4 ms·

>If the vaccine is as effective as it seems, then this decision feels positively nanny state to me. It takes away an individual's agency to inform themselves of

by ysavir 5y ago

>If the vaccine is as effective as it seems, then this decision feels positively nanny state to me. It takes away an individual's agency to inform themselves of the risks on both sides and make an informed decision If this were mandating that every resident of NYC must be vaccinated, I would agree. But it's not doing that. It's only saying that anyone wanting to dine (or possibly shop, too) indoors, that is, in spaces we know to have higher contamination and spread rate, they need to be vaccinated. People that are hesitant can still go unvaccinated and that's fine, but they have to keep to areas where contamination and spread are less prevalent. And I think that's fair.

TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
It's putting a scarlet letter on these people and shaming them for making their own choice about their own bodies. I think we've determined from other issues that "separate but equal" isn't actually equal. That absolutely applies here.
- ysavir 5y ago
  > It's putting a scarlet letter on these people and shaming them for making their own choice about their own bodies. Yes, that's how de Blasio phrases it, but I think there's more to it than how he's talked about it. The way I see these mandates is an effort to have people maintain a person R-naught of less than 1. How each person achieve that is up to them. They can wear masks, they can get vaccinated, they can avoid places with high transmission rates (such as indoor dining/shopping), or a combination of all these things. And ideally we find more options for people to take so that that everyone can help achieve a personal R-naught in a way that best fits their needs. Ultimately, the goal is to create a win-win scenario where on a personal level individuals can choose what degree of transmission prevention they want to pursue, and on a social level we're organized so that everyone is (hopefully) not infecting others, or doing so so sparsely that the infection rate is going down. The goal now is to find a comfortable equilibrium in which society can continue to do its thing without explosive outbreaks of Covid. These sort of mandates help get us there. This is all still very new and we need to find more methods in which we can reach that equilibrium, and we should continue to look for them, but we can't let Covid-19 run rampant until we feel we've all the options we like.
  - TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
    > we can't let Covid-19 run rampant until we feel we've all the options we like. What makes you say this? There is literally no other city in our country doing a lockdown like this. Many places are still opened up and not experiencing a surge. Even in Missouri, cases have dropped in many regions in the last few days without such lockdowns, and hospitals have not been overloaded.
    - KittenInABox 5y ago
      > hospitals have not been overloaded As of 3 weeks ago Missouri had to expand their hospital system explicitly for delta variants? https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-michael-brown-86ab629fa8d0e5f0463211646b1f8f0a https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-micha...
      - TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
        Expansion of covid wards is not overload. Mortality rates aren't skyrocketing, and people aren't dying in the streets like we saw in Italy and China in the first weeks. Don't get me wrong, there has been an increase in cases and the R0 needs to be lowered. But draconian measures aren't necessarily required, as Greene County MO's recent infection rates have shown[1]. The R0 sits at below 0 now, and hospital case loads have stabilized. [1] https://www.covidactnow.org/us/missouri-mo/county/greene_county/?s=21391063 https://www.covidactnow.org/us/missouri-mo/county/greene_cou...
        TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
        A typo on my comment above. I said the R0 was below zero, when I meant to say the R0 is below 1, meaning the number of cases should decline over time.
- ok123456 5y ago
  The Supreme Court said it didn't apply about 116 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
SirensOfTitan 5y ago
From Alec Karakatsanis's excellent Usual Cruelty on plea bargains: > “the Constitution requires that every guilty plea waiving the constitutional right to trial by a jury of one’s peers be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.69 But no one who works in the criminal system thinks that contemporary plea bargaining produces voluntary agreements. The vast majority of plea bargains are accepted by people who are told that they will be imprisoned for longer if they do not give up their right to a jury trial. Many of these people are in jail and are told that pleading guilty is the only immediate way out of jail. In no other cultural context would the word “voluntary” describe this arrangement. Should my coworker ask a person out on a dinner date but tell the person that, if he does not accept, he will be placed in a cage, no one would view the person’s agreement to dine with my coworker as voluntary. That’s not how we understand “voluntary” actions.” Plea bargains are a totally different world, I'm not trying to compare this decision with plea bargains. What I would like to illustrate, through the author's example, is the process by which modern governments reduce the individual's agency in a de-facto manner, while de-jure asserting that individual's rights are upheld. People have been stuck inside for so, so long, keeping them out of restaurants if they don't get vaccinated is surely just manipulating their decision making toward getting a vaccine they may be uncomfortable getting. I suppose I don't really get what good this does. If a person decides to not get vaccinated and then decides to dine indoors, who are they harming, other than potentially themselves, by making that decision? I wish they would get the vaccine, but I also do respect their rights to judge the information available for themselves without severely restricting their ability to live their lives.
- alonmower 5y ago
  Who are they harming? Literally everyone else in the space that is now more likely to be exposed to someone with the virus (and who has taken fewer precautions to avoid being contagious) People’s rights to swing their fists around wildly end at my face
- ysavir 5y ago
  > I also do respect their rights to judge the information available for themselves without severely restricting their ability to live their lives. Can you expand on how being required to dine outside instead of dining inside is a severe restriction on someone's ability to live their life?
mrfusion 5y ago
It’s not a small stretch to imagine expanding it to all grocery stores. Then if you want to eat you have no choice but to get it. What about denying healthcare for unvaccinated? Another easy step.
- ysavir 5y ago
  > It’s not a small stretch to imagine expanding it to all grocery stores. When Covid first broke everything shut down. That is, everything except grocery stores, which were open to all. So yes, I think it's a big stretch to imagine it expanding to grocery stores.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
  That's what was originally announced for the health pass in France before public outcry made them soften the restrictions.
orblivion 5y ago
If you look at De Blasio's announcement of this "Key To NYC" program, the stated purpose sounds pretty clearly like trying to pressure people to get vaccinated. He gave the example of how successful it was with mandating city workers get vaccinated. Making it clear that this is to show New Yorkers that the way to participate in normal life is to be vaccinated. Sort of a "enough is enough, it's time to get vaccinated" attitude. Maybe you think his real purpose is what you described rather than his stated purpose, but if he were hiding the ball I'd expect it in the other direction. It's rather jarring, really. But I suppose authoritarianism and paternalism are becoming more normalized these days.
- ysavir 5y ago
  > Maybe you think his real purpose is what you described rather than his stated purpose, but if he were hiding the ball I'd expect it in the other direction. It's rather jarring, really. But I suppose authoritarianism and paternalism are becoming more normalized these days. I don't think de Blasio has a real purpose. I think he's doing what his advisors and experts are recommending he do and he's trying to make it sound purposeful because the political like sounding purposeful.
ashtonkem 5y ago
It’s a bit like cars. Own whatever you want, but the state has a say in what is and is not allowed on the roads they built and maintain.
- ysavir 5y ago
  That's a great example! Thanks, I'm going to use this.
  - ds206 5y ago
    Yes, because no one ever breaks the rules of the road right? I mean, you've never driven over the speed limit? Parked in a non-parking space? Driven through a red light? Yes, what a great example lol.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Your response to a claim that the state has a compelling interest is an argument that enforcement is incomplete. You do see how these things are orthogonal, right?
bingohbangoh 5y ago
“I will not require you to get vaccinated because that is illegal. Instead, I will make it impossible for you to not get vaccinated. That is allowed.”

