5 ms·

A delightful moral dilemma: There is concern that the vaccine stops you from developing Covid symptoms but not from becoming asymptomatic. If it turns out tha

A delightful moral dilemma: There is concern that the vaccine stops you from developing Covid symptoms but not from becoming asymptomatic. If it turns out that the vaccines do not prevent you from being asymptomatic (you can still spread Covid), what is your obligation to wear a mask have continued lockdowns to protect people who refuse to get the vaccine?

peter422 6y ago
You still need to wear a mask, but once vaccination rates are high enough the pandemic will roughly end and people as a whole can stop wearing them. Also remember that by vaccinating the highest risk patients first we can make big impacts in the death toll without necessarily stopping the spread of cases.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
notRobot 6y ago
I don't see any dilemma. Doing a simple thing can save lives. Why wouldn't you?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
relativeadv 6y ago
I'm not obligated to do many things. I do however wear a mask because it is the right thing to do. This isn't a moral dilemma.
- fairity 6y ago
  I believe GP's hypothetical assumes that everyone has an opportunity to get vaccinated, and all those who remain susceptible to the virus refused to get vaccinated for selfish reasons. If society continues to coddle anti-vaxers, it reinforces a positive incentive for selfish behavior, which in turn creates a negative drag on overall well-being. At a certain point, society shouldn't allow the selfish acts of small group of individuals undermine the well-being of society at large. Obviously, there would need to be ample warning and a concerted effort to educate everyone on consequences. Once these requirements are met in this hypothetical, I believe the moral thing to do is to stop wearing masks and stop social distancing. That said, this is an idealized hypothetical. In reality, there will be many people who can't get vaccinated for reasons that are not selfish. In this case, there is still a moral dilemma, but I'm unsure on how I'd approach it. Surely, asking 200 million people to wear masks for another year to save 1 life isn't worth it. The question is where to draw the line.
  - stevecalifornia 6y ago
    Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I believe you were the one person who fully read the question.
a9h74j 6y ago
I have heard the prediction that some people will stop wearing masks with the [false] claim they have "had the vaccine." Not necessarily a "moral dilemma" but a kind of moral hazard perhaps, much as these sound the same. Part of that same prediction was: don't underestimate the frustration and fatigue, when people hear that after getting vaccinated they still have to wear a mask and social distance (if an "effective" vaccine does not create sterilizing immunity).
ummonk 6y ago
None. If they don't get the vaccine once it's available to them that is on them.

peter422 6y ago

You still need to wear a mask, but once vaccination rates are high enough the pandemic will roughly end and people as a whole can stop wearing them. Also remember that by vaccinating the highest risk patients first we can make big impacts in the death toll without necessarily stopping the spread of cases.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

notRobot 6y ago

I don't see any dilemma. Doing a simple thing can save lives. Why wouldn't you?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

relativeadv 6y ago

I'm not obligated to do many things. I do however wear a mask because it is the right thing to do. This isn't a moral dilemma.

fairity 6y ago
I believe GP's hypothetical assumes that everyone has an opportunity to get vaccinated, and all those who remain susceptible to the virus refused to get vaccinated for selfish reasons. If society continues to coddle anti-vaxers, it reinforces a positive incentive for selfish behavior, which in turn creates a negative drag on overall well-being. At a certain point, society shouldn't allow the selfish acts of small group of individuals undermine the well-being of society at large. Obviously, there would need to be ample warning and a concerted effort to educate everyone on consequences. Once these requirements are met in this hypothetical, I believe the moral thing to do is to stop wearing masks and stop social distancing. That said, this is an idealized hypothetical. In reality, there will be many people who can't get vaccinated for reasons that are not selfish. In this case, there is still a moral dilemma, but I'm unsure on how I'd approach it. Surely, asking 200 million people to wear masks for another year to save 1 life isn't worth it. The question is where to draw the line.
- stevecalifornia 6y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I believe you were the one person who fully read the question.

a9h74j 6y ago

I have heard the prediction that some people will stop wearing masks with the [false] claim they have "had the vaccine." Not necessarily a "moral dilemma" but a kind of moral hazard perhaps, much as these sound the same. Part of that same prediction was: don't underestimate the frustration and fatigue, when people hear that after getting vaccinated they still have to wear a mask and social distance (if an "effective" vaccine does not create sterilizing immunity).

ummonk 6y ago

None. If they don't get the vaccine once it's available to them that is on them.