7 ms·

I'm sure that will make those 5,000 who have trouble walking or smiling feel so much better.

by djsumdog 6y ago

rootusrootus 6y ago
Is that not true of all medicines? There is a net benefit calculation to be made.
- krona 6y ago
  The hippocratic oath doesn't pertain to a doctors effect on an entire society, but to her patient. Utilitarian medical ethics do not apply in any sane society.
vkou 6y ago
60,000 people have already died of COVID in the UK, and many more are scheduled to, without vaccination. Hard to walk or smile when you're dead.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  Passed 75k at weekend
- djsumdog 6y ago
  The vast majority of people under 50 who catch CoV2 recovery completely with minimal symptoms. There is a trade-off and people need to be able to evaluate those risk and make those decision individually.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    What is a 'vast majority', please post actual figures. > and make those decision individually if you can somehow ensure people who get sick can't spread it, sure it's down to the individual, but it's a society-level problem. That's what "infectious" means.
  - vkou 6y ago
    You are shifting the goal posts. 1. More than 5,000 people under 50 in a population of 66 million will have serious side effects from COVID. 2. In fact, nearly 3,000 people under 50 have already died from COVID in the UK. 3. This is despite only a small percentage of the population (3-10%) having been infected by COVID. 4. Even if you are under 50, and don't die to COVID, you are going to kill other people, by spreading it to them.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      If there's an effective vaccine, those who do not want to risk infection from COVID can make the choice to take the vaccine. Those who feel that the risk that they will become infected is one that they are willing to take can do that. Nobody is put into danger that they do not choose to accept.
      - vkou 6y ago
        Taking the choice not to take the vaccine is not taking a choice about personal risk. It's like driving drunk. It's personal risk AND risk to every other person around you. When you do not vaccinate, and then go out and about, you are inflicting risk on immuno-compromised persons, for whom the vaccine doesn't work well. Unless we lock anti-vaxxers in their homes, or unless we hold them criminally liable for infecting someone else, it's not a question of their personal risk.
      - Diederich 6y ago
        Do you know that there are quite a few people who can't get vaccinations? Most of them also can't afford to self isolate. Choosing to not get a vaccination primarily endangers you personally, but definitely also raises the danger level to those who have no choice in the matter.
  - Diederich 6y ago
    Just some somewhat related date: The worst year of the Polio epidemic in the United States was 1952 where 3145 people died and about 21,000 had some level of lasting (but not necessarily permanent) health impact. I personally don't think the state should mandate vaccinations by the way, even though such a mandate would almost definitely be a net good to society.
rrss 6y ago
Worth noting that COVID-19 probably triggers GBS in some people (like many infections). So maybe the vaccine triggers GBS in rare cases, but the disease appears to also sometimes cause long term problems (neurological and otherwise). 1976 was potentially problematic because there was a massive immunization program because of fears of a pandemic, but H1N1 was not actually spreading. 2020 is obviously a different story. The pandemic is here.
- johnisgood 6y ago
  I do not want the vaccine, but it might be mandatory here in Eastern Europe. My family member was tested positive, and I lived with him, we were under quarantine. No symptoms, ever! I do not want to the vaccine, damn it.
  - vkou 6y ago
    I don't want to have to be sober to drive my car on public roadways, and yet, here I am, acknowledging that I have some basic responsibility for the safety of people around me. This approach is incredibly selfish. Would you pursue it if you were held responsible for consequences of that behaviour, as drunk drivers are?
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      This is a bad argument. The two aren't comparable. Drinking a lot of alcohol and getting into a car is a choice. The intent doesn't even matter in most countries since it's a "Strict liability" crime. The government forcing you to take an injection is literally not your choice. Not to mention, we know drunk driving impairs people and increases risk. There are tons of studies that show that (they also show sleep deprivation is worse than alcohol for driving, but that's not illegal ... probably because it's not measurable, or it's hard to gauge intent). This vaccine has been rushed through the process with zero long-term Longitudinal studies. A drug company can yell 95% effective all they want, but the fact is, this is a HUGE unknown. The vast majority of normal scientists in other fields cannot do this research themselves and there aren't even any published papers yet we can look at. This is a bad argument. You want some more bad arguments? Look at the Buck SCOTUS decision which lead to forced serialization, or the SCOUTS decision that lead to Japanese internment camps. You know what those two decisions were dependent on? Jacobson. The vaccine case.

