12 ms·

Vaccination Should Be Compulsory

58 points by warning26 5y ago

YPPH 5y ago
It's worth noting this is written by an Australian utilitarian moral philosopher, Peter Singer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
- deertick1 5y ago
  And this is why I think people who fancy thenselves moral philosophers are some of the most insufferable people on the planet. I've a friend who believes net suffering should be reduced and that is the highest moral goal. To the point that he thinks we should evebtually force everyone to rewire their nueral pathways in order to prevent the sensation of sufferring. Went on a canoe trip with this same guy, and another friend got trapped between their canoe and a tree and was in danger of drowning if we did not help him quickly. Philosopher friend just stood by and watched and when I asked him about it later he said that he was barefoot and running across the rocks induced him into suffering and he felt it was immoral to continue. Yeah, fuck that.
  - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
    Your friend does sound insufferable, yes. But I don't think it's quite fair to Mr. Singer, whatever you think of his arguments, to say he merely 'fancies himself' a moral philosopher - it is his day job... [1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      He ought to get better at it then. He makes no mention of the riots that would ensue, the extreme data privacy issues, the medical ethics involved in sticking people without their consent, or the fact that these governments and companies have abysmal track records with involuntary medical experimentation.
      - elefanten 5y ago
        1. Riots are manageable. Rollout strategy would have a lot of impact on the severity of backlash. 2. Data privacy issues marginal, not particularly unique. It’s an extant, broader problem that should be addressed but isn’t a reason to refrain from vaccination. 3. Laws and regulations don’t require individual consent. Again it’s marginal: the state already requires / bans various behaviors related to the bodies / health of individual citizens. 4. Involuntary experimentation is a minuscule / out-dated problem in the present. And it’s a non sequitur from vaccinating the population.
        mandmandam 5y ago
        1. Well that's not ominous at all. Glad that resistance is "manageable". 2. Data privacy experts disagree, as does the WHO special envoy on COVID. 3. Medical ethics do, in fact, demand individual consent. As do human rights. 4. Ha. https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Examples-of-unethical-trials.pdf https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Examples-of-u... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio... , Guantanamo etc. ... And when you have everyone vaccinated, then what? Are you going to vaccinate Africa, for free? Are you going to vaccinate the deer, and all our pets too? The mice??? And give them all boosters? What's the end game here?
  - golemotron 5y ago
    > And this is why I think people who fancy thenselves moral philosophers are some of the most insufferable people on the planet. Yes. It's just subjective preferences masquerading as truth.
  - jacobsenscott 5y ago
    He's not a philosopher, he's a psychopath. Someone drowning creates more suffering than one loser running on rocks.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - claudiawerner 5y ago
    I think that's a rather quick judgement on moral philosophers as a whole based on the experience of someone who didn't even take the time to think through utilitarianism (one of the most controversial topics in moral philosophy) from the description you gave. I wouldn't be too quick to judge a major branch of philosophy like that.
  - claudiawerner 5y ago
    I think that's a rather quick judgement on moral philosophers as a whole based on the experience of someone who didn't even take the time to think through utilitarianism (one of the most controversial topics in moral philosophy) from the description you gave. I wouldn't be too quick to judge a major branch of philosophy like that. I wouldn't judge the whole field of software engineering based on an intern's Java code either - and I likely wouldn't judge the field even based on an expert's Java code.
  - kaczordon 5y ago
    Sounds like the movie Equilibrium: In an oppressive future where all forms of feeling are illegal, a man in charge of enforcing the law rises to overthrow the system and state.
  - cultofmetatron 5y ago
    reminds me of one of the characters in "the good place"
technothrasher 5y ago
"I can’t recall when I last heard someone demanding the freedom to drive without wearing a seat belt." Come on up to New Hampshire here in the States and suggest a seat belt law. You'll get all the "freedom demanding" you can handle.
- Izkata 5y ago
  And anyway, buses and trains don't even have seat belts.
  - Rexxar 5y ago
    Long distance buses have seat belts in Europe.
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      And nobody uses them and it's not enforced.
    - yvt 5y ago
      Same in Japan and legally enforced.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    The driver has a seat belt. This is the foundation for why seat belts are mandated to begin with -- it is far easier to lose control of a car when you're unbelted, and that is a huge risk to everyone else on the road. Beyond that, it's probably a matter of practicality that passengers aren't required to be belted in. It would significantly reduce the capacity of public transit. A better option might be to protect the driver from projectile humans. AFAICT that's exactly how modern buses are designed.
    - tzs 5y ago
      Also buses are generally much more massive than the vehicles they collide with, leading to much lower forces on bus passengers than on car passengers. I don't know if this applies to general passenger buses or just school buses, but in the US they have closely spaced seats with energy-absorbing seat backs that limit the force on each passenger and how far the passenger can move in a collision. Smaller school buses (under 10k pounds) are required to have lap and/or shoulder belts at all seating positions.
ekianjo 5y ago
How about no? We don't force all kind of vaccinations on people, except for small children and those are usually reasonable and well known.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Also everyone in the military, all green card applicants, lots of university student residents, and more.
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    We typically do that after FDA approval. Don't get me wrong, I'm vaccinated (he says to not get reflexive downvotes, but it's true), but the FDA hasn't yet approved these vaccines. We simply don't know what we don't know. For me, the risk was worth it. I can't speak for others.
    - msandford 5y ago
      Just wanted to say I appreciate the intellectual humility here. "I don't know if this is right for everyone, but it is right for me" is pretty refreshing. The tribalism and moralizing around the vaccines is really troubling. You're either a saint or moron; hero or traitor. Depending on left/right and vax status. The polarization doesn't surprise me at all (having lived through the last ~5 years in the US) but it is disappointing.
      - aerostable_slug 5y ago
        Same here. I know a couple of MDs who have chosen to wait for their vaccination. They are educated professionals who looked at their risk profile (retired, in states like Idaho and Montana, reasonably fit), and they decided that the risk wasn't worth it to them. They aren't blind MAGA hat owners. OTOH, I'm fat, asthmatic, over 40, and live in a pretty congested part of the world. My risk calculation is different than theirs. So, I got the shots as soon as I could. It is indeed sad we are so split on this issue.
  - 5y ago
rootusrootus 5y ago
I sort of understand the point (or at least part of it). I don't believe in forcing anyone to get vaccinated, however I do believe vaccinated people should have the right to know who they are associating with, so they can make an informed decision.
- trhway 5y ago
