>regardless of circumstances and/or life choices.

That's just not true. It's easy to say, but not so simple for everyone, in practice. And this is just about the definition of extenuating circumstances.

But yes, that sounds great in a vacuum.

>>Even with second hand smoke, the overall risk to those
>around
>>them is minimal compared to the continued spread of Covid.
>
>My aunt developed lung cancer from second-hand smoke. Never
>smoked in her life (but her husband did) - so there is a risk
>and smoking is a decision that can and does place others in
>proximate harm.

I mean, I said "the overall risk to those
around them is minimal compared to the continued spread of Covid."

>But the point isn't that this is a perfect comparison.
>not - and there is no perfect apples to apples comparison.

Agreed, but there are bad comparisons, and this is one. I get the overall idea here, but there are significant contextual differences that cause it to fall apart completely.

>The point is that we should at least be able to rally together
>to ensure that everyone can get sound medical care if they
>develop severe covid, whether they are vaccinated or not.

Do we have significant examples of this not happening?

Are people, in any significant number, actually being turned away?

As far as I can tell, the sentiment expressed isn't that far from "I could just KILL____________". It's a way of expressing the depth of the emotion itself.

This certainly walks up to that line, but I don't think it crosses. "If they die, they die" is an expression of the cumulative frustration with antivax sentiment, due to the extreme nature of both the problem, and their active contribution to it.

Moreover, I addressed this very thing in my post. The base sentiments of the average person is not the same as doctors actually doing this. I'm sure there's an outlier or two out there, but I haven't seen any reports of this actually happening.

>I agree with the point about rebuking egregious misinformation
>and lies about the vaccines - and also am frustrated by the
>anti-vax/fear mongering identity that is being created out of
>this pandemic. But we also have to look at root causes for
>this: massive distrust in government and institutions. And
>quite frankly - people aren't wrong to distrust their
>institutions when you look at the track record.

I think the root cause goes deeper than that, but that's another discussion. I'll circle back to that later on, perhaps.

>>And the entire context of Reeq's sentiment- shared by many-
>>isn't that they should die, or that he/we want them to die.
>
>I mean - "if they die; they die" is pretty clear lol.

Come on. you're more reasonable than that.

Does it walk up to the line? Sure. Right at the chain link fence.

But it doesn't cross, doesn't go over or under.

There's a huge difference between actively wanting something, and being apathetic about the potential for something happening.

>I completely get being frustrated by those who are (often
>knowingly) peddling snake oil and disinformation (often to
>elevate their own status and bank accounts).

Word to that.

What I don't get
>(and will never support) is wishing ill will upon those who
>make different personal health decisions from mine - whether
>that's lifestyle choices, obesity, smoking, refusing
>vaccination etc.

This, IMO, plays into one of the most insidious problems with the antivax movement overall, and the Covid vaccine specifically, which is the idea that this is a personal decision analogous to the rest of that list.

Smoking makes at least some sense, but the broader ramifications are significantly different. If you smoke and I get lung cancer, I can't spread that lung cancer, unless I smoke myself.

But I get Covid from you, not only are the potential consequences myriad, it's contagious, and that has far greater potential to set off a much larger destructive chain.

The fact is, there's a limit to liberty. There's a reason our children are mandated to be vaccinated to go to a public school, but there is no mandatory diet, no mandate that the children's parent's don't smoke, etc. Kid A can't "catch" those other things from a classmate and spread it to others.

And that's because those things are not contagious in the way that, say, measles are. So to treat the vaccine issue from, once again, a vacuum, is extremely problematic. And while smoking is not a great analog for reasons I explained previously, it has had it's share of laws that have dramatically reduced where that can happen.

They do not exist in a vaccuum. Their body, their choice and all- but they all put other bodies in the crosshairs of that choice in a unique way, with unique ramifications.