5 ms·
Because you can still catch COVID and give it to someone else. This is especially true of variants such as the SA B1.351, which appear to escape previous "natur
by kurthr 6y ago
Because you can still catch COVID and give it to someone else. This is especially true of variants such as the SA B1.351, which appear to escape previous "natural" immunity even in recently recovered patients (3 months). You would be knowingly exposing other people to possibly deadly harm for personal uncertainty in now a fairly well demonstrated (multi-million person trial) safe procedure. The stabilized spike protein vaccines (not AZ or the original Sputnik) have shown significantly better effectiveness against those variants. It's not different from polio or measles as a school child.
So long as you're not a licensed professional or someone (in school) who is required to interact with the public, then I'd agree if you're willing to self-quarantine and mask and social distance whenever you go out, when you're free (morally) not to be vaccinated. If you want the privileges of regularly interacting in a society, however, you have to respect the rights of others in that society as well.
- dapf 6y agoSo, other people has the right to demand what you inject in your veins.
- ghaff 6y agoIn the case of vaccines, yes, this is widely true.
- kurthr 6y agoIf you are injecting a vaccine into the vein, you are purposely doing it wrong, with well known risks and health effects. That does not meet any standard of care. They are IM injections. As long as you personally stay in your home and do not interact with anyone else non-socially distanced or without a mask on, and you're not a licensed to provide a service to the public, or attending a public institution, then I would say you should have the moral right not to be vaccinated for a highly contagious and moderately deadly virus. BTW, if you catch Tuberculosis you will be forced into house arrest and the health agency will force you to zoom call for every pill you take once you are released after 3 months.
- 6t6t6t6 6y agoAs far as you want to interact with them, yes.
- SAI_Peregrinus 6y agoYes, for the same reason people have the right to prohibit you from consuming certain substances before driving: you don't have a right to put other people at substantial risk of harm.
- cxbates 6y agoThe risk group (boomers+) have had so many advantages that I'm not inclined to risk my health with forced AstraZeneca for them. They are doing just fine with various rent seeking behaviors in my country. I don't need to rent them my body as well.
- dannyw 6y agoIf the virus turned out to affect younger people more than older people, do you think we'd have a similar vaccination campaign? (Yes).
- sto_hristo 6y agoThen this someone else takes the vaccine and all is good. It's nonsense to enforce a vaccine on people that are largely unaffected.
- valec 6y agoThere are people who can't get the vaccine for various reasons be it allergies, immune disorders or otherwise. This is a very selfish view and I'm sad to see it upvoted.
- sto_hristo 6y agoSo for a fraction of a minority, you're going to force the vast majority to do something they don't have to? World doesn't revolve around you and you're not the center of the Universe.
- JohnTHaller 6y agoYes. The same way they're required to have certain vaccinations to to attend school. Or travel to certain places.
- sto_hristo 6y agoThose vaccinations are against diseases affect everyone the same. These things are highly situational and very specific. There is no generic recipe that can be followed, as you suggest.
- monstersinF 6y agoIn a year or two (when enough vaccines have been produced), everyone who wants one should get it. If you feel unsafe, get it. Wouldn’t it then be unethical to force people to vaccinate to protect those who have already been vaccinated? and at any rate we’d have herd immunity by then I plan to get it but am waiting for a single long-term (1 year or more) study to be published first
- yokaze 6y ago> Wouldn’t it then be unethical to force people to vaccinate to protect those who have already been vaccinated? You are not vaccinating to protect the vaccinated, but those who _cannot_ be vaccinated, or who are not responding to vaccination. For example, people with inmmunodeficiencies and autoimmune conditions, who are immunocompromised. Not sure, what the status on pregnant women is, but I would guess neither. AFAIK, cancer treatments are affected, and some cannot be treated as they conventionally would. So, it is weighing the rights of people who could get vaccinated to put up with a minor nuisance, but don't want to for personal reasons, against the rights of people who cannot get vaccinated and face potential critical health problems because either not being able to get the right treatment of their underlying disease, or simply directly being more and longer exposed to a potential deadly disease for them. Additionally, by being unvaccinated, you are part of the pool of potential virus-carriers, and the larger the pool the larger the chance of mutations. That combined with a vaccinated population + evolution means more likely a mutation resistant against the vaccination.
- monstersinF 6y agoWhile I sympathize with immunocompromised, this argument fails to stick as COVID-19 is not as transmissible/contagious as many other pathogens. Regarding pregnancy, We won’t know about the long term effects there for years
- yokaze 6y agoIt fails to stick with you. It doesn't fail to stick with the doctors which chose the treatments. I presume they know better the implications of COVID-19 over other diseases.