There is a subset of people who would endorse the statement: "The tiniest risk to me is not worth reducing deadly risk to a hundred thousand strangers."
These are least delusional anti-vaxxers. They know that vaccination helps society at large, but they still won't get vaccinated, since they consider themselves young and healthy and at minimal risk from COVID.
(They are still delusional, since the risk of COVID infection even in the young and healthy is still greater than vaccination risk. However, at least they don't believe in microchip conspiracies.)
These people wouldn't sacrifice the smallest thing for the rest of us. So tell me, why should we respect their notions of personal liberty? Why give them anything, when they'd give absolutely nothing to the rest of us?
If they want the freedom to not vaccinate themselves, for their own selfish interests, then we should deny them access to public venues, likewise for our own interests.
We're a society. When our government is doing its job, we don't let people pollute the commons, whether it's with toxic waste or with deadly pathogens. Vaccination should indeed be compulsory.
I'm not one of the people that think that, but these people were forced to sacrifice their liberties to protect other people already (lockdowns, restrictions, etc). Their personal liberties have already been not respected.
I think it’s also an issue of “if this, then what else?” Time and again, we’ve told society to do something and then life as usual can resume. Sure, there’s been folks that have fought against every step of the way, but many have followed along. Now we’re asking people to do something deeply personal that will be with them the rest of their lives. If they do this, they’re wondering, will they finally be left alone to live their lives?
That's a great point. In France they did this in a infuriating way: first announce a month of lockdown, then at the end another, then another. I feel like we're treated like children.
> These are least delusional anti-vaxxers. They know that vaccination helps society at large, but they still won't get vaccinated, since they consider themselves young and healthy and at minimal risk from COVID.
Society bulling and shaming you into vaccinating will be enough for some people to not get vaccinated
> These people wouldn't sacrifice the smallest thing for the rest of us. So tell me, why should we respect their notions of personal liberty? Why give them anything, when they'd give absolutely nothing to the rest of us?
Because their liberty is not continent on them sacrificing for you. This is the weirdest concept of liberty I've come across
> If they want the freedom to not vaccinate themselves, for their own selfish interests, then we should deny them access to public venues, likewise for our own interests.
They would probably be more than happy with this if the corresponding taxes were decreased and private alternatives were available.
that distinct smell of ideological propaganda - reality distorting wrong or completely missing facts in support of self-proclaimed grand high-moral standing and request for sacrifice delivered with pathos and hysteria - takes me right to my childhood back in USSR.
Having been exposed so much to the propaganda in the childhood, i'm pretty immune to it is as a result. It is fascinating though to observe (and many former communist countries immigrants that i've talked to are similarly taken aback) how these days it has been successfully infecting and quickly taking over societal groups which don't have immunity to propaganda. One can hope though that after current debacle with covid such immunity will get a bit more widespread.
You should not have been downvoted. I grew up in apartheid South Africa, where I also learned to recognise government propaganda. I have also been somewhat surprised by how gullible people are being. But I've seen it before several times, usually as a prelude to attacking some other country: examples are the build up to the Iraq war, the bombing of Serbia, Libya and of course Syria.
It seems to me that the people with little PR immunity - the majority, apparently - are susceptible to dismissing ideas outside of their bubble. Along with that, they dismiss the people who contradict their chosen propaganda stream, no matter how many times they've been proven wrong.
As someone with a higher immunity to disinfo, have you had any success convincing others toward your conclusions?
Propaganda works best through fear. Fear results in cognitive dissonance making it literally impossible to process information correctly.
Somehow the fear needs to be addressed first and I as of yet haven't found any particular great way to do that.
The second contributor, is that people are reluctant to back out of a heavily invested position. Once they are in that position long enough, they identify that as part of who they are.
> They are still delusional, since the risk of COVID infection even in the young and healthy is still greater than vaccination risk
Statistics don't matter if you don't know your own personal risk. For an individual the risk of a negative outcome is binary, not 0.00001%. That's what people who talk about stats fail to realize over and over again. You won't convince anyone with stats.
Wow, I wasn't aware that people have perfect precognition and know ahead of time what everyone else around them is going to do and how that is going to affect them.
That was a non-hyperbolic illustration of the attitude you'll find among many anti-vaxxers. The ones who won't even wear a mask, since that would be too much of an imposition on their "freedom".
But to address your criticism you've written between the lines, the vaccinated might not die, but they're still at risk for long term complications, were they to contract COVID. And ultimately, the longer this lasts, the more strains will appear, some of which might indeed prove adequate to kill the vaccinated.
A thorough campaign of vaccination, on the other hand, would put an end to this disease, just as vaccination put an end to measles, polio, whooping cough, mumps, etc. etc.
Israel debunks your theory. You can't vaccinate against COVID. It is now a seasonal disease with us to stay.
> A thorough campaign of vaccination, on the other hand, would put an end to this disease, just as vaccination put an end to measles, polio, whooping cough, mumps, etc. etc.
How many strains did we see of each of the above within the first 18 months of existence?
Cherry picking. There is plenty of contra evidence to suggest that vaccination is extremely effective at keeping people from getting very ill.
> It is now a seasonal disease with us to stay
Agreed, though it's clearly not seasonal (a surge in summer?). Unless a particularly lethal variant comes along and whittles down the antivaxxer population significantly.
If we follow this line of thinking, we don't have to go far before we decide to force everyone to do exactly what we _think_ is right, justified by some hand wavy science or moral belief.
There is disagreement in society; we aren't all drones with a hive mind. One person's justification for what he thinks is best is just that, one person's justification. Someone else might think they can poke holes in his arguments, and who is to say which is right? No one. They can go about doing according to their personal beliefs.
