5 ms·

This is why I mention legislation. I think we could see it becoming illegal to exclude people based on their vaccine status. Or maybe we have some sort of exemp

by bb123 6y ago

This is why I mention legislation. I think we could see it becoming illegal to exclude people based on their vaccine status. Or maybe we have some sort of exemption card.

CaptArmchair 6y ago
Vaccination is medical procedure. It's not different from other medical procedures. As such, it's part of patient-doctor confidentiality. Put differently, when asked, you are not obliged to answer any questions about whether or not you are vaccinated. For instance, if I ask you whether you had a flu shot last year, you do not have to answer me. What about public authorities? Same thing applies, unless vaccination is legally mandatory. Then we'd have a different discussion. Finally, how many private businesses are willing to risk a court case over refusal of service because a patron isn't willing to divulge medical information? Not to mention potential violations of discrimination laws.
- bb123 6y ago
  There's plenty of precedent for this. For example many countries require evidence of yellow fever immunisation upon entry, if coming from a high risk region.
  - carstenhag 6y ago
    But that's a third party entity (country) and not the country where one is living in.
  - themaninthedark 6y ago
    That is the difference between a county and a business. Countries have the legal authority to deny passage through their borders with limited exception. Businesses have the right to reserve service in some cases but not others.
    - CaptArmchair 6y ago
      Exactly. It's the last past I was getting at as a rebuke to the grandparent comment. Reserving service isn't straightforward. Especially not when it comes to sharing private medical information e.g. when someone wasn't vaccinated because of an autoimmune disease. Your exact medical condition is no concern of that business, and one shouldn't be forced to give up that information lest risking to be barred from service. It's for this reason why many businesses have terms and conditions pointing out to customers the role of personal responsibility, and asking them to waive their right to legal action. Moreover, let's not forget the existence of business insurance that protects from calamities. If vaccination can't be mandated through public action because there's not enough support, then that comes with consequences for the general public. One of them would be that the relationship between owner and patron gets burdened by a new liability. The question then is whether or not the harm of publicly mandated vaccination outstrips the harm caused by that liability in everyday life.
- dmurray 6y ago
  Public schools in every US state already require vaccination, by law [0]. The regulations are without exception written in such a way that anyone who wants to make a fuss about it will find it easier to claim a religious exemption than to test it in court, but there's a lot of legal precedent for mandating vaccines. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2553651/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2553651/
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    Re: public schoools, and, by extension, any public entity. This is why I stated: > What about public authorities? Same thing applies, unless vaccination is legally mandatory. Then we'd have a different discussion. Everything you mention is the "different discussion" in that statement. My comment was a rebuke against what is mentioned in the grandparent comment: > but will be individually implemented by each private org Private organisations - restaurants, shops, music venues, malls, theatres,... - may try and ask for personal medical information, but you are not obliged to divulge anything to them. Private organisations barring entrance because you are unwilling to disclose personal medical information: I'm wondering how well that would hold up in a legal case. For instance, you have an autoimmune disease and you can't get vaccinated. You present at a restaurant. You are asked "are you vaccinated?". If you answer the question truthfully with "no" but you don't want to disclose your medical condition, you likely risk getting barred anyway. So, now you are in a position where you need to make a trade off: divulge your medical condition - which isn't any of the restaurant's business - in hopes of gaining access (no guarantee) or keep silent. See where this is going? The problem isn't people who are against vaccination, it's the potential of creating legal hurdles for people who can't get vaccinated due to a medical condition which may bar them from participating in society. That's just not okay. Moreover, if private venues are afraid of being the butt of an infection cluster (e.g. as a result of contact tracing) then they ought to insure themselves. That would be not much different from insuring oneself from other liabilities such as a patron tripping and breaking their arm in theme park. This is also the very reason why many venues have warnings and provide waivers to patrons giving up the right to take legal action against the venue. Lastly, the article you quote specifically focusses on choosing to not get vaccinated based on philosophical or religious arguments within a public context: getting educated at a public school. Which is a different category of legal challenges. Moreover, the conclusion of the article is that tort law is only a second best approach to publicly mandated vaccination within that category.

by bb123 6y ago

This is why I mention legislation. I think we could see it becoming illegal to exclude people based on their vaccine status. Or maybe we have some sort of exemption card.

