COVID 45: Those Are Rookie Numbers

[A wilding]

22 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Do we, in any of these cases, mock and browbeat the "sinners" into submission? Well, no. We hold a little sympathy, knowing that each of us had our demons that we succumbed to at some point in our lives. We show a little solidarity and pay for their mistakes, knowing that they'll pay for ours when the time comes. We allow them (like everyone else) to lead their lives however they see fit, as long as they abide by the law.  We campaign, we educate, we offer better alternatives - but ultimately we accept their choices.

I think my parallel with smoking holds good here.

We don't (generally) "mock and browbeat" smokers. We do provide some help to educate them and help them stop. But we also tax them, and ban them from smoking in places where their doing so might harm other people.

[RhaenysBee]

22 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well except for all the many millions of people who've been jabbed with them, especially in poorer countries because they were cheaper and more available. Glad to see you want to create a brand new class divide 'oh my god, you are AZ? disgusting, please don't come near me!'

Like half my family? Or half my country that wasn’t allowed to travel abroad even with restrictions down because only “western” vaccines qualify for EU vaccine passes and had to stay home or pay for 4 PCRs $60 each? The hypocritical geography turned class divide and stereotype that shines through is exactly my problem with above mentioned excerpt. 
 

[mormont]

32 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

A lot of this is missing the point - especially these ad nausem assertions how vaccinated are better protected and less likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated. Yeah, that's true - but what of it? Does that mean that getting vaccinated is the correct personal choice - yes, certainly. But it doesn't explain this rancor, this malevolent animus I'm seeing here directed towards unvaccinated. We all make bad lifestyle choices on a daily basis - and I've yet to see any one of them incur such societal wrath as not vaxxing. 

I think you may have some blind spots, then. If you've not seen the societal wrath directed towards the obese, or drug users, or seen people suggest that smokers be denied or surcharged for medical care, then ok, you haven't seen it, but it absolutely happens. 

32 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

It's a matter of principle, of basic ideological foundations on which to build society on - and sovereignty of the individual is one of the core ones.

Sure, but there are other core ideological foundations to build society on - one of which is that, well, we're a society. We have responsibilities to others. To maintain a society, we all have to agree to certain basic rules, one of the most fundamental of which is that we take reasonable steps to avoid transmitting infectious diseases to each other.

This is of course somewhat in conflict with the above principle. But resolving such conflicts is absolutely one of the things that society is supposed to do. 

ps I've said it before, but what about the sovereignty of the individuals who cannot protect themselves against this disease? What is your answer to that? Do they have to forgo their rights so that others can have theirs? If so, why can't we switch that around, and have the voluntarily unvaccinated forgo their rights?

It's reasonably well understood in the field of human rights and ethics that where we have a conflict of rights like this - where the freedom of choice of some clashes with the inherent, unchangeable characteristics of another - society needs to support the latter group, and freedom of choice - which in other circumstances is rightly supported - needs to be compromised. Anything else is, to be quite frank, going to result in systemic discrimination against disabled people. If you're OK with that, well, I'm not. 

[A wilding]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's reasonably well understood in the field of human rights and ethics that where we have a conflict of rights like this - where the freedom of choice of some clashes with the inherent, unchangeable characteristics of another - society needs to support the latter group, and freedom of choice - which in other circumstances is rightly supported - needs to be compromised. Anything else is, to be quite frank, going to result in systemic discrimination against disabled people. If you're OK with that, well, I'm not. 

And not just disabled people. It would take us to an objectivist / libertarian hell.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

ps I've said it before, but what about the sovereignty of the individuals who cannot protect themselves against this disease? What is your answer to that? Do they have to forgo their rights so that others can have theirs? If so, why can't we switch that around, and have the voluntarily unvaccinated forgo their rights?

Here again. Invoking this same group of individuals, white knighting for them. But not answering how the unvaccinated are somehow the cause of their plight? Nor really explaining what we are expected to do in a world where there is no such thing as Zero Covid, where the virus is everywhere. 

[Knight Of Winter]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think you may have some blind spots, then. If you've not seen the societal wrath directed towards the obese, or drug users, or seen people suggest that smokers be denied or surcharged for medical care, then ok, you haven't seen it, but it absolutely happens. 

40 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

No, not nearly to the degree as with unvaxxed. I've seen societal discomfort, or societal disapproval - but not societal animus or wrath as here.

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

Anything else is, to be quite frank, going to result in systemic discrimination against disabled people. If you're OK with that, well, I'm not. 

