4 ms·

> 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 dea

> 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.
- canoebuilder 5y ago
  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 What? I have never heard anything like that at all. Rights are absolute. That sounds like it is coming from the "Sure free speech is fine, so long as it doesn't offend me," crowd. it's proposing vaccination as a condition of participating in things that people can opt out of. People here are generally highly attuned to one of the big surveillance ad corps trying to massage people into accepting some invasion of their personal sovereignty, how is this different? You think if something like this is accepted there won't be pushes to go further? If this infrastructure is put in place, it will be abused, and it will coopted for other things.
  - wwweston 5y ago
    > What? I have never heard anything like that at all. Sure you have. It's embedded in the common phrase (invoked earlier) about the right to swing a fist ending at the edge of people's noses. Or in the oft-invoked expression about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or the frequent refrain about rights being paired with responsibilities. > You think if something like this is accepted there won't be pushes to go further? We don't have to "think" it, we can point to historic and present examples where like compulsory actions existed without devolving into totalitarianism because we have a society shaped by people who understood it's possible to have both substantial general protections and specific exceptions.
    - forcry 5y ago
      >We don't have to "think" it, we can point to historic and present examples where like compulsory actions existed without devolving into totalitarianism... If there are, that should be the exceptions, rather than the norm. Also, the parent asked if there won't be "pushes". So the implication is that there will be an overwhelming push in that direction, and very weak countering "pull" in the opposite direction. And it is clear what direction it will ultimately go. So that is the danger in setting a precedent. So that further pushes in a "bad" direction will require much less effort, and only matter of time it is accepted to be the "new normal"..
canoebuilder 5y ago
Now we depend on all of us coming to our senses to survive this thing Am I missing something? It seems to be clear for well over a year that "this thing" is not some existential threat that threatens our very survival. Why are people talking as if it is, and seeking to craft policy as if it is?
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  Perhaps not my survival, or your survival, but a bunch of countries' health systems have collapsed as part of this pandemic, which has definitely lead to excess deaths. Personally, I believe that the global excess deaths figures will be bigger this year than last, due to all the developing world where vaccines are not available.
DiggyJohnson 5y ago
Really excellent comment. I liked the line about your different values from GP. I cannot prove this, but I feel as if it is becoming more “normalized” to not be able to reconcile this fact. What are the odds that anyone is right about everything? We ought to be confident in our reasoned decisions, yes, but then not be surprised that someone else’s reasoned decisions disagree with our own.

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.

canoebuilder 5y ago
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 What? I have never heard anything like that at all. Rights are absolute. That sounds like it is coming from the "Sure free speech is fine, so long as it doesn't offend me," crowd. it's proposing vaccination as a condition of participating in things that people can opt out of. People here are generally highly attuned to one of the big surveillance ad corps trying to massage people into accepting some invasion of their personal sovereignty, how is this different? You think if something like this is accepted there won't be pushes to go further? If this infrastructure is put in place, it will be abused, and it will coopted for other things.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > What? I have never heard anything like that at all. Sure you have. It's embedded in the common phrase (invoked earlier) about the right to swing a fist ending at the edge of people's noses. Or in the oft-invoked expression about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or the frequent refrain about rights being paired with responsibilities. > You think if something like this is accepted there won't be pushes to go further? We don't have to "think" it, we can point to historic and present examples where like compulsory actions existed without devolving into totalitarianism because we have a society shaped by people who understood it's possible to have both substantial general protections and specific exceptions.
  - forcry 5y ago
    >We don't have to "think" it, we can point to historic and present examples where like compulsory actions existed without devolving into totalitarianism... If there are, that should be the exceptions, rather than the norm. Also, the parent asked if there won't be "pushes". So the implication is that there will be an overwhelming push in that direction, and very weak countering "pull" in the opposite direction. And it is clear what direction it will ultimately go. So that is the danger in setting a precedent. So that further pushes in a "bad" direction will require much less effort, and only matter of time it is accepted to be the "new normal"..

canoebuilder 5y ago

Now we depend on all of us coming to our senses to survive this thing Am I missing something? It seems to be clear for well over a year that "this thing" is not some existential threat that threatens our very survival. Why are people talking as if it is, and seeking to craft policy as if it is?

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
Perhaps not my survival, or your survival, but a bunch of countries' health systems have collapsed as part of this pandemic, which has definitely lead to excess deaths. Personally, I believe that the global excess deaths figures will be bigger this year than last, due to all the developing world where vaccines are not available.

DiggyJohnson 5y ago

Really excellent comment. I liked the line about your different values from GP. I cannot prove this, but I feel as if it is becoming more “normalized” to not be able to reconcile this fact. What are the odds that anyone is right about everything? We ought to be confident in our reasoned decisions, yes, but then not be surprised that someone else’s reasoned decisions disagree with our own.