CaptArmchair 6y ago

Vaccination is medical procedure. It's not different from other medical procedures. As such, it's part of patient-doctor confidentiality. Put differently, when asked, you are not obliged to answer any questions about whether or not you are vaccinated. For instance, if I ask you whether you had a flu shot last year, you do not have to answer me. What about public authorities? Same thing applies, unless vaccination is legally mandatory. Then we'd have a different discussion. Finally, how many private businesses are willing to risk a court case over refusal of service because a patron isn't willing to divulge medical information? Not to mention potential violations of discrimination laws.

bb123 6y ago
There's plenty of precedent for this. For example many countries require evidence of yellow fever immunisation upon entry, if coming from a high risk region.
- carstenhag 6y ago
  But that's a third party entity (country) and not the country where one is living in.
- themaninthedark 6y ago
  That is the difference between a county and a business. Countries have the legal authority to deny passage through their borders with limited exception. Businesses have the right to reserve service in some cases but not others.
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    Exactly. It's the last past I was getting at as a rebuke to the grandparent comment. Reserving service isn't straightforward. Especially not when it comes to sharing private medical information e.g. when someone wasn't vaccinated because of an autoimmune disease. Your exact medical condition is no concern of that business, and one shouldn't be forced to give up that information lest risking to be barred from service. It's for this reason why many businesses have terms and conditions pointing out to customers the role of personal responsibility, and asking them to waive their right to legal action. Moreover, let's not forget the existence of business insurance that protects from calamities. If vaccination can't be mandated through public action because there's not enough support, then that comes with consequences for the general public. One of them would be that the relationship between owner and patron gets burdened by a new liability. The question then is whether or not the harm of publicly mandated vaccination outstrips the harm caused by that liability in everyday life.
dmurray 6y ago
Public schools in every US state already require vaccination, by law [0]. The regulations are without exception written in such a way that anyone who wants to make a fuss about it will find it easier to claim a religious exemption than to test it in court, but there's a lot of legal precedent for mandating vaccines. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2553651/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2553651/
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  Re: public schoools, and, by extension, any public entity. This is why I stated: > What about public authorities? Same thing applies, unless vaccination is legally mandatory. Then we'd have a different discussion. Everything you mention is the "different discussion" in that statement. My comment was a rebuke against what is mentioned in the grandparent comment: > but will be individually implemented by each private org Private organisations - restaurants, shops, music venues, malls, theatres,... - may try and ask for personal medical information, but you are not obliged to divulge anything to them. Private organisations barring entrance because you are unwilling to disclose personal medical information: I'm wondering how well that would hold up in a legal case. For instance, you have an autoimmune disease and you can't get vaccinated. You present at a restaurant. You are asked "are you vaccinated?". If you answer the question truthfully with "no" but you don't want to disclose your medical condition, you likely risk getting barred anyway. So, now you are in a position where you need to make a trade off: divulge your medical condition - which isn't any of the restaurant's business - in hopes of gaining access (no guarantee) or keep silent. See where this is going? The problem isn't people who are against vaccination, it's the potential of creating legal hurdles for people who can't get vaccinated due to a medical condition which may bar them from participating in society. That's just not okay. Moreover, if private venues are afraid of being the butt of an infection cluster (e.g. as a result of contact tracing) then they ought to insure themselves. That would be not much different from insuring oneself from other liabilities such as a patron tripping and breaking their arm in theme park. This is also the very reason why many venues have warnings and provide waivers to patrons giving up the right to take legal action against the venue. Lastly, the article you quote specifically focusses on choosing to not get vaccinated based on philosophical or religious arguments within a public context: getting educated at a public school. Which is a different category of legal challenges. Moreover, the conclusion of the article is that tort law is only a second best approach to publicly mandated vaccination within that category.