  there are a lot of personal things that would be great to know in order to make "informed decision". Why stop at vaccinations? Like in Black Mirror you get all the info available about a person you are about to associate with. >they can make an informed decision. fortunately they can make it without knowing like all other people do in similar situation of unaccessible personal data - they can politely ask and/or just treat "unknown" as "unvaccinated".
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > there are a lot of personal things that would be great to know in order to make "informed decision" I'm most interested in the infectious disease risk. I have unvaccinated children (too young). I'd prefer not to expose them to likely sources of the virus if it can be avoided. If your choice isn't likely to affect me, I don't have any interest in it.
    - Overton-Window 5y ago
      You're free to remain locked down and homeschool your children.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        I should sacrifice my freedom for yours? Why not the other way around? After all, your choice does not affect just one other person, it may affect millions.
        Overton-Window 5y ago
ekianjo 5y ago
> This past February, when the Indonesian government became the first to make vaccination mandatory for all adults, the real tragedy was not that it was violating the freedom of its citizens, but that richer countries did not donate the vaccines it needed to implement the law. So let me get this right, a government decided to implement mandatory vaccination without having the means to implement it, and other countries are to blame? That's a pretty rich take. I think the real tragedy here is writing without a functioning brain.
shell0x 5y ago
Paywalled for me. Here you go: https://web.archive.org/web/20210806001110/https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/08/05/commentary/world-commentary/compulsory-vaccinations/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210806001110/https://www.japan... The comparison between the seatbelt and a vaccination is already pretty odd. It doesn't harm me to use a seatbelt. A vaccination on the other side may have unknown side effects causing permanent damage. I got the Pfizer vaccine myself, but only because I want to travel internationally as soon as possible, and proof of vaccination is an entry condition for many countries.
- azinman2 5y ago
  I don’t know about seatbelts, but airbags, which are also mandatory (I believe) have been proven in certain cases to have actually caused more harm than good. So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus.
  - mint2 5y ago
    Like the defective recalled ones that would ~~inflate~~ explode too fast and send metal shrapnel into the persons face. You mean those ones?
    - azinman2 5y ago
      No. I'm not talking about defective products. From https://www.sacramentoinjuryattorneysblog.com/do-airbags-cause-more-harm-than-good/ https://www.sacramentoinjuryattorneysblog.com/do-airbags-cau...: "A study by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revealed that from 1987 to 2017, frontal airbags saved more than 50,000 lives. While airbags cause some injuries, the number of lives saved offsets the potential for injuries. Airbags also often reduce the severity of injuries in major crashes. Even so, airbags do come with a downside. The NHTSA also reported 175 fatalities that were caused by airbags in the decade between 1990 and 2000. 104 of those fatalities were children, and most of the rest were female adults that were shorter than average. All of the fatalities, interestingly, occurred in low-speed accidents that the occupants would have otherwise survived." Note that we're talking about 175 fatalities due to airbags in 10 years, despite 50k lives saved over 20 years. This is always the case with any kind of intervention -- nothing is ever 100% perfect. But we can't lose the forest for the trees.
hprotagonist 5y ago
If you want to actually have public health officials in danger for their lives, that would be a great way to do it. The state does have this power, in the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts) The state does not want to use it. People will go actually nuts. Mandatory vaccinations are much more digestable. People will (grudgingly) go along with that.
- tofof 5y ago
  > Mandatory vaccinations are much more digestable. ???? The state has the power to enforce mandatory vaccination, but does not want to use it, so use mandatory vaccination instead, which is more digestable. Did I get that right? (From the linked wiki article: "Massachusetts .. had compulsory vaccination," and also "Massachusetts law empowered .. cities and towns to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults". There's no difference between compulsory and mandatory in this context.)
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    Mandatory vaccinations are much more digestable [than seat belts]
  - hprotagonist 5y ago
    Any suitable candidate for a COVID-19 vaccine can voluntarily choose whether to get the shot when the opportunity arises. Mandates, however, set conditions on participation to encourage vaccination: If you want to go to work, attend school, or travel, get vaccinated. With compulsory vaccination, individual consent is not an option. Force is used if necessary. Though a vestige of a bygone era of public health practice, limited legal authority remains for forcible vaccination among certain groups. The term mandate may be particularly confusing. https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/covid-vaccination-law-mandates-requirements.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/covid-vaccination-law-m... Mandatory is "if you don't, you're {fired, cannot enter our business, cannot attend our school, ...}". Compulsory is "the nice police officer standing right next to me is going to watch as we vaccinate you on your front porch, got it?" or "we will fine you $X thousand dollars if you appear in public unvaccinated". The former case was (now again famously) done in Boston ... in 1775. The latter has been done occasionally in the past 4 or 5 years to stamp out measles infections, notably in new york state.
desine 5y ago
no.
- e67f70028a46fba 5y ago
  Underrated post.
  - unstatusthequo 5y ago
    Seriously? You’re right with him. Contributing to misery. Maybe you need to have a long COVID relative to understand the pain. Or a death in family or friends. Is your “freedom” worth others’ loss?
    - e67f70028a46fba 5y ago
      a relative suffered permanent disability due to the vax she’s young maybe you need to experience that to develop some humility
      - trhway 5y ago
        yes, given that the probability of getting infected for vaccinated people is about third of that of unvaccinated, and once infected vaccinated spread the virus the same as unvaccinated (discussed at length with the links for example here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28066844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28066844), forcing vaccine upon low risk groups starts to looks like an immoral thing as it does nothing to prevent the spread (roughly speaking the Delta's R0 for vaccinated is the third of Delta's R0 for unvaccinated, i.e it is like the R0 of the original).
    - neither_color 5y ago
      Yes. Freedom isn't free. What you're seeing is a principled stance. We're running out of patience for nagging manipulative arguments.
    - halfjoking 5y ago
      I had longcovid for 14 months. I think the vaccine would hurt my robust immunity and I’ll never take it. If I lose my job that’s ok. If they make it mandatory I’ll flee to Russia. (assuming I see it coming before they restrict travel)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
unstatusthequo 5y ago
I’ll say it again. Make government handouts dependent on vaccination. No vaccination? Refund all benefits you got for COVID relief with interest. Walking around unvaccinated because science doesn’t apply to you is negligent and you are committing battery by knowingly inflicting others with a virus. Get over yourself and get it done.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Since you're claiming battery, what exactly do you reckon the odds of an unvaccinated person injuring you by being in your vicinity are?
- gpm 5y ago
