re: #240 No Malarkey!

Your staunch opposition to trying to reach herd immunity, based on reasons I’ve only heard from anti-vaccers, so that thousands more people don’t die of covid, maybe hundreds of thousands if the lack of herd immunity results in the evolution of more virulent strains, is what makes me suspicious.

I asked how you could square me suggesting fining businesses for not having their staff vaccinated as a matter of public health and safety with being an anti-vaxxer. And instead of giving me an answer, you typed the bolded just now.

“Staunch opposition,” my lily white ass. You came up with what you thought was a brilliant plan, somebody dumped water on it, and now you’re trying to pigeonhole me so you can just dismiss my arguments. FFS.

How about you explain to me how your position is any more moral or ethical than that of wingnuts arguing that the way to achieve herd immunity is to just force everybody back out into the public square to get sick and then “get over it”? After all, they also insist their position is for the purpose of saving people from not only death but long term consequences of being in prolonged periods of lockdown. They argue that the costs of delay are too great and we must rush forward while damning the consequences because we can always just deal with those “later.” From where I sit, the only difference between you and them is they’re at least honest about not giving a fuck if people get hurt in the process.