5 ms·

I'm sure that Norway would keep a registry of those vaccinated as well (almost the inverse); we already do for other vaccines. Although there has never been any

by marvin 6y ago

I'm sure that Norway would keep a registry of those vaccinated as well (almost the inverse); we already do for other vaccines. Although there has never been any sort of politics or coercion involved. Sharing it is another matter, though. As others have been saying, it's only a matter of time before various permissions get tied to vaccination status. Wouldn't be surprised if multiple European authorities will cooperate regarding this. It's a very relevant example of differing attitudes in Europe vs. the USA regarding state powers. And honestly, while some European governments can be trusted to act with ethics, some can't. I'm uncertain why I'm a bit creeped out by this. Something feels wrong about de facto forcing people to do a medical procedure, regardless of its intent. While we're not there yet, I think it is likely we will be soon. If e.g. border crossings, airplane rides or certain public gatherings require vaccination. There might be an agrument here about the state vs. the private sector having such policies, but the question of how voluntary it really is exists in both cases. If e.g. you're unable to do your job without vaccination, and there's no definite reason, such as working with the elderly, why lack of one would make you unfit for the job... How voluntary is it, really?

mrweasel 6y ago
Denmark does the same, adding the COVID-19 vaccine to the existing register of which vaccines people have received. The registry was used last year to remind parents to get their children vaccinated, when it turned out that most of those who hadn't gotten their children vaccinated wasn't against the vaccination program, their simply forgot. It's also used to remind the elderly that their are entitled to free flu-shots. Previously I wouldn't have been worried. I've always trusted our various governments to not misuse health records. With the current government I'm not so sure. The prime minister is enjoying record support, and it's not that I believe a different government would have done better, it's just the handling is down right creepy. Hoarding of power, bulldozing critics and make last minute half-assessed decisions all while the public is cheering them on. The current attitude is that the COVID-19 vaccine is going to be 100% voluntary, but I also fear that is will only be in principle. If it's as you say required for border crossing, transport and so on, it's not really voluntary. Danish experts have warned against forcing the vaccine on people could turn them against not only the COVID-19 vaccine, but the entire vaccination program in general. Personally I think we should wait an see how many opt to not get the vaccine before dreaming up restrictions.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Being reminded by our pediatrician about outstanding vaccinations for our kids is great. Sucks to not have that for adults, with most vaccinations holding up for years it is so easy to forget about them. Really have to check my status...
tareqak 6y ago
Well you can have a situation where someone cannot take the vaccine because of adverse medical reactions and someone else who does not take does not take the vaccine objecting for personal reasons working at the same place of employment. Suppose the first one is already hired, and the second one comes in as a new hire. Does the first one now have grounds to litigate because their workplace is now potentially unsafe for them to work in through no fault of their own? What about the reverse situation? Does the employer not hire an otherwise capable employee because of a health reason that they have no control over?
Youden 6y ago
> Something feels wrong about de facto forcing people to do a medical procedure, regardless of its intent. While we're not there yet, I think it is likely we will be soon. If e.g. border crossings, airplane rides or certain public gatherings require vaccination. Think about the other people involved. If I'm unable to take the vaccine for medical reasons, I need the others around me to be vaccinated in order to be safe. If you allow unvaccinated people to roam unrestricted, I'm unable to participate safely in society. So you have a choice between infringing on the freedoms of those who have a choice and those who don't. Which group should be protected? I see no reason why the group that has a choice should be given priority over the group that doesn't. The group that has a cnoice can choose to take the vaccine and the restrictions end. You can also take the argument to an extreme: what if the disease was life-threatening? Should society respect somebody's freedom to the point of allowing them to endanger the lives of others? If not, at what point does the severity of the disease make it okay to risk inflicting it on others?
- marvin 6y ago
  The discussion is (de facto) coerced vaccination vs. voluntary. I think that enough people will voluntarily vaccinate that the population-level effects of insufficient vaccination will be small. If so, the points about "endangering the lives of others" do not carry much weight, and the discussion of whether one still has freedom to make medical decisions is very relevant. If it could be mathematically proven that there is 0% risk of negative effects? Sure. Put a requirement for vaccination in the constitution. But the current RNA vaccines have not been tested at scale before, and empirical information about long-term effects is unknowable. Things are likely good based on current knowledge, but there is uncertainty. Anyone who wishes to enact population-level policies in such a situation is making a statement about the likelihood of an "unknown unknown" that is unsupported by data. In the light of this, it is very ethically problematic to mandate anything at this point. That's even if you're open to de facto mandates regarding medical procedures in the first place. Of course the consideration would be different if the disease had a 100% mortality rate, but such a situation would obviousy also affect people's decisions about whether to get vaccinated or not. You wouldn't see me presenting this argument of principles if that was the reality. You can't determine with an equation at what point such policies would be palatable, but you can make comparisons to other dangerous activities that affect others. Smoking. Driving a car, or speeding. Drinking alcohol. (De facto) mandatory medical procedures seem excessive in the light of our current policies against such behavior. One might make a different argument if the skepticism was so widespread that the vaccination program was ineffective, but let's revisit it if that happens.
pwm 6y ago
When I travelled to Tanzania circa 2011 I had to have a yellow fever shot. Nothing new here from what I can tell.

