9 ms·

> an overall risk of illness and death that is on par with every other year I have been alive. The excess death statistics would like to have a word with you,

> an overall risk of illness and death that is on par with every other year I have been alive. The excess death statistics would like to have a word with you, but more importantly: > If I ever become so afraid of death that I demand that other people give up their basic human rights Are basic human rights really what we're talking about here? If so, they've always had limits when it came to impacts on others. The freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of someone's nose; the freedom to spread certain pathogens might end there as well. Of course, the article here is talking about vaccination as a condition for participation in venues where density and proximity is a concern. "Basic human rights" may well not quite reach into unqualified access to "indoor dining, in indoor fitness facilities, indoor entertainment facilities." Hell, it's hard to actually make an totally unqualified case for bodily autonomy itself, even though that's a good principle to start from, it isn't the only one. Basic human rights were not lost from the world by smallpox or other vaccination mandates. They wouldn't be destroyed even if there were going to be a federal mandate for covid vaccination, which doesn't even seem to be on the horizon. They are certainly not going to be destroyed by proof of vaccination being required for entry to restaurants and gymns.

lmm 5y ago
> The excess death statistics would like to have a word with you What do excess deaths of vaccinated people look like? > "Basic human rights" may well not quite reach into unqualified access to "indoor dining, in indoor fitness facilities, indoor entertainment facilities." This is disingenuous. Freedom of peaceful assembly is widely recognised as a basic right.
- walterbell 5y ago
  > What do excess deaths of vaccinated people look like? VAERS currently reports 11,000 deaths (50% in USA mainland) after Covid vaccines. VAERS only has a subset of data on vaccine adverse events, so the true number when private/HMO databases are included will be some multiple (5x to 100x) of the VAERS total, https://openvaers.com/ https://openvaers.com/. A German pathologist has estimated that 30% of post-vaccine deaths were caused by vaccination. We need more autopsies in other countries, along with earlier post-vaccine clinical observation, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/panorama/Corona-Chef-Pathologe-der-Uni-Heidelberg-draengt-auf-mehr-Obduktionen-von-Geimpften-id60235361.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https... > pathologists therefore worked with public prosecutors, the police and resident doctors, reports Schirmacher. More than 40 people have already been autopsied who died within two weeks of being vaccinated. Schirmacher estimates that 30 to 40 percent of them died from the vaccination. In his opinion, the frequency of fatal consequences of vaccinations is underestimated Existing Covid vaccines are non-sterilizing, i.e. they do not prevent infection or transmission. In fact, because a non-sterilizing vaccine suppresses symptoms, an infected vaccinated person doesn't know to isolate (unless they get tested after exposure, as recommended by CDC) and can infect others. A non-vaccinated person would show symptoms and can self-isolate, ending the transmission chain. Natural immunity is sterilizing, i.e. NYC essential workers who have already recovered from Covid are much better for public health than anyone vaccinated with a non-sterilizing Covid vaccine, https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/558757-the-ill-advised-push-to-vaccinate-the-young https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/558757-the-ill-advise... > During the pandemic, the professional laptop class protected themselves by working from home while exposing the working class that brought them food and other goods. It is now the height of hypocrisy to recognize immunity from vaccinations but not immunity from those exposed while serving the laptop class. US Covid deaths peaked in early January, three months before US daily vaccines peaked in mid-April (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/us-daily-covid-vaccine-doses-administered https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/us-daily-covid-vaccine-do...), and VAERS deaths peaked in March-April, https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?GRAPH=ON&GROUP6=DEAM&GROUP7=CAT&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes&DEATH_YEAR_LOW=2020&DEATH_MONTH_LOW=09 https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?GRAPH=ON&GRO...
  - timdev2 5y ago
    If you're going to use VAERS data to support your argument, you really must take extra care to demonstrate that you understand what those data actually are, and explain why your conclusions should be taken seriously. Otherwise, you risk being lumped in with the multitude of bad takes made by people who misunderstand what VAERS is, and don't understand statistics. > US Covid deaths peaked in early January, three months before US daily vaccines peaked in mid-April, and VAERS deaths peaked in March-April. I find an April peak in VAERS deaths entirely unsurprising, since that's exactly when the rate of vaccination was highest.
    - walterbell 5y ago
      If you know of non-VAERS public sources of vaccine adverse event data, references would be appreciated. A link was provided to one pathologist autopsy study, more are needed. CDC VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) is not public, sometimes we get data snapshots when CDC is investigating specific adverse events, like blood clots, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27464528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27464528
      - timdev2 5y ago
        Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't complaining that VAERS was a bad source of data. I was pointing out that your post is hard to distinguish from the large body of bad posts that misinterpret those data because their authors fundamentally misconstrue what the data actually represent.
