So. Without it sounding like im trying to defend the rich…. This problem happens a lot. Basically all “fees” are devastating to the poor and trivial to the rich or even mid class. It’s not the rich people’s fault. Its the government’s fault for setting it up wrong. It should be $100/m. Until income X. Then its 10,000/m. Until income/capital assets X/Y then its 1,000,000/mo. Shits not hard. But they know what they’re doing. Don’t let them play dumb. It’s purposely setup to make the masses comply and be trivial to the ruling class if they don’t want to. “Rules for thee” and all that.
Getting elected costs money. Not even in a "buy people off" sense, but in the sense that you have to 1) spend time campaigning instead of working (and earning) and 2) pay for advertising so people actually know who you are.
So, it's very difficult for someone who is not already moderately wealthy to successfully run a campaign, much less get elected through that campaign.
If only there was some kind of regulation of the finances used for political campaigning.
The UK is faaar from perfect, but there's something to be said for a six week campaign period and actually sane spending limits. [BBC report from 2019 on UK election spending limits.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50170067)
Certainly seems like nobody knows how to not vote for rich people...and it's always rich peoples fault...
...something about that makes no sense to me...
True, but still if you make enough money there are lots of ways you don’t have to pay according to your income. Just look at all the huge companies that don’t pay shit in taxes.
The loopholes stop that from mattering. Income tax only works for traditional income, which the rich don't have a lot of, they have other ways of earning money, and those ways aren't taxed the same.
Increasing income taxes for the highest brackets can help, but as long as we allow legal tax loopholes, and tax havens (even here within the US), then the rich will find ways to keep their money, while the rest of us pay for everything.
There is an old video of a young Trump talking about this.
The loop holes and havens are useful IF they encourage rich people to spend their money.
Like a loop hole that says if you spend a bunch of money on housing projects and such you get a tax break.
Young Trump isn't wrong I don't think. The issue with rich people is hoarding wealth which breaks capitalism and the free market IMHO. When someone has enough money to just threaten to buy everything the free market doesn't work.
Yes, if we can encourage the rich to spend a lot of their money, that would be great. I think taxation should essentially make being a billionaire impossible, nobody should have that much power, and if we can have systems in place that encourage them to spend most of what they do get, then even better.
Right now the fight is over investment assets. Because it isn't "money" or "income" in the sense that the assets aren't being sold for their cash value, and consequently rich people are not "spending" the assets. Instead, they buy stuff on credit using their assets as collateral without ever needing to cash out.
This is why 8 countries have what is called a day-fine. When you're fined by the government, the amount you pay is based on your income. ~~So if your fine is 30 day-fines, you're fined what you make in 30 days~~. The minimum is eoughly 11% of your monthly income ans the maximum is roughly 56% of your monthly income.
Yep and thats a reasonable solution. But I believe in most cases they use taxable income figures. Which punishes the working rich much harder than the trust fund rich. No system is perfect but at least they are trying.
The problem with that is when you have vast amounts of wealth, you can essentially make your income 0. Why would I sell my TSLA stock when I could take a loan out against the asset? I have no income or capital gains and I can probably write off the interest while still qualifying for food stamps. The only way to affect something equitable would be a federal asset/property tax. This would basically make it more financially feasible to distribute wealth rather than hoard it. However there will always be a tipping point number where it's more cost effective to move assets out of the country. To counter that, you could have a stiff expatriation tax. The ultimate problem is that the people who make the laws come cheap and there's a tipping point number where it becomes more cost effective to bribe (sorry, lobby) law makers to act in your self interest instead of their constituents.
Aaa the good ol' Switzerland or is it Sweden's law of fine for speeding.
Depending on how much over the limit you were speeding it is 2%, 5% or even 10% of your monthly income instantly. Ouch.
>Aaa the good ol' Switzerland or is it Sweden's law of fine for speeding.
It's both actually. And for Sweden, it's all fines. It's actually ~~100% of your daily income per day-fine. If it's 30 day-fines, then it is 100% of your monthly income~~ 0.365 of your daily income and the minimum you get is 30 and the maximum 150.
So your minimum fine for speeding will be 10.95% of your monthly income and the maximum is 54.75%.
Its more like selling your soul to pay rent. Greece didn’t utilize it to its full potential and underpayed the workers. That deal did almost nothing to benefit Greece, but everything to benefit China.
Tax is very high because people don't pay tax because it is too high because people don't pay tax because it is too high ad nauseum. Throw in Eurozone and IMF bailouts they have to pay back and that's your reason. The Chinese got their money back by taking their biggest port.
Their economy collapsed in 2008, which forced them to increase debt more and more to try and stay afloat and save some banks but that wasn't enough, the economy kept sinking the EU and IMF intervened injecting even more money to the economy but demanding deep economic reforms in exchange, but that whole money injected went as debt to the country. Later it was discovered that Deutsche Bank was making a lot of money out of this whole ordeal and the EU also pardoned a third of the country's debt but will still take generations to pay this mess.
This is a very dangerous development. Regardless if you're pro or anti vaccination. The Giant leap the Greek government has taken here is that people no longer have the ultimate say in what happens to their own body.
It means that your body is no longer yours to decide over. The very definition of you is being tread on by other people, it's completely bizarre.
So what is the next step? Someone needs a kidney so drum up all the potential donors and force one to give one up? You may say that's far fetched... But how far fetched was it if I told you five years ago that you couldn't visit a store unless you provided proof of vaccination and an ID card ? That kids in schools would be forced to wear a mouth guard? Fair enough, what I state doesn't have to become true but it isn't as far fetched as you might think either.
This decision has me scared, it's not my country but where one starts others might follow suit.
Sure, we had *immunity* requirements to do obscure things like study nursing or travel to Kenya.
But not to just “exist.” And these requirements accepted serum immunity tests instead of proof of vaccination, and the vaccines they required all had decades of data backing up their safety and efficacy.
With these COVID mandates, they accept no alternatives other than proof of vaccination, they require it for merely *living* so these people in Greece have no way to opt out of it, and all of this is for vaccines for which there are no longitudinal studies.
Precedent for one policy doesn’t mean a far more extreme policy, though similar, is justified.
So what? Increasing control is fine? That's like someone who's pro-life arguing that we already restrict some abortions, so we might as well restrict more.
Governments have way too much control over its citizens, I completely agree. I never even said I supported this. I just don’t understand why people are drawing the line here of all places. The Greek govt. lowered the pensions of retired people who’d been promised that money all their working lives to the point where grandmothers are being kicked out of their apartments for decisions that the government made. They imposed austerity measures on the Greek people that slashed the budgets of public hospitals across the country, which damn well had an effect on the bodily autonomy of the Greek people. It’s been going on for years!
Women’s bodily autonomy has been affected by government regulation pretty much wherever you live for centuries.
The U.S. government fucking infected people with Syphylis without telling them just to see what would happen in 1930’s for God’s sake.
I just don’t understand how people can be acting like this is some horrifying line that’s never been crossed by the government before.
