4 ms·

> Even if all of those side effects were fatal (and they wouldn't be), that would still be only 3,300 deaths--less than 1 percent of the US COVID death count cu

by 1996 6y ago

> Even if all of those side effects were fatal (and they wouldn't be), that would still be only 3,300 deaths--less than 1 percent of the US COVID death count currently reported. No, because even if you assume no black swan (ex: zombie outbreak due to bad QC control of a new and untested mRNA technology) you are trading less old people death for more young people death. Why should I increase my low risk of death even by 5% to save an old person that has maybe 1 year left to live anyway?

pdonis 6y ago
I explicitly said in my post that people would be given the choice of whether or not to take the vaccine. You could simply refuse if you thought your risk from the vaccine was higher than your risk from COVID. But that old person whose life you so blithely discount might make a different choice. That's how a free country is supposed to work.
- 1996 6y ago
  You assume people will be given the choice to get vaccinated. I believe it will be as "optional" as not having a SSN or a bank account: in theory possible, in practice with so many hurdles that people will relent. (ex: ban unvaccinated people from plane, train and bus interstate travel using the TSA for controls)
  - ghiculescu 6y ago
    Your example will almost certainly happen in a few months. pdonis is just suggesting the same thing happen, but 6 months earlier.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > You assume people will be given the choice to get vaccinated. I assumed that they would in my hypothetical, yes. That's in a USA that was even capable of considering that option a year ago, the concept of a "free country" would be understood. In the actual USA of now, that concept is not understood; just as the article under discussion says, our current society combines the worst features of freedom with the worst features of authoritarianism, and gets the benefits of neither. Your hypothetical about how vaccination will be handled is an example of that. In other words, you are giving further evidence that the status quo in the USA is not working and needs to change.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    The Federal government probably has very little authority outside, perhaps, of federal property. States may be able to implement their own requirements. But private organizations like airlines, universities, and companies can do pretty much whatever they want. Qantas has already said they're going to require vaccinations for international flights.
  - notJim 6y ago
    Given the laxity of our pandemic response so far, I'm fairly skeptical of this theory in the US at least. We can't even force people to wear masks or lock down, why would we be able to force them to get vaccines? Hell, we're not even doing a great job getting vaccines to people who want them. And the business community sure as hell aren't going to want any barriers to people traveling. Their primary concerns will be that there is at least the illusion of safety and that they are indemnified.

by 1996 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

I explicitly said in my post that people would be given the choice of whether or not to take the vaccine. You could simply refuse if you thought your risk from the vaccine was higher than your risk from COVID. But that old person whose life you so blithely discount might make a different choice. That's how a free country is supposed to work.

1996 6y ago
You assume people will be given the choice to get vaccinated. I believe it will be as "optional" as not having a SSN or a bank account: in theory possible, in practice with so many hurdles that people will relent. (ex: ban unvaccinated people from plane, train and bus interstate travel using the TSA for controls)
- ghiculescu 6y ago
  Your example will almost certainly happen in a few months. pdonis is just suggesting the same thing happen, but 6 months earlier.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > You assume people will be given the choice to get vaccinated. I assumed that they would in my hypothetical, yes. That's in a USA that was even capable of considering that option a year ago, the concept of a "free country" would be understood. In the actual USA of now, that concept is not understood; just as the article under discussion says, our current society combines the worst features of freedom with the worst features of authoritarianism, and gets the benefits of neither. Your hypothetical about how vaccination will be handled is an example of that. In other words, you are giving further evidence that the status quo in the USA is not working and needs to change.
- ghaff 6y ago
  The Federal government probably has very little authority outside, perhaps, of federal property. States may be able to implement their own requirements. But private organizations like airlines, universities, and companies can do pretty much whatever they want. Qantas has already said they're going to require vaccinations for international flights.
- notJim 6y ago
  Given the laxity of our pandemic response so far, I'm fairly skeptical of this theory in the US at least. We can't even force people to wear masks or lock down, why would we be able to force them to get vaccines? Hell, we're not even doing a great job getting vaccines to people who want them. And the business community sure as hell aren't going to want any barriers to people traveling. Their primary concerns will be that there is at least the illusion of safety and that they are indemnified.