First of all, we need to clarify a concept: freedom it was never the right to do what you want. It would mean the absence of rules and the absence of rules would mean the absence of safeguards for freedom itself. Its opposite. The limit to my freedom, everyone knows, is someone else’s freedom. Solo freedom of opinion he often slips into freedom to say nonsense, but those do not hurt anyone in particular – sometimes many, but no one in particular – and in general he lets himself go.
The limit, which like any duty has less charm than a right, is sanctioned by the Constitution. Common sense would also be said, but let’s stick to what is written. Art. 32: health is recognized as a right of the individual but also as an interest of the community. Both: it’s your health, but it affects everyone. And this is why the article says: “No one can be forced to a specific health treatment except by law.” Except by law. And then he adds: “The law cannot in any case violate the limits imposed by the human person”.
Sacrosanct, as long as we do not pretend to forget the Tso (Mandatory health treatments); the various sentences of treatment administered against their will to persons not in a state of conscience, who would normally have refused them (for religious reasons, for example); let’s not pretend to forget that since 1948 there have been five different compulsory vaccinations. These are all examples of treatments in the interest of collectivity, which have not exceeded the limits of the human person because with a clear benefit-risk ratio in favor of the former.
In fact, when personal freedom could be the cause of the illness or even worse of the death of others, the State has the right and the duty to dispose of the obligations. How come then he did not establish the vaccination obligation for Covid? Because the vaccine, everyone says, had so far an experimental, emergency authorization; 4.48 million Covid deaths in the world are, in my opinion, an emergency. I have not written either deaths “with” Covid, nor “for” Covid; because when it is a relative or a friend of yours who leaves, that Covid was the straw that broke the camel’s back or the whole camel’s back is of little importance. Without Covid, many, millions, would still be here.
Now that – the clear risk-benefit ratio were not enough – the Food and Drug Administration has definitively approved the Pfizer vaccine, thanks to an immense quantity of administrations characterized mostly by a certain discomfort in the arm, I believe that the obligation is a must. It is exactly, paro paro, the principle enshrined in the Constitution and common sense: if your freedom not to vaccinate creates damage to others, then your freedom ends. Enough.
Your no vax freedom ends when who gets sick of any infectious disease it does not find a place in the ward, and then it is better that you take care of it for a fee or as you can, your cabbage: it has happened and it still happens. Your freedom no vax ends when ours – both yours and mine – terapie intensive they go into suffering. Your no vax freedom ends when my region go back to the yellow zone. It ends when a city that, look at the coincidence, has a low percentage of vaccinated people, even falls into the orange zone. It ends when bars and restaurants have to close; it ends when cinemas, theaters and every place of culture has to go out, it ends when “everyone at home at 10 pm”. And it is not a dictatorship and you are not a revolutionary: they are rules, and serve to protect everyone’s freedom to live as much as possible. Of all.