4 ms·

> 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 wi

by 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.

by Youden 6y ago

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.