Why does this keep happening with you? You write genuinely well thought-out, well argumented and sensible response and just can't resist adding such a base personal attack, implying I'm OK with discriminating the disabled? Is it possible for you to avoid this infantile me=good; you=bad undertone your last sentences are full of? It achieves nothing, other than leaving sour taste in the mouth.

Onto the rest of your post. You are right that well-organized society is a trade-off between various rights and principles, and that these rights and principles sometimes conflict and contradict with each other. I may be more geared towards individual liberty, you more towards collective welfare - but we both understand that there is a trade-off.

As for immunocompromised and other who aren't able to get the vaccine, my response if three-fold. First is, just as easily as you have turned my argument about individual sovereignty on the head and ask "well, what about sovereignty of the immunocompromised" - I can just as quickly turn your argument about collective welfare on its head. Even if willingly unvaccinated endanger sovereignty of immunocompromised (and I'm not sure that's the case) - safety of the  immunocompromised is not the ultimate value to which everything else should be subservient. They, just like everyone else - have to sometimes be team players and understand and entire society can't revolve around indulging them - which is basically the same argument you use vs unvaccinated. Society, as you point out - requires some actions taken for the benefit of the whole at the expanse of circumstances of each particular individual.

Secondly, we already live in a society where immunocompromised exist for every other disease other than covid and somehow we function just fine. We give medical advice and provide healthcare for them. We can take some precautions, for sure. But ultimately, most of what we do is shift the burden of responsibility onto them, telling them to avoid behaving in a way which would maximize the dangers of them getting infected. Just like how, if you have any other disease - doctors advise you to behave in a similar manner. 

This reminds me of a story when one school banned nuts from their kitchen to accommodate one pupil allegric to nuts; instead of simply telling him which food contain nuts and how to avoid them; but I digress. The point is, keeping the society shut down, or segregating vaxxed and unvaxxed in simply not viable, even if it helps the immunocompromised.

Lastly, ensuring everyone around immunocompromised is vaxxed won't stop them from getting infected. Vaccine significantly reduces the chance of transmission, true - but it doesn't stop it. Not nearly. So unless we're keeping a lockdown until the last sars-cov-2 had been extreminated, there's no policy which would keep immunocompromised completely safe.

Of course, maybe there's something I'm not seeing here. It's possible there's some good solution which eludes me, and I'd be happy to adopt new and improved mindset. So, let me ask you: what would be your proposed policy with regards to society and its immunocompromised members? Explain to me, without being rude and condescending, without insults ot implying I have an agenda, without guilt tripping and similar stuff - how would you approach this problem. If your idea has any merit - I'd be glad to hear it.
 

52 minutes ago, A wilding said:

We don't (generally) "mock and browbeat" smokers. We do provide some help to educate them and help them stop. But we also tax them, and ban them from smoking in places where their doing so might harm other people.

I'm more in less in agreement with all of these, just with addition that part of society does want to mock and browbeat unvaccinated. And that there's moralistic impulse to punish them; unlike the case with smokers.

Other than this, I don't oppose anything you say. "We do provide some help to educate them and help them stop." - sure, of course. "But we also tax them," - we do. And mandating unvaccinated to produce a negative test to attend many events is definitely a form of taxing. "and ban them from smoking in places where their doing so might harm other people." - here I like karaddin's suggestion how certain professions such as care for elderly could be performed only be those who are vaxxed. 

[john]

It’s not so much the virtuous vs the condemnable, it’s more like socially compliant vs contrarian. The recalcitrant are always going to get the shorter shrift, not just because their position can be perceived as injurious to the rest, but because it can be perceived as irrational thinking. That’s just the way it works, I’m not sure there’s much point arguing about it in such a broad context.

Anyway, I might not understand the unvaccinated but I do sort of appreciate their efforts. I live in a country without mandatory vaccination (yet, very hot topic in parliament) but everything you do, including going to work, is subject to covid check. Which means there are long queues outside pharmacies at six in the morning in the dark in the middle of January, which people would apparently rather do than get vaccinated.

 

[Luzifer's right hand]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Yeah, that's a horse of a different colour. I can support measures like allowing employers to have a vaccine mandate, but at no stage would I support limiting healthcare for anyone who gets ill - vaccinated or not. 

In a way you are supporting limiting health care for the chronically ill, people with disabilities and the poor though. Those are the groups that lose when doctors have to make tough choices. 

We are sacrifing those groups to limit conflict with anti-vaxxers.