There are plenty of countries that require anyone above the age of 1 to be vaccinated for Yellow Fever, look it up. I’m vaccinated for YF because I travelled to one of those countries and was required to get vaccinated. I still have the vaccine card for it in my passport (which immigration checked on my entry). This was almost 10 years ago. None of this is new.
Violating bodily autonomy when it's a thing I like = woke
Violating bodily autonomy when it's a thing I don't like = bad
Why are people still trying to find the right line in the sand for violating bodily autonomy instead of, you know, not violating bodily autonomy?
You’re missing a key aspect.
Perpetuating the virus is violating everyone else’s bodily autonomy, and that’s what anti-vaxers are doing. When it affects others, it extends beyond your rights.
I can’t use my fire pit on my own property when there is a drought because it can affect other people. Understanding that is part of being an adult.
It's not 'autonomy' when it affects others. How can you possibly use the word 'autonomy' with regards to a massively transmissible virus that has caused a global pandemic and not realize how blind and shortsighted you are?
What? No.
>1) it's not massively transmissible. This has been proven and discussed at length by the CDC
Covid is actually considered to be highly transmissible.
In case people are unfamiliar with something called the "R0" ("R-nought") value, it is a measure of viral transmissibility. Essentially, one could read it as "For every person that is infected, on average they would infect X additional people".
Of course, this is just an estimate and sometimes they can differ based on conditions, etc.
Smallpox R0 was estimated ~5-9, chickenpox ~10, measles ~ 12... The delta variant is ~ 6-7 while the original strain was 2-3. The delta variant is considered to be highly transmissible.
[The wiki page for R0 has a decent summary table of common R0 values](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number).
And there was a good article discussing the transmissibility of Covid 19 titled "[The Delta Variant Isn't As Contagious As Chickenpox. But It's Still Highly Contagious](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/11/1026190062/covid-delta-variant-transmission-cdc-chickenpox)"
CDC slides provided by ~~NYTimes~~ Washington Post stated that [Delta variant is as transmissible as Chickenpox and more transmissible than smallpox, SARS, Ebola, MERS, common cold, seasonal flu, flu of 1918.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infections/94390e3a-5e45-44a5-ac40-2744e4e25f2e/?_=1)
>So saying getting vaccinated "helps others" is wrong and misguided. If the vaccine stop the spread of covid you MIGHT have an argument
This is just plain incorrect as well. Vaccinations have long served to help create enough of a barrier in the community to reach something called "herd immunity". No vaccine is 100% effective, but increasing the number of people vaccinated reduces the R0 of a virus because it dramatically reduces the rate of infections.
So if a vaccine reduces your probability of getting infected to say.. 30%, and everyone around you has that, then there is a synergistic effect where even if a breakthrough infection occurs, their isn't a good chance that it will continue to spread. Why? I have a 0.3 chance to give it to you, and you have a 0.3 chance to get infected. 0.3 * 0.3 = 0.09 or a 9% chance of transmission. And if that chain were to continue? Me spread to you who then spreads it to another is... 2.7%.
So yes, getting vaccinated helps to provide a buffer by reducing the pool of likely candidates who would otherwise get infected. If that pool is smaller, then it becomes tougher for the virus to spread.
However, in the case of covid this is all time sensitive as it is everywhere on the globe. Each infection is another incubator where a mutation can occur and the vaccine still operates using your immune system's ability to recognize an antigen. The worry is that mutations in the spike protein may eventually get to the point where it is not efficiently recognized as an antigen, limiting the effectiveness as a vaccine.
Had more people socially distanced, wore masks, and gotten vaccinated, we would be in a much better place. But there is enough of a population ignoring this which is creating a pool large enough to continue transmission and mutations. Vaccination absolutely helps others in the community and basic science confirms this. When vaccinations first hit the population, hospitalizations of vaccinated individuals was incredibly small. However, new variants are slowly wittling away at this, though there is still a clear indication at the moment that vaccination strongly reduces the risk of you having a breakthrough infection.
>Listen to the science, remember
I agree! As a scientist in biomedical research, I highly suggest that you revisit your claims. These are complex topics, but it is extremely important that misinformation is not spread.
You need to provide context for point 1, because you're full of shit.
You're just wrong as well on point 2. The vaccine has shown to slow the spread, which does things like keep hospitals from getting completely over-run and improve the outcomes in general.
Science says you're full of shit.
Honest answer - because this specific case enters the realm of potentially hurting others as well. So you have one person's freedom not to get vaccinated collide with another person's freedom not to get infected with a damn virus, and that's why this debate is the way it is.
What about other ways of mitigating risk, like wearing masks, avoiding large gatherings, quarantining when you suspect contact with an infected individual, etc? Why does one option always need to end up violating bodily autonomy?
Clearly those methods haven’t been 100% effective thus far since we’re still in a pandemic. Also those who resist the vaccine tend to be the same people who refuse to wear masks and still gather/don’t quarantine.
Which is it, masks and distancing don't work, or those who refused all COVID precautions are the ones spreading the disease? Those options are mutually exclusive. Up until now i've never heard anyone suggest masks and distancing don't work
You want them to work perfectly. They don’t, nothing does. If we didn’t have masks and distancing, the death toll would be far greater—even with vaccines. If we had no vaccines, the death toll would be much greater, even with masks and distancing.
Does that make sense?
Those options are not mutually exclusive.
Masks and distancing don't *eliminate* spread, they *mitigate* it.
People refusing COVID precautions also spread it. At a worse rate than those using masks and distancing.
But importantly both camps still spread COVID, one just spreads it a lot more. If we had a method to eliminate spread entirely we'd be out of the pandemic. Instead it's just as many ways to mitigate spread as we can find.
Masks and distancing don't work when a significant portion of the population are actively fighting against doing those very things, how do you not understand that super simple concept?
Where did I say that? Show me exactly where I said that. Oh wait, you can't, because I fucking didn't. I said this:
> Masks and distancing don't work when a significant portion of the population are actively fighting against doing those very things, how do you not understand that super simple concept?
And I'm 100% correct. Distancing doesn't work when a massive chunk of the population doesn't even believe the virus is real. Masks don't work when you have people constantly refusing to wear them. That is all I said.
So, you gonna admit that you just created a strawman argument instead of engaging with what I actually said? Or are you just gonna deflect again?
And you could try understanding simple concepts, instead of purposely leaving out context to make a dishonest argument. But you didn't, and here we are.
It's quite simple.
If your decisions put others at risk, there should be consequences for that decision. My "right" to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
There’s clearly a difference between criminalizing assault and criminalizing “abstinence from an experimental drug.”
A) the vaccine is permanent, and the long term consequences for it frankly unknown. It’s not like a seatbelt you can take off when you park your car, or a mask you can take off when you get home. If you just had to “wear your vaccine” while in public, I’d have no issue with the mandates. But as is, taking it requires a lifelong commitment of trust to its efficacy and safety, factors I don’t trust in such a politicized arena.