by marvin 6y ago

mrweasel 6y ago

Denmark does the same, adding the COVID-19 vaccine to the existing register of which vaccines people have received. The registry was used last year to remind parents to get their children vaccinated, when it turned out that most of those who hadn't gotten their children vaccinated wasn't against the vaccination program, their simply forgot. It's also used to remind the elderly that their are entitled to free flu-shots. Previously I wouldn't have been worried. I've always trusted our various governments to not misuse health records. With the current government I'm not so sure. The prime minister is enjoying record support, and it's not that I believe a different government would have done better, it's just the handling is down right creepy. Hoarding of power, bulldozing critics and make last minute half-assessed decisions all while the public is cheering them on. The current attitude is that the COVID-19 vaccine is going to be 100% voluntary, but I also fear that is will only be in principle. If it's as you say required for border crossing, transport and so on, it's not really voluntary. Danish experts have warned against forcing the vaccine on people could turn them against not only the COVID-19 vaccine, but the entire vaccination program in general. Personally I think we should wait an see how many opt to not get the vaccine before dreaming up restrictions.

hef19898 6y ago
Being reminded by our pediatrician about outstanding vaccinations for our kids is great. Sucks to not have that for adults, with most vaccinations holding up for years it is so easy to forget about them. Really have to check my status...

tareqak 6y ago

Well you can have a situation where someone cannot take the vaccine because of adverse medical reactions and someone else who does not take does not take the vaccine objecting for personal reasons working at the same place of employment. Suppose the first one is already hired, and the second one comes in as a new hire. Does the first one now have grounds to litigate because their workplace is now potentially unsafe for them to work in through no fault of their own? What about the reverse situation? Does the employer not hire an otherwise capable employee because of a health reason that they have no control over?

Youden 6y ago

> Something feels wrong about de facto forcing people to do a medical procedure, regardless of its intent. While we're not there yet, I think it is likely we will be soon. If e.g. border crossings, airplane rides or certain public gatherings require vaccination. Think about the other people involved. If I'm unable to take the vaccine for medical reasons, I need the others around me to be vaccinated in order to be safe. If you allow unvaccinated people to roam unrestricted, I'm unable to participate safely in society. So you have a choice between infringing on the freedoms of those who have a choice and those who don't. Which group should be protected? I see no reason why the group that has a choice should be given priority over the group that doesn't. The group that has a cnoice can choose to take the vaccine and the restrictions end. You can also take the argument to an extreme: what if the disease was life-threatening? Should society respect somebody's freedom to the point of allowing them to endanger the lives of others? If not, at what point does the severity of the disease make it okay to risk inflicting it on others?

marvin 6y ago
The discussion is (de facto) coerced vaccination vs. voluntary. I think that enough people will voluntarily vaccinate that the population-level effects of insufficient vaccination will be small. If so, the points about "endangering the lives of others" do not carry much weight, and the discussion of whether one still has freedom to make medical decisions is very relevant. If it could be mathematically proven that there is 0% risk of negative effects? Sure. Put a requirement for vaccination in the constitution. But the current RNA vaccines have not been tested at scale before, and empirical information about long-term effects is unknowable. Things are likely good based on current knowledge, but there is uncertainty. Anyone who wishes to enact population-level policies in such a situation is making a statement about the likelihood of an "unknown unknown" that is unsupported by data. In the light of this, it is very ethically problematic to mandate anything at this point. That's even if you're open to de facto mandates regarding medical procedures in the first place. Of course the consideration would be different if the disease had a 100% mortality rate, but such a situation would obviousy also affect people's decisions about whether to get vaccinated or not. You wouldn't see me presenting this argument of principles if that was the reality. You can't determine with an equation at what point such policies would be palatable, but you can make comparisons to other dangerous activities that affect others. Smoking. Driving a car, or speeding. Drinking alcohol. (De facto) mandatory medical procedures seem excessive in the light of our current policies against such behavior. One might make a different argument if the skepticism was so widespread that the vaccination program was ineffective, but let's revisit it if that happens.

pwm 6y ago

When I travelled to Tanzania circa 2011 I had to have a yellow fever shot. Nothing new here from what I can tell.