6 ms·

We've had mandatory vaccinations for public schools for decades, and it's largely a settled issue. This is no different. If people want to put others at risk o

We've had mandatory vaccinations for public schools for decades, and it's largely a settled issue. This is no different. If people want to put others at risk of harm, employers are under no obligation to indulge them.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
machinelearning 5y ago
> This is no different. To be fair, it actually is different. The mechanism of action and the EUA timelines are different and unlike most other widely available vaccines. It is ok to disagree on the crux of the argument which is whether taking the vaccine is a net good, but non-factual arguments do not help.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Obviously some of the details are different, they're different for every contagion, but the principle is the same: the interest in public health overrides the normal interest in preserving individual bodily autonomy, just like with vaccinations and schooling.
  - machinelearning 5y ago
    The details are the important part here. If you understand why people are against the vaccine, it is because they are not convinced that the vaccine results in the greatest public health. Whether this is right or wrong, trying to gloss over the differences in the details doesn't work here since the conflict is at the level of details. And no I don't agree with your point about vaccines being "different for every contagion". That is patently untrue, most vaccines developed in the recent past have either been recombinant, attenuated/inactivated viruses or adenovirus vectored vaccines that have undergone extensive FDA approval by now. This is especially true for the vaccines required for schooling.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      > most vaccines developed in the recent past have either been recombinant, attenuated/inactivated viruses or adenovirus vectored vaccines If you list every other type of vaccine other than mRNA, then yes the majority of vaccines are one of those. I mean, you even listed adenovirus which is extremely new and only used in covid & ebola vaccines, which makes me suspect you don't actually care about the underlying technology or know much about it. > This is especially true for the vaccines required for schooling. The start of that movement was with the smallpox vaccine, which was quite a dangerous vaccine as far as vaccines go. Seems a weird comparison to make.
      - machinelearning 5y ago
        > "adenovirus which is extremely new and only used in covid & ebola vaccines" So you are agreeing with me that there is prior evidence that adenovirus vector vaccines are safe and efficacious? Because that is exactly what I am trying to say. If you feel that there isn't enough evidence, feel free to omit that from the list and the point still stands. Perhaps even more so for OP's point about school-mandated vaccines. > The start of that movement was with the smallpox vaccine, which was quite a dangerous vaccine as far as vaccines go. Seems a weird comparison to make. You completely lost me here. No one is making the claim that the covid vaccines are net bad nor that it will always be so. From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety. The smallpox vaccine today is understood to be both safe and efficacious and has been approved by many advisory administrations including the FDA. So if you are trying to make the point that vaccines can initially start off being unsafe and further developments can make them safer over time, you are basically voicing the perspective of those who would rather wait it out than rush to take the vaccine.
        bawolff 5y ago
        > So you are agreeing with me that there is prior evidence that adenovirus vector vaccines are safe and efficacious I mean, the evidence isn't as strong as it is with mRNA vaccines, but nonetheless they are effective and reasonably safe. I just think your division of categories is totally arbitrary and not grounded in any evidence. > From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety You could describe the flat earth movement the same way. The world has a lot of people in it, the set of beliefs contained within run the gamuet. Some people think X is true for all X. I don't think that says much about the answer to the question one way or another.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  There is no honest way to claim that this vaccine is more dangerous than a smallpox vaccine was in 1809 (first compulsory vaccination in the US). This is far from the most dangerous vaccine ever to be required.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

machinelearning 5y ago

> This is no different. To be fair, it actually is different. The mechanism of action and the EUA timelines are different and unlike most other widely available vaccines. It is ok to disagree on the crux of the argument which is whether taking the vaccine is a net good, but non-factual arguments do not help.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
Obviously some of the details are different, they're different for every contagion, but the principle is the same: the interest in public health overrides the normal interest in preserving individual bodily autonomy, just like with vaccinations and schooling.
- machinelearning 5y ago
  The details are the important part here. If you understand why people are against the vaccine, it is because they are not convinced that the vaccine results in the greatest public health. Whether this is right or wrong, trying to gloss over the differences in the details doesn't work here since the conflict is at the level of details. And no I don't agree with your point about vaccines being "different for every contagion". That is patently untrue, most vaccines developed in the recent past have either been recombinant, attenuated/inactivated viruses or adenovirus vectored vaccines that have undergone extensive FDA approval by now. This is especially true for the vaccines required for schooling.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    > most vaccines developed in the recent past have either been recombinant, attenuated/inactivated viruses or adenovirus vectored vaccines If you list every other type of vaccine other than mRNA, then yes the majority of vaccines are one of those. I mean, you even listed adenovirus which is extremely new and only used in covid & ebola vaccines, which makes me suspect you don't actually care about the underlying technology or know much about it. > This is especially true for the vaccines required for schooling. The start of that movement was with the smallpox vaccine, which was quite a dangerous vaccine as far as vaccines go. Seems a weird comparison to make.
    - machinelearning 5y ago
      > "adenovirus which is extremely new and only used in covid & ebola vaccines" So you are agreeing with me that there is prior evidence that adenovirus vector vaccines are safe and efficacious? Because that is exactly what I am trying to say. If you feel that there isn't enough evidence, feel free to omit that from the list and the point still stands. Perhaps even more so for OP's point about school-mandated vaccines. > The start of that movement was with the smallpox vaccine, which was quite a dangerous vaccine as far as vaccines go. Seems a weird comparison to make. You completely lost me here. No one is making the claim that the covid vaccines are net bad nor that it will always be so. From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety. The smallpox vaccine today is understood to be both safe and efficacious and has been approved by many advisory administrations including the FDA. So if you are trying to make the point that vaccines can initially start off being unsafe and further developments can make them safer over time, you are basically voicing the perspective of those who would rather wait it out than rush to take the vaccine.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        > So you are agreeing with me that there is prior evidence that adenovirus vector vaccines are safe and efficacious I mean, the evidence isn't as strong as it is with mRNA vaccines, but nonetheless they are effective and reasonably safe. I just think your division of categories is totally arbitrary and not grounded in any evidence. > From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety You could describe the flat earth movement the same way. The world has a lot of people in it, the set of beliefs contained within run the gamuet. Some people think X is true for all X. I don't think that says much about the answer to the question one way or another.
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
There is no honest way to claim that this vaccine is more dangerous than a smallpox vaccine was in 1809 (first compulsory vaccination in the US). This is far from the most dangerous vaccine ever to be required.