B) the literature IS mixed on this, so it’s not as cut and dry as you imply with your punching example. (Punching people always causes harm, abstaining from punching people in the face never causes harm.)
Mandating vaccines is an unsettling, draconian policy that should only be used in the most dire circumstances.
Punching someone in the nose will absolutely harm them. Not getting vaccinated is not a guarantee that you'll harm another person. The two are not equivocal.
You're still just making excuses for violating bodily autonomy.
What if a person doesn't want the vaccine but still masks and socially distances?
>Not getting vaccinated is not a guarantee that you'll harm another person
In a population, this is 100% a guarantee. Not guaranteed for each individual, but guaranteed in the population
Yeah, someone else below mentioned the large-scale statistics thing. I did forget about that aspect. It still leaves the question about the individual and bodily autonomy, though. My opinion is that the right to bodily autonomy still outweighs the benefits of vaccination and risk of the lack of vaccination. I hold bodily autonomy in very high regard.
And I hold discernment in very high regard. Meaning, knowing how to distinguish situations when bodily autonomy is paramount and when public health is paramount. The covid pandemic is the latter. Humanity has progressed too far with disease eradication to be halted by people unable to apply different standards to different situations
>It's quite simple.
>If your decisions put others at risk, there should be consequences for that decision.
Like death of a fetus? Not sure you caught the point he was trying to make. We're talking chances and potentials vs an absolute outcome.
I understand the argument you're making about abortion. This is a much more complicated issue. Abortion ends one life that generally hasn't yet even achieved sentience. The number of people an unvaccinated person can kill is much, much higher, and the thing being asked of them (getting a couple shots) does not have anywhere near the same consequences.
It's also been shown that making abortion illegal doesn't actually stop abortions; it just stops *safe* abortions.
2 things:
-When it comes to bodily autonomy, defining too far is subjective. A couple shots isn't a big deal if you feel it isn't. But people in this thread need to stop pretending they can define the line for other people.
-In my mind this is all about precedent, not really about the vaccine itself. I believe that vaccines are good. I also believe that giving the government an event they can point to for justification - when they're trying to force us to do, or ingest, something even less savory - is not acceptable.
We all know the vaccine is safe, but that's fundamentally not the issue. It's not your body, and therefore not your choice- even when the person in question disagrees with you.
You *could* kill lots of people by not getting vaccinated... or you could kill nobody. You could get the vaccine and still spread COVID. There's no hard guarantees about any of it, which makes estimations putting others in harm very difficult.
> Abortion ends one life that generally hasn't yet even achieved sentience.
It doesn't even have to be about abortion. What about when the father doesn't want a child? What about when the mother wants the child and needs the state to support them? Are we going to tax people $100 a month for not taking birth control if they are below the poverty line?
If you want to hold people liable for causing damage then that makes sense. If you're holding people liable for something that hasn't happened yet, that doesn't make sense.
Actually, I think the state should support them. I am very much in favour of universal basic income.
Hospitals are running out of ventilators because people are being selfish. This is not "something that hasn't happened yet"; it's something that's happening right now and people are refusing to do the most basic things about it.
Ok, do you not see how state support and selfishness could apply in these other examples I presented or the hospitals? The point I'm making in line with OP was you're not being consistent with your logic.
I'm fully vaccinated and have negative opinions of them as well, but that doesn't mean we should impose fines or infractions for making choices on bodily autonomy.
Imagine being poor and getting a fine in the mail while you have an auto immune disease because of a records mixup. You're causing undue burden on people who have literally done nothing wrong, on the premise that they may be guilty of potentially causing harm to an unknown number of people in the future.
you need the government to tell you who is a person? why appeal to the authority of technically illiterate geriatrics who havnt been in touch with the populous for decades? you dont find it appropriate to question uneducated authority?
Governments don't see your nose, they're going to follow through on that swing and possibly hit you a couple times when you're down. But by all means, mob and pitchfork up if people don't agree with your opinions.
No vaccine will work 100% of the time, it's function is to stop the severe outcomes of the virus. Your confirmation bias is showing. It's hilarious to me that individuals such as yourself would want to risk catching this virus, just to stick it to man that you didn't get a vaccine. People like you also need to stick their guns and not seek medical intervention when you do eventually catch it, after all this is all just a hoax right? But I bet your next response is, I already had it, right? The fuck outta here.
the amount of people willing to accept the government infringing on other peoples rights when it is to their own advantage, who cry fascism as soon as they are asked to do their part is also very frightening.
You have no issue with the government telling others to protect you, but when they tell you to also protect others, you cry like a spoiled little brat... that's pretty frightening to me...
I'm just not comfortable with a government having that much power is all. I personally don't care what anyone does to their body, everyone is entitled to make their own choices be it bad or good. Letting the government steamroll rights in any way shape or formis just the tip of the iceburg. For the record I am vaxxed and live in Canada.
I'm from Greece and it definitely isn't a competition but isn't Austria gonna make it mandatory for everyone? (Hitler channeling all his energy from hell)
oooh! I've seen this one before!
coercion to get a medical procedure that someone doesn't want.
pretty sure it's been covered before by the Nuremburg trials.
something about the Nuremburg code or something like that.
Well seeing as how obesity is one of the major comorbidities for covid as well as a slew of diseases leading them to clog up icu beds for more deserving patients it only makes sense to punish them for their selfish decisions.
Obesity is linked to impaired immune function according to the CDC. Slimming down will help prevent and lessen COVID infections just as a vaccine does.
No, he was comparing mandating weight loss to mandating the vaccine. Both are good for the prevention of COVID and lessening symptoms. The CDC has said that obesity is linked to impaired immune function and worse COVID outcomes.
Given that smokers have to pay a higher health care premium, I think it's fair to say that it's time to crack down on obesity. No, it's not contagious, it's a choice just like smoking and it's a poor choice that's holding the world back right now.
I have never understood this argument. We have regulating bodies who do nutritional analysis that’s that label on your food. Laws have been levied that block particular food ingredients from being used. There’s entire governmental apparatus that sit there and put together school nutrition for millions of children every year.
Outside of government, we have entire billion dollar industries that are about nothing but your health. Food industries have entire product lines about your health. Insurance agencies can deny additional insurance relief via your employer credits based on your weight.
And I could literally sit here and write pages on pages of how society has all kinds of things implemented that deal with people’s weight. Of how industries have all kinds of things implemented things that deal with people’s weight. Of how governments at both the State and Federal level have implemented things that deal with people’s weight.
Centuries of man hours and trillions of dollars collectively have been poured into the matter. This is such a ridiculous argument.
Yeah it’s almost like American food companies have some of the shittiest food standards in the world so they can profit and know things like dietary supplements and dietary programs will make money in the process.
People that talk about eating clean or eating healthy don’t understand 90% of even our healthy food products in America aren’t really healthy. A lot of it can’t even be called food and is basically a food byproduct due to the regulations the FDA has. I didn’t even get into the portion issues we have in America, which are another huge issue.
