6 ms·

Liberty. It's a terrible a precedent to restrict freedom of movement on a forced personal health decision. It's basically subverting your body to the state.

wfhbata 6y ago
It’s a terrible precedent to let people prolong a pandemic and endanger innocent people’s lives in the name of their personal liberties. If you don’t want to take measures to protect others, you can sit home for a while. It won’t kill you, and it won’t kill the people around you.
- T-hawk 6y ago
  No, once everyone who wants it is vaccinated, their health is their problem not mine. If anyone is still scared of unvaccinated people, they can keep themselves at home forever, they don't get to force medical choices and restrictions on others.
  - stormbrew 6y ago
    If anyone is scared of getting vaccinated due to nonsense conspiracy theories, they can keep themselves at home forever, they don't get to force a deadly disease on others.
    - T-hawk 6y ago
      It's not deadly to the vaccinated. That's the whole point of the vaccines. Or are you arguing that the vaccines don't work?
      - dagenix 6y ago
        Vaccines work - but they are not 100% effective. If an unvaccinated, COVID positive person comes in close contact with 100 people that are vaccinated, a number of them will get sick. Way less than had they not been vaccinated. But way more than is acceptable.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        unishark 6y ago
        > But way more than is acceptable. Is it? Far fewer of them still will get severe symptoms. And this of course requires the unvaccinated person to actually be infected. From what I read, my risk (of at least an unpleasant time) is worse if that person had some other virus instead, since I'm much more likely to catch it and guaranteed to have unpleasant symptoms if so. At some point there needs to be a cutoff in risk level where it's low enough for a free society. A bigger concern in my mind is that as long as the virus is spreading it is mutating, potentially becoming dangerous again to the vaccinated too. But this seems to be increasingly not likely with this particular category of viruses.
      - virgilp 6y ago
        > If those 100 people are still worried about that, they can choose to keep themselves locked away forever. You must be trolling, no way you're so self-centered. "I like to drive with 200km/h through cities, those who don't like it or are scared of my driving can stay home" "I like to take my aggressive pitbull for a walk without a leash, if you don't like it you can stay home" "I like to play with guns, if you don't like me handling guns in public you can stay home" It's all recklessness, and of course not acceptable. You know what's the better solution for those 100 vaccinated people? To force you to stay at home. Because they're 100, and you're 1. It's not the whole world that needs to adapt to you, it's the other way around.
        T-hawk 6y ago
        Nice army of straw men. You're trying to redefine literally existing in public as recklessness. Self-centered? The people demanding the nonvaccinated cease existing in society because of their fears are the selfish ones. I'm saying nothing about anyone else's choices or activities whatsoever. Restricting someone else's behavior and bodily autonomy is the selfish act. 100 people forcibly removing 1 person from society who has done nothing wrong? That's a concentration camp. This is mob rule, you're just okay with it because you're part of the mob.
        virgilp 6y ago
        You can't walk naked on the street, despite it "doing no harm", because of other people's sensitivities. You need to adapt to the society, it's not the society's duty to adapt to you. If it bothers enough people, you can't do it. Call it law, call it mob rule, call it whatever you wish - it's just how the world works.
        textgel 6y ago
        Exactly, it's not societies duty to adapt to you, and some societies are more beholden to principles surrounding liberty; there are plenty of other more authoritarian societies available for those who want more restrictions. And the 100 vs 1 argument is very poorly thought out; we have just had a year of people shut in their homes for the sake of the few who were at risk. For the argument to suddenly swing on its axis, it would strongly suggest an authoritarian thrilled at the opportunity to exercise their will on others.
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        This isn't some theoretical scenario - we have plenty of experience with other infectious diseases. People choosing not to be vaccinated creates opportunities for the disease to spread and either infect those who can't be vaccinated (young children, immunocompromised people etc), or gives the disease opportunities to mutate and evade the vaccine in the future. Your right to not be vaccinated does not trump public health concerns, or shouldn't.
        Thiez 6y ago
        I think people should get vaccinated, but 'think of the children' is not a strong argument since they seem to be at very low risk of becoming seriously ill or death compared to every other age category.
        tsimionescu 6y ago
