4 ms·

A lot less stupid than continuing with "distance learning".

peteradio 6y ago
You and I have very different definitions of stupid. Requiring an entire country to go whole hog on something with zero real understanding of long term effects is my definition of stupid. When is that ever the wise thing to do?
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  It was the wise thing to do for the polio vaccine.
  - peteradio 6y ago
    The risk profile for all the age groups is wildly different. I don't think its a bad idea for people > age X to get this vaccine, one because they have a much higher risk of serious harm from corona _AND_ perhaps less risk of long term affects. But for someone who has very low risk of serious harm from corona, perhaps it makes sense to wait a little bit?
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      Depends on what you mean by "a little bit." My understanding is that general availability isn't expected until probably April of 2021, by which point health care workers and other high risk groups of people will have had the vaccine for five months, and the trial participants for six months.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  Isn’t that kind of what we have done with distance learning?
- ghaff 6y ago
  I actually don't think the federal government has the power to require it. However, private companies and schools can impose whatever safety requirements they feel prudent for their employees, customers, and students. Which may of course make life difficult for those who don't want to go along.
  - gpm 6y ago
    State governments probably have the power to require it.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      You may be right although I have a hard time seeing that happening politically. IANAL, but the relevant case law seems to be Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) upholding mandatory smallpox vaccinations which AFAIK has never been superseded. [1] That said, the US Supreme Court also upheld a Virginia law that authorized the involuntary sterilization of “feeble minded” persons in state institutions in 1927. It's hard to imagine similar laws passing muster today, probably for 14th Amendment reasons. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    The US federal government can require it by passing laws if they see fit to do so. Presumably the states with the highest Covid infection rates would fight it in court on some constitutional basis to avoid vaccination, and some armed citizens would kill medical personnel enforcing the federal directive, but none of that prohibits the laws from being passed.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  When the other choice is a demonstrably inferior learning environment, economic ruin, and a major public health hazard that has already killed just shy of 250k people in just over 9 months.
  - peteradio 6y ago
    So vaccinate those at serious risk who we were closing things down for in anticipation of the vaccine. When the serious at risk people are no longer seriously at risk then there is no need for all the shutdowns. No need to vaccinate everyone is there?
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      I don't think that's how vaccines generally work. The virus won't actually disappear, it'll continue to be spread among the unvaccinated, and eventually people not at risk become at risk due to changes in life circumstances. I'm also not sure there's quite the bright line you seem to be suggesting between "at risk" and "not at risk." Young health people still die of COVID-19, just not at as high a rate as already-unhealthy or older people.

You and I have very different definitions of stupid. Requiring an entire country to go whole hog on something with zero real understanding of long term effects is my definition of stupid. When is that ever the wise thing to do?

floatingatoll 6y ago
It was the wise thing to do for the polio vaccine.
- peteradio 6y ago
  The risk profile for all the age groups is wildly different. I don't think its a bad idea for people > age X to get this vaccine, one because they have a much higher risk of serious harm from corona _AND_ perhaps less risk of long term affects. But for someone who has very low risk of serious harm from corona, perhaps it makes sense to wait a little bit?
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Depends on what you mean by "a little bit." My understanding is that general availability isn't expected until probably April of 2021, by which point health care workers and other high risk groups of people will have had the vaccine for five months, and the trial participants for six months.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
Isn’t that kind of what we have done with distance learning?
ghaff 6y ago
I actually don't think the federal government has the power to require it. However, private companies and schools can impose whatever safety requirements they feel prudent for their employees, customers, and students. Which may of course make life difficult for those who don't want to go along.
- gpm 6y ago
  State governments probably have the power to require it.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    You may be right although I have a hard time seeing that happening politically. IANAL, but the relevant case law seems to be Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) upholding mandatory smallpox vaccinations which AFAIK has never been superseded. [1] That said, the US Supreme Court also upheld a Virginia law that authorized the involuntary sterilization of “feeble minded” persons in state institutions in 1927. It's hard to imagine similar laws passing muster today, probably for 14th Amendment reasons. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  The US federal government can require it by passing laws if they see fit to do so. Presumably the states with the highest Covid infection rates would fight it in court on some constitutional basis to avoid vaccination, and some armed citizens would kill medical personnel enforcing the federal directive, but none of that prohibits the laws from being passed.
pwinnski 6y ago
When the other choice is a demonstrably inferior learning environment, economic ruin, and a major public health hazard that has already killed just shy of 250k people in just over 9 months.
- peteradio 6y ago
  So vaccinate those at serious risk who we were closing things down for in anticipation of the vaccine. When the serious at risk people are no longer seriously at risk then there is no need for all the shutdowns. No need to vaccinate everyone is there?
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    I don't think that's how vaccines generally work. The virus won't actually disappear, it'll continue to be spread among the unvaccinated, and eventually people not at risk become at risk due to changes in life circumstances. I'm also not sure there's quite the bright line you seem to be suggesting between "at risk" and "not at risk." Young health people still die of COVID-19, just not at as high a rate as already-unhealthy or older people.