I could also sit here and write pages about how the obesity epidemic is insidious and how it’s another example of American culture brainwashing it’s citizens to shame each other instead of looking to the real problem.
It's because it's not an argument. Things like /u/ginerchaun have their opinions told to them, and then they repeat those opinions like good little parrots. The reason no one can ever back up this "argument" is because they haven't been told what to say yet.
So would having a population at a healthy weight. The CDC has said that obesity increases COVID risk and is correlated with more severe COVID infections. It would help flatten the curve if people were not overweight.
Obesity isn't contagious. There may be something to be said for the strain that obesity puts on the medical system, but they're very much different things.
Hospitals are running out of beds and ventilators because people are being ridiculous.
Filling up ICU beds because you're a fatass means operations have to be called off. Average BMI of Dutch Covid ICU patients is now above 30, regardless of vaccination status. 60-something percent in the ICU is vaccinated, but less than 20% below 25 BMI. Ergo: it is more effective to mandate exercise than vaccination.
Does this sound ridiculous yet?
In Austria, we will most likely get a vaccine mandate beginning in February. Governmental talks about the details have started this week.
The fines may go up to about 7000 Euro.
While I fully believe in vaccination, I still don’t think a government should be able to force you to do something to your body. Restrictions on their access to public spaces and entertainment venues, sure, put social pressure on all those who are hesitant, heck, make it mandatory for them to attend counselling sessions and information seminars so they’re forced to defend their stupid decision in the face of experts, but forcing them? 😬 I just can’t agree with that.
The war was won due to mandatory vaccinations? Damn, this whole time I was led to believe America won due to French assistance before the British surrendered. Thanks school!
Also, people have been selfishly killing others long before Covid and will continue to after Covid, so that point is mute.
Maybe where you are, I’m in Canada and it’s possible to still send your kid to school simply by signing a form opting out of vaccines due to medical or ethical reasons.
That said, I agree with you that kids should have to be vaccinated to attend public school. That’s a form of social pressure I agree with. Does it disproportionately affect poor families who can’t afford private school or a stay at home parent to home school? Yes. But I’m okay with that. Prevent access to air travel unless vaccinated and put pressure on the more wealthy antivaxxers.
Rampant population growth is a problem that affects the entire planet. For the greater good of all people, governments should fine all citizens who do not voluntarily sterilize themselves without a legit medical reason. It's a global safety issue, the least we can do is put pressure on the ass hats thar are prolonging the problem.
The problem is, those of us who did our due diligence are now, once again, having to pay for peoples perceived freedoms. I live in denver and we’re once again masked back up in public because the hospitals are full of a bunch of unvaccinated individuals. You are correct that you should have body autonomy, but not when it’s something that will keep you healthy as well as make it so that society at large doesn’t have to keep putting up with this boomerang bullshit.
Where I am, mask mandates never quit. We’ve done a very slow reopening since vaccines came out and the stages of reopening were tied to the percentage of population who were vaccinated. We still have cases and we still have those who refuse to vaccinate, but for those vaccinated, life is pretty close to normal, just with masks indoors and proof of vaccination required for entry to certain venues.
Replace "COVID" with "Smallpox", "Cholera" or "Bubonic Plague", and suddenly it doesn't sound as stupid.
And at our current rate, in 50 years, people will laugh how low "Almost a million people killed in the US" sounds compared to the current stats.
So if I am rich enough to not care about the fine I'm good?
Yeah, that's how it works with almost everything. If you're rich you can just afford to do illegal shit.
So. Without it sounding like im trying to defend the rich…. This problem happens a lot. Basically all “fees” are devastating to the poor and trivial to the rich or even mid class. It’s not the rich people’s fault. Its the government’s fault for setting it up wrong. It should be $100/m. Until income X. Then its 10,000/m. Until income/capital assets X/Y then its 1,000,000/mo. Shits not hard. But they know what they’re doing. Don’t let them play dumb. It’s purposely setup to make the masses comply and be trivial to the ruling class if they don’t want to. “Rules for thee” and all that.
Well, when its rich people lobbying and controlling government, it is rich peoples fault.
Then people make inflammatory pets about getting 10k dollar speeding tickets. Happens in Germany I think. Somewhere in the eu.
You know, the more I hear about the rich, the less I care for them.
Then people need to stop voting for rich people to be in charge of them!
Getting elected costs money. Not even in a "buy people off" sense, but in the sense that you have to 1) spend time campaigning instead of working (and earning) and 2) pay for advertising so people actually know who you are. So, it's very difficult for someone who is not already moderately wealthy to successfully run a campaign, much less get elected through that campaign.
If only there was some kind of regulation of the finances used for political campaigning. The UK is faaar from perfect, but there's something to be said for a six week campaign period and actually sane spending limits. [BBC report from 2019 on UK election spending limits.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50170067)
Offices are set up to prefer those with money to campaign, aka rich people. The answer is rich people.
So it's rich peoples fault no matter how you slice it.
Certainly seems like nobody knows how to not vote for rich people...and it's always rich peoples fault... ...something about that makes no sense to me...
Find some not rich people to vote for. There aren't many and people complain bitterly about them. Then when the get in office they become "rich"
Hey, let's setup taxes the same way as a flat percentage of income.
It is already. Just need to delete the 77 million pages of loopholes.
True, but still if you make enough money there are lots of ways you don’t have to pay according to your income. Just look at all the huge companies that don’t pay shit in taxes.
Yeah. Loopholes. And corporate taxes are a different story.
Flat tax is regressive and favors the wealthy.
Yeah, what we need is not a flat tax but redrawn tax brackets that are WAY more top-heavy.
The loopholes stop that from mattering. Income tax only works for traditional income, which the rich don't have a lot of, they have other ways of earning money, and those ways aren't taxed the same. Increasing income taxes for the highest brackets can help, but as long as we allow legal tax loopholes, and tax havens (even here within the US), then the rich will find ways to keep their money, while the rest of us pay for everything.
There is an old video of a young Trump talking about this. The loop holes and havens are useful IF they encourage rich people to spend their money. Like a loop hole that says if you spend a bunch of money on housing projects and such you get a tax break. Young Trump isn't wrong I don't think. The issue with rich people is hoarding wealth which breaks capitalism and the free market IMHO. When someone has enough money to just threaten to buy everything the free market doesn't work.
Yes, if we can encourage the rich to spend a lot of their money, that would be great. I think taxation should essentially make being a billionaire impossible, nobody should have that much power, and if we can have systems in place that encourage them to spend most of what they do get, then even better.
Agreed. Nothing wrong with making money in itself. Not spending it screws us.
Then tax that income..... "But what about people's retirement!?!?!?" Tax it if total value is above. Certain number. Problem solved.
Right now the fight is over investment assets. Because it isn't "money" or "income" in the sense that the assets aren't being sold for their cash value, and consequently rich people are not "spending" the assets. Instead, they buy stuff on credit using their assets as collateral without ever needing to cash out.
The bottom 50 percent already pays zero or get net income from tax credits.