        I was discussing in a more general context of vaccination rights/obligations, even though for the particular case of Covid19 you are right. Note however that we still don't know exactly what long-term consequences Covid19 may have, so even with this, if we can avoid infecting young children, we should.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Actually, they do. Being vaccinated from an infectious disease is part of your civic duties, to help protect those who can't be vaccinated for various reasons. There is even a ECHR decision to this effect.
- unishark 6y ago
  I think they should require vaccination for travel (and schools and many other things) but I also think it is a problematic precedent. How is limiting state power during a particular emergency situation a terrible precedent? The state can always grab more power at a later emergency, as history has shown. The difficult task is getting them to give up power once it is no longer needed for the emergency.
lnsru 6y ago
Well, one can always stay at home and protect his/her body. People spent whole lives in one city during Soviet era, so travel can be seen as luxury.
stormbrew 6y ago
The precedent has been set for a long time now already, and it likely saves a lot of lives. https://www.who.int/ith/2016-ith-county-list.pdf https://www.who.int/ith/2016-ith-county-list.pdf This isn't rocket science. I don't know where people get this idea that international travel was some kind of libertarian utopia before covid. There are a lot of things that restrict your ability to travel, and vaccinations are one of the least problematic.
- lazyjones 6y ago
  > international travel was some kind of libertarian utopia before covid. There are a lot of things that restrict your ability to travel, and vaccinations are one of the least problematic. You are obviously not referring to the EU, where, within Schengen, international travel was a libertarian utopia and one of the main reasons this bureaucratic construct had so many supporters despite the downsides.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > You are obviously not referring to the EU, where, within Schengen, international travel was a libertarian utopia For, and only for, EU citizens. Which is a good start at utopianising travel, but not complete.
    - nopzor 6y ago
      once you're inside schengen, traveling between schengen countries is seamless and magical, whether or not you are an EU citizen.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    So you didn't have to follow road rules when travelling by car? You could bring weapons on board of planes when flying? Seems like you had to follow rules regulations when travelling before, so explain to me what is the exact difference now?
peteretep 6y ago
It’s not personal health, tho, it’s public health.
sjf 6y ago
I am going to assume you are American by the reference to liberty. Every US immigrant is /already/ required to have eight different vaccinations and a negative TB test. They quite literally take your blood before you can become a resident. https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccination-requirements https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Yes, but as I understand it, the EU purports to be a proponent of human rights as well. Immigration to the U.S. is of course, a regulated activity. They can make you take a physical, pay a fee, inspect your background, call your mom and make sure you're a good person, etc, before accepting you as an immigrant. Sure. There's no limits to that, because there's no U.S. Constitutional protection for non-U.S. citizens and immigration can be stopped altogether if desired (assuming it's enforced).
  - withinboredom 6y ago
    > There's no limits to that, because there's no U.S. Constitutional protection for non-U.S. citizens The fourteenth amendment plainly says “people” not citizens. There are others, but this is the most obvious one. > nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
  - azinman2 6y ago
    I'm not sure why you're talking about immigrating to the EU when my understanding is the topic is simply traveling to the EU as a visitor.
- unishark 6y ago
  There is no universal right to immigrate to the US, or anywhere else generally, so immigrants can be subject to whatever requirements the local govt decides at any given time. The discussion here was about a supposed "free travel" zone where citizens of member countries are giving up much of their autonomy in return for travel and trade freedoms. But this kind of arguments are precisely the point when it comes to concern about precedents. It becomes less of a barrier to adding new rules just because the law already has vaguely similar rules.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> a terrible a precedent to restrict freedom of movement on a forced personal health decision Agree, let's not be reckless–restricting movement for public health only has over seven hundred years of precedent [1]. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html

wfhbata 6y ago

It’s a terrible precedent to let people prolong a pandemic and endanger innocent people’s lives in the name of their personal liberties. If you don’t want to take measures to protect others, you can sit home for a while. It won’t kill you, and it won’t kill the people around you.

