Wow.
By the time you amend the Constitution to allow for all of that it would likely be long after this has passed. Unless you plan to nullify the Constitution right way then I guess you could do whatever you want. There could be an institution or two that would resist that but anything can be overcome with a large enough mob.
Let’s explore this idea further, perhaps partially relating the antivaxxer position with the antiPPE position.
What is appropriate policy when there is a threat that has the potential to adversely affect most members of a community at some point of their lives, but some members refuse to take action that could protect the community?
We still have the luxury of being selfish bastards as Covid-19 is not that bad, especially compared to the Filaviruses(Includes various Ebola strains), smallpox, SARs-MERS strain, and other ever mutating influenza strains. Still, we are not talking about the rights of select groups here. We are talking about the health of our entire connected global community. Why should we feel it’s wrong to punish those who are willing to put other people’s health at risk, especially over a relatively little inconvenience?
My right to not wear a facemask is more important than your right to expect to live in a reasonably safe community? More important than your chance to get a potentially disabling or lethal disease?
At least the antivaxxers have more of a basis for their concerns. For example, having foreign proteins injected into your bloodstream likely suppresses general immune response to other viruses. Further, preservatives that include mercury are part of the vaccine and may be more likely to cause adverse reactions in small children.
Another school of thought is to never take protective measures against a new virus. Let nature take its course and weed out the weaker resource consuming members of our society. Over time, our species will probably become hardier and even more virile.
For the cost of a few lives, some extra suffering, and economic growth, we all can do whatever the fook we want, even it is not seemingly in our best interest. What is the point of being an organized society if we don’t require members to protect each other?
Or,
Perhaps we should explore what protection against disease should really mean? Avoidence of infection or culling out the weak, thereby letting those with strong immune systems be our answer to future emerging virus threats.
What is your choice?
