There’s not much to “understand” in the sense of “what rational chain of thought led to this conclusion?”
My sister-in-law - who I actually like - utters some of the most farfetched, easily disproven anti-vaxx nonsense. She has a PhD in chemistry, so she’s got brain skills. But the brain skills have been bypassed here, I’m guessing by powerful emotions. The path through the weeds is now quite well-worn, and it’s the easiest way for her to process any vaccine-related info. Breaks my heart.
Yeah, let’s see our US military. A walloping number of US Marines were allowed to refuse the vax. How did they ever get through the ASVB?
Ask an anti-vax if he was inoculated against polio. Okay, then explain to them what polio is, and explain to them how you can’t go to school without the shot. My theory is, if you can’t appeal to their intelligence, confuse them.
This is true, but only half the story.
This is the trolley problem. You can change things and reduce the total number of deaths, but the people who die are different people. Versions of this problem have been tried on many different cultures, and the replies are much the same everywhere: the maths shows you save lives, but there is a widespread feeling that you somehow did a bad thing, and somehow ‘murdered’ the people who then die. It is ‘obvious’, but no-one can say how they know this.
What do you suppose the supreme court would do if a state (lets say, California or New York, for example) made a law that any citizen could file a civil suite for $10,000 against an unvaccinated and unmasked person who was out in public spreading covid? (the defendent must prove they do not have, and did not have covid at the time)
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
