And what happens if your brakes don't work and I'm in front of your vehicle which is speeding along at 60 MPH?
You said that you take a drug to protect yourself and not others. This is simply incorrect.
Take any contagious disease. For the sake of argument, it has a 100% kill rate and the drug completely prevents you from contracting it. Now, say you have 3 children who are unable to take the drug due to some reason or other. Once again for the sake of argument, let's say you're the only person who comes into contact with them and they never go out. What do you do to prevent them from getting smallpox? Make yourself unable to give it to them. Now you've not only protected yourself but also the children from getting it.
On a larger scale, herd immunity protects the people who are unable to take the drug to prevent them from getting sick, as well as the people with an immune deficiency making benign illnesses deadly. Herd immunity can be reached either through enough people contracting the disease and achieving immunity, through a drug that gives you that immunity, or both. So you could say that by contracting the disease or by taking a vaccine (assuming it works) you are protecting other people (allergic to vaccine, immune system problem, etc.).
I'm in a car driving across the intersection that you're barreling towards with no brakes. If we want to bring the analogy closer we could say that there was recently a recall for faulty brakes on your car (similar to the status of the virus being a known outbreak/issue). Fixing those brakes protects not only you but everyone else on the road that you could possibly crash into if your brakes crap out while you're driving.
You can stamp your feet and cry faulty logic all you want but that doesn't change the facts. Changing your oil doesn't protect anyone else but having working brakes and being unable to spread a disease does.
Also, it's kinda funny that you're trying to make a point relating to the logic behind taking a drug to protect others and then when I bring up a logic-based scenario you cry "muh what ifs". Regardless, your logic is simply faulty and I explained it thoroughly in two paragraphs in my last comment, which you mostly ignored instead deciding to focus only on the analogy. (Poorly I might add seeing as you misinterpreted the circumstances entirely and somehow assumed that I meant I was just randomly hopping in front of a moving vehicle on foot)
My 35 years of experience as an RN in ER/ICU/med/surg has reinforced my belief in facts...
What facts? All you've done so far is ignore my core arguments, effectively just declared "I'm right" with no argument, and cried "liberal logic" repeatedly.
No, but you do make sure your brakes work so you don't smash into someone else's car while on the road.
The status of MY brakes does not affect the function of YOUR brakes.
Please don't fall into the liberal logic (rather the lack thereof) trap.
And what happens if your brakes don't work and I'm in front of your vehicle which is speeding along at 60 MPH?
You said that you take a drug to protect yourself and not others. This is simply incorrect.
Take any contagious disease. For the sake of argument, it has a 100% kill rate and the drug completely prevents you from contracting it. Now, say you have 3 children who are unable to take the drug due to some reason or other. Once again for the sake of argument, let's say you're the only person who comes into contact with them and they never go out. What do you do to prevent them from getting smallpox? Make yourself unable to give it to them. Now you've not only protected yourself but also the children from getting it.
On a larger scale, herd immunity protects the people who are unable to take the drug to prevent them from getting sick, as well as the people with an immune deficiency making benign illnesses deadly. Herd immunity can be reached either through enough people contracting the disease and achieving immunity, through a drug that gives you that immunity, or both. So you could say that by contracting the disease or by taking a vaccine (assuming it works) you are protecting other people (allergic to vaccine, immune system problem, etc.).
If you decide to walk in front of a vehicle doing 60 mph, you deserve whatever happens to you... I suggest not doing so.
My 35 years of experience as an RN in ER/ICU/med/surg has reinforced my belief in facts and not "what if" fallacies.
I'm in a car driving across the intersection that you're barreling towards with no brakes. If we want to bring the analogy closer we could say that there was recently a recall for faulty brakes on your car (similar to the status of the virus being a known outbreak/issue). Fixing those brakes protects not only you but everyone else on the road that you could possibly crash into if your brakes crap out while you're driving.
You can stamp your feet and cry faulty logic all you want but that doesn't change the facts. Changing your oil doesn't protect anyone else but having working brakes and being unable to spread a disease does.
Also, it's kinda funny that you're trying to make a point relating to the logic behind taking a drug to protect others and then when I bring up a logic-based scenario you cry "muh what ifs". Regardless, your logic is simply faulty and I explained it thoroughly in two paragraphs in my last comment, which you mostly ignored instead deciding to focus only on the analogy. (Poorly I might add seeing as you misinterpreted the circumstances entirely and somehow assumed that I meant I was just randomly hopping in front of a moving vehicle on foot)
What facts? All you've done so far is ignore my core arguments, effectively just declared "I'm right" with no argument, and cried "liberal logic" repeatedly.