There are some conventions in society, but once we start encroaching on the gray area, then society becomes oppressive to the minorities who dissent. Our society can clearly see older societies that did it, but fail to see when they are doing it. Just because you think you are absolutely right doesn't mean you have the right to compel others to do it. And, just consider, you might just be wrong... but of course not, our society is so enlightened, it couldn't be wrong...
Well put and I couldn't agree more that diversity is essential for robust and fair ecosystems.
> And, just consider, you might just be wrong
And it's okay to be wrong, so long as one keeps an open mind and considers all the available evidence.
For example, consider that people who have been infected and recovered have robust and durable immunity that is proving to be at least equally as effective as vaccination [1][2].
It would be a waste to force these people to be vaccinated, especially when there are many other people who would greatly benefit from those doses (eg in developing countries with limited access to modern healthcare facilities).
Recall that mRNA vaccines work by forcing your cells to produce spike protein, which is then detected as an infection leading to those cells being damaged or destroyed by the immune system. If you have already fought off COVID then being injected with the vaccine can only damage your body. It cannot help because you are already immune. And it's not the case that your pre-existing immunity means less damage: it means more, because when your body has never seen the spike protein before it has to build its own immune response in parallel to the mRNA particles degrading and the spike protein manufacturing falling away. The effect of the vaccine doesn't last long so by the time the immune system is fully ramped up the spikes aren't being made much anymore anyway. But if you are fully immune already, then your immune system can start destroying the mRNA 'infected' cells immediately, so far more will end up being attacked.
The more you investigate exactly how these mRNA vaccines work, the more questions are raised. And unfortunately there are remarkably few answers out there in the literature.
I don't know why you would equate seatbelts and vaccines, when with one you are requiring people to add a foreign material into their bodies. Seems like a terrible comparison. I'm sure there are many people who oppose compulsory vaccination but would be ok with mandatory seatbelts.
You could turn the argument around. Seat belts pretty much only protect the person wearing the seat belt, while vaccines protect the population in general by stopping the spread of Covid.
So people should have the freedom to harm themselves by not wearing a seat belt but vaccines should be mandatory to stop covid from spreading everywhere.
> vaccines protect the population in general by stopping the spread of Covid
This is a bit too strongly worded, and is borderline misinformation.
The current mRNA vaccines are imperfect - they do not provide sterilizing immunity - and consequently people who are vaccinated can still be infected and transmit the virus.
There is a small but growing subset of the scientific literature raising concerns about this - the keywords you can search for are vaccine induced immune escape. But I'll save you some time and link you to an accessible peer-reviewed paper on the subject as an introduction [1].
FWIW I agree that vaccines are useful - particularly for vulnerable demographics - and present very low risk of complications for an individual. That said, many people are unaware of the potential second order consequences of mass vaccination.
Furthermore, many people are unaware that previously infected and recovered individuals have robust and durable immunity to SARS-CoV-2 [2][3]. These are strong arguments for a strategically targeted vaccination campaign - the opposite of compulsory vaccination for everyone.
Seatbelts do improve the safety for other people. Car crashes are not always just bang and then the rescuers come and maybe save survivors. A good blow to the head from being flung about can daze or knock you out, and you may lose control of the vehicle after that. If you're wearing a seatbelt there is a much greater chance you stay conscious and still have partial or full control of the vehicle after a minor collision. So hopefully it doesn't turn into a much worse one.
Here in Ontario, you can let your 14 year old drive around without a seatbelt, or a license, in a car on private property. But on public roads, seatbelts. That seems reasonable to me.
If you're in the back seat of a car, without a seat belt, in a collision you may turn into a projectile which can potentially injure or even lead to the death of someone in the front seat.
That's conjecture. A conclusion from this study[1] is that vaccines correlate with dominance of fitter variants. That suggests that it's possible that vaccines allow them to propagate.
"the decline in lineage diversity was indeed correlated with increased rates of mass vaccination. Furthermore, the decline in lineage diversity was coupled with increased dominance of the B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.1.617 (delta) and P.1 (gamma) variants of concern, suggesting that these variants may be “fitter” SARS-CoV-2 lineages.”
I suppose the big downside of the flood of preprints on COVID19 is that any particular position can be supported, however briefly, with some study before peer review [hopefully] cleans things up.
It sounds like you're arguing that vaccination helps fuel variants because without vaccination there wouldn't be any hinderance to the original virus rampaging through the population and thus no selection pressure. Though as people developed natural immunity, I don't see how we wouldn't end up in the same place, just with more dead people.
I don't think we can conclude natural immunity and vaccine immunity would result in the same outcomes. Vaccines wouldn't exist if we thought that being vaccinated and not being vaccinated resulted in the same thing. If those differences exist, it's not outlandish to think there may be differences in evolved virulence and severity too. That's certainly conjecture too though.
Good point - just wanted to mention: see my comments elsewhere in the thread for more peer-reviewed papers that further support the idea you mentioned.
> From a variant that only exists because of unvaccinated people
I don't blame you for believing this because rhetoric from Fauci and others is constantly pushing this idea.
But if you want to be well informed you should at least be aware of a couple major counterpoints.
First, people who have been infected and recovered have robust and durable immunity that is at least equally as effective as vaccination [1][2].
Second, the current mRNA vaccines induce a highly targeted immune response to the spike protein, which - when coupled with mass vaccination - applies tremendous selective pressure on the virus [3][4][5]. This can actually further enhance the fitness of the virus. I've linked to several more peer reviewed papers to further demonstrate my points [6][7][8] - these are serious concerns being put forth by highly regarded researchers at top institutions in the country.