T-hawk 6y ago
No, once everyone who wants it is vaccinated, their health is their problem not mine. If anyone is still scared of unvaccinated people, they can keep themselves at home forever, they don't get to force medical choices and restrictions on others.
- stormbrew 6y ago
  If anyone is scared of getting vaccinated due to nonsense conspiracy theories, they can keep themselves at home forever, they don't get to force a deadly disease on others.
  - T-hawk 6y ago
    It's not deadly to the vaccinated. That's the whole point of the vaccines. Or are you arguing that the vaccines don't work?
    - dagenix 6y ago
      Vaccines work - but they are not 100% effective. If an unvaccinated, COVID positive person comes in close contact with 100 people that are vaccinated, a number of them will get sick. Way less than had they not been vaccinated. But way more than is acceptable.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - unishark 6y ago
        > But way more than is acceptable. Is it? Far fewer of them still will get severe symptoms. And this of course requires the unvaccinated person to actually be infected. From what I read, my risk (of at least an unpleasant time) is worse if that person had some other virus instead, since I'm much more likely to catch it and guaranteed to have unpleasant symptoms if so. At some point there needs to be a cutoff in risk level where it's low enough for a free society. A bigger concern in my mind is that as long as the virus is spreading it is mutating, potentially becoming dangerous again to the vaccinated too. But this seems to be increasingly not likely with this particular category of viruses.
    - virgilp 6y ago
      > If those 100 people are still worried about that, they can choose to keep themselves locked away forever. You must be trolling, no way you're so self-centered. "I like to drive with 200km/h through cities, those who don't like it or are scared of my driving can stay home" "I like to take my aggressive pitbull for a walk without a leash, if you don't like it you can stay home" "I like to play with guns, if you don't like me handling guns in public you can stay home" It's all recklessness, and of course not acceptable. You know what's the better solution for those 100 vaccinated people? To force you to stay at home. Because they're 100, and you're 1. It's not the whole world that needs to adapt to you, it's the other way around.
      - T-hawk 6y ago
        Nice army of straw men. You're trying to redefine literally existing in public as recklessness. Self-centered? The people demanding the nonvaccinated cease existing in society because of their fears are the selfish ones. I'm saying nothing about anyone else's choices or activities whatsoever. Restricting someone else's behavior and bodily autonomy is the selfish act. 100 people forcibly removing 1 person from society who has done nothing wrong? That's a concentration camp. This is mob rule, you're just okay with it because you're part of the mob.
        virgilp 6y ago
        You can't walk naked on the street, despite it "doing no harm", because of other people's sensitivities. You need to adapt to the society, it's not the society's duty to adapt to you. If it bothers enough people, you can't do it. Call it law, call it mob rule, call it whatever you wish - it's just how the world works.
        textgel 6y ago
        Exactly, it's not societies duty to adapt to you, and some societies are more beholden to principles surrounding liberty; there are plenty of other more authoritarian societies available for those who want more restrictions. And the 100 vs 1 argument is very poorly thought out; we have just had a year of people shut in their homes for the sake of the few who were at risk. For the argument to suddenly swing on its axis, it would strongly suggest an authoritarian thrilled at the opportunity to exercise their will on others.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      This isn't some theoretical scenario - we have plenty of experience with other infectious diseases. People choosing not to be vaccinated creates opportunities for the disease to spread and either infect those who can't be vaccinated (young children, immunocompromised people etc), or gives the disease opportunities to mutate and evade the vaccine in the future. Your right to not be vaccinated does not trump public health concerns, or shouldn't.
      - Thiez 6y ago
        I think people should get vaccinated, but 'think of the children' is not a strong argument since they seem to be at very low risk of becoming seriously ill or death compared to every other age category.
        tsimionescu 6y ago
        I was discussing in a more general context of vaccination rights/obligations, even though for the particular case of Covid19 you are right. Note however that we still don't know exactly what long-term consequences Covid19 may have, so even with this, if we can avoid infecting young children, we should.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Actually, they do. Being vaccinated from an infectious disease is part of your civic duties, to help protect those who can't be vaccinated for various reasons. There is even a ECHR decision to this effect.
unishark 6y ago
I think they should require vaccination for travel (and schools and many other things) but I also think it is a problematic precedent. How is limiting state power during a particular emergency situation a terrible precedent? The state can always grab more power at a later emergency, as history has shown. The difficult task is getting them to give up power once it is no longer needed for the emergency.

