4 ms·

> Society has tradeoffs. Paying taxes is one of them. Getting vaccinated is another. Who decided all this, how, when, and why were they entitled to do so? > Y

> Society has tradeoffs. Paying taxes is one of them. Getting vaccinated is another. Who decided all this, how, when, and why were they entitled to do so? > You're being asked to ... take a risk. As far as I know nobody guarantees that those COVID vaccines are without any dangerous side-effect, therefore there is a risk. In my opinion a referendum is the only way to exhibit what you take for granted: before any vaccination campaign, more than 50% voters have to explicitly ask for a "mandatory vaccination". We had plenty of time to organize this in 2020.

nextaccountic 5y ago
> ... take a risk. As far as I know nobody guarantees that those COVID vaccines are without any dangerous side-effect, therefore there is a risk. Covid is a risk as well. And it's a risk not only for yourself, but for other people, both around you and complete strangers. There are some people that are can't be vaccinated at all, they are at higher risk of dying or having severe long term side effects if they get Covid.
- natmaka 5y ago
  I understand this approach, however as there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. Moreover people feeling very threatened by the COVID can extra-protect themselves, and even refuse contact with non-vaccinated people (I'm OK with this). Another take: I want everyone to stop driving because I want to walk exactly as I wish (without taking cars into account), and also people emitting exhaust gas are threatening my health. If all this leads to coerce some into taking a risk because others want to reduce the impact on their lives of another risk, I can see some social long-term problem. "Coercing into solidarity" should ring a bell.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    This is very true: > Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. … but given that COVID is a risk, as GP was saying, then a world without vaccines is indeed a recipe for disaster. I want to stress how little sense your post makes if you consider that COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine (and it UNARGUABLY IS -- COVID is known to be a risk, and is known to cause illness and death to several magnitudes more than even the less severe side effects we're getting from vaccines). Your last paragraph for example argues against itself: If you're not taking the vaccine, you're forcing a (much larger) risk onto others because you want to avoid taking a (much smaller) risk yourself. COVID is a bigger risk. Period. Not just "to the elderly", but to you, too. The potential issues with COVID vaccines, even if they've been around less long than most other ones, cannot come close to the risks of COVID, no matter how fit, young and healthy you are. Hundreds of millions have been infected with COVID. Billions have taken the vaccine. The former has resulted in a worldwide shitshow. The latter has allowed us to start reopening things. You say "but there's a risk!" like it's some kind of gotcha. There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. For example, driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Getting vaccinated is a negligible risk, and its upshot is significant, for you AND EVERYONE ELSE too.
    - natmaka 5y ago
      I never advocated against any vaccine, only against mandatory vaccination. In my opinion it is for each person to decide for himself. > COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine Maybe. Probably, in my opinion. But this is not a fact. Thalidomide was considered OK. As a baby (in the 60's) I drank thanks to baby-bottles containing bisphenol-A, then at 40 years of age I was sterile. Consider all drugs approved, sold, then withdrawn because they proven too dangerous ('Mediator' and the undergoing 'opioid crisis' are well-known cases, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs lists some other ones). Consider phtalates, asbestos, DDT, ... many things were OK, then became disasters. You answer in good faith, and thank you for doing so! My point is: I doubt you can read the future and, right now, know for sure how to balance risk. Nobody knows. Therefore I maintain: there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. Moreover mandatory vaccination will be interpreted as an aggression/oppression by many and is therefore dangerous. > There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. I agree, and as nobody reads the future each one has to decide for himself. We may advocate, however stating "facts" about long-term effects is at best naive. > driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Some may disagree. Consider, for example, non-drivers rarely (if even) using a car: they breath exhaust gas and, as pedestrians, may be hurt by a car. Consider future generations, probably unable to drive ICE cars but 'enjoying' the effects of their exhausts. Anyone can adopt any opinion, including "the upshot makes it worth taking", but it isn't a justification when it comes to coerce people into taking a risk they refuse.

nextaccountic 5y ago

> ... take a risk. As far as I know nobody guarantees that those COVID vaccines are without any dangerous side-effect, therefore there is a risk. Covid is a risk as well. And it's a risk not only for yourself, but for other people, both around you and complete strangers. There are some people that are can't be vaccinated at all, they are at higher risk of dying or having severe long term side effects if they get Covid.

natmaka 5y ago
I understand this approach, however as there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. Moreover people feeling very threatened by the COVID can extra-protect themselves, and even refuse contact with non-vaccinated people (I'm OK with this). Another take: I want everyone to stop driving because I want to walk exactly as I wish (without taking cars into account), and also people emitting exhaust gas are threatening my health. If all this leads to coerce some into taking a risk because others want to reduce the impact on their lives of another risk, I can see some social long-term problem. "Coercing into solidarity" should ring a bell.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  This is very true: > Letting nearly all members of a population simultaneously take the very same risk during a short timeframe is a recipe for disaster. … but given that COVID is a risk, as GP was saying, then a world without vaccines is indeed a recipe for disaster. I want to stress how little sense your post makes if you consider that COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine (and it UNARGUABLY IS -- COVID is known to be a risk, and is known to cause illness and death to several magnitudes more than even the less severe side effects we're getting from vaccines). Your last paragraph for example argues against itself: If you're not taking the vaccine, you're forcing a (much larger) risk onto others because you want to avoid taking a (much smaller) risk yourself. COVID is a bigger risk. Period. Not just "to the elderly", but to you, too. The potential issues with COVID vaccines, even if they've been around less long than most other ones, cannot come close to the risks of COVID, no matter how fit, young and healthy you are. Hundreds of millions have been infected with COVID. Billions have taken the vaccine. The former has resulted in a worldwide shitshow. The latter has allowed us to start reopening things. You say "but there's a risk!" like it's some kind of gotcha. There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. For example, driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Getting vaccinated is a negligible risk, and its upshot is significant, for you AND EVERYONE ELSE too.
  - natmaka 5y ago
    I never advocated against any vaccine, only against mandatory vaccination. In my opinion it is for each person to decide for himself. > COVID is, in fact, a much bigger risk than taking the vaccine Maybe. Probably, in my opinion. But this is not a fact. Thalidomide was considered OK. As a baby (in the 60's) I drank thanks to baby-bottles containing bisphenol-A, then at 40 years of age I was sterile. Consider all drugs approved, sold, then withdrawn because they proven too dangerous ('Mediator' and the undergoing 'opioid crisis' are well-known cases, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs lists some other ones). Consider phtalates, asbestos, DDT, ... many things were OK, then became disasters. You answer in good faith, and thank you for doing so! My point is: I doubt you can read the future and, right now, know for sure how to balance risk. Nobody knows. Therefore I maintain: there is no way to compare long-term risk induced by a new vaccine to COVID-related risk, I see no way to directly conclude that vaccination is the best path. Moreover mandatory vaccination will be interpreted as an aggression/oppression by many and is therefore dangerous. > There's a risk to every single thing you do in life. A lot of it is negligible. Some of it, less so, but "worth taking" for the upshot. I agree, and as nobody reads the future each one has to decide for himself. We may advocate, however stating "facts" about long-term effects is at best naive. > driving is a non-negligible risk, but (much as I dislike cars) the upshot makes it worth taking. Some may disagree. Consider, for example, non-drivers rarely (if even) using a car: they breath exhaust gas and, as pedestrians, may be hurt by a car. Consider future generations, probably unable to drive ICE cars but 'enjoying' the effects of their exhausts. Anyone can adopt any opinion, including "the upshot makes it worth taking", but it isn't a justification when it comes to coerce people into taking a risk they refuse.