5 ms·

It's my civic duty not to, because people are trying to make it mandatory and we have to set a precedent that mandating it is unacceptable. I honestly think I

It's my civic duty not to, because people are trying to make it mandatory and we have to set a precedent that mandating it is unacceptable. I honestly think I would have said otherwise a year ago. But after seeing the mishandling of COVID-19, I no longer have faith in my countries ability to use emergency powers scientifically.

schmichael 6y ago
You’re ignoring that you getting vaccinated is not about you, but about protecting others. As long as the R value is above 1, every person vaccinated is protecting others more than themselves. Even at 90% effectiveness herd immunity is critical to stopping the pandemic. I fully support people’s right to opt out of social goods like the vaccine, but I’m afraid you should be refused access to many social services your presence would threaten: schools, transit, libraries, etc. We accept that we have to get a license to legally drive a car on public streets, why not accept a vaccine to access public spaces during a pandemic? Societies already compel a number of behaviors for unrestricted participation, I don’t see vaccines during a pandemic as being particularly onerous. > no longer have faith in my country I don’t know what country you live in, but many countries have the same assessment of many vaccines. Even if you distrust one country there are likely many more positive assessments you can turn to.
- petertodd 6y ago
  > You’re ignoring that you getting vaccinated is not about you, but about protecting others. No I'm not. I'm not at all worried about contracting covid. At my age and health, the science is very clear that COVID-19 poses almost no risk to me. The only reason I'd bother with a vaccine is to protect others. But protecting others doesn't just mean protecting others now. It also means protecting others in the future. Bad government is a _serious_ risk. > I don’t know what country you live in, but many countries have the same assessment of many vaccines. I wasn't talking about science in relation to vaccines. I was talking about science in relation to the entire policy. I do not believe my government (Canada) is making decisions based on science in its use of emergency powers in general. That's pretty clear by the fact that they're unable to justify so many of the decisions made with actual numbers and models. Emergency powers are dangerous tools. We hope they get reserved for situations where the benefit is worth the risk. But after seeing how badly, and unscientifically. government has handled the entire pandemic, I want to see those emergency powers further restricted, so they aren't so easy to use in the future. edit: Note how Trump has told the FDA chief that his options were to approve the Pfizer vaccine or resign: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/11/trump-stephen-hahn-fda-covid-vaccine/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/11/trump-steph... What a terrible precedent for science.
  - titanomachy 6y ago
    > I do not believe my government (Canada) is making decisions based on science As a Canadian currently living in the US, it seems to me like Canada has handled things better out of the two countries... less than half the deaths per capita, and they managed to avoid the hospital overloading that happened in some states. Putting a lid on international travel early on seemed to make a big difference for Canada, as well as having a nationwide quarantine requirement. I understand the sentiment though. When I visited Canada this year, the border agent read me sections of the Quarantine Act and I was pretty astonished at the extent of federal powers and penalties that had been created on such short notice. The maximum penalty for violating quarantine is a million dollar fine and three years in prison.
    - petertodd 6y ago
      > less than half the deaths per capita There's so much luck involved in those figures at any given point, not to mention the influence of different definitions and testing strategies, that I wouldn't make the claim that Canada is doing better or worse based on stats like that. Just look at the huge differences between different states (and in Canada's case, provinces). After all, two months ago you might have said that Sweden did much worse than the EU. Yet at this moment, the EU average reported deaths-per-capita is just slightly below Sweden's, with many countries significantly above.
      - titanomachy 6y ago
        Yeah, Canada was looking really good compared to the US back in the summer... but recently things have kind of gone to shit for both countries and the outcomes are pretty indistinguishable now. I don't really know enough to comment on what changed, maybe random chance is a big factor like you say. The only good thing is that my family and friends in Canada have stopped making smug comments about the superiority of the country...
eloff 6y ago
I don't think most Western will mandate it. But there is a strong logical case for doing so, or at least denying access to certain public spaces and services if you refuse. I don't think our politicians generally have the balls to do something that controversial though.
- petertodd 6y ago
  Denying access to public spaces and services is one step removed from mandating it...
  - eloff 6y ago
    Yes. I think you could make a case for doing that. I don't think it will happen.
- titanomachy 6y ago