  Creating weird relationships between government programs never seems like a good idea to me. It creates weird incentives, e.g. punishing arbitrary classes of people more if they don't get the vaccine (e.g. blind people are probably more likely to get handouts). It creates weird incentives in law-making, e.g. to increase the number of handouts in order to increase the punishment for not getting the vaccine, or the reverse, and so on. Just make the law say what you want to have happen, "get the vaccine or be fined $$$" (or fined %%% of {income | wealth}, or jail for N days, or so on).
belter 5y ago
What about this deal? We can start discussing vaccination mandates when the companies producing the vaccines, are willing to declare the safety of the vaccines they produce and accept the corresponding liability? Something they did for all previous products they brought to market, but that every single company refused to do for the vaccines they are producing. Before you reply that this was a pandemic emergency, it was a required waiver to be able to get results quickly, accept then that the compromise was needed by the justified uncertainty concerning medical side effects. We start to discuss 3th doses and possible a 4th. CEO of companies like Pfizer already mentioned "annual vaccination". Looks like a dangerous path of a society that will mandate from now on, specific medication to achieve a first class citizen status. At a certain point, many would choose the medical risk over government mandated medication as a condition for first class citizenship. Its about the principle. Many would call it a selfish position as you forget about the dangers you could pose to others if you get infected. Surely this must be a discussion guided by the principle the interests of society do not trump certain individual rights ? What if a new variation is discovered and find out that mostly spreads only via overweight people, or people with a certain genetic predisposition. What other individual mandates would you apply then ?
- belter 5y ago
  I owe it to the downvoters to post some information directly from the CDC. Imagine you have somebody in the family with for example a thyroid medical problem or any other condition affecting the immune system. You are still going for it ? "...However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus..." "...investigations are ongoing to assess further the risk of transmission from fully vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections..." "At this time, there are limited data on vaccine effectiveness in people who are immunocompromised. People with immunocompromising conditions, including those taking immunosuppressive medications, should discuss the need for personal protective measures after vaccination with their healthcare provider." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
boldpandabear 5y ago
The problem with our world now is that there is nowhere left for freedom seekers to go. Rights have been taken and trampled by every government. Viruses cannot be proven to be contagious nor can they ever be proven to cause illness. vaccine at best is proven to becequivalent of a steroid. It may temporarily prevent symptoms from appearing but it is not proven to have network effects and convey herd immunity. Humans in fear will do anything. Our world is entrapped by fear.
thedream 5y ago
TL;DR -- The author salivates imagining a future where humans are coerced into accepting the injection of heavy metals into their bloodstreams while the poison pushers remain fully indemnified. What a hero!
- YokoZar 5y ago
  The Covid-19 vaccines don't contain heavy metals. Neither do other modern vaccines.
  - thedream 5y ago
    The author argues that "Vaccination Should Be Compulsory" -- not specific to the blood-corruption that is the most recent horrifying human experiment. Is your point that ANYTHING that does not contain heavy metals is OK to inject into your bloodstream?
    - mthoms 5y ago
      I think the point was simply to correct your misunderstanding of the vaccine ingredients.
      - thedream 5y ago
        There's no misunderstanding. The author advocates shooting up whatever witches' brew happens to be in the mainstream -- old formulation or new. So you'll be first in line to indemnify the poison pushers? So brave!
        mthoms 5y ago
        The commenter merely corrected your incorrect understanding of the vaccine ingredients. Nothing more. Neither he, nor I, made any comment about the whether the post author is right/wrong. Settle down.
        5y ago
bassman9000 5y ago
You can't mandate vaccination with a highly experimental and yet unapproved vaccine. And the main point revolves COVID-19 and the Olympics, not vaccinations in general. > For the same reason, rules announced last month in France and Greece requiring that people going to cinemas, bars, or traveling on a train show proof of vaccination are not a violation of anyone’s freedom. I can't believe a professor in bioethics wrote that. We never asked people to show proof of other vaccinations, or proof that they're not violent and won't attack others if drunk, or of past convictions. There's the implicit agreement that, if you're sick, you won't show up, and most people do that. The comparison with seatbelts is absurd.
- justnotworthit 5y ago
  People are assuming that we have a miracle cure that will lead to irradication of a hellish disease. Yet we're already seeing signs (iceland, israel, not sure about NZ) that they will not lead to herd immunity[1], and that protection is waning [pfizer study preprint][2]. The goalpost has been moved to "serious disease" (which is reason to get the vaccine, sure). "Fewer deaths" is uncertain to [pfizer preprint, of 44,000, deaths from covid and all cases were evenly split][3]. <speculation, ignore this> Breakthrough infections are leading to viral loads resembling unvaxxed loads[4], which raises the worry of vaccine escape mutations (lesser in number than the random mutations in unvaxxed carriers, but way more deadly). </speculation, ignore this> [1] https://www.icelandreview.com/society/covid-19-in-iceland-vaccination-has-not-led-to-herd-immunity-says-chief-epidemiologist/ https://www.icelandreview.com/society/covid-19-in-iceland-va... [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v... [3] Page 12, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/202... [4] https://news.wisc.edu/study-shows-virus-abundant-in-covid-19-cases-in-wisconsin-even-among-fully-vaccinated/ https://news.wisc.edu/study-shows-virus-abundant-in-covid-19... How can you even consider mandates until these facts are straight?
  - rytcio 5y ago
    It's been preached as the savior of the pandemic since they were announced. Then they said if you're vaxed you can go back to work and be around other vaxed people without a mask. Now people are still "getting sick" even with the vax, so basically it did nothing and was pointless. It's nothing more than a constant moving of goal posts designed to eradicate all liberties here on forth.
exo-pla-net 5y ago
There is a subset of people who would endorse the statement: "The tiniest risk to me is not worth reducing deadly risk to a hundred thousand strangers." These are least delusional anti-vaxxers. They know that vaccination helps society at large, but they still won't get vaccinated, since they consider themselves young and healthy and at minimal risk from COVID. (They are still delusional, since the risk of COVID infection even in the young and healthy is still greater than vaccination risk. However, at least they don't believe in microchip conspiracies.) These people wouldn't sacrifice the smallest thing for the rest of us. So tell me, why should we respect their notions of personal liberty? Why give them anything, when they'd give absolutely nothing to the rest of us? If they want the freedom to not vaccinate themselves, for their own selfish interests, then we should deny them access to public venues, likewise for our own interests. We're a society. When our government is doing its job, we don't let people pollute the commons, whether it's with toxic waste or with deadly pathogens. Vaccination should indeed be compulsory.
- trhway 5y ago
  that distinct smell of ideological propaganda - reality distorting wrong or completely missing facts in support of self-proclaimed grand high-moral standing and request for sacrifice delivered with pathos and hysteria - takes me right to my childhood back in USSR. Having been exposed so much to the propaganda in the childhood, i'm pretty immune to it is as a result. It is fascinating though to observe (and many former communist countries immigrants that i've talked to are similarly taken aback) how these days it has been successfully infecting and quickly taking over societal groups which don't have immunity to propaganda. One can hope though that after current debacle with covid such immunity will get a bit more widespread.
