I’d argue it’s higher given the exponential nature of disease transmission. While the odds of harm in who you directly transmit the virus to might be lower than the odds of you hurting someone drunk driving, if you play the tape forwards it’s almost a foregone conclusion that you’ll kill more people in the chain of people you infect than you would if you were drunk driving.
Also vaccine requirements aren’t anything new, so is the concern here that they’re mandating vaccines or this specific vaccine due to how new it is? If the latter, then what’s your bar for acceptance?
>While the odds of harm in who you directly transmit the virus to might be lower than the odds of you hurting someone drunk driving
You've introduced a new assumption though: that a unvaccinated person has and transmits covid. You must apply the probabilities to that initial assumption as well. Probability of having covid * probability of transmitting covid * probability that the person you transmit to has series harm done.
>Also vaccine requirements aren’t anything new
This is an argument that I've also seen but think appeals to "well we've been doing something similar already." I don't think that justification holds much water, especially in this time period where we are questioning a lot of foundational social assumptions.
To your direct question about bar for acceptance, I think people can generally establish a good bar, but they have to be given accurate probabilities, and those have been hidden from us in favor of vague fear mongering.
Also vaccine requirements aren’t anything new, so is the concern here that they’re mandating vaccines or this specific vaccine due to how new it is? If the latter, then what’s your bar for acceptance?
reply