I drove a 1966 Mustang when I attended college. Her name was Lisa, and she was two years older than I. I loved that car, but she was an incredible nuisance. I learned to service many elements of that car and shuttled back and forth between my school in Miami and my home in Fort Lauderdale with a trunk full of tools. It was a love/hate relationship. I could write an entire blog post reminiscing about Lisa, but I won’t do that today, besides… I’ve already done that.
Instead, I’ll marvel about the safety features of that car, which is to say nearly none. The car had a set of lap seatbelts, which didn’t retract. A shoulder strap that extended from the roof of the car, and you could extend that and clip it on. You had a choice strapping in across the belt or the shoulder, but not both. That’s about the extent of the safety features of the car.
People often describe cars of that era as ‘tanks’, since they are much more likely to survive an accident. The subtle subtext is that the car survives, but the passengers incur more injury.
What my car didn’t have
The car had a pony interior; these beautiful leather half bucket seats had running ponies on them. Those seats didn’t have headrests; a rear-end collision in these seats may cause neck injury from the impact. We no longer design seats this way; even rear seats have headrests.
It had drum brakes on all wheels (instead of disc brakes). When I drove over a deep enough puddle, which is common in Florida, the brakes lost their effectiveness. As I applied the brakes and the pads pressed against the wet drums, they made a frightening knocking sound. The brakes barely responded against the wet drums, so I continued to apply the brakes until the pads sufficiently dried them. Fun times.
Crumple zones, backup cameras, blind spot detection, and airbags are non-existent. Engineers had yet to design them. They weren’t available as options, much less standard. That’s just the world in which we lived.
Should we continue to develop new safety features on cars?
What about car accidents?
If you get into a car accident, the odds from dying from it are about 1 in 107. Do the math; that’s less than 1%.
Can we stop now? Don’t we have enough safety features? That next safety feature is only going to gain you a fraction of one percent survival rate, is it worth it?
Still, getting into a car accident has financial and medical repercussions; some may last a lifetime. We are constantly looking to lower that figure above. Not only do we introduce technology to decrease the chances of injury if you happen to get into a car accident (air bags, seat belt, crumple zones, etc.), but we also work on technology to decrease the likelihood of getting into accidents altogether (backup cameras, blind spot detection, traction control, ABS, automatic braking, etc.). We generally want these features. All for a less than 1% chance of fatality upon getting into an accident.
If we’re so mindful about survival and other consequences from car accidents, why aren’t we as preoccupied with the effects of COVID-19?
The likelihood of dying from coronavirus are higher
In fact, it’s nearly twice as high at 1.50%. Forgive me. I’m perplexed that people are so cavalier about avoiding a vaccine that both decreases the chances of getting the coronavirus and the likelihood of dying from it. The fatality rates once you get it are higher than a car accident.
There are two mRNA vaccines, they work similarly. Unvaccinated people are 4.5 times more likely to become infected than vaccinated people. If infected, 90%+ vaccinated people will not develop serious symptoms or require hospitalizations. In other words, the vaccine decreases the likelihood of becoming infected and it decreases the likelihood of serious problems once infected.
If the likelihood of death from a car accident is 0.93% (1 in 107) and we continue to work on technology in order to decrease both the likelihood of getting into an accident and likelihood of serious injury, why are we so glib about taking the vaccine when the fatality rate is 1.50%?
What if you’ve already come down with the coronavirus and have natural immunity? Fair, there are two elements to that protection, the degree of protection and the longevity of protection. Studies suggest that the protection from the vaccine is both more reliable and more durable than the antibodies from having been infected.
“Whoa, but what about the exceptions?”
Should everyone get vaccinated? No, there are legitimate reasons to avoid the vaccine, but they are exceedingly rare.
First, you may be allergic to one of the ingredients. Obviously, I’m not going to suggest that you should take something that may harm you. Please consult your doctor. That said, we still administer harmful drugs occasionally, because the alternative is worse. The first example that comes to mind is a cancer diagnosis and either radiation or chemotherapy, both which are literally poisonous to your body.
Second, you may abstain from treatment due to your religion; I respect that. However, it can’t be a blanket excuse to not take the vaccine, “It’s against my religion”. If your religion abstains from any treatment or medication, then sure you get a pass. If your appendix bursts and your only option is ‘death’, then I admire the conviction (though honestly, I’m not sure I understand it). I’ll defend your right to abstain from the vaccine.
If you’re Catholic and claim religious exemption when the Pope is instructing you to get vaccinated, then really… Just STFU and get vaccinated. If you claim you were born with all deity-given natural protection you need, do you wear shoes to protect your feet? If you have objections to how they developed the vaccine (with fetal tissue), then you should have similar objections to monoclonal antibody treatments; they are similar.
I honestly don’t mind religious exemptions as long as they’re consistent. Most of the points I’ve heard are not; they object to this vaccine, but not other vaccines or medical treatments in general. This is not religious; this is political.
That said, if you’re earnestly screaming for religious freedom, why not decriminalize polygamy? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
“What about my freedom to not take the vaccine?”
Can we shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater? If we see an attractive woman, can we fondle her without her consent? No. There are boundaries to our freedoms and those are normally around impinging upon the rights of others.
Businesses have a right to take reasonable precautions to make sure that their staff is protected. While there are no guarantees in life, wouldn’t you want to know that the person who sits next to you for eight hours is 4.5 times less likely to be infected? I know that it would bring me comfort. If I still waited on tables, it would bring me comfort to know that every patron (unmasked while dining) was vaccinated. Your freedom does not trump our rights.
You have the freedom to drink alcohol and you have the freedom to drive, but you don’t have the freedom to do both simultaneously. It needlessly puts others at risk. We set reasonable boundaries; no one is barking at drinking and driving laws being oppressive. If you don’t abide by these laws, we’ll take away your license on the first offense for a year.
I’m not going to go as far as saying that we need to hold you down and stick the needle in your arm, but it’s completely reasonable to expect employers, restaurants, gyms, spas, etc. to expect people to get vaccinated in order to protect as many people as possible.
You have body autonomy. You have the freedom not to get vaccinated, but you don’t have the right to needlessly endanger others by exercising that freedom.