“I have some areas of strong belief in the Second Amendment, but I think that you need to recognize how — with something like this — you can’t go around pointing a gun in somebody’s face, which is what it is when people are unvaccinated.”
Sean Penn -- who I doubt is any kind of 2A supporter, or if he is, he's the only one who thinks people need to have it explained to them that they can't go around pointing a gun in somebody's face.
And of course, for an illness that strikes fewer than 1% of the population, and of those, fewer than 1% die, the comparison to "a gun in somebody's face" is overwrought by orders of magnitude. It's a good metaphor for risk, though, for the kind of risk others force you to take when it's not legitimately required of you to do so. He also compared it to putting on your headlights for driving at night, a safety measure for others' sake. MUCH better than a gun in someone's face, as metaphors go.
And yet -- research from last week tells us that those who GOT the thing are MORE likely to transmit it than those who did NOT get the thing. Aren't we GETTING it in the first place to avoid TRANSMITTING the bug? That's what Sean Penn thinks we get it for, to stop us from transmitting the bug to others. But in his world, "others" have GOTTEN the thing, to avoid catching the bug and transmitting it.
And that is a person who should not care if someone else who has the thing comes into contact with them. Isn't the thing supposed to remove the risk of the illness? Why GET the thing, if getting it changes NOTHING about your risk of becoming ill OR your risk of transmitting it?
Other stories are coming out showing that between a third and a half of new cases are in people who DID get the thing. So either it doesn't work, or it doesn't last.
This, plus a large list of side effects that are universally ignored by the MSM, in an effort to keep the public from finding out about them, and you have a thing that people are hesitating to get FOR GOOD REASONS. Not that they have answers, but that answers are being DENIED them, and that makes them suspicious.
People like Sean Penn believe hesitancy comes from superstitious, ignorant right wingers, and his normal and natural response to those is to bully them, which is what he's trying to do here.
But... IS it dangerous for others if we go without the thing? Or is it MORE dangerous for the public if we GET the thing, and become part of the statistical group that has now been identified as being responsible for a LOT of the transmission of the thing?
He brings his premise to the argument, and makes it his conclusion... when what is badly needed is PROOF OF THE PREMISE.
Not unusual in a hardcase lefty. Incomplete thoughts, vague thoughts, disconnected, not even thoughts... just factoids in his head that are there because he trusts the ones who gave them to him.
You know... the kind of blind belief in leadership that WE are accused of, BY HIM and his kind.
The guilty dogs always bark first.