> while vaccines protect the population in general by stopping the spread of Covid.
This is common misconception about the COVID-19 vaccines and about several other vaccines. They don’t necessarily stop infection/transmission, but reduce the symptoms and prevent you from ending up in the ER.
Those who downvoted can find this basic information on CDC, WebMD, JH, BMJ, etc
It’s very sad to me that a major current of US politics is so anti-govt for anti-govt sake, rather than sound reason, that such behavior even occurs to people. What’s even worse is much of the libertarian/right wing anti-gov furor is pushed by lobbyists and “think tanks” both funded by major industries that want to avoid any kind of regulation.. yet it gets boiled down and refined into culture wars that people happily will absorb into their own psyche.
As much as freedom of speech and decentralization is important, constant attacks on this and that in isolation lead to the incorrect conclusion that everything must be thrown away. It’s a product of no one person, but many contribute to the entire macro problem, which means no one also will accept responsibility for the entire mess that were now in such that half the country doesn’t want to save their own and others lives despite a dangerous pandemic by using a safe and paid for vaccine alternative.
> libertarian ... want to avoid any kind of regulation
Much of what people know about libertarians comes from its opponents. Actual libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect peoples rights, while maximizing their freedom. Proper regulations would be aimed at preventing one group of people from hurting others.
"For their own good" regulations, though, are not libertarian. Adults should be allowed the freedom to make their own choices about themselves.
P.S. I got fully vaccinated at the earliest opportunity.
Most of what I know of libertarians I learned from people calling themselves libertarians on the Internet.
Were they libertarians? Well, I can't say for certain, but I think that seriously trying to argue they weren't gets well into No True Scotsman territory.
Regardless, almost every self-proclaimed libertarian I have ever come across has absolutely argued against government regulations, with the possible exception of those supporting property rights.
Hang out with a bunch of libertarians and eventually they'll start arguing about who's more libertarian.
There are various types (or degrees or flavors or something) of libertarianism. Minarchy [0] is one type, but doesn't seem to be the most vocal from what I've seen. There's even libertarian socialism [1]. The most vocal type seems to be anarcho capitalism [2] which is pretty much the no government whatsover group.
Libertarianism is a difficult philosophy for most people to accept, as it relies on order arising from chaos. (Even though all life on Earth is order arising from chaos.) Most people feel more comfortable with a law that forces their desired outcome.
Regardless of what people call themselves, when they say things like "libertarianism means no government" and "libertarianism allows people to sell themselves into slavery" and "libertarians allow people to sell baby food laced with poison" they are not a credible source.
I have seen people who call themselves libertarians openly arguing that it should be legal for companies to sell poison in food—I don't believe baby food came up specifically, but that's a purely emotional addition, and shouldn't change the overall argument—because the free market would work it out.
You may not think they are credible, or libertarians, but I'll ask you not to deny my lived experience just to support your personal idea of what a libertarian is or should be.
Nobody thinks it's good for poisoned food to be sold.
The libertarian argument that you're almost certainly mischaracterizing there is about the pandora's box that is opened by allowing the government to decide what is or is not "poison" (which is of course an absurdly emotionally charged word picked by their opponents). Consider that some governments want to restrict sugary food on health grounds. Sugar isn't a poison but once you accept the principle that governments can ban companies from selling "poisoned" food, the definition of poison immediately comes under attack and sooner or later means almost nothing like what you'd expect.
That is a good point, but I was specifically talking about putting unambiguously deadly poison in baby food.
There are always going to be grey areas, such as the line between "safe" and "unsafe", and Libertarianism doesn't provide any guidance on where that line should be. The government's role is to define that line, and the courts to interpret it as part of checks and balances.
Do 'actual libertarians' get to control who gets to call themselves a libertarian?
Michigan politicians that like to label themselves as libertarian supported socializing the cost of vehicle accidents. Of course repealing an insurance mandate is pro 'personal freedom' on the surface, but in context of reality, all it does is transfer costs from a user fee to Medicaid, which is not libertarian at all.
It's a natural, predictable counter reaction. The government has lied to people so often on so many different topics that now some illogical people habitually distrust all government statements, even the ones that are completely correct. Once credibility is lost it can take generations to rebuild.
My sisters husband actively tells his 7 year old daughter not to wear a belt. He’s so stupidly anti-rules he’s willing to sacrifice his young daughter to it.
My father, in the 1960s, would not accept delivery of new cars unless the dealer installed seat belts. He'd never move an inch until everybody in it was belted up. It was the only car I ever rode in that had seat belts in it, for most of my childhood.
Seat belts have saved my life, and that of other family members.
Robert McNamara speaks about this in the documentary "The fog of war" - they identified the problem (people were dying in crashes), implemented a solution (seatbelts + signs reminding people they were there), but couldn't get people to use them. Thus is the human condition, I suppose.
Wow, that is definitely taking it too far. And not only is he putting his daughter in immediate physical danger, he is also inviting an intervention from the gov't if they find out. Definitely goes beyond my risk tolerance even if I don't care much for being told what to do.
The driver has a seat belt. This is the foundation for why seat belts are mandated to begin with -- it is far easier to lose control of a car when you're unbelted, and that is a huge risk to everyone else on the road.
Beyond that, it's probably a matter of practicality that passengers aren't required to be belted in. It would significantly reduce the capacity of public transit. A better option might be to protect the driver from projectile humans. AFAICT that's exactly how modern buses are designed.
Also buses are generally much more massive than the vehicles they collide with, leading to much lower forces on bus passengers than on car passengers.
