4 ms·

> 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it. I think that needs to be

> 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it. I think that needs to be highlighted more. It's like wearing seatbelts, but for other people. I would consider that the fabric that most societies are made of, taking care of the people that can't for themselves, and in many cases through no fault of their own (e.g. genetics).

basch 5y ago
Seatbelt's are for other people. If you are in the car with someone, and they are not wearing a seat belt, they are a projectile. That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo. Which circles back to the crux of the original post. At what level does a society have the right to self assemble and govern and protect itself from others. Is it at the block level, the city level, the county level, the state level? Should people be able to go move to an empty spot in the desert and say "vaccinated people only" OR "unvaccinated people only." If those people only want to be around those people, are they allowed to carve out a space for themselves somewhere? When that area starts to rely on the infrastructure of others, how does that relationship change?
- jrs235 5y ago
  Tangent: >That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo. Additionally, if the driver is belted in they are likely to have a higher chance of maintaining or regaining control of their vehicle if they aren't tossed around inside, allowing them the chance of preventing further harm to others due to a completely out of control vehicle. Which is why there's still debate about motorcycle helmet laws. A motorcycle helmet basically only protects the person wearing it.
native_samples 5y ago
I don't think that's really the case. There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc, and nobody claims the herd immunity threshold is anywhere close to 100%. To suppress it to the point that there are much greater threats in such a person's life only requires reaching that threshold. Unfortunately, public health officials have admitted in public they are lying about the thresholds (e.g. Dr Fauci said he gave different numbers depending on what opinion polls were saying). However it's likely to be about 70%-80%, perhaps less because those numbers assume no pre-existing natural immunity, which doesn't seem to be correct. That means there is scope for very large numbers of people do decide not to take it if they don't want to, before herd immunity is threatened at all. Double unfortunate, I feel like nobody cares about these things, because they see it as a chance to enforce collectivist decision making on people in the name of "society". The actual group safety arguments never come with concrete numbers to assist with the underlying intuitions and that is suspicious.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  > There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc That is correct, allergies are very rare. I'm talking about patients whose immune system is weakened, either on purpose, e.g. transplant patients, or because they have an auto-immune disease (HIV etc.) or simply because their immune system is weak as a result of another disease (e.g. cancer) or they were simply dealt a weak immune system at birth (genetics) or their immune system is weak because they are very old. Then add infants, children and pregnant women who can't get vaccinated in the majority of cases. Now add the whole anti-vaxx crowd, people who became the victim of FUD, people who simply don't care, people who don't get their second shot, and it doesn't look very good, does it? > The actual group safety arguments never come with concrete numbers to assist with the underlying intuitions and that is suspicious. There are plenty of models to give you concrete answers, but there is even more uncertainty in the model assumptions, so we simply don't know with certainty. In any case we are already starting to find out in different countries.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    The first groups you mention are all either very small and also threatened by many different kinds of virus (e.g. flu), or COVID is not a threat to them because they're too young. As for the sizes of the other groups, you'd have to argue they make up more than 30% of the population for there to be real concerns. 30% of the population is a lot of people. There's plenty of room for people who don't want the vaccine in such a large slice.

basch 5y ago

Seatbelt's are for other people. If you are in the car with someone, and they are not wearing a seat belt, they are a projectile. That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo. Which circles back to the crux of the original post. At what level does a society have the right to self assemble and govern and protect itself from others. Is it at the block level, the city level, the county level, the state level? Should people be able to go move to an empty spot in the desert and say "vaccinated people only" OR "unvaccinated people only." If those people only want to be around those people, are they allowed to carve out a space for themselves somewhere? When that area starts to rely on the infrastructure of others, how does that relationship change?

jrs235 5y ago
Tangent: >That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo. Additionally, if the driver is belted in they are likely to have a higher chance of maintaining or regaining control of their vehicle if they aren't tossed around inside, allowing them the chance of preventing further harm to others due to a completely out of control vehicle. Which is why there's still debate about motorcycle helmet laws. A motorcycle helmet basically only protects the person wearing it.

native_samples 5y ago

I don't think that's really the case. There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc, and nobody claims the herd immunity threshold is anywhere close to 100%. To suppress it to the point that there are much greater threats in such a person's life only requires reaching that threshold. Unfortunately, public health officials have admitted in public they are lying about the thresholds (e.g. Dr Fauci said he gave different numbers depending on what opinion polls were saying). However it's likely to be about 70%-80%, perhaps less because those numbers assume no pre-existing natural immunity, which doesn't seem to be correct. That means there is scope for very large numbers of people do decide not to take it if they don't want to, before herd immunity is threatened at all. Double unfortunate, I feel like nobody cares about these things, because they see it as a chance to enforce collectivist decision making on people in the name of "society". The actual group safety arguments never come with concrete numbers to assist with the underlying intuitions and that is suspicious.

Pyramus 5y ago
> There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc That is correct, allergies are very rare. I'm talking about patients whose immune system is weakened, either on purpose, e.g. transplant patients, or because they have an auto-immune disease (HIV etc.) or simply because their immune system is weak as a result of another disease (e.g. cancer) or they were simply dealt a weak immune system at birth (genetics) or their immune system is weak because they are very old. Then add infants, children and pregnant women who can't get vaccinated in the majority of cases. Now add the whole anti-vaxx crowd, people who became the victim of FUD, people who simply don't care, people who don't get their second shot, and it doesn't look very good, does it? > The actual group safety arguments never come with concrete numbers to assist with the underlying intuitions and that is suspicious. There are plenty of models to give you concrete answers, but there is even more uncertainty in the model assumptions, so we simply don't know with certainty. In any case we are already starting to find out in different countries.
- native_samples 5y ago
  The first groups you mention are all either very small and also threatened by many different kinds of virus (e.g. flu), or COVID is not a threat to them because they're too young. As for the sizes of the other groups, you'd have to argue they make up more than 30% of the population for there to be real concerns. 30% of the population is a lot of people. There's plenty of room for people who don't want the vaccine in such a large slice.