  I think it depends on how many people take the vaccine willingly. If enough people are vaccinated, the spread will effectively stop and countries can start to reopen. My hunch is that enough people will be willing to take the [apparently small] risk and we won't have to pressure anyone. Also, for at least the next few months we won't even be able to meet the demand for vaccines, so it'll be a while before that's a concern.
  - eloff 6y ago
    Yes, that seems to be the case. Society can tolerate a certain level of antivaxxers without losing herd immunity. Why mandate what people would do voluntarily anyway.
stochastic_flow 6y ago
I have become more and more skeptic regarding our governments. The people who failed to protect us and the economy, now are going to "sell" us the solution. Where is their part of the accountability of what's happening? I have invested in big-tech and bio-pharma companies, so I should be happy, but I am not. I cannot be happy when so many people are closing their small businesses and so many others die because of how the whole situation was handled. I do not have a problem with the masks or the fact that we eventually will all have to take a vaccine. However, the problem starts before that and doesn't end with the first vaccine we are going to get: - Phase 1: Governments fail to protect the people during February-March by not banning travel from the infected areas. - Phase 2: People should wear masks, socially distance, close their shops, self-isolate, etc. At the same time medical stuff should overwork and over-risk their lives. - Phase 3: People should take the vaccine. At a low price initially, but big pharma will increase it at some point, (when they are done with the mass beta testing). - Phase 4: People should keep taking the vaccine (at least that's the main story for the moment). They might end up having to prove that with a "vaccine passport". I don't have problem with Phase 2. I follow the guidelines, since February, before they were guidelines of any Western government. Apparently, Eastern countries have faced similar outbreaks and there was plenty of information on what people there do. I don't have a problem with Phase 3, either. I want to do as much to protect myself and others. However, the current narrative is that people who do follow Phase 3 and then 4 (assuming they can take the vaccine but chose not to) are the "bad" people who do not care about the others. And they should be marginalized and even ostracized from the society. >>> Where is the accountability for the governments? They, before everyone else, put peoples' health at risk. But I forgot. They "saved" the economy (only of some big tech companies and, eventually, the big pharma).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
chasing 6y ago
You're the kind of guy who doesn't wear a seatbelt and speeds through red lights to protest the government telling you what to do? Or are you smart enough to understand why it's important that we have rules that mandate certain behaviors? (Not that getting vaccinated will actually be mandatory.)
- petertodd 6y ago
  Mandatory seatbelts happened slowly, not in an emergency, after years of debate and clear scientific research. You can't compare that to the current situation with COVID-19. Remember that we've accelerated testing so much that we literally don't even know yet if these vaccines actually provide a mortality benefit: there just isn't enough data yet. You can't even compare this situation to other uses of vaccines. Not that I'm even aware of us ever successfully stopping a serious pandemic with a vaccine (with H1N1 the vaccines came too late to do much good, and the pandemic was much less serious than we thought). Some countries simply can't deploy them yet, as their laws don't allow for emergency approvals: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/emergency-vaccine-approval-not-legal-option-in-switzerland/46217840 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/emergency-vaccine-approval-not-...
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > after years of debate And also years of screaming about rights being abused while people died unnecessarily in car crashes. Today, the people who resisted seatbelts are rightfully regarded as fools. Are you an epidemiologist? How effective is your ability to personally judge the scientific debate here?
  - chasing 6y ago
    And those who volunteered to wear seatbelts before they were mandated were safer than those who refused. And saved society money and their friends and family grief by not dying in a preventable way. So wear your seat belt, get your vaccine when offered, and when we’re finally able to safely go into restaurants, please do not annoy the hostess with long rants about how it’s your civic duty to not wear pants because the government mandates it. She’s not going to care about the political theory — she’s just going to need you to leave.
jariel 6y ago
'Civic Duty' and 'mandatory' are separate things. Thankfully, if we have enough rational adults who do their civic duty, then we'll be ok to let the tin-foil hats not take it.
trog 6y ago
> It's my civic duty not to, because people are trying to make it mandatory and we have to set a precedent that mandating it is unacceptable. Feels a bit like not letting the taxpayer-funded fire department turn their hoses on your burning house because you're worried about "socialism". COVID is your house burning down while your family and friends are still inside it. Maybe get on with solving that problem first and then worry about the (currently totally speculative) spectre of mandatory vaccines later.

