>Again - the smoking analogy wasn't meant to be a perfect
>analogy. It was made to demonstrate that it's another
>personal choice that can (and does) wreak havoc on others
>around you (whereby thousands of non-smokers die of
>second-hand lung cancer every year).

I realize that, but there's a massive discrepancy in terms of scope- which is why it does not work as an analog to Covid.

>The problem with your logic here is that you're excluding the
>fact that vaccinated people are also driving a lot of
>transmission - so it's not as if you get vaccinated you're all
>of a sudden exempt from contributing to the pandemic and not a
>part of the problem, per se.

That's only a problem if you (not *you*, because I know you know this) view vaccines as a brick wall to viruses, but they're not. In fact, the fact that vaccinated people can get it *is* the point. Because right now, this is about containment, not eradication. Were eradication even possible, chances are that window is already closed.

>While it's true that you're less
>likely to get an initial infection if vaccinated (though not
>to the degree as it was originally purported) and it's also
>true that a vaccinated body clears the virus sooner (creating
>a shorter window of transmission) - vaccinated (and even
>boosted) hosts are still getting infected and transmitting the
>virus at significant rates.

Right. But as you explained, vaccination significantly reduces the severity of the infection. Which dramatically reduces every other negative impact of the virus. However, due to the proliferation of antivax sentiment, we're in a tug of war, with that severity consistently rearing it's head.

>But if you're vaccinated - it's exceptionally rare for you to
>die and/or develop severe disease that leads to
>hospitalization. So in this regard, the unvaccinated are
>actually sharing the overwhelming brunt and burden of their
>choices here (just as smokers do despite the fact that they
>still wreak havoc to those around them).

.... to a significantly lesser scope, sure. The issue isn't that the analogy is imperfect. But while you have clearly seen a significant direct impact of second hand smoke, it just doesn't rise to the ballpark of Covid.

To lend my own personal experience with the way selfish choices impact those around them, I'm the child of an absentee father, and a meth addict/alcoholic mother, who was physically and psychologically abusive. That's the tip of the tip of that iceberg. OI am the oldest of 11 kids, 9 still living, and let me tell you, those choices wreaked havoc on each of us. Those ramifications are still dealing serious aftershocks in the present. Nobody has cancer, but the psychological scars are deep. and some of us have not fared well at all in the aftermath of it all.

So I absolutely relate to the smoking analog, in my own way. I get it.

But while I agree that we can point to any number of personal decisions that cause tremendous harm to those around them, and we're not giving the same "if they die, they die" edict to a populace where everyone is guilty to so some degree of poor personal choices.

But the overall scale of this is dramatically different, and a heavy antivax population in midst of such a pandemic is an active danger to everyone, in ways that don't quite match typical poor decision making.

>Agreed. While I do think that mandates present serious
>constitutional (and civil liberty) issues - those who often
>talk about personal liberty and "My body my choice" (while
>incidentally denying a woman's right to an abortion) refuse to
>accept the fact that there are responsibilities that come with

Agreed.

My whole point of contention here is, we cannot divorce ourselves from the impact that the antivax crowd has on, quite literally, the entire population, right today, under this set of circumstances.

With due respect, too much of the onus is placed on the rest of us to maintain the moral high ground, while all manner of excuses and perspective is allowed for those who are contributing the most direct harm to our current situation. People can only take so much, and because we don't exist in a vacuum, because we share a world, and markets, and jobs, schools, etc, it is absolutely natural and reasonable that a portion of us can and do lose the lions share of empathetic feelings for the side that's actively fighting against the best weapon we have against this thing.

They are, essentially, an ally to covid, helping ensure it's survival at the expense of other humans. That may not be the intent, but that' the effect, and if there's anything sufficient to cause those other humans to say you know what? fuck them fools.... it's antivax- and mask- sentiment nearly two years into a global pandemic.