> the hypothetical was: "where vaccines perfectly stop transmission and the virus is orders of magnitude more lethal".
As I said: "if the vaccination perfectly prevented transmission, then people who don't take it would only be hurting themselves".
- The argument already caved in on itself. The logic fail was hilarious. And you're still arguing? Pfffft, feck off.
> way to move the goal post. Why is the requirement to stop a single case?
Because you called unvaccinated people "walking bioweapons", and I'd like you to try and quantify that for yourself. Don't you like knowing what you're talking about? The NNVT exists for that purpose.
Please don't come back at me with more poorly thought through accusations; at my limit for the day.
You seem to be letting your emotions rule and not following the thread you started.
Your point was: vaccines don’t prevent infections. Even if vaccines were hypothetically 100% effective at preventing infections then there is still no point in putting restrictions on the unvaccinated since those vaccinated would be perfectly protected.
My question was, given the above what about people that can’t get the vaccine for various reasons? We’ll have “walking bio weapons” that are dangerous to them.
Basically how far does individual freedom extend with you? Does it go so far as putting other people at risk?
As I said: "if the vaccination perfectly prevented transmission, then people who don't take it would only be hurting themselves".
- The argument already caved in on itself. The logic fail was hilarious. And you're still arguing? Pfffft, feck off.
> way to move the goal post. Why is the requirement to stop a single case?
Because you called unvaccinated people "walking bioweapons", and I'd like you to try and quantify that for yourself. Don't you like knowing what you're talking about? The NNVT exists for that purpose.
Please don't come back at me with more poorly thought through accusations; at my limit for the day.