It is a win-lose situation and those that are already suffering the most are losing and very few people give enough of a shit to do anything about it. In Germany some groups that fight for such people tried but lost and in most countries no visible group tried at all.

[mormont]

31 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

No, not nearly to the degree as with unvaxxed. I've seen societal discomfort, or societal disapproval - but not societal animus or wrath as here.

OK. It's absolutely there whether you've seen it or not, though. 

31 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Why does this keep happening with you? You write genuinely well thought-out, well argumented and sensible response and just can't resist adding such a base personal attack, implying I'm OK with discriminating the disabled? Is it possible for you to avoid this infantile me=good; you=bad undertone your last sentences are full of? It achieves nothing, other than leaving sour taste in the mouth.
 

I don't mean it as a personal attack but an attempt to make clear to you what it is you're actually advocating, because you don't seem to appreciate that. And indeed, you go on to not appreciate it at length. 

31 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

As for immunocompromised and other who aren't able to get the vaccine, my response if three-fold. First is, just as easily as you have turned my argument about individual sovereignty on the head and ask "well, what about sovereignty of the immunocompromised" - I can just as quickly turn your argument about collective welfare on its head. Even if willingly unvaccinated endanger sovereignty of immunocompromised (and I'm not sure that's the case) - safety of the  immunocompromised is not the ultimate value to which everything else should be subservient. They, just like everyone else - have to sometimes be team players and understand and entire society can't revolve around indulging them - which is basically the same argument you use vs unvaccinated.

What does 'indulging them' mean in this situation? Why are you using that term to describe protecting them from an illness that could kill them? How is an immunocompromised person to be a 'team player' here - by catching COVID and going to hospital or dying? By staying isolated indefinitely? Is that a reasonable thing to ask of someone as their contribution to a society? More reasonable than asking someone to get a perfectly safe vaccination even though they don't necessarily want to?

Do you understand what you're saying, and why it amounts to systemic discrimination? 

31 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Secondly, we already live in a society where immunocompromised exist for every other disease other than covid and somehow we function just fine.

Yes. Largely because we have prevented many of the diseases that would kill them from becoming or remaining pandemic through compulsory vaccination programmes and other public health measures that involve compromising on the sovereignty of the individual. 

31 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

But ultimately, most of what we do is shift the burden of responsibility onto them, telling them to avoid behaving in a way which would maximize the dangers of them getting infected. Just like how, if you have any other disease - doctors advise you to behave in a similar manner.

So here, you appear to be explicitly advocating that disabled people should shoulder the burden of their own disability rather than cause inconvenience to the able. Do you not recognise that this is institutionalised discrimination against disabled people? That building a society for the able, that is inaccessible to the disabled, putting up barriers in that way, is discrimination? 

31 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

This reminds me of a story when one school banned nuts from their kitchen to accommodate one pupil allegric to nuts; instead of simply telling him which food contain nuts and how to avoid them; but I digress.

You also misunderstand the story, I think. But let's not get sidetracked. 

31 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Lastly, ensuring everyone around immunocompromised is vaxxed won't stop them from getting infected. Vaccine significantly reduces the chance of transmission, true - but it doesn't stop it. Not nearly. So unless we're keeping a lockdown until the last sars-cov-2 had been extreminated, there's no policy which would keep immunocompromised completely safe.

But there are policies that would make them safer than they are now. Talking about 'completely safe' is to set up a false dilemma. 

31 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

So, let me ask you: what would be your proposed policy with regards to society and its immunocompromised members? Explain to me, without being rude and condescending, without insults ot implying I have an agenda, without guilt tripping and similar stuff - how would you approach this problem. If your idea has any merit - I'd be glad to hear it.

I've said before, but to summarise: we have to reach a level of immunity in the population that reduces the prevalence of COVID to a manageable level and that means vaccinating those who remain unvaccinated. The evidence is that some intend to do it but haven't got around to it: they need a push. Others are unsure: they need more information. But the evidence is also that in most countries, at least some of those who are outright opposed to vaccination must be vaccinated for us to manage this disease in a sustainable way. 

Now, at least some of those people are actively resistant to measures that force vaccination - but they're also actively resistant to persuasion, appeals to public responsibility, etc. There is literally nothing we can do that will not push them further into the anti-vaccination camp. We can't change their beliefs. We can only try to change their behaviour: give them reasons to get vaccinated that aren't about the merits of vaccination. 