I don't know if this applies to general passenger buses or just school buses, but in the US they have closely spaced seats with energy-absorbing seat backs that limit the force on each passenger and how far the passenger can move in a collision.
Smaller school buses (under 10k pounds) are required to have lap and/or shoulder belts at all seating positions.
And this is why I think people who fancy thenselves moral philosophers are some of the most insufferable people on the planet.
I've a friend who believes net suffering should be reduced and that is the highest moral goal. To the point that he thinks we should evebtually force everyone to rewire their nueral pathways in order to prevent the sensation of sufferring.
Went on a canoe trip with this same guy, and another friend got trapped between their canoe and a tree and was in danger of drowning if we did not help him quickly. Philosopher friend just stood by and watched and when I asked him about it later he said that he was barefoot and running across the rocks induced him into suffering and he felt it was immoral to continue.
Your friend does sound insufferable, yes. But I don't think it's quite fair to Mr. Singer, whatever you think of his arguments, to say he merely 'fancies himself' a moral philosopher - it is his day job... [1]
He makes no mention of the riots that would ensue, the extreme data privacy issues, the medical ethics involved in sticking people without their consent, or the fact that these governments and companies have abysmal track records with involuntary medical experimentation.
1. Riots are manageable. Rollout strategy would have a lot of impact on the severity of backlash.
2. Data privacy issues marginal, not particularly unique. It’s an extant, broader problem that should be addressed but isn’t a reason to refrain from vaccination.
3. Laws and regulations don’t require individual consent. Again it’s marginal: the state already requires / bans various behaviors related to the bodies / health of individual citizens.
4. Involuntary experimentation is a minuscule / out-dated problem in the present. And it’s a non sequitur from vaccinating the population.
... And when you have everyone vaccinated, then what? Are you going to vaccinate Africa, for free? Are you going to vaccinate the deer, and all our pets too? The mice??? And give them all boosters? What's the end game here?
I think that's a rather quick judgement on moral philosophers as a whole based on the experience of someone who didn't even take the time to think through utilitarianism (one of the most controversial topics in moral philosophy) from the description you gave. I wouldn't be too quick to judge a major branch of philosophy like that.
I think that's a rather quick judgement on moral philosophers as a whole based on the experience of someone who didn't even take the time to think through utilitarianism (one of the most controversial topics in moral philosophy) from the description you gave. I wouldn't be too quick to judge a major branch of philosophy like that.
I wouldn't judge the whole field of software engineering based on an intern's Java code either - and I likely wouldn't judge the field even based on an expert's Java code.
The comparison between the seatbelt and a vaccination is already pretty odd. It doesn't harm me to use a seatbelt. A vaccination on the other side may have unknown side effects causing permanent damage.
I got the Pfizer vaccine myself, but only because I want to travel internationally as soon as possible, and proof of vaccination is an entry condition for many countries.
I don’t know about seatbelts, but airbags, which are also mandatory (I believe) have been proven in certain cases to have actually caused more harm than good.
So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus.
> when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus
You're presenting a false dichotomy here - the virus will always mutate regardless of whether everyone has been vaccinated or not.
In fact, there is evidence that the mRNA vaccines in their current form - coupled with mass vaccination - can further enhance the fitness of the virus [1][2][3]. This is a serious risk being raised by experts at top institutions in the country. You won't hear about it in the news though, at least not yet.
I've got plenty more references to share if you're interested in learning more.
This is not a false dichotomy. In fact, you add further credence to his arguement.
The virus is mutating (as you have graciously pointed out). This is true.
The virus is (often) deadly. Also true.
Where is the dichotomy in this?
Furthermore, the articles you have selected suggests that you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms. I would urge you to study more about super bugs, antiobiotic resistance, and reaching drugs of last resort for many deadly illnesses such as MRSA/VRSA (there are now variants that are completely resistant to all known human antibiotics).
The point is- resistance is inherent and integral to biology. I fail to see why you tried to create an arguement out of an incorrectly determined "false dichotomy" and then go on to explain elementary levels of biology in your defense. I am thoroughly confused. This post seems childish at best, and more like a "holier than thou because I can cite random pub-med studies without understanding them" moment.
Please, do some real 'critialtinker'ing before you comment.
I will calmly explain my thought process for you, and perhaps we can find agreement.
azinman2 said:
>> "airbags, which are also mandatory (I believe) have been proven in certain cases to have actually caused more harm than good"
>> "So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus."
The implication of these statements by azinman2 is: although vaccines will sometimes (rarely) harm individuals, vaccination should be compulsory (the context of our discussion here), because the alternative is a mutating and deadly virus.
My reply stated: "the virus will always mutate regardless of whether everyone has been vaccinated or not"
Do you see the false dichotomy that I was addressing? You and I are in agreement that the virus is mutating AND deadly - but more importantly, that is not dichotomy I pointed out.
So there seems to be a misunderstanding here, I believe on your part.
I'm well aware of the literature on antibiotic and viral resistance, my other posts and citations throughout these threads should support that.
> Furthermore, the articles you have selected suggests that you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms
If you believe I'm misrepresenting the findings in my citations, please elaborate.
So far you have not supported your opinions. In fact you seem to be angry or frustrated with me for no apparent reason, given the content of your comment is mostly ad hominem vitriol.
> you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms
> I would urge you to study more
> explain elementary levels of biology in your defense
> This post seems childish at best
> holier than thou because I can cite random pub-med studies without understanding them
> Please, do some real 'critialtinker'ing before you comment
I had a good chuckle because there's a palpable irony in your words - talk about "holier than thou".
