4 ms·

I think this happens because the vast majority of participants in this topic cannot distinguish between the overwhelmingly convincing evidence of the good of th

I think this happens because the vast majority of participants in this topic cannot distinguish between the overwhelmingly convincing evidence of the good of the vaccine and the terrible morality of the government forcing them down on people. In this topic you can often find individuals complaining about the threat of internment camps while simultaneously arguing to round up all anti-vaxers together and punish, humiliate or segregate them. [In the HN thread a participant that has been voted up has literally suggested inoculating people and placing them in ghettos] To satisfy your original request, I will offer the counter-weight: my core argument is that herd immunity is a privilege not a right. You are not entitled to it, and thus if you want it, you need to pay for it. The vaxers need to compensate the anti-vaxers for their perceived inconvenience. There are more worthwhile details in the debate: medicine is not about forcing treatment on people, but public health often is (through some mechanisms like segregation). It also could be very counter-productive to do the latter, since the most dangerous clinically wise is someone lying about getting the vaccine, than someone not getting it. Fundamentally my request to those that wish to use force against the anti-vaxers is to grow a pair and try to go with a vaccine in hand into these people's homes and inject it themselves, since they are so brave to ask for drastic measures.

dctoedt 7y ago
> the terrible morality of the government forcing [vaccines] down on people For many of us, there's nothing moral about an anti-vaxxer's insistence on personal autonomy (read: "You're not the boss of ME!") when it could endanger thousands of others. Anti-vaxxers had better be prepared for an effort to get them to do otherwise — OK, sure, by kindly persuasion if that's possible, but if not .... And yes I do realize that's a two-way street.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  I hope you have the courage to get the vaccine yourself, break into an anti-vaxers home and risk your life in a fight to inject them with it. After all, it is for your child's life. Then I will believe your argument about sacrificing individual sovereignty for a common good.
  - dctoedt 7y ago
    I've had all the recommended vaccines myself, as have my wife and our kids. I won't personally force vaccination on someone on my own, but courage has nothing to do with it: Taking matters into my own hands would be a breach of the peace, and we have settled, accepted ways of doing that kind of thing, with checks and balances to reduce the chances of error; those ways of doing things ARE very, very high in my personal value system (I'm a lawyer and former military officer).
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      If peace is a worthy objective to sacrifice the health risk for, then accepting anti-vaxxers as a legal and legitimate position will get you there the fastest. However, if the argument is what level of pressure should the government apply to this group of people to coerce them into something they don't believe in, I demand that the advocate take the matter on their own hands and not place third parties in danger for their own beliefs.
      - dctoedt 7y ago
        You might wish to re-read what I said. I'm NOT willing for global society to incur major health risks for the sake of placating anti-vaxxers' irrationality, even if that means forcibly imposing consensus solutions on them (e.g, by quarantine). But it's not black-and-white: Any such involuntary measures must be done in accordance with our established processes. Otherwise, we risk anarchy.
      - dctoedt 7y ago
        > I demand that the advocate take the matter on their own hands and not place third parties in danger for their own beliefs. Demand all you like, but we have established processes for this sort of thing. If I were a physician or nurse tasked by a government with vaccinating people against their will, then certainly I'd do the job — assuming of course that the vaccine had been appropriately tested, etc., and that due process had been followed. Likewise, if I were a police officer and it was my job to make sure someone stood still to be involuntarily vaccinated, then sure, I'd do that job too, subject to the same assumptions. This is not a novel problem nor are we lacking in solutions; what I've described has been painfully worked out in the course of thousands of years of communal life.

dctoedt 7y ago

> the terrible morality of the government forcing [vaccines] down on people For many of us, there's nothing moral about an anti-vaxxer's insistence on personal autonomy (read: "You're not the boss of ME!") when it could endanger thousands of others. Anti-vaxxers had better be prepared for an effort to get them to do otherwise — OK, sure, by kindly persuasion if that's possible, but if not .... And yes I do realize that's a two-way street.

conanbatt 7y ago
I hope you have the courage to get the vaccine yourself, break into an anti-vaxers home and risk your life in a fight to inject them with it. After all, it is for your child's life. Then I will believe your argument about sacrificing individual sovereignty for a common good.
- dctoedt 7y ago
  I've had all the recommended vaccines myself, as have my wife and our kids. I won't personally force vaccination on someone on my own, but courage has nothing to do with it: Taking matters into my own hands would be a breach of the peace, and we have settled, accepted ways of doing that kind of thing, with checks and balances to reduce the chances of error; those ways of doing things ARE very, very high in my personal value system (I'm a lawyer and former military officer).
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    If peace is a worthy objective to sacrifice the health risk for, then accepting anti-vaxxers as a legal and legitimate position will get you there the fastest. However, if the argument is what level of pressure should the government apply to this group of people to coerce them into something they don't believe in, I demand that the advocate take the matter on their own hands and not place third parties in danger for their own beliefs.
    - dctoedt 7y ago
      You might wish to re-read what I said. I'm NOT willing for global society to incur major health risks for the sake of placating anti-vaxxers' irrationality, even if that means forcibly imposing consensus solutions on them (e.g, by quarantine). But it's not black-and-white: Any such involuntary measures must be done in accordance with our established processes. Otherwise, we risk anarchy.
    - dctoedt 7y ago
      > I demand that the advocate take the matter on their own hands and not place third parties in danger for their own beliefs. Demand all you like, but we have established processes for this sort of thing. If I were a physician or nurse tasked by a government with vaccinating people against their will, then certainly I'd do the job — assuming of course that the vaccine had been appropriately tested, etc., and that due process had been followed. Likewise, if I were a police officer and it was my job to make sure someone stood still to be involuntarily vaccinated, then sure, I'd do that job too, subject to the same assumptions. This is not a novel problem nor are we lacking in solutions; what I've described has been painfully worked out in the course of thousands of years of communal life.