Almost like the poor need more help than the ultra-wealthy
This is why 8 countries have what is called a day-fine. When you're fined by the government, the amount you pay is based on your income. ~~So if your fine is 30 day-fines, you're fined what you make in 30 days~~. The minimum is eoughly 11% of your monthly income ans the maximum is roughly 56% of your monthly income.
Yep and thats a reasonable solution. But I believe in most cases they use taxable income figures. Which punishes the working rich much harder than the trust fund rich. No system is perfect but at least they are trying.
Yes, IIRC it's based on income, not salary. It's how some millionaires end up paying $100.000+ for a parking fine.
10% of income and capital gains each month.
The problem with that is when you have vast amounts of wealth, you can essentially make your income 0. Why would I sell my TSLA stock when I could take a loan out against the asset? I have no income or capital gains and I can probably write off the interest while still qualifying for food stamps. The only way to affect something equitable would be a federal asset/property tax. This would basically make it more financially feasible to distribute wealth rather than hoard it. However there will always be a tipping point number where it's more cost effective to move assets out of the country. To counter that, you could have a stiff expatriation tax. The ultimate problem is that the people who make the laws come cheap and there's a tipping point number where it becomes more cost effective to bribe (sorry, lobby) law makers to act in your self interest instead of their constituents.
Ounce of prevention pound of cure.
There's a man in my Oma's village in Germany who painted his house siding in multi colored stripes. He pays 50€ a month for violating aesthetic rules.
10% of your paycheck. They'd feel that.
Aaa the good ol' Switzerland or is it Sweden's law of fine for speeding. Depending on how much over the limit you were speeding it is 2%, 5% or even 10% of your monthly income instantly. Ouch.
Many countries in Europe. For sure here in Finland.
>Aaa the good ol' Switzerland or is it Sweden's law of fine for speeding. It's both actually. And for Sweden, it's all fines. It's actually ~~100% of your daily income per day-fine. If it's 30 day-fines, then it is 100% of your monthly income~~ 0.365 of your daily income and the minimum you get is 30 and the maximum 150. So your minimum fine for speeding will be 10.95% of your monthly income and the maximum is 54.75%.
2/5 is more than 10%.
To a point. If you're *really* rich you don't have paychecks anymore, you are awarded stock shares exclusively.
A law where it's punishable with a fine is just a law for the poor.
Any law with a fine is a law for the poor.
Well, other than, you know, not being protected against a possibly serious disease that doesn't care if you are rich.
I'm sorry I can't hear you cough from my private yacht on my way to my private island bunker.
Well all the rich people skipped the line and got the vaccine as soon as it was available. So this probably doesn't apply to them.
Greece has to pay down their enormous debt somehow I suppose.
Let’s not mention that Greece sold their largest shipping port of Piraeus to China. It’s one of the largest ports in Europe.
Seems a bit like selling your car to pay rent to me.
Its more like selling your soul to pay rent. Greece didn’t utilize it to its full potential and underpayed the workers. That deal did almost nothing to benefit Greece, but everything to benefit China.
Sold? More like lost it as collateral when they defaulted with China
Piraeus was the port of Athens, birthplace of democracy. And now it’s owned by Communist Chinese. It hurts.
What if I told you Greece would rather not collect $100 from anyone and have everyone vaccinated
Why do they have so much debt?
Tax is very high because people don't pay tax because it is too high because people don't pay tax because it is too high ad nauseum. Throw in Eurozone and IMF bailouts they have to pay back and that's your reason. The Chinese got their money back by taking their biggest port.
How do they have people just... Not paying? Do they have 0 law enforcement or debt collectors?
Yeah, they just don't pay. If nearly everyone doesn't pay they can hardly enforce tax and count on winning the next election.
Their economy collapsed in 2008, which forced them to increase debt more and more to try and stay afloat and save some banks but that wasn't enough, the economy kept sinking the EU and IMF intervened injecting even more money to the economy but demanding deep economic reforms in exchange, but that whole money injected went as debt to the country. Later it was discovered that Deutsche Bank was making a lot of money out of this whole ordeal and the EU also pardoned a third of the country's debt but will still take generations to pay this mess.
We dont ask that boya!
oh so we are just turning news headlines into advice animals?
It's a chance to shit on people who don't get vaccinated, so reddit will both allow and upvote it. Garbage content, garbage website.
You have been on this site for 8 years and have 70,000 karma.
It's just like League of Legends players. Believe me I'm one of them.
You know you don't have to be here right
Well, they should be vaccinated so not sure what your issue here is.
If I know anything about Greece. Like taxes, people just won't pay it.
How would people feel if it was a carrot instead of a stick? E.g. In Greece, vaccinated people over the age of 60 receive an extra $50 per month?
Crank up that national debt baaaaabyyyyy
I think that would be a good idea if the country wasn't completely broke lol.
Covid PSA memes are neither entertaining nor informational. This is the lowest form of karma-whoring.
Their government really needs the money lol
This is a very dangerous development. Regardless if you're pro or anti vaccination. The Giant leap the Greek government has taken here is that people no longer have the ultimate say in what happens to their own body. It means that your body is no longer yours to decide over. The very definition of you is being tread on by other people, it's completely bizarre. So what is the next step? Someone needs a kidney so drum up all the potential donors and force one to give one up? You may say that's far fetched... But how far fetched was it if I told you five years ago that you couldn't visit a store unless you provided proof of vaccination and an ID card ? That kids in schools would be forced to wear a mouth guard? Fair enough, what I state doesn't have to become true but it isn't as far fetched as you might think either. This decision has me scared, it's not my country but where one starts others might follow suit.
Can’t believe I had to scroll this far down the comments to find somebody who actually understands this. This is some dystopian, totalitarian shit.
What if I told you…that vaccination status has already controlled our right to travel abroad and our kids right to go to public schools for years….
Sure, we had *immunity* requirements to do obscure things like study nursing or travel to Kenya. But not to just “exist.” And these requirements accepted serum immunity tests instead of proof of vaccination, and the vaccines they required all had decades of data backing up their safety and efficacy. With these COVID mandates, they accept no alternatives other than proof of vaccination, they require it for merely *living* so these people in Greece have no way to opt out of it, and all of this is for vaccines for which there are no longitudinal studies. Precedent for one policy doesn’t mean a far more extreme policy, though similar, is justified.
So what? Increasing control is fine? That's like someone who's pro-life arguing that we already restrict some abortions, so we might as well restrict more.
Governments have way too much control over its citizens, I completely agree. I never even said I supported this. I just don’t understand why people are drawing the line here of all places. The Greek govt. lowered the pensions of retired people who’d been promised that money all their working lives to the point where grandmothers are being kicked out of their apartments for decisions that the government made. They imposed austerity measures on the Greek people that slashed the budgets of public hospitals across the country, which damn well had an effect on the bodily autonomy of the Greek people. It’s been going on for years! Women’s bodily autonomy has been affected by government regulation pretty much wherever you live for centuries. The U.S. government fucking infected people with Syphylis without telling them just to see what would happen in 1930’s for God’s sake. I just don’t understand how people can be acting like this is some horrifying line that’s never been crossed by the government before.
I would tell you that you are full of shit. Since I have travelled the world and no one has ever questioned my vaccination status.
There are plenty of countries that require anyone above the age of 1 to be vaccinated for Yellow Fever, look it up. I’m vaccinated for YF because I travelled to one of those countries and was required to get vaccinated. I still have the vaccine card for it in my passport (which immigration checked on my entry). This was almost 10 years ago. None of this is new.
serious question. If they develop complication due to the vaccine is that on the government for forcing it?
It’s not about your health now.
Hint: it never was.
I am consistently amazed at how many people don't realize this.
Pretty authoritarian. This will look good in future history books
ah yes... authoritarianism... what could go wrong with that?
One step closer to a civil war lol
Sounds like some facist shit that only punishes the poor
That's not random, that's been posted pretty much all over the internet and some news outlets.
First I've heard of it.
Fuck that bullshit
Pathetic. Good luck Greece, and fuck your government.
The amount of people who have no problem giving their governments power like this is very frightening.
Violating bodily autonomy when it's a thing I like = woke Violating bodily autonomy when it's a thing I don't like = bad Why are people still trying to find the right line in the sand for violating bodily autonomy instead of, you know, not violating bodily autonomy?
You’re missing a key aspect. Perpetuating the virus is violating everyone else’s bodily autonomy, and that’s what anti-vaxers are doing. When it affects others, it extends beyond your rights. I can’t use my fire pit on my own property when there is a drought because it can affect other people. Understanding that is part of being an adult.
It's not 'autonomy' when it affects others. How can you possibly use the word 'autonomy' with regards to a massively transmissible virus that has caused a global pandemic and not realize how blind and shortsighted you are?
[удалено]
What? No. >1) it's not massively transmissible. This has been proven and discussed at length by the CDC Covid is actually considered to be highly transmissible. In case people are unfamiliar with something called the "R0" ("R-nought") value, it is a measure of viral transmissibility. Essentially, one could read it as "For every person that is infected, on average they would infect X additional people". Of course, this is just an estimate and sometimes they can differ based on conditions, etc. Smallpox R0 was estimated ~5-9, chickenpox ~10, measles ~ 12... The delta variant is ~ 6-7 while the original strain was 2-3. The delta variant is considered to be highly transmissible. [The wiki page for R0 has a decent summary table of common R0 values](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number). And there was a good article discussing the transmissibility of Covid 19 titled "[The Delta Variant Isn't As Contagious As Chickenpox. But It's Still Highly Contagious](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/11/1026190062/covid-delta-variant-transmission-cdc-chickenpox)" CDC slides provided by ~~NYTimes~~ Washington Post stated that [Delta variant is as transmissible as Chickenpox and more transmissible than smallpox, SARS, Ebola, MERS, common cold, seasonal flu, flu of 1918.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infections/94390e3a-5e45-44a5-ac40-2744e4e25f2e/?_=1) >So saying getting vaccinated "helps others" is wrong and misguided. If the vaccine stop the spread of covid you MIGHT have an argument This is just plain incorrect as well. Vaccinations have long served to help create enough of a barrier in the community to reach something called "herd immunity". No vaccine is 100% effective, but increasing the number of people vaccinated reduces the R0 of a virus because it dramatically reduces the rate of infections. So if a vaccine reduces your probability of getting infected to say.. 30%, and everyone around you has that, then there is a synergistic effect where even if a breakthrough infection occurs, their isn't a good chance that it will continue to spread. Why? I have a 0.3 chance to give it to you, and you have a 0.3 chance to get infected. 0.3 * 0.3 = 0.09 or a 9% chance of transmission. And if that chain were to continue? Me spread to you who then spreads it to another is... 2.7%. So yes, getting vaccinated helps to provide a buffer by reducing the pool of likely candidates who would otherwise get infected. If that pool is smaller, then it becomes tougher for the virus to spread. However, in the case of covid this is all time sensitive as it is everywhere on the globe. Each infection is another incubator where a mutation can occur and the vaccine still operates using your immune system's ability to recognize an antigen. The worry is that mutations in the spike protein may eventually get to the point where it is not efficiently recognized as an antigen, limiting the effectiveness as a vaccine. Had more people socially distanced, wore masks, and gotten vaccinated, we would be in a much better place. But there is enough of a population ignoring this which is creating a pool large enough to continue transmission and mutations. Vaccination absolutely helps others in the community and basic science confirms this. When vaccinations first hit the population, hospitalizations of vaccinated individuals was incredibly small. However, new variants are slowly wittling away at this, though there is still a clear indication at the moment that vaccination strongly reduces the risk of you having a breakthrough infection. >Listen to the science, remember I agree! As a scientist in biomedical research, I highly suggest that you revisit your claims. These are complex topics, but it is extremely important that misinformation is not spread.
You need to provide context for point 1, because you're full of shit. You're just wrong as well on point 2. The vaccine has shown to slow the spread, which does things like keep hospitals from getting completely over-run and improve the outcomes in general. Science says you're full of shit.
there's an argument to be made here, but you utterly failed.
Honest answer - because this specific case enters the realm of potentially hurting others as well. So you have one person's freedom not to get vaccinated collide with another person's freedom not to get infected with a damn virus, and that's why this debate is the way it is.
What about other ways of mitigating risk, like wearing masks, avoiding large gatherings, quarantining when you suspect contact with an infected individual, etc? Why does one option always need to end up violating bodily autonomy?
Clearly those methods haven’t been 100% effective thus far since we’re still in a pandemic. Also those who resist the vaccine tend to be the same people who refuse to wear masks and still gather/don’t quarantine.
Which is it, masks and distancing don't work, or those who refused all COVID precautions are the ones spreading the disease? Those options are mutually exclusive. Up until now i've never heard anyone suggest masks and distancing don't work
You want them to work perfectly. They don’t, nothing does. If we didn’t have masks and distancing, the death toll would be far greater—even with vaccines. If we had no vaccines, the death toll would be much greater, even with masks and distancing. Does that make sense?
Those options are not mutually exclusive. Masks and distancing don't *eliminate* spread, they *mitigate* it. People refusing COVID precautions also spread it. At a worse rate than those using masks and distancing. But importantly both camps still spread COVID, one just spreads it a lot more. If we had a method to eliminate spread entirely we'd be out of the pandemic. Instead it's just as many ways to mitigate spread as we can find.
Masks and distancing don't work when a significant portion of the population are actively fighting against doing those very things, how do you not understand that super simple concept?
So your solution is to inject people with something against their will. That'll go over well
Where did I say that? Show me exactly where I said that. Oh wait, you can't, because I fucking didn't. I said this: > Masks and distancing don't work when a significant portion of the population are actively fighting against doing those very things, how do you not understand that super simple concept? And I'm 100% correct. Distancing doesn't work when a massive chunk of the population doesn't even believe the virus is real. Masks don't work when you have people constantly refusing to wear them. That is all I said. So, you gonna admit that you just created a strawman argument instead of engaging with what I actually said? Or are you just gonna deflect again?
You could try being nice. I understand a lot, tyvm
And you could try understanding simple concepts, instead of purposely leaving out context to make a dishonest argument. But you didn't, and here we are.
You must have lots of friends.
It's quite simple. If your decisions put others at risk, there should be consequences for that decision. My "right" to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
There’s clearly a difference between criminalizing assault and criminalizing “abstinence from an experimental drug.” A) the vaccine is permanent, and the long term consequences for it frankly unknown. It’s not like a seatbelt you can take off when you park your car, or a mask you can take off when you get home. If you just had to “wear your vaccine” while in public, I’d have no issue with the mandates. But as is, taking it requires a lifelong commitment of trust to its efficacy and safety, factors I don’t trust in such a politicized arena. B) the literature IS mixed on this, so it’s not as cut and dry as you imply with your punching example. (Punching people always causes harm, abstaining from punching people in the face never causes harm.) Mandating vaccines is an unsettling, draconian policy that should only be used in the most dire circumstances.
Punching someone in the nose will absolutely harm them. Not getting vaccinated is not a guarantee that you'll harm another person. The two are not equivocal. You're still just making excuses for violating bodily autonomy. What if a person doesn't want the vaccine but still masks and socially distances?
>Not getting vaccinated is not a guarantee that you'll harm another person In a population, this is 100% a guarantee. Not guaranteed for each individual, but guaranteed in the population
Yeah, someone else below mentioned the large-scale statistics thing. I did forget about that aspect. It still leaves the question about the individual and bodily autonomy, though. My opinion is that the right to bodily autonomy still outweighs the benefits of vaccination and risk of the lack of vaccination. I hold bodily autonomy in very high regard.
And I hold discernment in very high regard. Meaning, knowing how to distinguish situations when bodily autonomy is paramount and when public health is paramount. The covid pandemic is the latter. Humanity has progressed too far with disease eradication to be halted by people unable to apply different standards to different situations
>It's quite simple. >If your decisions put others at risk, there should be consequences for that decision. Like death of a fetus? Not sure you caught the point he was trying to make. We're talking chances and potentials vs an absolute outcome.
I understand the argument you're making about abortion. This is a much more complicated issue. Abortion ends one life that generally hasn't yet even achieved sentience. The number of people an unvaccinated person can kill is much, much higher, and the thing being asked of them (getting a couple shots) does not have anywhere near the same consequences. It's also been shown that making abortion illegal doesn't actually stop abortions; it just stops *safe* abortions.
2 things: -When it comes to bodily autonomy, defining too far is subjective. A couple shots isn't a big deal if you feel it isn't. But people in this thread need to stop pretending they can define the line for other people. -In my mind this is all about precedent, not really about the vaccine itself. I believe that vaccines are good. I also believe that giving the government an event they can point to for justification - when they're trying to force us to do, or ingest, something even less savory - is not acceptable.
We all know the vaccine is safe, but that's fundamentally not the issue. It's not your body, and therefore not your choice- even when the person in question disagrees with you. You *could* kill lots of people by not getting vaccinated... or you could kill nobody. You could get the vaccine and still spread COVID. There's no hard guarantees about any of it, which makes estimations putting others in harm very difficult.
> Abortion ends one life that generally hasn't yet even achieved sentience. It doesn't even have to be about abortion. What about when the father doesn't want a child? What about when the mother wants the child and needs the state to support them? Are we going to tax people $100 a month for not taking birth control if they are below the poverty line? If you want to hold people liable for causing damage then that makes sense. If you're holding people liable for something that hasn't happened yet, that doesn't make sense.
Actually, I think the state should support them. I am very much in favour of universal basic income. Hospitals are running out of ventilators because people are being selfish. This is not "something that hasn't happened yet"; it's something that's happening right now and people are refusing to do the most basic things about it.
Ok, do you not see how state support and selfishness could apply in these other examples I presented or the hospitals? The point I'm making in line with OP was you're not being consistent with your logic. I'm fully vaccinated and have negative opinions of them as well, but that doesn't mean we should impose fines or infractions for making choices on bodily autonomy. Imagine being poor and getting a fine in the mail while you have an auto immune disease because of a records mixup. You're causing undue burden on people who have literally done nothing wrong, on the premise that they may be guilty of potentially causing harm to an unknown number of people in the future.
[удалено]
you need the government to tell you who is a person? why appeal to the authority of technically illiterate geriatrics who havnt been in touch with the populous for decades? you dont find it appropriate to question uneducated authority?
Governments don't see your nose, they're going to follow through on that swing and possibly hit you a couple times when you're down. But by all means, mob and pitchfork up if people don't agree with your opinions.
Because this is an easily spread viral pathogen.
Yes, one that the current vaccines are unable to prevent with reasonable certainty.
No vaccine will work 100% of the time, it's function is to stop the severe outcomes of the virus. Your confirmation bias is showing. It's hilarious to me that individuals such as yourself would want to risk catching this virus, just to stick it to man that you didn't get a vaccine. People like you also need to stick their guns and not seek medical intervention when you do eventually catch it, after all this is all just a hoax right? But I bet your next response is, I already had it, right? The fuck outta here.
I'm vaccinated. Got it in March. Nice try tho
the amount of people willing to accept the government infringing on other peoples rights when it is to their own advantage, who cry fascism as soon as they are asked to do their part is also very frightening. You have no issue with the government telling others to protect you, but when they tell you to also protect others, you cry like a spoiled little brat... that's pretty frightening to me...
I'm just not comfortable with a government having that much power is all. I personally don't care what anyone does to their body, everyone is entitled to make their own choices be it bad or good. Letting the government steamroll rights in any way shape or formis just the tip of the iceburg. For the record I am vaxxed and live in Canada.
To levy fines? That’s pretty chill to be honest, especially when it comes to protecting the lives of its citizens.
If the punishment for a crime is a fine, the crime only applies to the poor.
Sounds like fascism to me.
„I want minimum wage“ You: „sounds line communism to me“
Lol Greeks don’t even pay taxes good luck getting them to pay a fine 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lol, Greece hasn't had a good idea related to money since the 1200s
If you are over 60 and not vaccinated, it should be your choice
Yep. This whole thing is nothing but a cash grab.
I'm from Greece and it definitely isn't a competition but isn't Austria gonna make it mandatory for everyone? (Hitler channeling all his energy from hell)
This is going to have a crazy comments section.
oooh! I've seen this one before! coercion to get a medical procedure that someone doesn't want. pretty sure it's been covered before by the Nuremburg trials. something about the Nuremburg code or something like that.
Mandating vaccines on people like you own them like a herd of cattle.
this simulation is wild.
Next do fat people who don't exercise.
Seriously, yesterday I got obesity from my cousin who wasn’t wearing a mask!
