You overeating doesn't give everyone else around you diabetes.
I'm never going to buy the attempts to equate getting a personal preventable illness with willful and malicious disregard of the health of everyone surrounding you.
We're pretty understanding of a person who struggles with alcoholism. We're a whole lot less understanding when they choose to get behind the wheel.
Healthcare is a limited resource. People who overeat, drinking or otherwise contribute to their health problems sure as hell do take up healthcare resources from everyone else.
Its culturally acceptable to shame drunk drivers, smokers (in public spaces), and more. Im not necessarily agreeing we should but it certainly follows that shaming people for endangering others re: vaccines is in line with modern cultural norms.
> You overeating doesn't give everyone else around you diabetes.
This seems like a deflection. Given GP's argument, a better question would be are obese people more likely to spread COVID than non-obese people?
Well, we know someone who has contracted COVID can expect worse outcomes if they're obese.
Given that, it seems safe to assume that obese people are more likely to get breakthrough infections and/or that they have slower recoveries (i.e. more coughing/sneezing and more spreading COVID) than non-obese people.
So it seems reasonable (in a back-of-the-envelope sort of way) to infer that obese folks are more likely to spread COVID than non-obese folks.
Now, back to GP's argument--If we're suggesting that non-vaccinated people are less deserving of healthcare than vaccinated people because they're contributing the the spread of COVID, why wouldn't we treat obese folks the same?
The covid vaccines do not prevent transmission, and people who are unvaccinated are not intentionally infecting others with covid. Taking the vaccine is also not the same as not driving sober because there are real fatal risks to taking the vaccine. Also, the main risk of death from covid is for people that do have preventable personal illnesses, or serious health issues. The average person dying from covid in the US has 4 comorbidity and only 5% of deaths do not have comorbidity [0].
So, tell me, why should a healthy, young person, who already had covid and went through it no problem, take a vaccine that could literally kill them? Because vaccine passports as introduced in some places will majorly mess up the lives of many people.
The context is different when there are issues with hospital capacity and there is a known solution that costs nothing to prevent hospitals’ from being overburdened.
Quitting smoking and losing weight are incredibly difficult and take years. Getting a jab takes five minutes and no effort whatsoever. You even get paid to do it at some places.
In smoking, drinking, eating too much, there are pleasures. Thus, making it difficult for people to stop. Stopping them requires fighting real urges. That's why they deserve sympathy.
In not getting vaccinated there's no pleasure. Only stupidity and ignorance.
I'm not sure what your argument is? That pleasure is what determines if something is ok to do? People have reasons for not taking a vaccine the same way people have reasons for drinking. They have their own reasons, it is their choice.
Comment above me claimed we should have sympathy for unvvacinated people [that have access to vaccine] who die, just like we do sympathize with people who die due to smoking, drinking, etc.
I argued that being vaccinated is not comparable to those, because unlike them, your body doesn't have any urge to not vaccinated. It's very easy to get vaccinated. It's just a stupid decision.
Not getting vaccinated is a stupid decision, but smoking is not? Or you think people are spontaneously addicted to smoking, drinking, drugs? Or you think that people randomly decide to not get the vaccine because they just wake up stupid one day? Guess what, in a free society people can choose what they put in their bodies, regardless of how much pleasure you think they get from it, or how stupid you think it is.
You should check out the event-reduce algorithm[1]. It scales in a different way on how it calculates new results based on old-Results+Event. So it can have some benefits over materialized views depending on the data size and how many clients subscribe to a query.
It sounds like you did not read the READme. What you are describing is something that does scale up with more data but not with more requests.
When you have an application where 1000s of users subscribe to different queries, your view-maintainance would kill the write performance while EventReduce does not.
The difference is that with simple caching you have to run full queries again when the cache becomes invalidated. This is often expensive especially on write intensive data usages.
All your assumptions are wrong. Please read the other comments here or at least the readme of the repository. I will happily answer all ongoing questions you have afterwards.