  - a0-prw 5y ago
    You should not have been downvoted. I grew up in apartheid South Africa, where I also learned to recognise government propaganda. I have also been somewhat surprised by how gullible people are being. But I've seen it before several times, usually as a prelude to attacking some other country: examples are the build up to the Iraq war, the bombing of Serbia, Libya and of course Syria.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Zababa 5y ago
On one hand I think that people should be free to get the vaccine or not. On the other hand, I really wish we could go back to normal as fast as possible, and vaccination will help with this. I've already spent a year and half with restricted liberties to protect people. So if people don't want to vaccinate and this makes me lose even more time, it's their liberty against mine. I don't really have a good answer to this.
- version_five 5y ago
  I find it funny when I see this kind of balanced statement modded down. It's a guessing game of which side it offended with it's neutrality.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    I often have posts that have a downvote a few minutes after they're posted, and then gather a few upvotes some time later. You can see this sometimes on a bigger scale where the first few posts on an article are for some opinion, they get downvoted after some time and the new posts are all about reacting to the first posts. My conclusion is that the most active people are the most extreme, while the "silent majority" is more reasonable.
- nradov 5y ago
  We can go back to normal as soon as people are willing to accept the risks of normalcy. In fact some US states have been back to normal for months and are no longer restricting liberties. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can. But even if we had 100% vaccination the authoritarians would move the goalposts again and say that we have to keep locking down and wearing masks because of reasons.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    That's a fair point. I'm fully vaccinated and still have to wear my mask in shops and interior spaces, it's getting a bit annoying. If people don't want to get infected they can just take the vaccine or not go outside.
lootsauce 5y ago
Honest question/s: What is the danger to someone who is already vaccinated from someone who has avoided it? If there is some great risk then what is so important about everyone getting a seemingly ineffective treatment? Also there is no discussion of natural immunity from prior exposure what about that?
- fomine3 5y ago
  People who can't be vaccinated is keep vulnerable because of no herd immunity. Hospital is keeping busy by infecting unvaccinated people so medical resource is keep lacking that affects all people who needs medical care.
underseacables 5y ago
If vaccines are to be compulsory, who gets to decide which vaccines? Once you open the door to compulsory medical practices, there’s no telling where that will end.
- Overton-Window 5y ago
  Forced oestrogen vaccines for males exhibiting symptoms of toxic masculinity.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    Do you mean like Alan Turing?
rafaelero 5y ago
I don't think it needs to be compulsory. And I do not mean this in a deontological way regarding what is morally wrong or not; I mean it in the utilitarian sense. As humans, we already have tools to make people conform. Like when someone refuses to shower, they will probably be viewed as disgusting. If someone says something derogatory, we tend to punish them somehow. I think the same process can occur in this case. People who increase other people's risk of acquiring a disease should face some type of cost for that. Just let people be people and antivaxxers will eventually be ostracized.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > People who increase other people's risk of acquiring a disease should face some type of cost for that. I wonder how you feel about AIDS or HIV positive patients.
  - rafaelero 5y ago
    They are kind of ostracized. That's why they feel compelled to be open about their status before going into a relationship. It is a pretty shitty situation, but it is what it is. If HIV had no negative connotation, people would be much less careful and would put more people at risk.
- 13years 5y ago
  > People who increase other people's risk of acquiring a disease should face some type of cost for that. And what if it is the opposite of what you think? Still in favor? There are increasing reports of the vaccinated being primary spreaders. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
ekianjo 5y ago
Are we going to mandate flu vaccines from now on? I mean why stop at COVID19 at all, let's mandate vaccinations for everything under the sun if we go by that logic.
lamontcg 5y ago
The analogy shouldn't be seatbelts or airbags, but DUI
philsquared_ 5y ago
This article (and argument) is the equivelant of saying "teenagers and senior citizens both cause more fatal accidents than any other age group. Obviously we need to ban them from the road because they are putting others at risk" https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/ https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuri...
- ceceron 5y ago
  No. It's not. It would be similar, if you had a "potion", that people could drink to magically enhance their driving skill. This potion would have some possible rare negative side-effects. And then there is a question: should people be required to drink this potion while getting the driving pass? Even today, very bad drivers are forbidden to drive the cars? Is it an attack on their freedom?
  - philsquared_ 5y ago
    I mean you probably could run a study of caffeinated vs un-caffeinated drivers. Or Modafinil vs Un-Modafinil drivers and I imagine the results would be: the ones with the drug perform better than the ones without. Expanding on this: I am sure more fatal accidents occur late at night than during the day. Do we bar night driving because of the risk? Bigger cars cause more fatal accidents than smaller cars. Bar bigger cars from the road?
    - ceceron 5y ago
      You can imagine the drug would help, sure. But that's it – your imagination. But yeah, if we assumed the Modafinil was indeed a proven "cure" against sleeping while driving, and it was given free, then the situation would have a similar structure as the one analyzed by the author. Obviously, they still differ significantly: a) you would have probably to take Modafinil before each drive – vaccines have a more permanent effect b) it is easier to track vaccinations than taking a drug, it's much more manageable. This is not only a risk management game – your simplified "absurd" examples are of the kind: "author wants to bar risky situations, why not bar big cars, they're risky". One has also to weight various social factors/costs. If barring bigger cars from the road would be beneficial for society, then yeah, let's do it, but I wouldn't bet on that. The vaccinations have some added costs (production, distribution) and risks (side-effects), but the question is whether the cost/risk of the longer pandemic isn't even bigger (AFAIR it is). I don't say, that OP is right that people should be forced to be vaccinated, but I don't find it absurd given that we've already sacrificed many other freedoms for the society. It's like @mayewsky writes, we already bar some drivers (because of age/health state/previous offenses against the law) from driving. It's nothing new and it's not controversial AFAIK.
RickJWagner 5y ago
Politically speaking, this is an amazing issue to argue. Some on the political left have been arguing 'My body, my choice' with regards to abortion. But now it's often those on the right that are making that argument. It can make both sides uncomfortable.
belter 5y ago
"Lies, Damned Lies, and Vaccine Statistics" https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine-statistics https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine...

