I'm fully vaccinated, but that was a choice I made. It was a risk assessment. "How likely am I to get covid and have a bad go of it?" vs "How likely am I to have a bad reaction from the vaccine?" That's a risk assessment that varies from person to person based on where they live, what medical conditions they might have, their age, and other things.
The mRNA vaccines are especially worrisome to some because they are relatively new and aren't fully approved in the US (where I live).
I have a co-morbidity and by the time I was eligible to get vaccinated it looked obvious to me that I'd be better off getting it based on how well they were performing and how low the risk appeared. Things could have turned out wildly different with vaccines that turned out to be both mostly ineffective and potentially dangerous, causing me to assess things differently.
I encourage my friends who aren't vaccinated to get jabbed, but I have no wish to have the government force them to get a medical procedure they specifically don't want.
The reason is to help protect and care for your fellow human beings.
"It's your body" only counts if what you're doing with it isn't putting unconsenting others at risk. Forgoing the vaccine without a solid medical reason is putting others at risk.
By your logic, you should be able to punch anyone in the face at any time, because your fist is part of your body, and "it's your body".
> "It's your body" only counts if what you're doing with it isn't putting unconsenting others at risk.
Not according to pro-abortion stances.
If you want to get the vaccine, it should protect you. If you can't there are therapeutics. You don't need to force others to inject mRNA shots into them.
Your analogy was awful. Such a false equivalency, there's nothing even remotely the same about that example.
The point of vaccines is to help protect society at large, not so much you specifically. Failing to take reasonable steps that help keep your friends and neighbors safe is simply reprehensible.
I don't understand "natural immunity" as a reason. I think I don't know what it actually means.
As far as I know, natural immunity is conferred if and only if you've recovered from the virus. And one of the goals of the vaccine is to avoid getting it in the first place. But to get natural immunity, you have to be infected first. It seems a bit like burning down your house to prevent arson from a stranger. Have I misunderstood "natural immunity"?
Likewise, yelling at people to get the vaccine makes no sense.
If you don't want to catch the virus, get the vaccine. Don't worry about others.
They will get the virus and then get natural immunity. People will have adverse reactions to both covid and the vaccine. Let them weigh the risk to which one.
> They will get the virus and then get natural immunity
Only if they, y'know, survive, and only after being a nuisance to the healthcare system that the rest of rely on
You've got a point that verifiable natural immunity as of _now_ should probably be acceptable in lieu of vaccination (though efficacy against variants is worth considering) for mandates.
Offering 'natural immunity' as an option to the currently un-vaccinated un-infected population is just crazy. People will assume the risk, get sick, got to hospital, and die. Just ignoring those 'others' isn't an option for public-health since the downside costs of the risk they assume are borne by everyone in the form of healthcare burden. 'They' still expect to be a priority when they get sick...
