Quote:
Originally Posted by Goriders
How much safer am I because some pandering politician tells me I can’t go to a stamps game with 12,000 people at it or a Flames game.
…
Basically I don’t need an idiot to tell me what to do. I’m able to guage risk and make decisions based on that risk. But I guess some people need that in their lives?
|
You’re missing the point, and I think a lot of people miss the point.
Yes, it’s great to feel that little extra bit safer by having no unvaccinated people around. Sure, wonderful. But restrictions are a means of stopping or limiting a rise in hospitalisations. The more people in hospital, the more stress put on the health care system. A stressed health care system leads to cancelled and delayed surgeries, delayed appointments, reduced access for everyone, etc. Put 1000 vaccinated people in a room, introduce Delta, and you’ve probably got a few breakthrough cases. Put 600 vaccinated people in a room with 400 unvaccinated and do the same thing, and cases are going to be a LOT higher. Sure, it’s great that 600 are vaccinated. But Delta doesn’t really give a #### when there’s 400 unvaccinated in the room ready for infection.
So, yes, being selfish about it, it can seem strange. But your choices are restrictions for everyone, or restrictions for the vaccinated. It’s not to make it safer for YOU, that’s what the vaccine is for. It’s to make it safer for EVERYONE. We’ve just been through a year of this. The only difference is now you’re vaccinated, which means you shouldn’t really have to be restricted… but you’re saying you want the restrictions?
That’s what I don’t get. Restrictions aren’t for fun. They’re to protect the health care system. The vaccinated are being excluded because they’re low risk. And people are seriously advocating being restricted WITH the unvaccinated because it would be “unfair”? Have at it.
Restrictions are coming either way. As a vaccinated person, I’m more than happy to avoid them. You want to sit at home with the unvaccinated? Volunteer to do so.