        walterbell 5y ago
        Ah, thanks for clarifying.
  - greycol 5y ago
    Just to clarify for those worried about what looks like legitimate numbers. The 6000 (unverified though there are legitimate reports) deaths on VAERS (down from the 11,000 when those that were posted from overseas sources were removed) means that the death rate for the vaccine using this number is 0.0018%. To put that number into context, you are 944 times more likely to die if you catch covid than if you get a vacine in the US. That's right the anti-vaxer take on the VAERS numbers say getting a vaccine is 1000 times better than not getting a covid vaccine. Even in the country with the lowest reported (0.1% which is not necessarily the actual) death rate per covid case you are 100x better off getting the vaccine.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  Peaceful assembly is protected in the constitution for people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Who's doing this in a movie theater? It's clearly meant to protect public protests.
  - smhost 5y ago
    they're saying it's a sit-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in
- randerson 5y ago
  Peaceful assembly without being killed by your neighbors seems like an even more basic subset of that right.
- yibg 5y ago
  Is this an absolute or relative thing? If I have Ebola and actively contagious, would I still have to right to peacefully assemble in a crowded venue? Or is there some cut off of potential harm where this is true?
  - lmm 5y ago
    No basic human right is absolute. Nowhere has completely unrestricted speech, everywhere puts some restrictions on voting rights, all regimes have cases in which your property rights are forfeit. But it should be a very high bar.
claytongulick 5y ago
It depends on whether you consider liberty, self ownership and free contracts between consenting adults to be basic human rights. Eroding liberty by restricting free association would have certainly been considered a violation of rights by the folks that listed them in the Constitution. In fact, they put it first.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  And yet, quarantine of infected people/places has a long, long history in the US. Weird.
  - claytongulick 5y ago
    Great point! Like when we put barbed wire up in Chinatown, San Francisco in 1900 after allowing all the white people to leave? [1] Or when we incarcerated 30,000 women in WWI because they may be "unclean" and held them even after their mandatory STD tests came back negative? [1] Or what we did to immigrant Russian Jews in 1892? [2] Did you know that up until 2009 we banned HIV positive people from entering the U.S.? [2] Yes, of course the U.S. has a long history of quarantine. We also have a long history of abusing those powers for racist and political reasons. The PA Supreme Court, at least, agrees. [3] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/10/30/360120406/awful-moments-in-quarantine-history-remember-typhoid-mary https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/10/30/3601204... [2] https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/cure-worse-disease https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/cure-worse-dise... [3] https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2020/09/constitutional-challenges-to-pandemic/ https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2020/09/cons...
acituan 5y ago
> The excess death statistics would like to have a word with you Independent of the rest of your argument, this one is not a good one to hinge on. "Excess death" is a pragmatic term, not a normative term. The baseline death statistics doesn't mean those deaths were OK, or natural and acceptable to endure. They include many peer to peer (e.g traffic accidents) or institution to peer (many "lifestyle" diseases') deaths too, which in themselves are also excess deaths in comparison to another baseline (e.g. obesity related deaths in comparison to 1960s). These feeds back to the arguments of risk tolerance and freedoms; there is a mutually tolerated, implicit risk of peer-to-peer death in driving too. I am not saying this is comparable to the risk of death by covid (it is obviously not), but we can't make principled arguments of absolute safety nor absolute freedom without keeping things proportional to the risks and freedoms we're already been balancing. > Basic human rights were not lost from the world by smallpox or other vaccination mandates. If we're being anal about it, it is not entirely true. People have a right to keep the functional and structural integrity of their bodies; and even enhancing immunization would be a change in that, and that has an element of intrusiveness to it. Again, being a transmitter of the virus and harming other people's bodies is also a threat to the functional and structural organization of those bodies, and that is (very) intrusive too, but two things can be true at the same time, and therefore this is not the principle to argue from. The honest argument would be accepting the need for striking a balance, accepting the sense of anxiety from both sides, and not pushing conclusions into people. We have to have people participate in the rationality of the decision making, from a place of empathy and growth. I hope this is a moment we can also realize that just like public health is a shared resource and lack thereof is a shared liability, public rationality and sound decision making capability is also a shared resource and lack thereof is a shared liability. We've been turning a blind eye to all sorts of media training people to be more and more polarized, using shaming as a short-term compliance tool that has long-term stupefying consequences. Now we depend on all of us coming to our senses to survive this thing; we need a herd immunity against irrational self-deception just as much.