And that's why I added the parent thesis of them ending up in the hospital. Kinda a caveat, I know, and that's also why I embellished on the fact that this isn't really easy to hammer with policy. That's basically the reason we don't have socialism in the first place, because individuals have no public liability if they're not doing anything. So taxes can only be administered with apparent cause.KitWargSpectacle wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 6:30 amThere are gradatlons - if one chooses to minimize contact, the "if you value freedom so much, why're you ok with getting sick and hospitalized" no longer applies, for instance;BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 3:46 am The fine is a measure to pay for overwhelmed hospitals by unvaccinated people. That aspect really does make sense (to me at least) and gets to the middle of what this whole thing has been about. Like if you want society to be open and want to disregard measures to curtail the virus on general partisan principle (meaning that you get the virus and end up in the hospital) then all this barking about freedom is nonsense if the hospitals are still being overrun.
Of course, just like the British tele tax, it seems kind of archaic. I don't think the needle should just be shoved in your arm for stepping out of the house. Engaging in society rather actively though is a different issue. If the hospitals are being filled up then they are being filled up.
and it's possible to be in (grudging or not) support of other measures, such as passports for entering property, while opposing mandates - the WHO is an example.
Lockdowns technically promote people to do nothing, while the hospitals are being overrun whenever regulations are loosened. So it's like does one want hospitals or does one want freedom?