According to your bio you're a practicing internal medicine physician - since you're highly educated perhaps these topics are elementary to you, but for everyone else on HN these topics deserve clear and concise elaboration. So please, pretend we're you're patients and treat us with a basic level of respect. If you can do that, many of us will listen to what you're saying with an open mind.
"A study by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revealed that from 1987 to 2017, frontal airbags saved more than 50,000 lives. While airbags cause some injuries, the number of lives saved offsets the potential for injuries. Airbags also often reduce the severity of injuries in major crashes. Even so, airbags do come with a downside.
The NHTSA also reported 175 fatalities that were caused by airbags in the decade between 1990 and 2000. 104 of those fatalities were children, and most of the rest were female adults that were shorter than average. All of the fatalities, interestingly, occurred in low-speed accidents that the occupants would have otherwise survived."
Note that we're talking about 175 fatalities due to airbags in 10 years, despite 50k lives saved over 20 years. This is always the case with any kind of intervention -- nothing is ever 100% perfect. But we can't lose the forest for the trees.
Seat belts can cause injuries, too, especially if worn improperly. But their overall public health benefits are considered to outweigh the risks:
"The protective role of seatbelts against spinal injuries, and abdominal injuries also seems equivocal given that seatbelt injuries have been reported. Although findings of the current study suggest that the risk of abdominal injuries is lowest for belted occupants, the seatbelt syndrome which encompasses abdominal injury, has been extensively described in the literature as caused by improper seatbelt use [17, 23, 25]. This syndrome mostly affects the pediatric population [26], but it has also been documented in adults [22]. Improper seatbelt use has also been associated with intra-abdominal and spinal injuries [16, 22]. Seatbelt use has been shown to be associated with increased spinal injury severity, neurological deficit and fatality [48]. Compared to unbelted individuals, the frequency of thoracic and lumbar spinal injuries was shown to be higher in belted occupants [48]."
In Princess Diana's crash, she was in the back seat unbelted and died from her heart exploding on impact.
Her bodyguard, belted in the front seat, survived.
Of course, this is anecdotal. Anecdotal is also the large bruises I received from the seatbelt in a crash where the seatbelt saved my life. I didn't mind the bruises.
I guess you aren't familiar with the arguments people make against seatbelts. Arguments like "They kill more than they save" "If my car catches fire I want to be throw out of that car not trapped in it"
In a roll over crash, a 5 point harness can actually be less safe unless the car also has a roll cage. 3 point belts are designed to allow a person's torso to deflect to the side so that the head and spine aren't crushed if the roof caves in.
This article (and argument) is the equivelant of saying "teenagers and senior citizens both cause more fatal accidents than any other age group. Obviously we need to ban them from the road because they are putting others at risk"
I know you're trying to make a reduction ad absurdum, but these are arguments that are actually made. For one, this is exactly the reason why we don't allow young people below a certain age to drive on public roads.
Furthermore, if I remember correctly, at least some jurisdictions have laws on the books that old drivers can have their licenses taken away if they are not able to operate a car safely anymore. I'm not sure if any jurisdictions require old drivers to actively demonstrate their competency in an exam or such, but I have definitely seen people argue for that idea.
I'm not opposed to it either, and in fact I would not age-gate it. If train drivers or airplane pilots are required to prove their competency on a regular basis, why should we not require car drivers to do the same, maybe every 5 or 10 years?
No. It's not. It would be similar, if you had a "potion", that people could drink to magically enhance their driving skill. This potion would have some possible rare negative side-effects. And then there is a question: should people be required to drink this potion while getting the driving pass?
Even today, very bad drivers are forbidden to drive the cars? Is it an attack on their freedom?
I mean you probably could run a study of caffeinated vs un-caffeinated drivers. Or Modafinil vs Un-Modafinil drivers and I imagine the results would be: the ones with the drug perform better than the ones without.
Expanding on this: I am sure more fatal accidents occur late at night than during the day. Do we bar night driving because of the risk?
Bigger cars cause more fatal accidents than smaller cars. Bar bigger cars from the road?
You can imagine the drug would help, sure. But that's it – your imagination. But yeah, if we assumed the Modafinil was indeed a proven "cure" against sleeping while driving, and it was given free, then the situation would have a similar structure as the one analyzed by the author. Obviously, they still differ significantly:
a) you would have probably to take Modafinil before each drive – vaccines have a more permanent effect
b) it is easier to track vaccinations than taking a drug, it's much more manageable.
This is not only a risk management game – your simplified "absurd" examples are of the kind: "author wants to bar risky situations, why not bar big cars, they're risky". One has also to weight various social factors/costs. If barring bigger cars from the road would be beneficial for society, then yeah, let's do it, but I wouldn't bet on that. The vaccinations have some added costs (production, distribution) and risks (side-effects), but the question is whether the cost/risk of the longer pandemic isn't even bigger (AFAIR it is). I don't say, that OP is right that people should be forced to be vaccinated, but I don't find it absurd given that we've already sacrificed many other freedoms for the society. It's like @mayewsky writes, we already bar some drivers (because of age/health state/previous offenses against the law) from driving. It's nothing new and it's not controversial AFAIK.
On one hand I think that people should be free to get the vaccine or not. On the other hand, I really wish we could go back to normal as fast as possible, and vaccination will help with this. I've already spent a year and half with restricted liberties to protect people. So if people don't want to vaccinate and this makes me lose even more time, it's their liberty against mine. I don't really have a good answer to this.
From what I've heard, the requirements keep going up due to the variants, and the vaccine isn't as effective as a regular vaccine. It would also be a bit unfair to have people enjoy herd immunity because others took the risk to vaccinate themselves.