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > "Excess death" is a pragmatic term, not a normative term Fully aware of that. The reason I invoked them is to make the pragmatic point that those statistics alone and the correlated rise with covid should tell an analyst that risks associated with the virus aren't the same as "every other year they've been alive." That's a descriptive observation. Of course, it also invites a normative judgment... > If we're being anal about it, it is not entirely true. It's essentially true, and this is important. There have been genuinely compulsory vaccinations in modern free societies... and these compulsions turned out not to be slippery slopes into totalitarian oppression, but the corner case that you'd expect from societies that, as you say, realize this isn't about "absolute safety nor absolute freedom," that both risks and rights can be qualified (and in fact, for rights to be meaningful at all, they must be qualified, since there are always cases where a right reaches a point of tension with another right). And NY isn't even talking about genuine compulsory vaccination, it's proposing vaccination as a condition of participating in things that people can opt out of. It's not even as compulsory as a fine or paying your taxes or any number of other carrots/sticks that states regularly use to "push conclusions into people" because if you're going to have a society, you're going to blow past the limits of voluntarism at some point, as lovely as it is to try and maximize it within those limits. > People have a right to keep the functional and structural integrity of their bodies Yes, I anticipated that and you can see it in my comment where I refer to bodily autonomy. It's a good place to start, but like every other right it isn't unqualified.
fedreserved 5y ago
One could argue that dining in at a restaurant is as basic as a human right as say any other right the supreme court has read into the bill of rights that were not expressly written. It's an activity that has gone on since time immortal. With the only freedom of it in history I can remember are white only restaurants or minorities being forced to get their food from the back door (Jackie Robinson).
wutbrodo 5y ago
> The excess death statistics would like to have a word with you, I think you're misunderstanding the conversation. The thread is talking about the risk _to vaccinated people_. What excess death statistics are you thinking of that show a categorical increase in risk for those vaccinated?
canoebuilder 5y ago
Are basic human rights really what we're talking about here? If so, they've always had limits when it came to impacts on others. The freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of someone's nose Whoa, you've got that horridly twisted. It's not a human right to demand that others undergo a medical procedure for your own perceived interest. It's not a human right to demand others undergo a medical procedure, or be injected with something, because you've been told it will benefit you in some way. Every individual has complete choice and autonomy as to the medical procedures they undergo. That is the human right. >Article 6 – Consent 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TO...
- shaklee3 5y ago
  This isn't a medical procedure. You are certainly not allowed to make someone go through a medical procedure, since, you know, it doesn't affect you. Not being vaccinated affects everyone, so your choice of whether you get it or not is now going to have consequences on what you can do publicly. I've still not heard a single good argument for not vaccinating despite reading most anti-vax comments on this post.
  - desine 5y ago
    >I've still not heard a single good argument for not vaccinating despite reading most anti-vax comments on this post. Because if I put something in my body only because my master tells me to, I am a slave. Through and through. Bodily autonomy is absolute. It's different than the Modern American definition of slavery, which is mostly based on the New World forms of slavery, which are related to but different than the Old World forms of slavery. But they are all slavery. Either you have control of your corpus or you do not.
    - 5y ago
jb775 5y ago
Your POS mindset is everything that's wrong with America right now. Whether you understand it or not, it's smug, small-minded thinking. You disregard essential human rights while acting like you care about in-vogue topics being falsely-flagged as human rights issues. You think you're so smart but your ancestors are turning in their fucking graves. Naturally, I'm assuming you also hate the thought of procreation. So the only positive is knowing that your DNA will die out of the human gene-pool in under a generation.
forcry 5y ago
>the freedom to spread certain pathogens might end there as well. There is a false equivalence here that freedom to opt-out of a commercial product, is excising one's freedom to "spread diseases". To make it clear, would you want to pass a law that prevents someone with a genetic defect from marrying and having children? Because they would be "spreading" generic disorders, and by having offspring, they are "exercising their freedom to spread a genetic disorder", right?
- hibernator149 5y ago
  Comparing vacination to forced sterilisation is pretty extreme. What makes you think that these are on the same level?
  - forcry 5y ago
    Basically, it is the same reasoning. But it does not have to be force sterilisation. You can say that any one that is not breathing through a mask is exercising their freedom to spread diseases, and so everyone should wear a mask all the time.. Basically, the point is there is a line where your right to be safe and the right of the rest of the world to exist in freedom is in balance. And arguments like the one that is being made is pushing that line to reduce the latter, and if we are not careful, the latter will be reasoned out, in the name of increasing the "protection" of the 0.01% of people from 95.02 to 95.03% (Just made up numbers to illustrate the point). And it is not hard to imagine who benefits from it. May be we need a "Citizen freedom index" for every country so that we will know when we are draining it. Because if it is hard to improve what that cannot be measured, its hard to know when you are draining it as well..