So, I would be allowing employers to require vaccination. If that doesn't work, I'd be limiting access to certain spaces for the voluntarily unvaccinated. I'd make the inconvenience of not being vaccinated as great as it has to be to get to the levels of vaccination we require.

[Heartofice]

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

I've said before, but to summarise: we have to reach a level of immunity in the population that reduces the prevalence of COVID to a manageable level

What do you deem to be 'a manageable level'. This sounds again like some vague term that hasn't been properly thought through. What is the level of prevalence of Covid in the community that would make it safer for the immunocompromised? It's probably zero if we are all honest, and that will never ever happen. 

 

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

that means vaccinating those who remain unvaccinated.

Why does it mean that? What are you basing that on? If we vaccinate 100% of the population what is the prevalence of Covid? is it now at an acceptable level? Why? 
What about those who have already caught the disease, what about those who've had it more than once? Do they need to be vaccinated to protect others? Why? 
What about those of us who got one of the peasant vaccines, like AZ? Are we contributing to the spread? Does the number only work if we are all triple jabbed with Pfizer etc? 

Basically there is A LOT of things going on behind what you've said which don't really get answered, and I think you know that.

[Padraig]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The other shots — including those from AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and vaccines manufactured in China and Russia — do little to nothing to stop the spread of Omicron, early research shows

I'm very skeptical of that line.  I don't have access to the full article  They probably mean that AZ etc do little to nothing to stop the spread of Omicron, without a booster.

I'm pretty sure there would be a lot more articles out there if AZ or J&J did nothing even after an extra dose.

I'm happy to be proved wrong but most vaccines seem to be fine once you hit 3 doses.  Now, how long they last is a different question.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Padraig said:

I'm very skeptical of that line.  I don't have access to the full article  They probably mean that AZ etc do little to nothing to stop the spread of Omicron, without a booster.

I'm pretty sure there would be a lot more articles out there if AZ or J&J did nothing even after an extra dose.

I'm happy to be proved wrong but most vaccines seem to be fine once you hit 3 doses.  Now, how long they last is a different question.

Well exactly. Getting boosted gets you basically the same immunity as someone who got infected and a couple of AZ doses.. or something around those levels. Do we even know what happens in a few months time when the booster wears off?

Either way it raises some serious questions about how you start to justify discriminating against people based on their vaccine status. It's really not as binary as vaccinated vs unvaccinated. You have all these different variables which make it very hard to determine who is more infectious than anyone else. 

Is someone with two shots of AZ any less responsible for spreading the disease than someone who has already had it once or twice? So why point fingers? Why make it some sort of moral crusade? The reason is because it makes people feel better to be able to say other people are less virtuous than themselves, that they can look at someone and say 'this is your fault', its a nice easy answer. 

[karaddin]

I just want to make clear, because I don't think I did the best job of communicating it earlier, that my perspective is someone that's on the edge of disability - my life is heavily restricted by my health, but I feel uncomfortable with the label because there are plenty of people that are a lot more restricted than me.

One of my primary concerns on this is that measures justified with protecting the disabled community will loop back around and ultimately cause more harm to that same group than it initially prevented. It's obviously a complicated situation and I'm not sure where the line is, but part of that is the difficulty in quantifying how much harm will be prevented at this point - if it was the difference between 0%* vaccinated and 100% then there wouldn't be any question about it. If it's the difference between 95%* and 100% with everyone involved in delivering services to the vulnerable vaccinated? Obviously a much smaller "reward" for the risk vs reward equation.

The US obviously would have a lot more than some other countries to gain from this, but I also think it's a higher risk for the measures to wind up being used against the disabled community even ignoring the higher risk of immediate political/social unrest in response.

It's complicated, so I just wanted to make it clear that I agree entirely with prioritising the protection of those vulnerable to the virus, my concerns aren't in opposition to that.

*Extreme edge numbers used for the sake of the example, obviously not any of the countries we are talking about.

[Gorn]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

I've said before, but to summarise: we have to reach a level of immunity in the population that reduces the prevalence of COVID to a manageable level and that means vaccinating those who remain unvaccinated. The evidence is that some intend to do it but haven't got around to it: they need a push. Others are unsure: they need more information. But the evidence is also that in most countries, at least some of those who are outright opposed to vaccination must be vaccinated for us to manage this disease in a sustainable way. 

Now, at least some of those people are actively resistant to measures that force vaccination - but they're also actively resistant to persuasion, appeals to public responsibility, etc. There is literally nothing we can do that will not push them further into the anti-vaccination camp. We can't change their beliefs. We can only try to change their behaviour: give them reasons to get vaccinated that aren't about the merits of vaccination. 

