science

Should critical-thinking be taught in education?

It's the same principle, mandatory-input-into-population overriding self-centered-"freedom"-that-competes-against-the-worth-of-the-commons..

Should YOU have any right to decide what the billions-of-cells-in-your-body eat?

XOR shouldn't your body's cells have THEIR rule overriding you, individual-cellular-freedom, etc..

It's the same paradigm-question, just at a different scale.

Obviously, you're going to hold that YOU have the right to override tissue-preferences within your body ( so you have the right to outright-exterminate any growing cancer within your body ),

but you may hold that rights stop with the individual, & the population has zero rights to its viability..

That is a rather Western narcissism that just doesn't fly in traditional-tribal-cultures, which were the normal human-culture for the .. perhaps million .. years before our agriculture created guilds/castes/monarchy-oligarchy/feudalism.

Crack the question's principle, & then you have an answer which is right at all scales.

Decide instead that YOU are the only-valid-scale for all questions, & then you have the right to butcher-the-whole-for-sake-of-narcissistic-gain, while simultaneously deciding that within-your-body, no subset has any right to rule for its own sake, only YOU have the right to rule: contradictory-law at different scales, iow.

IF the overall-benefit is greater than the rights of the individual, THEN one aquires the responsibility to differentiate between institutions gaslighting about operating for the overall's benefit ( while really operating for their-own-institutional-benefit, at the cost of the overall ), vs those who actually are operating for the overall-benefit:

the complexity goes up, the number-of-dimensions-of-corruption goes up, but the potential-gain goes waaay up, if one gets it right.

( airliners are not "mere opinion" or "mere belief": they actually work, & they actually work because of collaboration, teamwork, economic-organization, diverse-contributions, etc.

The same is true of research, of fitness, of culture, etc.

Collaboration can produce MASSIVELY greater results, & that is also true when collaboration eradicates the rapid-spread of diseases/plagues, simply because not enough are getting infected, per day, to amplify the spread, see? )

_ /\ _

Answering this sincerely: there are millions of people around the world who are immunocompromised or have another health condition that prevents them from safely taking a vaccine. Some people literally can’t take vaccines because their bodies can’t handle them, so those people rely on everyone else to get vaccinated to stop the spread of disease.

Plus, vaccines tend to benefit children the most. The problem with antivaxxers is that they’re often people who were vaccinated as children themselves, but after years of being chronically online/social media, they then decide to fuck over their innocent children by not vaccinating them. Measles, for example, isn’t nearly the threat to adults that it is to kids.

So, letting the antivaxxers “die” won’t just take out the antivaxxers, it’ll also take out millions of other innocent people who can’t take vaccines as well as children who have no say in the matter.

This is one area where strong, science-based policies can mean life or death, so I’m all for vaccine mandates unless there’s a compelling reason for an individual to skip.

Herd immunity is vital. Even the stupid need to be vaxxed.

People do not have the right to act in a way that decidedly harms others, and spreading disease counts. We all know (I really hope you do) that vaccines do not stop one from getting a disease but they do constrain it, shortening the illness, and reducing the symptoms.

From my rough understanding, getting vaccinated keeps you alive or get less severe symptoms, but you can still pass it on.

It greatly reduces the chances of contracting or transmitting the disease, in addition to limiting its severity.

In a nutshell the flaw in your thinking is that yes, you can still pass it on if you're vaccinated, but.... instead of being a carrier that can pass it on for 3 weeks, you might be contagious for a day or 2

I think you're doing the anti-vax thing where you find self-satisfying reasons to support your claim, but you won't bother to examine the validity of those assumptions.