58 points by warning26 5y ago

YPPH 5y ago

It's worth noting this is written by an Australian utilitarian moral philosopher, Peter Singer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

deertick1 5y ago
And this is why I think people who fancy thenselves moral philosophers are some of the most insufferable people on the planet. I've a friend who believes net suffering should be reduced and that is the highest moral goal. To the point that he thinks we should evebtually force everyone to rewire their nueral pathways in order to prevent the sensation of sufferring. Went on a canoe trip with this same guy, and another friend got trapped between their canoe and a tree and was in danger of drowning if we did not help him quickly. Philosopher friend just stood by and watched and when I asked him about it later he said that he was barefoot and running across the rocks induced him into suffering and he felt it was immoral to continue. Yeah, fuck that.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  Your friend does sound insufferable, yes. But I don't think it's quite fair to Mr. Singer, whatever you think of his arguments, to say he merely 'fancies himself' a moral philosopher - it is his day job... [1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    He ought to get better at it then. He makes no mention of the riots that would ensue, the extreme data privacy issues, the medical ethics involved in sticking people without their consent, or the fact that these governments and companies have abysmal track records with involuntary medical experimentation.
    - elefanten 5y ago
      1. Riots are manageable. Rollout strategy would have a lot of impact on the severity of backlash. 2. Data privacy issues marginal, not particularly unique. It’s an extant, broader problem that should be addressed but isn’t a reason to refrain from vaccination. 3. Laws and regulations don’t require individual consent. Again it’s marginal: the state already requires / bans various behaviors related to the bodies / health of individual citizens. 4. Involuntary experimentation is a minuscule / out-dated problem in the present. And it’s a non sequitur from vaccinating the population.
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        1. Well that's not ominous at all. Glad that resistance is "manageable". 2. Data privacy experts disagree, as does the WHO special envoy on COVID. 3. Medical ethics do, in fact, demand individual consent. As do human rights. 4. Ha. https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Examples-of-unethical-trials.pdf https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Examples-of-u... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio... , Guantanamo etc. ... And when you have everyone vaccinated, then what? Are you going to vaccinate Africa, for free? Are you going to vaccinate the deer, and all our pets too? The mice??? And give them all boosters? What's the end game here?
- golemotron 5y ago
  > And this is why I think people who fancy thenselves moral philosophers are some of the most insufferable people on the planet. Yes. It's just subjective preferences masquerading as truth.
- jacobsenscott 5y ago
  He's not a philosopher, he's a psychopath. Someone drowning creates more suffering than one loser running on rocks.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- claudiawerner 5y ago
  I think that's a rather quick judgement on moral philosophers as a whole based on the experience of someone who didn't even take the time to think through utilitarianism (one of the most controversial topics in moral philosophy) from the description you gave. I wouldn't be too quick to judge a major branch of philosophy like that.
- claudiawerner 5y ago
  I think that's a rather quick judgement on moral philosophers as a whole based on the experience of someone who didn't even take the time to think through utilitarianism (one of the most controversial topics in moral philosophy) from the description you gave. I wouldn't be too quick to judge a major branch of philosophy like that. I wouldn't judge the whole field of software engineering based on an intern's Java code either - and I likely wouldn't judge the field even based on an expert's Java code.
- kaczordon 5y ago
  Sounds like the movie Equilibrium: In an oppressive future where all forms of feeling are illegal, a man in charge of enforcing the law rises to overthrow the system and state.
- cultofmetatron 5y ago
  reminds me of one of the characters in "the good place"

technothrasher 5y ago

"I can’t recall when I last heard someone demanding the freedom to drive without wearing a seat belt." Come on up to New Hampshire here in the States and suggest a seat belt law. You'll get all the "freedom demanding" you can handle.

Izkata 5y ago
And anyway, buses and trains don't even have seat belts.
- Rexxar 5y ago
  Long distance buses have seat belts in Europe.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    And nobody uses them and it's not enforced.
  - yvt 5y ago
    Same in Japan and legally enforced.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  The driver has a seat belt. This is the foundation for why seat belts are mandated to begin with -- it is far easier to lose control of a car when you're unbelted, and that is a huge risk to everyone else on the road. Beyond that, it's probably a matter of practicality that passengers aren't required to be belted in. It would significantly reduce the capacity of public transit. A better option might be to protect the driver from projectile humans. AFAICT that's exactly how modern buses are designed.
  - tzs 5y ago
    Also buses are generally much more massive than the vehicles they collide with, leading to much lower forces on bus passengers than on car passengers. I don't know if this applies to general passenger buses or just school buses, but in the US they have closely spaced seats with energy-absorbing seat backs that limit the force on each passenger and how far the passenger can move in a collision. Smaller school buses (under 10k pounds) are required to have lap and/or shoulder belts at all seating positions.

ekianjo 5y ago

How about no? We don't force all kind of vaccinations on people, except for small children and those are usually reasonable and well known.

tshaddox 5y ago
Also everyone in the military, all green card applicants, lots of university student residents, and more.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  We typically do that after FDA approval. Don't get me wrong, I'm vaccinated (he says to not get reflexive downvotes, but it's true), but the FDA hasn't yet approved these vaccines. We simply don't know what we don't know. For me, the risk was worth it. I can't speak for others.
  - msandford 5y ago
    Just wanted to say I appreciate the intellectual humility here. "I don't know if this is right for everyone, but it is right for me" is pretty refreshing. The tribalism and moralizing around the vaccines is really troubling. You're either a saint or moron; hero or traitor. Depending on left/right and vax status. The polarization doesn't surprise me at all (having lived through the last ~5 years in the US) but it is disappointing.
    - aerostable_slug 5y ago
      Same here. I know a couple of MDs who have chosen to wait for their vaccination. They are educated professionals who looked at their risk profile (retired, in states like Idaho and Montana, reasonably fit), and they decided that the risk wasn't worth it to them. They aren't blind MAGA hat owners. OTOH, I'm fat, asthmatic, over 40, and live in a pretty congested part of the world. My risk calculation is different than theirs. So, I got the shots as soon as I could. It is indeed sad we are so split on this issue.
- 5y ago

rootusrootus 5y ago

I sort of understand the point (or at least part of it). I don't believe in forcing anyone to get vaccinated, however I do believe vaccinated people should have the right to know who they are associating with, so they can make an informed decision.

