesnt account for?

These things dont exactly equate, but I can see why being forced by the government to get a vaccines irks some people. I think it all stems from them thinking that vaccines harm you, or cause autism or whatever. That and that we haven’t had a truly deadly pandemic or disease going around in living memory (thanks again to science and our predecessors getting vaccinated) that would cause people to prefer the vaccine over say polio. People are losing fath in institutions and we are not educating our children with critical thinking enough.

Not sure where I stand on the vaccine thing.

I fully support science and think vaccines should be mandatory, especially during a global pandemic that we haven’t seen in a hundred years. Or, for example, measle vaccines before exposing yourself to others during a measles outbreak.

I’m also for body autonomy with abortion and what medical care and what vaccines you receive.

It cuts both ways.

In the end I think the failing here is education. Not enforcement. IMO most reasonable people would take the vaccine. The only reason reasonable people don’t is because they do not trust government or science, due to lack of education or understanding.

someone’s abort doesn’t kill a strangers kids or grand parents. Come on use your brain or stop being disingenuous.

The other comments put it well in saying that vaccines affect other people. Though, oddly enough, we do need better laws regarding what food can be sold as far as that one goes because companies making sugar-filled, addictive food very much on purpose is an action they take for personal gain that relies on hurting others.

For sure people are losing faith in institutions, and that is largely because of the critical thinking issues you mentioned and also the fact that we can’t help ourselves but elect at least a few untrustworthy people into office. The people who attended the convoy were largely Conservative voters and if they have a problem with the government they’re only going to make it that much worse by putting the scummiest people you know into positions of power.

These also aren’t really problems if you think about them or look to places that have already worked them out.

It was her job which she refuses to protect others. Sorry you don’t get points for doing your job.

The only one in there you listed that doesn’t affect only the person making the decision is vaccines. The classic quote is something like “Your freedom to swing your fist ends at someone’s face.”

I agree. I’m from Australia, and vaccinations are mandatory and required, like you will be ordered by a court, and have your children removed if they are not vaccinated type of thing. I agree with this law.

I think people downvoting here are not understanding what I’m saying, or I didn’t explain it well enough. I’m not saying anti vaxxers are right. I am saying they have some merit with their arguments, but ultimately they only think these ideas due to lack of education and critical thinking.

I somewhat agree. But how do you make laws for forcing people to get vaccines, yet let them choose to have abortions, or refuse medical care, or eat garbage food, drink alcohol etc, for example?

Like, how would you define that on a societal level, and also have exceptions for situations the law doesnt account for?

These things dont exactly equate, but I can see why being forced by the government to get a vaccines irks some people. I think it all stems from them thinking that vaccines harm you, or cause autism or whatever. That and that we haven’t had a truly deadly pandemic or disease going around in living memory (thanks again to science and our predecessors getting vaccinated) that would cause people to prefer the vaccine over say polio. People are losing fath in institutions and we are not educating our children with critical thinking enough.

I think you brought up valid points and people are kind of over reacting. I agree education is the problem but what you said also got me to see the “not vaccinating myself is causing harm to others” viewpoint. Some here are being rude instead of engaging in better conversation. Your comment got me to think and read others.

Its not as absolute as it sounds. While vaccines do have externalities (eg: protection of others via herd immunity), so do the others I mentioned:

Refusing medical care can increase long-term public healthcare costs, especially in countries with socialized medicine, luke Canada

Eating garbage food or drinking excessively leads to chronic disease burdens (obesity, diabetes, liver disease), again impacting public systems and reducing workforce productivity. You could argue that this is mitigate through alcohol tax.

Abortion is more complicated, but opponents would argue there’s another life at stake, so from their moral framework, it’s not purely personal either.

The “freedom ends at someone else’s face” is useful but oversimplified. The real challenge is defining when individual choices cross the line into collective consequences, and which ones merit state intervention. Vaccines are one of the clearest examples, yes, but they’re not the only ones with spillover effects.

So my point is how do you define that line, legally? I think it needs to remain pragmatic. Societies change faster than laws do.

If you are given options its a choice like ‘hey we value your THIRTY YEARS of service so you can work on a different unit for now, or you can take an unpaid leave, or you can do administrative work at home til the epidemic subsides’ THAT would be a choice.

If its ‘You have to get the vaccine or we’ll fire you’, thats not a consequence, thats force’ She was most definitely FORCED to resign.

What about her employers obligation to protect HER? She was there for 30 years and she had already suffered physical damage from a previous vaccine that her employer required (SARS). To FORCE her to endanger herself further was illogical and unfair.