lmm 5y ago

> The excess death statistics would like to have a word with you What do excess deaths of vaccinated people look like? > "Basic human rights" may well not quite reach into unqualified access to "indoor dining, in indoor fitness facilities, indoor entertainment facilities." This is disingenuous. Freedom of peaceful assembly is widely recognised as a basic right.

walterbell 5y ago
> What do excess deaths of vaccinated people look like? VAERS currently reports 11,000 deaths (50% in USA mainland) after Covid vaccines. VAERS only has a subset of data on vaccine adverse events, so the true number when private/HMO databases are included will be some multiple (5x to 100x) of the VAERS total, https://openvaers.com/ https://openvaers.com/. A German pathologist has estimated that 30% of post-vaccine deaths were caused by vaccination. We need more autopsies in other countries, along with earlier post-vaccine clinical observation, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/panorama/Corona-Chef-Pathologe-der-Uni-Heidelberg-draengt-auf-mehr-Obduktionen-von-Geimpften-id60235361.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https... > pathologists therefore worked with public prosecutors, the police and resident doctors, reports Schirmacher. More than 40 people have already been autopsied who died within two weeks of being vaccinated. Schirmacher estimates that 30 to 40 percent of them died from the vaccination. In his opinion, the frequency of fatal consequences of vaccinations is underestimated Existing Covid vaccines are non-sterilizing, i.e. they do not prevent infection or transmission. In fact, because a non-sterilizing vaccine suppresses symptoms, an infected vaccinated person doesn't know to isolate (unless they get tested after exposure, as recommended by CDC) and can infect others. A non-vaccinated person would show symptoms and can self-isolate, ending the transmission chain. Natural immunity is sterilizing, i.e. NYC essential workers who have already recovered from Covid are much better for public health than anyone vaccinated with a non-sterilizing Covid vaccine, https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/558757-the-ill-advised-push-to-vaccinate-the-young https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/558757-the-ill-advise... > During the pandemic, the professional laptop class protected themselves by working from home while exposing the working class that brought them food and other goods. It is now the height of hypocrisy to recognize immunity from vaccinations but not immunity from those exposed while serving the laptop class. US Covid deaths peaked in early January, three months before US daily vaccines peaked in mid-April (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/us-daily-covid-vaccine-doses-administered https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/us-daily-covid-vaccine-do...), and VAERS deaths peaked in March-April, https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?GRAPH=ON&GROUP6=DEAM&GROUP7=CAT&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes&DEATH_YEAR_LOW=2020&DEATH_MONTH_LOW=09 https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?GRAPH=ON&GRO...
- timdev2 5y ago
  If you're going to use VAERS data to support your argument, you really must take extra care to demonstrate that you understand what those data actually are, and explain why your conclusions should be taken seriously. Otherwise, you risk being lumped in with the multitude of bad takes made by people who misunderstand what VAERS is, and don't understand statistics. > US Covid deaths peaked in early January, three months before US daily vaccines peaked in mid-April, and VAERS deaths peaked in March-April. I find an April peak in VAERS deaths entirely unsurprising, since that's exactly when the rate of vaccination was highest.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    If you know of non-VAERS public sources of vaccine adverse event data, references would be appreciated. A link was provided to one pathologist autopsy study, more are needed. CDC VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) is not public, sometimes we get data snapshots when CDC is investigating specific adverse events, like blood clots, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27464528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27464528
    - timdev2 5y ago
      Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't complaining that VAERS was a bad source of data. I was pointing out that your post is hard to distinguish from the large body of bad posts that misinterpret those data because their authors fundamentally misconstrue what the data actually represent.
      - walterbell 5y ago
        Ah, thanks for clarifying.
- greycol 5y ago
  Just to clarify for those worried about what looks like legitimate numbers. The 6000 (unverified though there are legitimate reports) deaths on VAERS (down from the 11,000 when those that were posted from overseas sources were removed) means that the death rate for the vaccine using this number is 0.0018%. To put that number into context, you are 944 times more likely to die if you catch covid than if you get a vacine in the US. That's right the anti-vaxer take on the VAERS numbers say getting a vaccine is 1000 times better than not getting a covid vaccine. Even in the country with the lowest reported (0.1% which is not necessarily the actual) death rate per covid case you are 100x better off getting the vaccine.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
Peaceful assembly is protected in the constitution for people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Who's doing this in a movie theater? It's clearly meant to protect public protests.
- smhost 5y ago
  they're saying it's a sit-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in
randerson 5y ago
Peaceful assembly without being killed by your neighbors seems like an even more basic subset of that right.
yibg 5y ago
Is this an absolute or relative thing? If I have Ebola and actively contagious, would I still have to right to peacefully assemble in a crowded venue? Or is there some cut off of potential harm where this is true?
- lmm 5y ago
  No basic human right is absolute. Nowhere has completely unrestricted speech, everywhere puts some restrictions on voting rights, all regimes have cases in which your property rights are forfeit. But it should be a very high bar.