lnsru 6y ago

Well, one can always stay at home and protect his/her body. People spent whole lives in one city during Soviet era, so travel can be seen as luxury.

stormbrew 6y ago

The precedent has been set for a long time now already, and it likely saves a lot of lives. https://www.who.int/ith/2016-ith-county-list.pdf https://www.who.int/ith/2016-ith-county-list.pdf This isn't rocket science. I don't know where people get this idea that international travel was some kind of libertarian utopia before covid. There are a lot of things that restrict your ability to travel, and vaccinations are one of the least problematic.

lazyjones 6y ago
> international travel was some kind of libertarian utopia before covid. There are a lot of things that restrict your ability to travel, and vaccinations are one of the least problematic. You are obviously not referring to the EU, where, within Schengen, international travel was a libertarian utopia and one of the main reasons this bureaucratic construct had so many supporters despite the downsides.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > You are obviously not referring to the EU, where, within Schengen, international travel was a libertarian utopia For, and only for, EU citizens. Which is a good start at utopianising travel, but not complete.
  - nopzor 6y ago
    once you're inside schengen, traveling between schengen countries is seamless and magical, whether or not you are an EU citizen.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  So you didn't have to follow road rules when travelling by car? You could bring weapons on board of planes when flying? Seems like you had to follow rules regulations when travelling before, so explain to me what is the exact difference now?

peteretep 6y ago

It’s not personal health, tho, it’s public health.

sjf 6y ago

I am going to assume you are American by the reference to liberty. Every US immigrant is /already/ required to have eight different vaccinations and a negative TB test. They quite literally take your blood before you can become a resident. https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccination-requirements https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...

chrisco255 6y ago
Yes, but as I understand it, the EU purports to be a proponent of human rights as well. Immigration to the U.S. is of course, a regulated activity. They can make you take a physical, pay a fee, inspect your background, call your mom and make sure you're a good person, etc, before accepting you as an immigrant. Sure. There's no limits to that, because there's no U.S. Constitutional protection for non-U.S. citizens and immigration can be stopped altogether if desired (assuming it's enforced).
- withinboredom 6y ago
  > There's no limits to that, because there's no U.S. Constitutional protection for non-U.S. citizens The fourteenth amendment plainly says “people” not citizens. There are others, but this is the most obvious one. > nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
- azinman2 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you're talking about immigrating to the EU when my understanding is the topic is simply traveling to the EU as a visitor.
unishark 6y ago
There is no universal right to immigrate to the US, or anywhere else generally, so immigrants can be subject to whatever requirements the local govt decides at any given time. The discussion here was about a supposed "free travel" zone where citizens of member countries are giving up much of their autonomy in return for travel and trade freedoms. But this kind of arguments are precisely the point when it comes to concern about precedents. It becomes less of a barrier to adding new rules just because the law already has vaguely similar rules.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> a terrible a precedent to restrict freedom of movement on a forced personal health decision Agree, let's not be reckless–restricting movement for public health only has over seven hundred years of precedent [1]. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html