by ysavir 5y ago

TheAdamAndChe 5y ago

It's putting a scarlet letter on these people and shaming them for making their own choice about their own bodies. I think we've determined from other issues that "separate but equal" isn't actually equal. That absolutely applies here.

ysavir 5y ago
> It's putting a scarlet letter on these people and shaming them for making their own choice about their own bodies. Yes, that's how de Blasio phrases it, but I think there's more to it than how he's talked about it. The way I see these mandates is an effort to have people maintain a person R-naught of less than 1. How each person achieve that is up to them. They can wear masks, they can get vaccinated, they can avoid places with high transmission rates (such as indoor dining/shopping), or a combination of all these things. And ideally we find more options for people to take so that that everyone can help achieve a personal R-naught in a way that best fits their needs. Ultimately, the goal is to create a win-win scenario where on a personal level individuals can choose what degree of transmission prevention they want to pursue, and on a social level we're organized so that everyone is (hopefully) not infecting others, or doing so so sparsely that the infection rate is going down. The goal now is to find a comfortable equilibrium in which society can continue to do its thing without explosive outbreaks of Covid. These sort of mandates help get us there. This is all still very new and we need to find more methods in which we can reach that equilibrium, and we should continue to look for them, but we can't let Covid-19 run rampant until we feel we've all the options we like.
- TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
  > we can't let Covid-19 run rampant until we feel we've all the options we like. What makes you say this? There is literally no other city in our country doing a lockdown like this. Many places are still opened up and not experiencing a surge. Even in Missouri, cases have dropped in many regions in the last few days without such lockdowns, and hospitals have not been overloaded.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    > hospitals have not been overloaded As of 3 weeks ago Missouri had to expand their hospital system explicitly for delta variants? https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-michael-brown-86ab629fa8d0e5f0463211646b1f8f0a https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-micha...
    - TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
      Expansion of covid wards is not overload. Mortality rates aren't skyrocketing, and people aren't dying in the streets like we saw in Italy and China in the first weeks. Don't get me wrong, there has been an increase in cases and the R0 needs to be lowered. But draconian measures aren't necessarily required, as Greene County MO's recent infection rates have shown[1]. The R0 sits at below 0 now, and hospital case loads have stabilized. [1] https://www.covidactnow.org/us/missouri-mo/county/greene_county/?s=21391063 https://www.covidactnow.org/us/missouri-mo/county/greene_cou...
      - TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
        A typo on my comment above. I said the R0 was below zero, when I meant to say the R0 is below 1, meaning the number of cases should decline over time.
ok123456 5y ago
The Supreme Court said it didn't apply about 116 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