claytongulick 5y ago

It depends on whether you consider liberty, self ownership and free contracts between consenting adults to be basic human rights. Eroding liberty by restricting free association would have certainly been considered a violation of rights by the folks that listed them in the Constitution. In fact, they put it first.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
And yet, quarantine of infected people/places has a long, long history in the US. Weird.
- claytongulick 5y ago
  Great point! Like when we put barbed wire up in Chinatown, San Francisco in 1900 after allowing all the white people to leave? [1] Or when we incarcerated 30,000 women in WWI because they may be "unclean" and held them even after their mandatory STD tests came back negative? [1] Or what we did to immigrant Russian Jews in 1892? [2] Did you know that up until 2009 we banned HIV positive people from entering the U.S.? [2] Yes, of course the U.S. has a long history of quarantine. We also have a long history of abusing those powers for racist and political reasons. The PA Supreme Court, at least, agrees. [3] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/10/30/360120406/awful-moments-in-quarantine-history-remember-typhoid-mary https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/10/30/3601204... [2] https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/cure-worse-disease https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/cure-worse-dise... [3] https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2020/09/constitutional-challenges-to-pandemic/ https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2020/09/cons...

acituan 5y ago

> The excess death statistics would like to have a word with you Independent of the rest of your argument, this one is not a good one to hinge on. "Excess death" is a pragmatic term, not a normative term. The baseline death statistics doesn't mean those deaths were OK, or natural and acceptable to endure. They include many peer to peer (e.g traffic accidents) or institution to peer (many "lifestyle" diseases') deaths too, which in themselves are also excess deaths in comparison to another baseline (e.g. obesity related deaths in comparison to 1960s). These feeds back to the arguments of risk tolerance and freedoms; there is a mutually tolerated, implicit risk of peer-to-peer death in driving too. I am not saying this is comparable to the risk of death by covid (it is obviously not), but we can't make principled arguments of absolute safety nor absolute freedom without keeping things proportional to the risks and freedoms we're already been balancing. > Basic human rights were not lost from the world by smallpox or other vaccination mandates. If we're being anal about it, it is not entirely true. People have a right to keep the functional and structural integrity of their bodies; and even enhancing immunization would be a change in that, and that has an element of intrusiveness to it. Again, being a transmitter of the virus and harming other people's bodies is also a threat to the functional and structural organization of those bodies, and that is (very) intrusive too, but two things can be true at the same time, and therefore this is not the principle to argue from. The honest argument would be accepting the need for striking a balance, accepting the sense of anxiety from both sides, and not pushing conclusions into people. We have to have people participate in the rationality of the decision making, from a place of empathy and growth. I hope this is a moment we can also realize that just like public health is a shared resource and lack thereof is a shared liability, public rationality and sound decision making capability is also a shared resource and lack thereof is a shared liability. We've been turning a blind eye to all sorts of media training people to be more and more polarized, using shaming as a short-term compliance tool that has long-term stupefying consequences. Now we depend on all of us coming to our senses to survive this thing; we need a herd immunity against irrational self-deception just as much.