trhway 5y ago
there are a lot of personal things that would be great to know in order to make "informed decision". Why stop at vaccinations? Like in Black Mirror you get all the info available about a person you are about to associate with. >they can make an informed decision. fortunately they can make it without knowing like all other people do in similar situation of unaccessible personal data - they can politely ask and/or just treat "unknown" as "unvaccinated".
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > there are a lot of personal things that would be great to know in order to make "informed decision" I'm most interested in the infectious disease risk. I have unvaccinated children (too young). I'd prefer not to expose them to likely sources of the virus if it can be avoided. If your choice isn't likely to affect me, I don't have any interest in it.
  - Overton-Window 5y ago
    You're free to remain locked down and homeschool your children.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      I should sacrifice my freedom for yours? Why not the other way around? After all, your choice does not affect just one other person, it may affect millions.
      - Overton-Window 5y ago

ekianjo 5y ago

> This past February, when the Indonesian government became the first to make vaccination mandatory for all adults, the real tragedy was not that it was violating the freedom of its citizens, but that richer countries did not donate the vaccines it needed to implement the law. So let me get this right, a government decided to implement mandatory vaccination without having the means to implement it, and other countries are to blame? That's a pretty rich take. I think the real tragedy here is writing without a functioning brain.

shell0x 5y ago

Paywalled for me. Here you go: https://web.archive.org/web/20210806001110/https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/08/05/commentary/world-commentary/compulsory-vaccinations/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210806001110/https://www.japan... The comparison between the seatbelt and a vaccination is already pretty odd. It doesn't harm me to use a seatbelt. A vaccination on the other side may have unknown side effects causing permanent damage. I got the Pfizer vaccine myself, but only because I want to travel internationally as soon as possible, and proof of vaccination is an entry condition for many countries.

azinman2 5y ago
I don’t know about seatbelts, but airbags, which are also mandatory (I believe) have been proven in certain cases to have actually caused more harm than good. So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus.
- mint2 5y ago
  Like the defective recalled ones that would ~~inflate~~ explode too fast and send metal shrapnel into the persons face. You mean those ones?
  - azinman2 5y ago
    No. I'm not talking about defective products. From https://www.sacramentoinjuryattorneysblog.com/do-airbags-cause-more-harm-than-good/ https://www.sacramentoinjuryattorneysblog.com/do-airbags-cau...: "A study by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revealed that from 1987 to 2017, frontal airbags saved more than 50,000 lives. While airbags cause some injuries, the number of lives saved offsets the potential for injuries. Airbags also often reduce the severity of injuries in major crashes. Even so, airbags do come with a downside. The NHTSA also reported 175 fatalities that were caused by airbags in the decade between 1990 and 2000. 104 of those fatalities were children, and most of the rest were female adults that were shorter than average. All of the fatalities, interestingly, occurred in low-speed accidents that the occupants would have otherwise survived." Note that we're talking about 175 fatalities due to airbags in 10 years, despite 50k lives saved over 20 years. This is always the case with any kind of intervention -- nothing is ever 100% perfect. But we can't lose the forest for the trees.

hprotagonist 5y ago

If you want to actually have public health officials in danger for their lives, that would be a great way to do it. The state does have this power, in the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts) The state does not want to use it. People will go actually nuts. Mandatory vaccinations are much more digestable. People will (grudgingly) go along with that.

tofof 5y ago
> Mandatory vaccinations are much more digestable. ???? The state has the power to enforce mandatory vaccination, but does not want to use it, so use mandatory vaccination instead, which is more digestable. Did I get that right? (From the linked wiki article: "Massachusetts .. had compulsory vaccination," and also "Massachusetts law empowered .. cities and towns to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults". There's no difference between compulsory and mandatory in this context.)
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  Mandatory vaccinations are much more digestable [than seat belts]
- hprotagonist 5y ago
  Any suitable candidate for a COVID-19 vaccine can voluntarily choose whether to get the shot when the opportunity arises. Mandates, however, set conditions on participation to encourage vaccination: If you want to go to work, attend school, or travel, get vaccinated. With compulsory vaccination, individual consent is not an option. Force is used if necessary. Though a vestige of a bygone era of public health practice, limited legal authority remains for forcible vaccination among certain groups. The term mandate may be particularly confusing. https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/covid-vaccination-law-mandates-requirements.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/covid-vaccination-law-m... Mandatory is "if you don't, you're {fired, cannot enter our business, cannot attend our school, ...}". Compulsory is "the nice police officer standing right next to me is going to watch as we vaccinate you on your front porch, got it?" or "we will fine you $X thousand dollars if you appear in public unvaccinated". The former case was (now again famously) done in Boston ... in 1775. The latter has been done occasionally in the past 4 or 5 years to stamp out measles infections, notably in new york state.

desine 5y ago

no.

e67f70028a46fba 5y ago
Underrated post.
- unstatusthequo 5y ago
  Seriously? You’re right with him. Contributing to misery. Maybe you need to have a long COVID relative to understand the pain. Or a death in family or friends. Is your “freedom” worth others’ loss?
  - e67f70028a46fba 5y ago
    a relative suffered permanent disability due to the vax she’s young maybe you need to experience that to develop some humility
    - trhway 5y ago
      yes, given that the probability of getting infected for vaccinated people is about third of that of unvaccinated, and once infected vaccinated spread the virus the same as unvaccinated (discussed at length with the links for example here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28066844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28066844), forcing vaccine upon low risk groups starts to looks like an immoral thing as it does nothing to prevent the spread (roughly speaking the Delta's R0 for vaccinated is the third of Delta's R0 for unvaccinated, i.e it is like the R0 of the original).
  - neither_color 5y ago
    Yes. Freedom isn't free. What you're seeing is a principled stance. We're running out of patience for nagging manipulative arguments.
  - halfjoking 5y ago
    I had longcovid for 14 months. I think the vaccine would hurt my robust immunity and I’ll never take it. If I lose my job that’s ok. If they make it mandatory I’ll flee to Russia. (assuming I see it coming before they restrict travel)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

unstatusthequo 5y ago

I’ll say it again. Make government handouts dependent on vaccination. No vaccination? Refund all benefits you got for COVID relief with interest. Walking around unvaccinated because science doesn’t apply to you is negligent and you are committing battery by knowingly inflicting others with a virus. Get over yourself and get it done.

mandmandam 5y ago
Since you're claiming battery, what exactly do you reckon the odds of an unvaccinated person injuring you by being in your vicinity are?
gpm 5y ago
Creating weird relationships between government programs never seems like a good idea to me. It creates weird incentives, e.g. punishing arbitrary classes of people more if they don't get the vaccine (e.g. blind people are probably more likely to get handouts). It creates weird incentives in law-making, e.g. to increase the number of handouts in order to increase the punishment for not getting the vaccine, or the reverse, and so on. Just make the law say what you want to have happen, "get the vaccine or be fined $$$" (or fined %%% of {income | wealth}, or jail for N days, or so on).