schmichael 6y ago

You’re ignoring that you getting vaccinated is not about you, but about protecting others. As long as the R value is above 1, every person vaccinated is protecting others more than themselves. Even at 90% effectiveness herd immunity is critical to stopping the pandemic. I fully support people’s right to opt out of social goods like the vaccine, but I’m afraid you should be refused access to many social services your presence would threaten: schools, transit, libraries, etc. We accept that we have to get a license to legally drive a car on public streets, why not accept a vaccine to access public spaces during a pandemic? Societies already compel a number of behaviors for unrestricted participation, I don’t see vaccines during a pandemic as being particularly onerous. > no longer have faith in my country I don’t know what country you live in, but many countries have the same assessment of many vaccines. Even if you distrust one country there are likely many more positive assessments you can turn to.

petertodd 6y ago
> You’re ignoring that you getting vaccinated is not about you, but about protecting others. No I'm not. I'm not at all worried about contracting covid. At my age and health, the science is very clear that COVID-19 poses almost no risk to me. The only reason I'd bother with a vaccine is to protect others. But protecting others doesn't just mean protecting others now. It also means protecting others in the future. Bad government is a _serious_ risk. > I don’t know what country you live in, but many countries have the same assessment of many vaccines. I wasn't talking about science in relation to vaccines. I was talking about science in relation to the entire policy. I do not believe my government (Canada) is making decisions based on science in its use of emergency powers in general. That's pretty clear by the fact that they're unable to justify so many of the decisions made with actual numbers and models. Emergency powers are dangerous tools. We hope they get reserved for situations where the benefit is worth the risk. But after seeing how badly, and unscientifically. government has handled the entire pandemic, I want to see those emergency powers further restricted, so they aren't so easy to use in the future. edit: Note how Trump has told the FDA chief that his options were to approve the Pfizer vaccine or resign: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/11/trump-stephen-hahn-fda-covid-vaccine/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/11/trump-steph... What a terrible precedent for science.
- titanomachy 6y ago
  > I do not believe my government (Canada) is making decisions based on science As a Canadian currently living in the US, it seems to me like Canada has handled things better out of the two countries... less than half the deaths per capita, and they managed to avoid the hospital overloading that happened in some states. Putting a lid on international travel early on seemed to make a big difference for Canada, as well as having a nationwide quarantine requirement. I understand the sentiment though. When I visited Canada this year, the border agent read me sections of the Quarantine Act and I was pretty astonished at the extent of federal powers and penalties that had been created on such short notice. The maximum penalty for violating quarantine is a million dollar fine and three years in prison.
  - petertodd 6y ago
    > less than half the deaths per capita There's so much luck involved in those figures at any given point, not to mention the influence of different definitions and testing strategies, that I wouldn't make the claim that Canada is doing better or worse based on stats like that. Just look at the huge differences between different states (and in Canada's case, provinces). After all, two months ago you might have said that Sweden did much worse than the EU. Yet at this moment, the EU average reported deaths-per-capita is just slightly below Sweden's, with many countries significantly above.
    - titanomachy 6y ago
      Yeah, Canada was looking really good compared to the US back in the summer... but recently things have kind of gone to shit for both countries and the outcomes are pretty indistinguishable now. I don't really know enough to comment on what changed, maybe random chance is a big factor like you say. The only good thing is that my family and friends in Canada have stopped making smug comments about the superiority of the country...

eloff 6y ago

I don't think most Western will mandate it. But there is a strong logical case for doing so, or at least denying access to certain public spaces and services if you refuse. I don't think our politicians generally have the balls to do something that controversial though.

petertodd 6y ago
Denying access to public spaces and services is one step removed from mandating it...
- eloff 6y ago
  Yes. I think you could make a case for doing that. I don't think it will happen.
titanomachy 6y ago
I think it depends on how many people take the vaccine willingly. If enough people are vaccinated, the spread will effectively stop and countries can start to reopen. My hunch is that enough people will be willing to take the [apparently small] risk and we won't have to pressure anyone. Also, for at least the next few months we won't even be able to meet the demand for vaccines, so it'll be a while before that's a concern.
- eloff 6y ago
  Yes, that seems to be the case. Society can tolerate a certain level of antivaxxers without losing herd immunity. Why mandate what people would do voluntarily anyway.