wwweston 5y ago
> "Excess death" is a pragmatic term, not a normative term Fully aware of that. The reason I invoked them is to make the pragmatic point that those statistics alone and the correlated rise with covid should tell an analyst that risks associated with the virus aren't the same as "every other year they've been alive." That's a descriptive observation. Of course, it also invites a normative judgment... > If we're being anal about it, it is not entirely true. It's essentially true, and this is important. There have been genuinely compulsory vaccinations in modern free societies... and these compulsions turned out not to be slippery slopes into totalitarian oppression, but the corner case that you'd expect from societies that, as you say, realize this isn't about "absolute safety nor absolute freedom," that both risks and rights can be qualified (and in fact, for rights to be meaningful at all, they must be qualified, since there are always cases where a right reaches a point of tension with another right). And NY isn't even talking about genuine compulsory vaccination, it's proposing vaccination as a condition of participating in things that people can opt out of. It's not even as compulsory as a fine or paying your taxes or any number of other carrots/sticks that states regularly use to "push conclusions into people" because if you're going to have a society, you're going to blow past the limits of voluntarism at some point, as lovely as it is to try and maximize it within those limits. > People have a right to keep the functional and structural integrity of their bodies Yes, I anticipated that and you can see it in my comment where I refer to bodily autonomy. It's a good place to start, but like every other right it isn't unqualified.

fedreserved 5y ago

One could argue that dining in at a restaurant is as basic as a human right as say any other right the supreme court has read into the bill of rights that were not expressly written. It's an activity that has gone on since time immortal. With the only freedom of it in history I can remember are white only restaurants or minorities being forced to get their food from the back door (Jackie Robinson).

wutbrodo 5y ago

> The excess death statistics would like to have a word with you, I think you're misunderstanding the conversation. The thread is talking about the risk _to vaccinated people_. What excess death statistics are you thinking of that show a categorical increase in risk for those vaccinated?

canoebuilder 5y ago

Are basic human rights really what we're talking about here? If so, they've always had limits when it came to impacts on others. The freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of someone's nose Whoa, you've got that horridly twisted. It's not a human right to demand that others undergo a medical procedure for your own perceived interest. It's not a human right to demand others undergo a medical procedure, or be injected with something, because you've been told it will benefit you in some way. Every individual has complete choice and autonomy as to the medical procedures they undergo. That is the human right. >Article 6 – Consent 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TO...

shaklee3 5y ago
This isn't a medical procedure. You are certainly not allowed to make someone go through a medical procedure, since, you know, it doesn't affect you. Not being vaccinated affects everyone, so your choice of whether you get it or not is now going to have consequences on what you can do publicly. I've still not heard a single good argument for not vaccinating despite reading most anti-vax comments on this post.
- desine 5y ago
  >I've still not heard a single good argument for not vaccinating despite reading most anti-vax comments on this post. Because if I put something in my body only because my master tells me to, I am a slave. Through and through. Bodily autonomy is absolute. It's different than the Modern American definition of slavery, which is mostly based on the New World forms of slavery, which are related to but different than the Old World forms of slavery. But they are all slavery. Either you have control of your corpus or you do not.
  - 5y ago

jb775 5y ago

Your POS mindset is everything that's wrong with America right now. Whether you understand it or not, it's smug, small-minded thinking. You disregard essential human rights while acting like you care about in-vogue topics being falsely-flagged as human rights issues. You think you're so smart but your ancestors are turning in their fucking graves. Naturally, I'm assuming you also hate the thought of procreation. So the only positive is knowing that your DNA will die out of the human gene-pool in under a generation.

forcry 5y ago

>the freedom to spread certain pathogens might end there as well. There is a false equivalence here that freedom to opt-out of a commercial product, is excising one's freedom to "spread diseases". To make it clear, would you want to pass a law that prevents someone with a genetic defect from marrying and having children? Because they would be "spreading" generic disorders, and by having offspring, they are "exercising their freedom to spread a genetic disorder", right?

hibernator149 5y ago
Comparing vacination to forced sterilisation is pretty extreme. What makes you think that these are on the same level?
- forcry 5y ago
  Basically, it is the same reasoning. But it does not have to be force sterilisation. You can say that any one that is not breathing through a mask is exercising their freedom to spread diseases, and so everyone should wear a mask all the time.. Basically, the point is there is a line where your right to be safe and the right of the rest of the world to exist in freedom is in balance. And arguments like the one that is being made is pushing that line to reduce the latter, and if we are not careful, the latter will be reasoned out, in the name of increasing the "protection" of the 0.01% of people from 95.02 to 95.03% (Just made up numbers to illustrate the point). And it is not hard to imagine who benefits from it. May be we need a "Citizen freedom index" for every country so that we will know when we are draining it. Because if it is hard to improve what that cannot be measured, its hard to know when you are draining it as well..