So, I would be allowing employers to require vaccination. If that doesn't work, I'd be limiting access to certain spaces for the voluntarily unvaccinated. I'd make the inconvenience of not being vaccinated as great as it has to be to get to the levels of vaccination we require.

The problem is, the level of immunity that we require is not achievable with the presently existing vaccines. Even with 100% vaccination rate, COVID will continue to be transmitted, people will continue to get sick, immunocompromised people will still be in danger. You vaccinate to protect yourself, not others.

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

It's obviously a complicated situation and I'm not sure where the line is, but part of that is the difficulty in quantifying how much harm will be prevented at this point - if it was the difference between 0%* vaccinated and 100% then there wouldn't be any question about it. If it's the difference between 95%* and 100% with everyone involved in delivering services to the vulnerable vaccinated? Obviously a much smaller "reward" for the risk vs reward equation.

I appreciate your (always thoughtful) posts and I think this is a fair point.   It is why this is such a difficult argument.  Its such a subjective risk v reward equation.

The discussion has got a little nebulous though.  Knight of Winter and HoI's seem to be mainly focused on the level of condemnation thrown at the unvaccinated.  They are probably right that there is too much of it but I kind of despair of the internet and social media.   Everything generates too much condemnation.  And then that often generates too much condemnation of the condemnation.

It would be different if we focused on actual proposed policies rather than a subjective view on what level of condemnation is appropriate on an online forum.

Ireland has removed nearly all restrictions, including the need to use a vaccination pass (except for travel, where it remains).  While it was pointed out that this would undermine the desire for vaccination, it was noted that this was never the primary reason for the pass.  Such a restriction on society needs the highest public safety justification.  I can accept that, even though I know it will affect people negatively.  (I don't think I would have argued for it before it was enacted though).

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The unvaccinated are not the reason for large case numbers , and they aren’t the reason for full hospitals. 

This is just semantics.  The unvaccinated are the reason for fuller hospitals.  That is entirely in their control.

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Given the age and health profile of the people who are unvaccinated any reduction in hospital numbers might be a lot smaller than suggested, but we don’t know.

Or larger, since the older you are, the more likely you are to be vaccinated?  If a young person ends up in hospital, it is very likely that they would have avoided it if they were vaccinated.

We know a lot.  From what I have read, the vaccine works fairly uniformly.  When somebody says a vaccine is 80% effective, it is compared to a similar unvaccinated person.   So a vaccinated 80 year old v an unvaccinated 80 year old.  A 50 year old v a 50 year old.  The vaccinated 80 year old still has a relatively high risk of ending up in hospital but it is still way lower than an unvaccinated one.

The only population that I have seen is exceptional are those with HIV (or immuno-compromised), where a vaccinated person doesn't see the same reduction.

I think its a reasonable to use the effective rate to decide what the reduction would be.

And the willingness to take a vaccine v being overweight is stretching the use of comparisons a lot.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Is someone with two shots of AZ any less responsible for spreading the disease than someone who has already had it once or twice? So why point fingers? Why make it some sort of moral crusade? The reason is because it makes people feel better to be able to say other people are less virtuous than themselves, that they can look at someone and say 'this is your fault', its a nice easy answer. 

This is probably a strawman argument.  Nobody is discriminating based on vaccine (assuming the vaccine has been approved).  There is a clear and tangible difference between having 2 or more doses and having 0.  But its why I say the argument has got very nebulous.  Even if AZ doesn't hinder the spread of COVID, it still reduces hospitalisations significantly.

[Week]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Basically there is A LOT of things going on behind what you've said which don't really get answered, and I think you know that.

A lot of questions you ask here have been answered many times which you ignore and I think you know that.

There have been many discussions about the need for off-ramps based on accurate, timely, transparent data. Many good suggestions that I mostly agree with in the article posted here.

 

It also is important context that the US currently has about 2k deaths daily (per Worldometer), more hospitalized folks  than ever before, which is primarily driven by the unvaccinated. Access to healthcare is reduced or non-existent in many areas, elective surgeries delayed, etc. It's baked in that we're pretty fucked already. No masking, reduced vaccine uptake, etc. are all responsible -- we've seen the efficacy of mask mandates (with improving quality) and better outcomes from vaccinations, so we know we can do better but choose not to. That decision to choose not to is personal and has corroded the basic function of our society.

