4 ms·

> and fortunately the only people at risk are those that have not been vaccinated yet No, vaccines are not 100% effective. For example, the H3N3 vaccine was 9

• jacquesm 10y ago
  > and an additional 10% of the people who did get the vaccine. That's hardly the fault of the people who didn't get vaccinated. > Also, as noted in another reply, many, many people can't get vaccinated and rely on those of us who can to not be spreading the disease around. True > You can't vaccinate a newborn, for example. Also true, I'm painfully aware of that one. > There's a lot of value in bodily autonomy, and it's definitely questionable to mandate vaccines, but that has to be weighed against the costs, and that requires understanding and honestly acknowledging the costs. Yes again. This also includes honestly looking at the other side of the argument: if you want science rather than regular imprecise human reasoning to take over at all levels of society you will end up with a society where freedom of religion and all kinds of other goodies that we have come to agree are good for all of us are going to be thrown out. I would rather see steps in that direction come about by consent than by force. We're all so tremendously fanatical about protecting life, at the same time those abortion clinic bombers claim they are doing the exact same thing. Extremist positions (such as the anti-vaxxers) are not going to yield because of a push by force-majeure. The only way you're going to get such a position to be changed is by endless education and information so that finally, hopefully soon but better later than never people will decide that this is for the best of their kids. And if they don't then all you'll end up doing is alienating that part of society even further from reason and that's the last thing you want. Science is a good thing, let's not make it seem as though it is perfect and let's not repeat the exact same mistakes that religions perform over and over again, such as deciding how others should live their lives. The miracles of modern medicine are large enough that they can speak for themselves and over a long enough time-span the anti-vaxxers movement will be just another blip. But if you start to push back you are only making it bigger, better to respect their right to make the wrong decisions than to force them creating even more resentment and ill-will.
  • lkbm 10y ago
    > if you want science rather than regular imprecise human reasoning to take over at all levels of society you will end up with a society where freedom of religion and all kinds of other goodies that we have come to agree are good for all of us are going to be thrown out. > Science is a good thing, let's not make it seem as though it is perfect Uh....I want our decisions to be based on evidence. Science is not a moral theory, and I'm not pretending it is, but it our most reliable source of empirical data. Science never says "you should do X", so you don't have to worry about that. It only says "Best data available says that doing X will result in in Y with probability P". > But if you start to push back you are only making it bigger, better to respect their right to make the wrong decisions than to force them creating even more resentment and ill-will. I'm all for a pragmatic, effective approach to getting people to vaccinate, and I want one that balances people's rights. I also agreed that turning the issue into a culture war is counter-productive. At the same time, I want to get people to vaccinate, and while I won't hold them down and jab a needle in their arm to do it, I am in favor of doing what we can to effectively get them to vaccinate. Anecdote: I have a friend who got sick during the Ebola scare, and had recently been in [an Ebola-free country in] Africa, so the police came by and forced her to go to the hospital where they determined she didn't have Ebola and sent her a bill. Which she had to pay. I'd argue that forcing her to go to the hospital was reasonable (or would have been if it hadn't been predicated on the idea that "Africa" is one homogenous place full of Ebola), but that charging her for it was not. I think we as a society have the right to demand people with serious contagious diseases be quarantined and receive treatment, and that we as a society should pay for that. I assume that at least if she had Ebola, you'd agree with overriding her bodily autonomy for a forced quarantine. That's further on the freedom end of the "bodily autonomy vs. societal well-being" scale than I'm on, but still one that recognizes the trade-offs and makes a thoughtful, pragmatic balance rather than holding one goal, bodily-autonomy, as completely outweighing the other. I don't actually know if you'd agree with the forced quarantine, but I'm making the assumption that, like most everybody, you agree that the trade-off is sometimes worthwhile. With vaccines you absolutely reasonably take the stance that requiring them is the wrong balance, but you seem to be arguing as if even evaluating the cost-benefit is wrong--at least judging by your initial post. "But your body is yours and yours alone and that's a good thing even if there are negative consequences for society." It's hard to draw a line about where the balance lies, and it feels more principled to say "value X always outweighs value Y", but very, very few people are willing to take the hard stance. Instead they take the hard stance where they've drawn the line, and pretend that's the non-arbitrary line, dismissing the reductio as "well, yes, in that example it's obvious". Are you willing to actually go with "bodily autonomy trumps societal consequences in every situation"? Or are you striking a balance? Because if you're striking a balance, the debate has to be about where the balance lies, not just "bodily autonomy uber alles". And that requires--in addition to moral beliefs--using empirical data ("science") about what the costs and benefits are.