We can go back to normal as soon as people are willing to accept the risks of normalcy. In fact some US states have been back to normal for months and are no longer restricting liberties.
I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can. But even if we had 100% vaccination the authoritarians would move the goalposts again and say that we have to keep locking down and wearing masks because of reasons.
That's a fair point. I'm fully vaccinated and still have to wear my mask in shops and interior spaces, it's getting a bit annoying. If people don't want to get infected they can just take the vaccine or not go outside.
I often have posts that have a downvote a few minutes after they're posted, and then gather a few upvotes some time later. You can see this sometimes on a bigger scale where the first few posts on an article are for some opinion, they get downvoted after some time and the new posts are all about reacting to the first posts. My conclusion is that the most active people are the most extreme, while the "silent majority" is more reasonable.
What about this deal? We can start discussing vaccination mandates when the companies producing the vaccines, are willing to declare the safety of the vaccines they produce and accept the corresponding liability?
Something they did for all previous products they brought to market, but that every single company refused to do for
the vaccines they are producing.
Before you reply that this was a pandemic emergency, it was a required waiver to be able to get results quickly, accept then that the compromise was needed by the justified uncertainty concerning medical side effects.
We start to discuss 3th doses and possible a 4th. CEO of
companies like Pfizer already mentioned "annual vaccination". Looks like a dangerous path of a society that will mandate from now on, specific medication to achieve a first class citizen status. At a certain point, many would choose the medical risk over government mandated medication as a condition for first class citizenship.
Its about the principle. Many would call it a selfish position as you forget about the dangers you could pose to others if you get infected. Surely this must be a discussion guided by the principle the interests
of society do not trump certain individual rights ?
What if a new variation is discovered and find out that mostly spreads only via overweight people, or people with a certain genetic predisposition. What other individual mandates would you apply then ?
I owe it to the downvoters to post some information directly from the CDC. Imagine you have somebody in the family with for example a thyroid medical problem or any other condition affecting the immune system. You are still going for it ?
"...However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus..."
"...investigations are ongoing to assess further the risk of transmission from fully vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections..."
"At this time, there are limited data on vaccine effectiveness in people who are immunocompromised. People with immunocompromising conditions, including those taking immunosuppressive medications, should discuss the need for personal protective measures after vaccination with their healthcare provider."
Honest question/s: What is the danger to someone who is already vaccinated from someone who has avoided it? If there is some great risk then what is so important about everyone getting a seemingly ineffective treatment? Also there is no discussion of natural immunity from prior exposure what about that?
People who can't be vaccinated is keep vulnerable because of no herd immunity. Hospital is keeping busy by infecting unvaccinated people so medical resource is keep lacking that affects all people who needs medical care.
I don't think it needs to be compulsory. And I do not mean this in a deontological way regarding what is morally wrong or not; I mean it in the utilitarian sense. As humans, we already have tools to make people conform. Like when someone refuses to shower, they will probably be viewed as disgusting. If someone says something derogatory, we tend to punish them somehow. I think the same process can occur in this case. People who increase other people's risk of acquiring a disease should face some type of cost for that. Just let people be people and antivaxxers will eventually be ostracized.
They are kind of ostracized. That's why they feel compelled to be open about their status before going into a relationship. It is a pretty shitty situation, but it is what it is. If HIV had no negative connotation, people would be much less careful and would put more people at risk.
If vaccines are to be compulsory, who gets to decide which vaccines? Once you open the door to compulsory medical practices, there’s no telling where that will end.
I sort of understand the point (or at least part of it). I don't believe in forcing anyone to get vaccinated, however I do believe vaccinated people should have the right to know who they are associating with, so they can make an informed decision.
The onus is on the vaccinated then. Wear an "I'm vaccinated" badge and encourage others to do the same. Then assume anyone who doesn't as unvaccinated and conduct yourself as you wish.
there are a lot of personal things that would be great to know in order to make "informed decision". Why stop at vaccinations? Like in Black Mirror you get all the info available about a person you are about to associate with.
>they can make an informed decision.
fortunately they can make it without knowing like all other people do in similar situation of unaccessible personal data - they can politely ask and/or just treat "unknown" as "unvaccinated".
> there are a lot of personal things that would be great to know in order to make "informed decision"
I'm most interested in the infectious disease risk. I have unvaccinated children (too young). I'd prefer not to expose them to likely sources of the virus if it can be avoided.
If your choice isn't likely to affect me, I don't have any interest in it.
I should sacrifice my freedom for yours? Why not the other way around? After all, your choice does not affect just one other person, it may affect millions.
> We seem to be at an impasse, because that question can be asked literally word-for-word of you.
I'm not asking anything of you. You're asking me to waive my right to legal recourse and inject an experimental vaccine based on unfounded claims COVID can be eradicated through vaccination.
> Except I'm not insisting on you changing your behavior, you are the one trying to suppress my freedom of association.
It's the vaccinated excluding the unvaccinated from public and freedom of association, not the other way.
Politically speaking, this is an amazing issue to argue.
Some on the political left have been arguing 'My body, my choice' with regards to abortion. But now it's often those on the right that are making that argument.
Are we going to mandate flu vaccines from now on? I mean why stop at COVID19 at all, let's mandate vaccinations for everything under the sun if we go by that logic.
Seriously? You’re right with him. Contributing to misery. Maybe you need to have a long COVID relative to understand the pain. Or a death in family or friends. Is your “freedom” worth others’ loss?