I'm sure that will make those 5,000 who have trouble walking or smiling feel so much better.

rootusrootus 6y ago

Is that not true of all medicines? There is a net benefit calculation to be made.

krona 6y ago
The hippocratic oath doesn't pertain to a doctors effect on an entire society, but to her patient. Utilitarian medical ethics do not apply in any sane society.

vkou 6y ago

60,000 people have already died of COVID in the UK, and many more are scheduled to, without vaccination. Hard to walk or smile when you're dead.

Mauricebranagh 6y ago
Passed 75k at weekend
djsumdog 6y ago
The vast majority of people under 50 who catch CoV2 recovery completely with minimal symptoms. There is a trade-off and people need to be able to evaluate those risk and make those decision individually.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  What is a 'vast majority', please post actual figures. > and make those decision individually if you can somehow ensure people who get sick can't spread it, sure it's down to the individual, but it's a society-level problem. That's what "infectious" means.
- vkou 6y ago
  You are shifting the goal posts. 1. More than 5,000 people under 50 in a population of 66 million will have serious side effects from COVID. 2. In fact, nearly 3,000 people under 50 have already died from COVID in the UK. 3. This is despite only a small percentage of the population (3-10%) having been infected by COVID. 4. Even if you are under 50, and don't die to COVID, you are going to kill other people, by spreading it to them.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    If there's an effective vaccine, those who do not want to risk infection from COVID can make the choice to take the vaccine. Those who feel that the risk that they will become infected is one that they are willing to take can do that. Nobody is put into danger that they do not choose to accept.
    - vkou 6y ago
      Taking the choice not to take the vaccine is not taking a choice about personal risk. It's like driving drunk. It's personal risk AND risk to every other person around you. When you do not vaccinate, and then go out and about, you are inflicting risk on immuno-compromised persons, for whom the vaccine doesn't work well. Unless we lock anti-vaxxers in their homes, or unless we hold them criminally liable for infecting someone else, it's not a question of their personal risk.
    - Diederich 6y ago
      Do you know that there are quite a few people who can't get vaccinations? Most of them also can't afford to self isolate. Choosing to not get a vaccination primarily endangers you personally, but definitely also raises the danger level to those who have no choice in the matter.
- Diederich 6y ago
  Just some somewhat related date: The worst year of the Polio epidemic in the United States was 1952 where 3145 people died and about 21,000 had some level of lasting (but not necessarily permanent) health impact. I personally don't think the state should mandate vaccinations by the way, even though such a mandate would almost definitely be a net good to society.

rrss 6y ago

Worth noting that COVID-19 probably triggers GBS in some people (like many infections). So maybe the vaccine triggers GBS in rare cases, but the disease appears to also sometimes cause long term problems (neurological and otherwise). 1976 was potentially problematic because there was a massive immunization program because of fears of a pandemic, but H1N1 was not actually spreading. 2020 is obviously a different story. The pandemic is here.

johnisgood 6y ago
I do not want the vaccine, but it might be mandatory here in Eastern Europe. My family member was tested positive, and I lived with him, we were under quarantine. No symptoms, ever! I do not want to the vaccine, damn it.
- vkou 6y ago
  I don't want to have to be sober to drive my car on public roadways, and yet, here I am, acknowledging that I have some basic responsibility for the safety of people around me. This approach is incredibly selfish. Would you pursue it if you were held responsible for consequences of that behaviour, as drunk drivers are?
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    This is a bad argument. The two aren't comparable. Drinking a lot of alcohol and getting into a car is a choice. The intent doesn't even matter in most countries since it's a "Strict liability" crime. The government forcing you to take an injection is literally not your choice. Not to mention, we know drunk driving impairs people and increases risk. There are tons of studies that show that (they also show sleep deprivation is worse than alcohol for driving, but that's not illegal ... probably because it's not measurable, or it's hard to gauge intent). This vaccine has been rushed through the process with zero long-term Longitudinal studies. A drug company can yell 95% effective all they want, but the fact is, this is a HUGE unknown. The vast majority of normal scientists in other fields cannot do this research themselves and there aren't even any published papers yet we can look at. This is a bad argument. You want some more bad arguments? Look at the Buck SCOTUS decision which lead to forced serialization, or the SCOUTS decision that lead to Japanese internment camps. You know what those two decisions were dependent on? Jacobson. The vaccine case.