belter 5y ago

What about this deal? We can start discussing vaccination mandates when the companies producing the vaccines, are willing to declare the safety of the vaccines they produce and accept the corresponding liability? Something they did for all previous products they brought to market, but that every single company refused to do for the vaccines they are producing. Before you reply that this was a pandemic emergency, it was a required waiver to be able to get results quickly, accept then that the compromise was needed by the justified uncertainty concerning medical side effects. We start to discuss 3th doses and possible a 4th. CEO of companies like Pfizer already mentioned "annual vaccination". Looks like a dangerous path of a society that will mandate from now on, specific medication to achieve a first class citizen status. At a certain point, many would choose the medical risk over government mandated medication as a condition for first class citizenship. Its about the principle. Many would call it a selfish position as you forget about the dangers you could pose to others if you get infected. Surely this must be a discussion guided by the principle the interests of society do not trump certain individual rights ? What if a new variation is discovered and find out that mostly spreads only via overweight people, or people with a certain genetic predisposition. What other individual mandates would you apply then ?

belter 5y ago
I owe it to the downvoters to post some information directly from the CDC. Imagine you have somebody in the family with for example a thyroid medical problem or any other condition affecting the immune system. You are still going for it ? "...However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus..." "...investigations are ongoing to assess further the risk of transmission from fully vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections..." "At this time, there are limited data on vaccine effectiveness in people who are immunocompromised. People with immunocompromising conditions, including those taking immunosuppressive medications, should discuss the need for personal protective measures after vaccination with their healthcare provider." https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

boldpandabear 5y ago

The problem with our world now is that there is nowhere left for freedom seekers to go. Rights have been taken and trampled by every government. Viruses cannot be proven to be contagious nor can they ever be proven to cause illness. vaccine at best is proven to becequivalent of a steroid. It may temporarily prevent symptoms from appearing but it is not proven to have network effects and convey herd immunity. Humans in fear will do anything. Our world is entrapped by fear.

thedream 5y ago

TL;DR -- The author salivates imagining a future where humans are coerced into accepting the injection of heavy metals into their bloodstreams while the poison pushers remain fully indemnified. What a hero!

YokoZar 5y ago
The Covid-19 vaccines don't contain heavy metals. Neither do other modern vaccines.
- thedream 5y ago
  The author argues that "Vaccination Should Be Compulsory" -- not specific to the blood-corruption that is the most recent horrifying human experiment. Is your point that ANYTHING that does not contain heavy metals is OK to inject into your bloodstream?
  - mthoms 5y ago
    I think the point was simply to correct your misunderstanding of the vaccine ingredients.
    - thedream 5y ago
      There's no misunderstanding. The author advocates shooting up whatever witches' brew happens to be in the mainstream -- old formulation or new. So you'll be first in line to indemnify the poison pushers? So brave!
      - mthoms 5y ago
        The commenter merely corrected your incorrect understanding of the vaccine ingredients. Nothing more. Neither he, nor I, made any comment about the whether the post author is right/wrong. Settle down.
        5y ago

bassman9000 5y ago

You can't mandate vaccination with a highly experimental and yet unapproved vaccine. And the main point revolves COVID-19 and the Olympics, not vaccinations in general. > For the same reason, rules announced last month in France and Greece requiring that people going to cinemas, bars, or traveling on a train show proof of vaccination are not a violation of anyone’s freedom. I can't believe a professor in bioethics wrote that. We never asked people to show proof of other vaccinations, or proof that they're not violent and won't attack others if drunk, or of past convictions. There's the implicit agreement that, if you're sick, you won't show up, and most people do that. The comparison with seatbelts is absurd.

justnotworthit 5y ago
People are assuming that we have a miracle cure that will lead to irradication of a hellish disease. Yet we're already seeing signs (iceland, israel, not sure about NZ) that they will not lead to herd immunity[1], and that protection is waning [pfizer study preprint][2]. The goalpost has been moved to "serious disease" (which is reason to get the vaccine, sure). "Fewer deaths" is uncertain to [pfizer preprint, of 44,000, deaths from covid and all cases were evenly split][3]. <speculation, ignore this> Breakthrough infections are leading to viral loads resembling unvaxxed loads[4], which raises the worry of vaccine escape mutations (lesser in number than the random mutations in unvaxxed carriers, but way more deadly). </speculation, ignore this> [1] https://www.icelandreview.com/society/covid-19-in-iceland-vaccination-has-not-led-to-herd-immunity-says-chief-epidemiologist/ https://www.icelandreview.com/society/covid-19-in-iceland-va... [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v... [3] Page 12, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/2021.07.28.21261159/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/28/202... [4] https://news.wisc.edu/study-shows-virus-abundant-in-covid-19-cases-in-wisconsin-even-among-fully-vaccinated/ https://news.wisc.edu/study-shows-virus-abundant-in-covid-19... How can you even consider mandates until these facts are straight?
- rytcio 5y ago
  It's been preached as the savior of the pandemic since they were announced. Then they said if you're vaxed you can go back to work and be around other vaxed people without a mask. Now people are still "getting sick" even with the vax, so basically it did nothing and was pointless. It's nothing more than a constant moving of goal posts designed to eradicate all liberties here on forth.

exo-pla-net 5y ago

There is a subset of people who would endorse the statement: "The tiniest risk to me is not worth reducing deadly risk to a hundred thousand strangers." These are least delusional anti-vaxxers. They know that vaccination helps society at large, but they still won't get vaccinated, since they consider themselves young and healthy and at minimal risk from COVID. (They are still delusional, since the risk of COVID infection even in the young and healthy is still greater than vaccination risk. However, at least they don't believe in microchip conspiracies.) These people wouldn't sacrifice the smallest thing for the rest of us. So tell me, why should we respect their notions of personal liberty? Why give them anything, when they'd give absolutely nothing to the rest of us? If they want the freedom to not vaccinate themselves, for their own selfish interests, then we should deny them access to public venues, likewise for our own interests. We're a society. When our government is doing its job, we don't let people pollute the commons, whether it's with toxic waste or with deadly pathogens. Vaccination should indeed be compulsory.