stochastic_flow 6y ago

I have become more and more skeptic regarding our governments. The people who failed to protect us and the economy, now are going to "sell" us the solution. Where is their part of the accountability of what's happening? I have invested in big-tech and bio-pharma companies, so I should be happy, but I am not. I cannot be happy when so many people are closing their small businesses and so many others die because of how the whole situation was handled. I do not have a problem with the masks or the fact that we eventually will all have to take a vaccine. However, the problem starts before that and doesn't end with the first vaccine we are going to get: - Phase 1: Governments fail to protect the people during February-March by not banning travel from the infected areas. - Phase 2: People should wear masks, socially distance, close their shops, self-isolate, etc. At the same time medical stuff should overwork and over-risk their lives. - Phase 3: People should take the vaccine. At a low price initially, but big pharma will increase it at some point, (when they are done with the mass beta testing). - Phase 4: People should keep taking the vaccine (at least that's the main story for the moment). They might end up having to prove that with a "vaccine passport". I don't have problem with Phase 2. I follow the guidelines, since February, before they were guidelines of any Western government. Apparently, Eastern countries have faced similar outbreaks and there was plenty of information on what people there do. I don't have a problem with Phase 3, either. I want to do as much to protect myself and others. However, the current narrative is that people who do follow Phase 3 and then 4 (assuming they can take the vaccine but chose not to) are the "bad" people who do not care about the others. And they should be marginalized and even ostracized from the society. >>> Where is the accountability for the governments? They, before everyone else, put peoples' health at risk. But I forgot. They "saved" the economy (only of some big tech companies and, eventually, the big pharma).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

chasing 6y ago

You're the kind of guy who doesn't wear a seatbelt and speeds through red lights to protest the government telling you what to do? Or are you smart enough to understand why it's important that we have rules that mandate certain behaviors? (Not that getting vaccinated will actually be mandatory.)

petertodd 6y ago
Mandatory seatbelts happened slowly, not in an emergency, after years of debate and clear scientific research. You can't compare that to the current situation with COVID-19. Remember that we've accelerated testing so much that we literally don't even know yet if these vaccines actually provide a mortality benefit: there just isn't enough data yet. You can't even compare this situation to other uses of vaccines. Not that I'm even aware of us ever successfully stopping a serious pandemic with a vaccine (with H1N1 the vaccines came too late to do much good, and the pandemic was much less serious than we thought). Some countries simply can't deploy them yet, as their laws don't allow for emergency approvals: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/emergency-vaccine-approval-not-legal-option-in-switzerland/46217840 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/emergency-vaccine-approval-not-...
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > after years of debate And also years of screaming about rights being abused while people died unnecessarily in car crashes. Today, the people who resisted seatbelts are rightfully regarded as fools. Are you an epidemiologist? How effective is your ability to personally judge the scientific debate here?
- chasing 6y ago
  And those who volunteered to wear seatbelts before they were mandated were safer than those who refused. And saved society money and their friends and family grief by not dying in a preventable way. So wear your seat belt, get your vaccine when offered, and when we’re finally able to safely go into restaurants, please do not annoy the hostess with long rants about how it’s your civic duty to not wear pants because the government mandates it. She’s not going to care about the political theory — she’s just going to need you to leave.

jariel 6y ago

'Civic Duty' and 'mandatory' are separate things. Thankfully, if we have enough rational adults who do their civic duty, then we'll be ok to let the tin-foil hats not take it.

trog 6y ago

> It's my civic duty not to, because people are trying to make it mandatory and we have to set a precedent that mandating it is unacceptable. Feels a bit like not letting the taxpayer-funded fire department turn their hoses on your burning house because you're worried about "socialism". COVID is your house burning down while your family and friends are still inside it. Maybe get on with solving that problem first and then worry about the (currently totally speculative) spectre of mandatory vaccines later.