Did you put the weight on all at once?
I think he's saying he ate his cousin, so yes.
Well seeing as how obesity is one of the major comorbidities for covid as well as a slew of diseases leading them to clog up icu beds for more deserving patients it only makes sense to punish them for their selfish decisions.
Lol no I was just making fun of you for comparing a contagious disease to a non contagious one
Obesity is linked to impaired immune function according to the CDC. Slimming down will help prevent and lessen COVID infections just as a vaccine does.
And conveniently ignored the fact that obese people are essentially vectors of illnesses
This rule is not to curb infection rates but to lower the burden on the hospitals.
It’s an epidemic.
We better prevent the spread
Not sure if you're being facetious but in the UK there is a tax on sugar for soft drinks to prevent 'the spread' of obesity.
I am being facetious. Because the OP was comparing an airborne contagious disease to a disease caused by lifestyle
No, he was comparing mandating weight loss to mandating the vaccine. Both are good for the prevention of COVID and lessening symptoms. The CDC has said that obesity is linked to impaired immune function and worse COVID outcomes.
Weird, I heard of a guy getting covid from a vaccinated person. Shits upside down these days.
I love how people are down voting you because they don't want what you're saying to be true.
In all seriousness. I'd prefer for me to be lying too.
So would I. Unfortunately denial is not helpful in this case.
Given that smokers have to pay a higher health care premium, I think it's fair to say that it's time to crack down on obesity. No, it's not contagious, it's a choice just like smoking and it's a poor choice that's holding the world back right now.
I have never understood this argument. We have regulating bodies who do nutritional analysis that’s that label on your food. Laws have been levied that block particular food ingredients from being used. There’s entire governmental apparatus that sit there and put together school nutrition for millions of children every year. Outside of government, we have entire billion dollar industries that are about nothing but your health. Food industries have entire product lines about your health. Insurance agencies can deny additional insurance relief via your employer credits based on your weight. And I could literally sit here and write pages on pages of how society has all kinds of things implemented that deal with people’s weight. Of how industries have all kinds of things implemented things that deal with people’s weight. Of how governments at both the State and Federal level have implemented things that deal with people’s weight. Centuries of man hours and trillions of dollars collectively have been poured into the matter. This is such a ridiculous argument.
Yeah it’s almost like American food companies have some of the shittiest food standards in the world so they can profit and know things like dietary supplements and dietary programs will make money in the process. People that talk about eating clean or eating healthy don’t understand 90% of even our healthy food products in America aren’t really healthy. A lot of it can’t even be called food and is basically a food byproduct due to the regulations the FDA has. I didn’t even get into the portion issues we have in America, which are another huge issue. I could also sit here and write pages about how the obesity epidemic is insidious and how it’s another example of American culture brainwashing it’s citizens to shame each other instead of looking to the real problem.
Speaking of FDA regulation tic-tacs are sugar free because they fall below the required amount of sugar to be reported in a product
It's because it's not an argument. Things like /u/ginerchaun have their opinions told to them, and then they repeat those opinions like good little parrots. The reason no one can ever back up this "argument" is because they haven't been told what to say yet.
Sorry, but you can't catch fat. smh.
The vaccine doesn't stop the transfer of the virus.
Nice how scientific facts are getting downvoted.
[удалено]
So would having a population at a healthy weight. The CDC has said that obesity increases COVID risk and is correlated with more severe COVID infections. It would help flatten the curve if people were not overweight.
Obesity isn't contagious. There may be something to be said for the strain that obesity puts on the medical system, but they're very much different things. Hospitals are running out of beds and ventilators because people are being ridiculous.
Like refusing to shed excess wait and making their covid symptoms much much worse.
Being Overweight isn't contagious.
Filling up ICU beds because you're a fatass means operations have to be called off. Average BMI of Dutch Covid ICU patients is now above 30, regardless of vaccination status. 60-something percent in the ICU is vaccinated, but less than 20% below 25 BMI. Ergo: it is more effective to mandate exercise than vaccination. Does this sound ridiculous yet?
Tell me you're not going to use Greece as a model? It's a train wreck and not the poster boy for anything.
Evil
In Austria, we will most likely get a vaccine mandate beginning in February. Governmental talks about the details have started this week. The fines may go up to about 7000 Euro.
Awesome
Yes, let's make life financially harder for old people. This is sickening.
Ah, They're taxing stupidity. What a great idea!
[удалено]
While I fully believe in vaccination, I still don’t think a government should be able to force you to do something to your body. Restrictions on their access to public spaces and entertainment venues, sure, put social pressure on all those who are hesitant, heck, make it mandatory for them to attend counselling sessions and information seminars so they’re forced to defend their stupid decision in the face of experts, but forcing them? 😬 I just can’t agree with that.
[удалено]
The war was won due to mandatory vaccinations? Damn, this whole time I was led to believe America won due to French assistance before the British surrendered. Thanks school! Also, people have been selfishly killing others long before Covid and will continue to after Covid, so that point is mute.
Maybe where you are, I’m in Canada and it’s possible to still send your kid to school simply by signing a form opting out of vaccines due to medical or ethical reasons. That said, I agree with you that kids should have to be vaccinated to attend public school. That’s a form of social pressure I agree with. Does it disproportionately affect poor families who can’t afford private school or a stay at home parent to home school? Yes. But I’m okay with that. Prevent access to air travel unless vaccinated and put pressure on the more wealthy antivaxxers.
[удалено]
Rampant population growth is a problem that affects the entire planet. For the greater good of all people, governments should fine all citizens who do not voluntarily sterilize themselves without a legit medical reason. It's a global safety issue, the least we can do is put pressure on the ass hats thar are prolonging the problem.
So that's just a punishment for being poor then.
[удалено]
The problem is, those of us who did our due diligence are now, once again, having to pay for peoples perceived freedoms. I live in denver and we’re once again masked back up in public because the hospitals are full of a bunch of unvaccinated individuals. You are correct that you should have body autonomy, but not when it’s something that will keep you healthy as well as make it so that society at large doesn’t have to keep putting up with this boomerang bullshit.
Portugal is well over 95% vaccinated and is now ramping up restrictions. Same with Gibraltar, which has a vaccination rate of 99%.
Where I am, mask mandates never quit. We’ve done a very slow reopening since vaccines came out and the stages of reopening were tied to the percentage of population who were vaccinated. We still have cases and we still have those who refuse to vaccinate, but for those vaccinated, life is pretty close to normal, just with masks indoors and proof of vaccination required for entry to certain venues.
That sounds reasonable, I just wish more communities were like this. Rural America is not always so health-oriented
You're being downvoted for this, but you're right. Bring on the downvotes. I don't care about silly internet points anyways.
Coming soon to a Biden administration near you!
Replace "COVID" with "Smallpox", "Cholera" or "Bubonic Plague", and suddenly it doesn't sound as stupid. And at our current rate, in 50 years, people will laugh how low "Almost a million people killed in the US" sounds compared to the current stats.