trhway 5y ago
that distinct smell of ideological propaganda - reality distorting wrong or completely missing facts in support of self-proclaimed grand high-moral standing and request for sacrifice delivered with pathos and hysteria - takes me right to my childhood back in USSR. Having been exposed so much to the propaganda in the childhood, i'm pretty immune to it is as a result. It is fascinating though to observe (and many former communist countries immigrants that i've talked to are similarly taken aback) how these days it has been successfully infecting and quickly taking over societal groups which don't have immunity to propaganda. One can hope though that after current debacle with covid such immunity will get a bit more widespread.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  You should not have been downvoted. I grew up in apartheid South Africa, where I also learned to recognise government propaganda. I have also been somewhat surprised by how gullible people are being. But I've seen it before several times, usually as a prelude to attacking some other country: examples are the build up to the Iraq war, the bombing of Serbia, Libya and of course Syria.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Zababa 5y ago

On one hand I think that people should be free to get the vaccine or not. On the other hand, I really wish we could go back to normal as fast as possible, and vaccination will help with this. I've already spent a year and half with restricted liberties to protect people. So if people don't want to vaccinate and this makes me lose even more time, it's their liberty against mine. I don't really have a good answer to this.

version_five 5y ago
I find it funny when I see this kind of balanced statement modded down. It's a guessing game of which side it offended with it's neutrality.
- Zababa 5y ago
  I often have posts that have a downvote a few minutes after they're posted, and then gather a few upvotes some time later. You can see this sometimes on a bigger scale where the first few posts on an article are for some opinion, they get downvoted after some time and the new posts are all about reacting to the first posts. My conclusion is that the most active people are the most extreme, while the "silent majority" is more reasonable.
nradov 5y ago
We can go back to normal as soon as people are willing to accept the risks of normalcy. In fact some US states have been back to normal for months and are no longer restricting liberties. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can. But even if we had 100% vaccination the authoritarians would move the goalposts again and say that we have to keep locking down and wearing masks because of reasons.
- Zababa 5y ago
  That's a fair point. I'm fully vaccinated and still have to wear my mask in shops and interior spaces, it's getting a bit annoying. If people don't want to get infected they can just take the vaccine or not go outside.

lootsauce 5y ago

Honest question/s: What is the danger to someone who is already vaccinated from someone who has avoided it? If there is some great risk then what is so important about everyone getting a seemingly ineffective treatment? Also there is no discussion of natural immunity from prior exposure what about that?

fomine3 5y ago
People who can't be vaccinated is keep vulnerable because of no herd immunity. Hospital is keeping busy by infecting unvaccinated people so medical resource is keep lacking that affects all people who needs medical care.

underseacables 5y ago

If vaccines are to be compulsory, who gets to decide which vaccines? Once you open the door to compulsory medical practices, there’s no telling where that will end.

Overton-Window 5y ago
Forced oestrogen vaccines for males exhibiting symptoms of toxic masculinity.
- underseacables 5y ago
  Do you mean like Alan Turing?

rafaelero 5y ago

I don't think it needs to be compulsory. And I do not mean this in a deontological way regarding what is morally wrong or not; I mean it in the utilitarian sense. As humans, we already have tools to make people conform. Like when someone refuses to shower, they will probably be viewed as disgusting. If someone says something derogatory, we tend to punish them somehow. I think the same process can occur in this case. People who increase other people's risk of acquiring a disease should face some type of cost for that. Just let people be people and antivaxxers will eventually be ostracized.

ekianjo 5y ago
> People who increase other people's risk of acquiring a disease should face some type of cost for that. I wonder how you feel about AIDS or HIV positive patients.
- rafaelero 5y ago
  They are kind of ostracized. That's why they feel compelled to be open about their status before going into a relationship. It is a pretty shitty situation, but it is what it is. If HIV had no negative connotation, people would be much less careful and would put more people at risk.
13years 5y ago
> People who increase other people's risk of acquiring a disease should face some type of cost for that. And what if it is the opposite of what you think? Still in favor? There are increasing reports of the vaccinated being primary spreaders. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

ekianjo 5y ago

Are we going to mandate flu vaccines from now on? I mean why stop at COVID19 at all, let's mandate vaccinations for everything under the sun if we go by that logic.

lamontcg 5y ago

The analogy shouldn't be seatbelts or airbags, but DUI

philsquared_ 5y ago

This article (and argument) is the equivelant of saying "teenagers and senior citizens both cause more fatal accidents than any other age group. Obviously we need to ban them from the road because they are putting others at risk" https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/ https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuri...

ceceron 5y ago
No. It's not. It would be similar, if you had a "potion", that people could drink to magically enhance their driving skill. This potion would have some possible rare negative side-effects. And then there is a question: should people be required to drink this potion while getting the driving pass? Even today, very bad drivers are forbidden to drive the cars? Is it an attack on their freedom?
- philsquared_ 5y ago
  I mean you probably could run a study of caffeinated vs un-caffeinated drivers. Or Modafinil vs Un-Modafinil drivers and I imagine the results would be: the ones with the drug perform better than the ones without. Expanding on this: I am sure more fatal accidents occur late at night than during the day. Do we bar night driving because of the risk? Bigger cars cause more fatal accidents than smaller cars. Bar bigger cars from the road?
  - ceceron 5y ago
    You can imagine the drug would help, sure. But that's it – your imagination. But yeah, if we assumed the Modafinil was indeed a proven "cure" against sleeping while driving, and it was given free, then the situation would have a similar structure as the one analyzed by the author. Obviously, they still differ significantly: a) you would have probably to take Modafinil before each drive – vaccines have a more permanent effect b) it is easier to track vaccinations than taking a drug, it's much more manageable. This is not only a risk management game – your simplified "absurd" examples are of the kind: "author wants to bar risky situations, why not bar big cars, they're risky". One has also to weight various social factors/costs. If barring bigger cars from the road would be beneficial for society, then yeah, let's do it, but I wouldn't bet on that. The vaccinations have some added costs (production, distribution) and risks (side-effects), but the question is whether the cost/risk of the longer pandemic isn't even bigger (AFAIR it is). I don't say, that OP is right that people should be forced to be vaccinated, but I don't find it absurd given that we've already sacrificed many other freedoms for the society. It's like @mayewsky writes, we already bar some drivers (because of age/health state/previous offenses against the law) from driving. It's nothing new and it's not controversial AFAIK.

RickJWagner 5y ago

Politically speaking, this is an amazing issue to argue. Some on the political left have been arguing 'My body, my choice' with regards to abortion. But now it's often those on the right that are making that argument. It can make both sides uncomfortable.

belter 5y ago

"Lies, Damned Lies, and Vaccine Statistics" https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine-statistics https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine...