The Rights of the Naturally Immune

Source: American Institute for Economic Research.

“This is an important issue that needs to be addressed much more vigorously than has been the case up until now.”

I agree with the writer. What is liberty if those who harm no one must prove themselves to others? It is nothing. It doesn’t exist.

25 thoughts on “The Rights of the Naturally Immune

  1. There is more than one issue here.

    Of course there is the issue of rights. I have always been opposed to mask mandates, but I also advocate their use as the right thing to do. I am vaccinated, but I wear a mask when appropriate both as a matter of courtesy but also because I understand that immunity does, and does not, do.

    If you are actively immune, and you are exposed to the virus, you will become infected, but your immune system will not let the infection rise to the point of being symptomatic before shutting it down. If your immunity has waned with time, you might be symptomatic while your memory cells are cranking up antibody production, but your illness will be mild and short.

    But, while your virus load will be low, you might shed virus briefly, so there is a small, but real, possibility of infecting someone who is vulnerable.

    So, as long as the virus is being spread in the community and I may interact with someone not yet vaccinated, I will continue to wear a mask if there is a chance I might endanger someone.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. …” I will continue to wear a mask if there is a chance I might endanger someone.”

      No one has said this to you, but Thank You.

      Though I am getting my second on Tuesday, I will continue to wear a mask when I feel it is appropriate, which includes at work where I interact with the public regularly. (and they interact with me).

      Liked by 2 people

    2. “I have always been opposed to mask mandates”

      If epidemiological science tells us that universal mask wearing would save tens of thousands of lives – or more- in a pandemic the obvious question is . . . WHY? Does “Liberty” include unrestricted freedom to seriously endanger other people?

      Like

      1. Liberty requires that we do the right thing without being forced.

        Much of the resistance to masks was because it was mandated, Unless you’re willing to incarcerate millions people for not wearing a mask, then a mandate is a toothless provocation.

        Persuasion would have worked better. Most people are good, and will sacrifice for others if they understand why. Sure, some were selfish enough to refuse. but once it became clear that if you didn’t wear mask you weren’t going to get laid and your children would see you as an embarrassment, even they would have masked up.

        Many things work better when you appeal to people’s better angels. but mandates work only if you’re willing to ive them teeth.

        Like

        1. “Liberty requires that we do the right thing without being forced.”

          The same logic applies to EVERY law.

          Incarceration is a “straw man.” We don’t incarcerate people who park illegally. Or who litter. We fine them. And the fines escalate for repeated offenses.

          We will never know how many lives would have been saved had our past President followed your advice and did his best to persuade people to do the right thing instead of encouraging what you have called sociopathic behavior. Now when President Biden tries persuasion it is doomed to be ignored by many tens of millions of people who might not ignore a $100 fine.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “Liberty requires that we do the right thing without being forced.”

          It should also allow us to do the wrong things so that we may learn from our mistakes. That is the part which requires limited government.

          Like

          1. “[Liberty] should also allow us to do the wrong things so that we may learn from our mistakes.”

            Uh, “wrong things” that can hurt or kill other people are in a different category than, say, smoking weed.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “Uh, ‘wrong things’ that can hurt or kill other people are in a different category than, say, smoking weed.”

            So what?

            Like

          3. So what?

            Really?

            Okay, I will play along. It means that your overly broad statement about what “liberty” should allow does not stand up to analysis or common sense.

            You are welcome.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “It means that your overly broad statement about what ‘liberty’ should allow does not stand up to analysis or common sense.”

            The question is, How does your comment about categories relate to my comment about liberty? If you actually have some analysis or common sense to share, let’s hear it.

            Like

          5. Mr. Roberts, our exchange has been written in straight-forward, idiomatic English. If you are not capable of understanding what has been written by both you and I, any further effort on my part would surely meet the same fate.

            My only suggestion is that you might try thinking about the opinions that you express. Failing that, try thinking about the comments that your opinions elicit.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. RE: “My only suggestion is that you might try thinking about the opinions that you express. Failing that, try thinking about the comments that your opinions elicit.”

            After thinking about your comment, I realized it was a non sequitur. Rather than point this out I gave you a chance to redeem yourself. Suit yourself if you don’t want it.

            Like

        3. “Persuasion would have worked better.”

          I don’t disagree. However, the issue is with the former resident of the Oval Office would not even attempt to persuade. Unless it was to persuade his followers to fight FOR the divisiveness he so richly loved.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. Much of the resistance was not because of the mandate, but rather that our own president decided to mock and insult mask wearers.

          Period. A dumb move by a petty man.

          By the time he admitted that mask wearing might be effective, it was way, way too late.

          Liked by 2 people

  2. “ About 59% of transmission comes from people without symptoms, according to a new study published Thursday in JAMA Network Open. This includes 35% from people who infect others before they show symptoms and 24% from people who never develop any symptoms.”

    https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210110/59-percent-of-covid-cases-stem-from-asymptomatic-spread

    “…the science has clearly borne out what Fauci and Maria Van Kerkhove of the WHO flatly said was true before someone upstairs got to them—that asymptomatic transmission of respiratory diseases of this type is virtually nonexistent…”

    Someone is wrong.

    The tone of the writer suggests he is a conspiracy nut. “…before someone got to them…”.

    Really? Who got to them. Someone? Is he related to “they” as in “they say”?

    His right to not wear a mask in public when close to others does not supersede the right of others to not get infected by him. Your freedom to travel does not absolve you of obeying traffic rules and causing traffic accidents.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. RE: “Someone is wrong.”

      Not necessarily. The JAMA study is based on modeling, not real-world data. Its findings tell us nothing about Covid transmission in the wild, although they might suggest hypotheses to be tested.

      Also, asymptomatic transmission is difficult to detect with certainty in the real world. Some studies find it, others don’t. Early in the pandemic, most experts believed that asymptomatic transmission would prove to be insignificant. Today, one could make either case, that it is or it isn’t.

      Like

        1. RE: “Isn’t that modeling based on a level of real-world data?”

          I’m sure it is. That does not mean, however, that the findings apply to the real world.

          Like

          1. …”the findings apply to the real world.”

            The concept of using modeling to predict future events should not be downplayed just because you disagree with the results. The military uses it on a regular basis. As do many of the sciences.

            The findings may not translate fully to the real world, but they can give us a sense of where things are headed.

            Like

          2. RE: “The concept of using modeling to predict future events should not be downplayed just because you disagree with the results.”

            I don’t disagree with the results. My comments are based on the WebMD story, which makes the same points I do.

            Like

  3. “What is liberty if those who harm no one must prove themselves to others? It is nothing. It doesn’t exist.”

    Yeah, well you have a driver’s license don’t you? You demand ID’s at the polls, don’t you? You have to prove your credit worthiness to get a credit card, a loan, an apartment. A passport?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s