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.

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.

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.

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.

I get you are trying to open a philosophical debate, people are seeing it as strictly antivax, probably the wrong forum to discuss philosophy

Some here are being rude instead of engaging in better conversation.

People are tired. People still hold the feelings of frustration over the needless deaths, life-altering conditions and overworked medical staff who quit over the workload and aggressive and violent patients – all of it needless, all of it prolonged needlessly by the ignorant people whose personal importance overshadowed their community obligations and risked the 1:1000000 with actual issues and others who needed to rely on ‘herd’ immunity.

You know this. You saw this. You MUST understand this. Some of us lost friends and family, and in the last months of it we knew those lost would have been safe if the ignorant gits actually took their medicine. We hear the logic of the anti-vaxxer, we hear how it sounds like a drunk driver saying “but I need to drive home”, and we see anti-vaxxers who avoided the single most tested set of vaccines as the same as those negligent, homicidal drunks.

We’re not rude intentionally. We’re frustrated and tired at explaining something as simple as “trees are wood” to people retorting with “needles are scary so let the others die”. We’re annoyed we had to say it twice, let alone all the hundred of times after. And now someone says “but I’m important and I know more than doctors” and we aren’t at our best in that moment.

But how is “I see the point of anti-vax narcissists” not just trolling by now?

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.

This is another issue I’m surprised we’re still even debating.

What an absurd life you must live. I just imagine you walking around all day going yeah my work forces me to wear pants. By coming to work naked they’ll fire me so they’re forcing me to not be naked. Like that is your mindset here. Anytime any consequences happen you believe you’re being forced to do something. It’s absurd.

Don’t go into a sick field if you prone to sickness? I don’t like bridges I take tunnels figure it out. No, her comfort and what she wanted aren’t what’s best for the patients. Not that hard.

I bet the believe in magical sky men that can bring back ppl from the dead too. When you take that stance you’re kinda not a critical thinker. I prefer to learn from ppl that know a lot.

She wasnt ‘prone’ to sickness til the hospital forced her to get a SARS shot after nearly 20 years there. Not her fault she got sick from it.

Yeah wearing pants is exactly the same as taking a shot that MAY protect you from covid (It didnt. I still got covid, so did three people in my family who were also vaccinated) or it may actually make you sicker.

Which is why the gov has accepted admissions from 2700 Canadians who were damaged by the vaccine and have already paid out 18 million in damages to them with more to come. https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/program-statistics

So yeah, thats exactly like wearing pants to work.

Glad you can admit it weirdo

OK. But she shouldn’t be selfish enough not to step down. Listen you wanna justify shitty behavior go ahead idc idk ‍️ hope she gets better gl brother

Because you are saying, with near equal weight, both that mandatory vaccines are important and also body autonomy to do whatever(including vaccines). It has the same energy as “no offense but [offensive thing]” in that it sounds like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth and we need to be extra sure you’re not just trying to cover your ass while spouting a bad opinion.

Every comment you make is one that is essentially in a vaccuum. I don’t know you, I don’t know your history, I just see a very weirdly placed comment saying that you agree in mandatory vaccination but also the convoy people have a point in a way that goes completely opposite to this first thing you believe. You’re also saying that the good point they have was only reached because they’re not smart, which is a weird thing to say. And Canada’s vaccination laws are way less intense than the ones you’re talking about, too, which just adds to the confusion.

I’m glad you believe that we need to do things to take care of one another in dangerous times but after that I really have no clue what you’re on about, to be honest.

There was ONE guy with a Nazi flag wearing a face covering (why? The protesters were anti mask) who was jeered out of the crowd and disappeared into a hotel. He was NOT with the convoy and definitely NOT supported by the protesters.

You’re stretching so much.

You know what else cost a lot to society? Old people. So let’s kill them all right?

There’s a difference between “this is expensive” and “this will actively kill people”.

We’ve banned smoking indoors because it affects other people, and, for a time, we banned unvaccinated people indoors for the same reason.

The line is super clear: will this directly affect others.

My explanation is:

I agree that vaccines should be mandatory. I’m fully vaxxed on basically everything and even my dog gets their vaccinations. I trust in science and data.

That said, forcing people to do something they don’t want to do is not good for social cohesion. A better way is meeting them where they are and educating them. This is not happening and instead we are belittling them, ostracizing them etc. This is why they are protesting, pushing back and being a problem, because they feel attacked.

It doesn’t matter who is right because both think they are right.

Their arguments do have some merit, ie the government can’t just decide for you to under go a procedure. We shouldn’t just trust governments or scientists blindly or “it’s for the greater good”, that is basically the same as religion. They should instead be educated on why they can at least trust scientists and why scientists come to the conclusions they do, even if they aren’t biologists themselves. And why the government makes the decisions it does. Like sure, YOU probably won’t get sick, but when you’re dealing with millions and millions of people, a single sub percentage point can make the difference between everyone getting through it, or the health system buckling under pressure and failing, letting hundreds of thousands die.

They dont think like that. They’ve never been taught to, and that’s a failing of the education system.

Sure you will always have dissenters, but the point is to minimize them so they don’t affect the outcome much by refusing treatment.

I hope that makes sense.

One is enough. That’s like saying there was one rapist.

These comments have an interesting pattern. It’s a dead give away on who funded the convoy.