I had longcovid for 14 months. I think the vaccine would hurt my robust immunity and I’ll never take it. If I lose my job that’s ok. If they make it mandatory I’ll flee to Russia. (assuming I see it coming before they restrict travel)
I assume this is some kind of joke. But on the off chance it isn't, Russia is getting very strict on their vaccine requirements.
Authorities in four Russian regions have made coronavirus vaccines mandatory this week for workers in retail, education and other service sectors, part of an effort to boost the country’s low immunization rates as COVID-19 infections continue to soar.
I'm only half joking - Russia is the leader in vaccine skepticism and still has the lowest vaccination rates.
Even if certain regions mandate it for some workers, I think rates will remain low and people will oppose it. To be honest I'm not sure where to go. It's very hard to avoid the geopolitical arm of the US government - and the US government is hellbent on giving every man/woman/child the RNA shots. I'm not optimistic my life won't be ruined because of this vaccine.
This. My son had Covid-19; had effects for about 4 months. Better now and is unmasked. Why are we not talking about those with antibodies? Why is the only choice having the vaccine?
yes, given that the probability of getting infected for vaccinated people is about third of that of unvaccinated, and once infected vaccinated spread the virus the same as unvaccinated (discussed at length with the links for example here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28066844), forcing vaccine upon low risk groups starts to looks like an immoral thing as it does nothing to prevent the spread (roughly speaking the Delta's R0 for vaccinated is the third of Delta's R0 for unvaccinated, i.e it is like the R0 of the original).
Science doesn’t apply to you either? Like helping the virus spread? Endanger yourself and family? Cool. But if you pass it on to anyone, you’re liable. How about that? Prepared for that? Have means to pay for care and long term effects? Economic damage to society?
Science doesn’t apply to unstatusquo either? Like getting people to take vaccines that haven’t gone through long term trials? But if there are any side effects to the vaccine you’re liable unstatusquo. How about that? Prepared for that? Have the means to pay for care and long term effects? Economic damage to society?
Wonder if the vaccine makers are willing to be liable? Nope. How about the federal government? Nope. unstatusquo, are you a taker?
My brother in law died of a heart attack a day after getting the vaccine. No autopsy to see if the vaccine had anything to do with it. In fact they refused to do one. They really don’t want to know that there can be side effects. Weird that when my father died years ago, there was an autopsy.
unstatusquo is so insistent except when it matters.
I’ve helped viruses spread my entire life! I have literally never stopped breathing. I also touch doorknobs! This was considered normal two years ago, now it’s a sin.
Did you ever go out without a mask before 2020? Influenza is also a potentially fatal respiratory disease which can be spread by asymptomatic patients. We have vaccines but some years they are as little as 20% effective. So you might have already killed someone by spreading flu. How does that make you feel?
We typically do that after FDA approval. Don't get me wrong, I'm vaccinated (he says to not get reflexive downvotes, but it's true), but the FDA hasn't yet approved these vaccines.
We simply don't know what we don't know. For me, the risk was worth it. I can't speak for others.
Just wanted to say I appreciate the intellectual humility here. "I don't know if this is right for everyone, but it is right for me" is pretty refreshing.
The tribalism and moralizing around the vaccines is really troubling. You're either a saint or moron; hero or traitor. Depending on left/right and vax status.
The polarization doesn't surprise me at all (having lived through the last ~5 years in the US) but it is disappointing.
Same here. I know a couple of MDs who have chosen to wait for their vaccination. They are educated professionals who looked at their risk profile (retired, in states like Idaho and Montana, reasonably fit), and they decided that the risk wasn't worth it to them. They aren't blind MAGA hat owners.
OTOH, I'm fat, asthmatic, over 40, and live in a pretty congested part of the world. My risk calculation is different than theirs. So, I got the shots as soon as I could. It is indeed sad we are so split on this issue.
There is a big difference between "forcing" people and requiring vaccines to access certain types of services. Kids in the US do not have to be vaccinated unless they want to participate in govt funded services in which they would be exposed to many other vulnerable children. That seems entirely fair and something I could get behind for covid vaccines even though I would categorically not get behind forcing people to get vaccinated. Private organizations also have the right to require such things for the sake of safety.
Current policies on other vaccines are very analogous to many many requirements we take for granted and that people largely don't whine about: seatbelts, license for driving, building permits, etc, etc. Reasonably administered there is wide consensus these things aren't worth fighting over and produce far more good than harm.
Why covid vaccines (and gun laws for that matter) are being received differently (with hysteria IMO) by a certain subset of the US population is a whole other conversation...
So for how long is the COVID-19 vaccine going to be compulsory? Forever? 3 Months?
I'd wager plenty of people can wait another 6 months before going to a bar or restaurant - they've done it for 1.5 years already... meaning compulsory vaccination isn't going to work.
This debate has been had over the past few days over and over - but I'll reiterate.
No child has received a vaccine to date, and statistically experience a near zero infection and mortality rate. Nobody seems to be suggesting we start mandatory vaccines for children (yet).
The adults that aren't vaccinated are on their own. Leave them alone - stop trying to exert your will over them and go about your own business. If they get sick and die, it's entirely their own fault at this point - the vaccine has been freely available, free of cost for months. If they haven't got the vaccine yet, nothing you say or do will change that.
We should not start weird "show vaccine to enter" cards or develop secret citizen police to rat on people... nor should we burden the rest of society with protecting people that refuse protection.
You’re the problem. If I get sick because of you, are you willing to be sued for your negligent and intentional infliction of harm? Doubt it. Get over yourself and help society.
Are you willing to be sued for the psychological and physiological distress your comment caused me? Doubt it. Get over yourself and stop telling others what they should be doing.