SirensOfTitan 5y ago

From Alec Karakatsanis's excellent Usual Cruelty on plea bargains: > “the Constitution requires that every guilty plea waiving the constitutional right to trial by a jury of one’s peers be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.69 But no one who works in the criminal system thinks that contemporary plea bargaining produces voluntary agreements. The vast majority of plea bargains are accepted by people who are told that they will be imprisoned for longer if they do not give up their right to a jury trial. Many of these people are in jail and are told that pleading guilty is the only immediate way out of jail. In no other cultural context would the word “voluntary” describe this arrangement. Should my coworker ask a person out on a dinner date but tell the person that, if he does not accept, he will be placed in a cage, no one would view the person’s agreement to dine with my coworker as voluntary. That’s not how we understand “voluntary” actions.” Plea bargains are a totally different world, I'm not trying to compare this decision with plea bargains. What I would like to illustrate, through the author's example, is the process by which modern governments reduce the individual's agency in a de-facto manner, while de-jure asserting that individual's rights are upheld. People have been stuck inside for so, so long, keeping them out of restaurants if they don't get vaccinated is surely just manipulating their decision making toward getting a vaccine they may be uncomfortable getting. I suppose I don't really get what good this does. If a person decides to not get vaccinated and then decides to dine indoors, who are they harming, other than potentially themselves, by making that decision? I wish they would get the vaccine, but I also do respect their rights to judge the information available for themselves without severely restricting their ability to live their lives.

alonmower 5y ago
Who are they harming? Literally everyone else in the space that is now more likely to be exposed to someone with the virus (and who has taken fewer precautions to avoid being contagious) People’s rights to swing their fists around wildly end at my face
ysavir 5y ago
> I also do respect their rights to judge the information available for themselves without severely restricting their ability to live their lives. Can you expand on how being required to dine outside instead of dining inside is a severe restriction on someone's ability to live their life?

mrfusion 5y ago

It’s not a small stretch to imagine expanding it to all grocery stores. Then if you want to eat you have no choice but to get it. What about denying healthcare for unvaccinated? Another easy step.

ysavir 5y ago
> It’s not a small stretch to imagine expanding it to all grocery stores. When Covid first broke everything shut down. That is, everything except grocery stores, which were open to all. So yes, I think it's a big stretch to imagine it expanding to grocery stores.
ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
That's what was originally announced for the health pass in France before public outcry made them soften the restrictions.

orblivion 5y ago

If you look at De Blasio's announcement of this "Key To NYC" program, the stated purpose sounds pretty clearly like trying to pressure people to get vaccinated. He gave the example of how successful it was with mandating city workers get vaccinated. Making it clear that this is to show New Yorkers that the way to participate in normal life is to be vaccinated. Sort of a "enough is enough, it's time to get vaccinated" attitude. Maybe you think his real purpose is what you described rather than his stated purpose, but if he were hiding the ball I'd expect it in the other direction. It's rather jarring, really. But I suppose authoritarianism and paternalism are becoming more normalized these days.

ysavir 5y ago
> Maybe you think his real purpose is what you described rather than his stated purpose, but if he were hiding the ball I'd expect it in the other direction. It's rather jarring, really. But I suppose authoritarianism and paternalism are becoming more normalized these days. I don't think de Blasio has a real purpose. I think he's doing what his advisors and experts are recommending he do and he's trying to make it sound purposeful because the political like sounding purposeful.

ashtonkem 5y ago

It’s a bit like cars. Own whatever you want, but the state has a say in what is and is not allowed on the roads they built and maintain.

ysavir 5y ago
That's a great example! Thanks, I'm going to use this.
- ds206 5y ago
  Yes, because no one ever breaks the rules of the road right? I mean, you've never driven over the speed limit? Parked in a non-parking space? Driven through a red light? Yes, what a great example lol.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Your response to a claim that the state has a compelling interest is an argument that enforcement is incomplete. You do see how these things are orthogonal, right?

bingohbangoh 5y ago

“I will not require you to get vaccinated because that is illegal. Instead, I will make it impossible for you to not get vaccinated. That is allowed.”