As happens with many pressures that come along in life, for a lot of people there seems to be a lack of critical thinking regarding Covid mandates and restrictions. Through taking the steps of critical thinking, someone can rationally analyze the various causes and effects which are relevant to a concept. When it comes to mandates and restrictions, logic can be applied to understand better whether or not they are necessary and helpful in the way that they are being pushed by the government.
1 of the first basic questions to consider could be; are they for the protection of others, or the individual? If mandates and restrictions are for the protection of the individual, is it worth taking away free choice of an individual to force protection on them? Consider other examples of restrictions in life that would follow this principle. If you agree with forced protection, then would you also agree that exercise should be mandated? And if the government really values protection of individual citizens, why has exercise been restricted by closing parks, conservation area’s and beaches in the summer, and gyms and all public exercise in the winter?
Would you also agree to your free choice being restricted by banning any greasy and sugary foods, for your protection? All of these measures would not only prevent severeness of Covid, but also quite significantly prevent many other illnesses, including the top causes of death.
Or, are mandates and restrictions perhaps for the protection of others? If so, who are the others that need protection and can’t protect themselves? Everyone has had a chance to take a vaccine, in 1st world countries at least, so if the vaccines effectively prevent harm, why do those people still need protection? Or, if someone has a precondition and is unable to take the vaccine and is also vulnerable to Covid, they are still able to stay isolated and use precautions (such as more effective masks). If you believe everyone else should still restrict themselves so that vulnerable people don't need to restrict themselves, should we do that forever and should that also always have been the practice before covid? Considering there were always people vulnerable to many other viruses and diseases. Or if you want to think more globally and consider risks of less fortunate countries that may not have had as much opportunity for vaccines, should we be hoarding and using up vaccines on healthy people here, when that vaccine could have gone to someone at higher risk?
If vaccines should be mandated, how do they protect others? It has been quite evident that vaccinated people still transmit Covid, and in real world scenarios, someone vaccinated, very well may be more likely to spread it, since they often have less virus symptoms, and are therefore less likely to notice & self isolate.
Or perhaps it could be considered instead, that the ones that need protection are people in the hospital if hospitals are overwhelmed. If we don’t “flatten the curve” and slow the spread. But if so, then again, should we also have mandated exercise & banned unhealthy food? This would have reduced people going to the hospital for covid (the same as vaccines do), but also prevented people from going to the hospital for many other health reasons, and therefore kept hospitals from being overwhelmed.
Or if you still happen to think all these methods of forced protection on an individual are helpful, why would natural immunity not be an exemption from vaccine mandates? Considering immunity after infection has been proven to be more effective than vaccines, couldn’t it be considered a virtue point to intentionally catch covid then isolate, in order to “protect others”, in the same way people have been using vaccination as bragging rights for virtue points?
Perhaps the most significant question of all might be, if protection of others is the real intent, then why is protection from harm, so very disregarded for every other person in society? There are countless ways society is being harmed by these restrictions and mandates. When it comes to vaccine mandates (as well as censoring alternatives), the risk of harm of side effects caused by the vaccine + boosters for the rest of the individuals life, not only applies to every healthy adult being mandated, but also every teenager and child being subjected to vaccines by either parents or propaganda.
As for lockdowns and restrictions, perhaps consideration should be directed towards the long term economic harm from businesses being forced to shut down or reduce customers. But more urgently, the short term harm could be acknowledged of job and business loss causing people to lose their livelihood. The mental health harm caused by forced social and activity restrictions would be vastly widespread and difficult to distinguish, but could be most impactful on children that are in a developmental stage of life. The physical harm caused by restricted exercise and forced reduction of oxygen by masks, may be similarly difficult to determine, but not irrelevant to take into account.
In the end, it seems the question is; Is it worth the degree of risk and harm to society of these effects, to attempt to protect those who can protect themselves? As it seems there are these many intricately connected effects relative to restrictions and mandates, it is understandable that the subject is complex to evaluate effectively, but steps of critical thinking aid in making it quite plausible to have a reasonable and effective perspective.
Perhaps instead of mandating all this harm, maybe we should mandate freedom of choice?
No comments:
Post a Comment