I’ll say it again. Make government handouts dependent on vaccination. No vaccination? Refund all benefits you got for COVID relief with interest. Walking around unvaccinated because science doesn’t apply to you is negligent and you are committing battery by knowingly inflicting others with a virus. Get over yourself and get it done.
Creating weird relationships between government programs never seems like a good idea to me. It creates weird incentives, e.g. punishing arbitrary classes of people more if they don't get the vaccine (e.g. blind people are probably more likely to get handouts). It creates weird incentives in law-making, e.g. to increase the number of handouts in order to increase the punishment for not getting the vaccine, or the reverse, and so on.
Just make the law say what you want to have happen, "get the vaccine or be fined $$$" (or fined %%% of {income | wealth}, or jail for N days, or so on).
> Mandatory vaccinations are much more digestable.
????
The state has the power to enforce mandatory vaccination, but does not want to use it, so use mandatory vaccination instead, which is more digestable.
Did I get that right?
(From the linked wiki article: "Massachusetts .. had compulsory vaccination," and also "Massachusetts law empowered .. cities and towns to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults". There's no difference between compulsory and mandatory in this context.)
Any suitable candidate for a COVID-19 vaccine can voluntarily choose whether to get the shot when the opportunity arises. Mandates, however, set conditions on participation to encourage vaccination: If you want to go to work, attend school, or travel, get vaccinated. With compulsory vaccination, individual consent is not an option. Force is used if necessary. Though a vestige of a bygone era of public health practice, limited legal authority remains for forcible vaccination among certain groups.
Mandatory is "if you don't, you're {fired, cannot enter our business, cannot attend our school, ...}".
Compulsory is "the nice police officer standing right next to me is going to watch as we vaccinate you on your front porch, got it?" or "we will fine you $X thousand dollars if you appear in public unvaccinated". The former case was (now again famously) done in Boston ... in 1775. The latter has been done occasionally in the past 4 or 5 years to stamp out measles infections, notably in new york state.
> This past February, when the Indonesian government became the first to make vaccination mandatory for all adults, the real tragedy was not that it was violating the freedom of its citizens, but that richer countries did not donate the vaccines it needed to implement the law.
So let me get this right, a government decided to implement mandatory vaccination without having the means to implement it, and other countries are to blame? That's a pretty rich take.
I think the real tragedy here is writing without a functioning brain.
TL;DR -- The author salivates imagining a future where humans are coerced into accepting the injection of heavy metals into their bloodstreams while the poison pushers remain fully indemnified.
You and commenter are both going on about some specific flavor of poison that I never even mentioned -- keep beating that strawman down :^)
A cursory investigation reveals that at least 22(!) "vaccines" in current use contain Aluminum[1] (a heavy metal), while Thimerosal (Mercury, another heavy metal) is routinely added to others[2].
If you want to write a blank check with your own bloodstream, go ahead. I'm not very optimistic you'd be able to properly read an ingredients list anyway.
You said the Covid vaccines contained heavy metals. You were corrected on that one simple fact. That's the limit of mine and the other commenters involvement.
I'll say it again: Neither he, nor I, made any statement to you for/against the vaccine. We corrected a factual inaccuracy about the ingredients.
That this is bothering you so much is kind of troubling. Don't you want to have all the facts?
You can't mandate vaccination with a highly experimental and yet unapproved vaccine. And the main point revolves COVID-19 and the Olympics, not vaccinations in general.
> For the same reason, rules announced last month in France and Greece requiring that people going to cinemas, bars, or traveling on a train show proof of vaccination are not a violation of anyone’s freedom.
I can't believe a professor in bioethics wrote that. We never asked people to show proof of other vaccinations, or proof that they're not violent and won't attack others if drunk, or of past convictions.
There's the implicit agreement that, if you're sick, you won't show up, and most people do that. The comparison with seatbelts is absurd.
People are assuming that we have a miracle cure that will lead to irradication of a hellish disease.
Yet we're already seeing signs (iceland, israel, not sure about NZ) that they will not lead to herd immunity[1], and that protection is waning [pfizer study preprint][2]. The goalpost has been moved to "serious disease" (which is reason to get the vaccine, sure). "Fewer deaths" is uncertain to [pfizer preprint, of 44,000, deaths from covid and all cases were evenly split][3].
<speculation, ignore this>
Breakthrough infections are leading to viral loads resembling unvaxxed loads[4], which raises the worry of vaccine escape mutations (lesser in number than the random mutations in unvaxxed carriers, but way more deadly).
</speculation, ignore this>
It's been preached as the savior of the pandemic since they were announced. Then they said if you're vaxed you can go back to work and be around other vaxed people without a mask. Now people are still "getting sick" even with the vax, so basically it did nothing and was pointless. It's nothing more than a constant moving of goal posts designed to eradicate all liberties here on forth.
These are least delusional anti-vaxxers. They know that vaccination helps society at large, but they still won't get vaccinated, since they consider themselves young and healthy and at minimal risk from COVID.
(They are still delusional, since the risk of COVID infection even in the young and healthy is still greater than vaccination risk. However, at least they don't believe in microchip conspiracies.)
These people wouldn't sacrifice the smallest thing for the rest of us. So tell me, why should we respect their notions of personal liberty? Why give them anything, when they'd give absolutely nothing to the rest of us?
If they want the freedom to not vaccinate themselves, for their own selfish interests, then we should deny them access to public venues, likewise for our own interests.
We're a society. When our government is doing its job, we don't let people pollute the commons, whether it's with toxic waste or with deadly pathogens. Vaccination should indeed be compulsory.