[Kalbear]

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Except for the data that says they don't

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/health/omicron-vaccines-efficacy.html

 

So where do we aim our ire now? Should we be throwing rocks at people who have only had two shots? What about those disgusting peasants who got vaccinated with AZ  or J&J? Why aren't we putting more pressure on them and throwing them into camps or something? What about a few months down the line when the booster wears off, do we need to start spitting at people in the street if they haven't had their fourth shot? 
 

Again, early research appears to be wrong and the vaccines do reduce spread by as much as 5x. It's not as much as it was, and with omicron it probably isn't enough by itself, but it appears to be a willful disregard of the data we have to say that they do nothing. 

So who should you aim your ire at now? As usual, women in entertainment. 

[Zorral]

"THE ANTI-VACCINE RIGHT BROUGHT HUMAN SACRIFICE TO AMERICA
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/human-sacrifice-ritual-mass-vaccination/621355/

Quote

... as I surveyed the anthropological literature, I was struck again and again by how well that scholarship describes the factors responsible for the thousands of deaths of Americans each month. Our current experience with COVID is filled with what historians of human sacrifice have identified as its key features. Let me run through the main ones. .... 

Also explains the Tories, BREXIT and Covid behaviors.  You all are the human sacrifices for sustaining (and increasing) OUR power and wealth. Except instead of saying it's God demanding this -- which, of course, They do here in the USA -- it's Little England that demands it.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Or to smoke.

In many places, smoking is a social taboo and legal one.  Even if there was no rule against it Smoking on a plane would still be bad manners.

Second hand smoke is a thing.

7 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Or to be sexually promiscuous without any protection

In many places also if you know you have an std and don’t disclose such to you’re partner you’re guilty of a crime.

It’s not inherently bad  for societies to have standards on how individuals are expected to act.

Its not inherently bad to make those who deliberately failure to meet those standards feel ostracized, mocked, isolated, and loathed, and curtail their privileges.

Such methods can be effective in terms moving people to do or stop doing things.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

8 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

A lot of this is missing the point - especially these ad nausem assertions how vaccinated are better protected and less likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated. Yeah, that's true - but what of it? Does that mean that getting vaccinated is the correct personal choice - yes, certainly. But it doesn't explain this rancor, this malevolent animus I'm seeing here directed towards unvaccinated. We all make bad lifestyle choices on a daily basis - and I've yet to see any one of them incur such societal wrath as not vaxxing. 

It's a matter of principle, of basic ideological foundations on which to build society on - and sovereignty of the individual is one of the core ones. We allow people to make all sorts of shitty decisions that impact themselves as well as others. People are free to be severe alcoholics. They're free to be obese. Or to vote for obviously shitty political candidates. Or to smoke. Or to be crappy husbands, wives, friends and coworkers. Or to be sexually promiscuous without any protection, thus spreading STDs all around the place. Many of these affect not only the individual in question, but others around them as well - either directly (getting STDs or second-hand smoking) or indirectly (families of severe alcoholics), and some of them affects entire societies (electing awful political leaders; or obese having greater chance of being a burden to the healthcare system). 

Do we, in any of these cases, mock and browbeat the "sinners" into submission? Well, no. We hold a little sympathy, knowing that each of us had our demons that we succumbed to at some point in our lives. We show a little solidarity and pay for their mistakes, knowing that they'll pay for ours when the time comes. We allow them (like everyone else) to lead their lives however they see fit, as long as they abide by the law.  We campaign, we educate, we offer better alternatives - but ultimately we accept their choices.

All in all, while I understand being pissed at willingly unvaccinated (personally I'm not and don't care whether someone is jabbed or not; however I understand folks who are pissed off), ultimately I don't see how it's correct to view their choice as some kind of horrible moral transgression. Or them as a group which should be shamed and battered until they break.
 

Also, this. Seconded.

I think the difference is the externalities caused by the behavior and why you are seeing this anger and rancor.  There are consequences to society as a collective as a result of an individual’s decision here.  And in many cases where there are externalities, we do govern behavior.  I should note that norms change with respect to behaviors in this respect.  I clearly remember a time when smoking indoors was totally fine in NY and everyone accepted the externalities associated with that.  But times changed and people stopped accepting smelly hair, clothes and the risk of second hand smoke and laws were passed to enforce this.  

For full disclosure I am sort of more on the side of @karaddin.  I am wholly opposed to withholding medical care from anyone.  I’m conflicted on vaccine mandates.  I’m also conflicted, particularly as this wears on, on restrictions on public life as a result of vaccination status.  But I understand where it comes from.