If the shot was able to stop transmission of the virus, (the CDC has admitted since delta that it isn’t) and if a higher percentage of the population were actually at risk of serious illness or death from covid, I would agree w you. Since neither are true, fierce opposition against the people who inflict and support these mandates should be taken.

Also, why should a shot that the FDA and the manufacturer (Pfizer) both claim currently needs to be updated in order to be effective, be mandated?

My argument: “I don’t want my children forced into masks because of a virus that presents them no risk.”
Your response: “Other kids have it so much worse!”

You know next to nothing about me or my children. Making sure my kids aren’t forced to cover their mouths and noses with masks that the President’s top covid advisor calls “ineffective” is one of the many ways I care for them.

Effective against infection is a very different measure than effective against disease, death, and hospitalization.

How come you can cite the most current data on vaccine effectiveness, but you're still using childhood morbidity rates from April 2020?

What are u saying? Both the FDA and Pfizer CURRENTLY say that an updated shot is needed to combat the newest variants. Why should an out of date shot be mandated in any way?

Also, ICU beds have filled to near capacity in every flu season since you or I have been alive. Neither you or I ever cared. Why do you think that is?

I've spent 20 years trying to get flu shots into people by writing rules and regulations to require their use, training doctors on messaging, ensuring that flu vaccine is easily available at every medical facility that a person might walk into, and drafting the recommendations that encourage the combination of flu vaccine and COVID at all clinics. I have cared greatly.

If there was a new seatbelt technology under development that might save more lives, you wouldn't tell people to stop wearing seatbelts entirely until the new one hit the market.

Lol they fired all these police and firefighters because no vax and now begging for them to come back. Clown show.

Brix not doing herself any favors this week.

I understand this one is right on the edge:

After two years and 900 pages, Matters is firing this thread back up, huh?

I keep forgetting when the seatbelt analogy is allowed and when it isn't.

Have I been inconsistent in my support for seatbelt laws?

Honestly, have I? I'm not being facetious.

I think it's about the appropriateness of the analogy and I don't think anyone is gonna accuse you of being inconsistent* or not caring about others. We may passionately disagree on the how sometimes... often times... but I have no doubt you really do give a shit about the causes you support.


*the idea of consistency itself is kinda dumb. Positions should evolve as information changes or else they are just dogma.

Idk, my post was dumb and really wasn't directed at you specifically. It just seems like the seatbelt analogy has been used by a lot of people (including me) at one point or another and the comeback from the other side (whichever side) is usually that it's not an appropriate analogy.

The seatbelt analogy has been convincingly debunked.

Surprised this is still such a hot topic here.

The seatbelt analogy is shakier when you're discussing health of other people (although a seatbelt does make it less likely that you'll come out of your seat when forced to maneuver hard and thus saves lives other than just your own) ...

... but the question on the table wasn't other people. It was why tell people to take a vaccine that doesn't work as well when another, better vaccine might be on the way.

Why wear a seatbelt if air bags haven’t been implemented yet?