3 ms·

> You aren’t even comparing the same situations. We've gotten quite far from the original point; I'll reply once more but probably not again on this branch bec

> You aren’t even comparing the same situations. We've gotten quite far from the original point; I'll reply once more but probably not again on this branch because we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over whether governments should have the right to mandate (either de-jour or de-facto) medical interventions on people in return for the ability to take part in society. Governments can't mandate for every eventuality, they have to make policies covering broad areas. We're discussing public health policy here, i.e. the ways in which governments can reduce harmful effects on the health of the populace through rules and regulations. My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death. The justification would be one of public health. And if anything, such a policy would be even less controversial than mandating vaccines because a smoker can simply stop smoking temporarily to be around other people whereas people cannot stop breathing and therefore potentially spreading viruses. Yet it seems governments have skipped over all of these easier public health issues, and gone straight to mandating that people get vaccinated to enter publicly funded places from a public health justification. To me, regardless of how effective or not these mandates have been and are, I smell bullshit when I hear governments justifying such rules with public health arguments because they have not from their previous actions demonstrated that they are merely following through with their public health manifesto. I rather fear they're mandating vaccines to enter public spaces because the public demanded something be done. Governments in representative democracies aren't doing their job if they do merely that which the public want; they are supposed to lead even if the majority of the public disagree.

bart_spoon 5y ago
> My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death. You keep failing to see the logic in this argument you are making. The point is that the government will allow the individual to make whatever medical decisions they want to to the extent it only affects themselves and the people legally in their care, like children. You are not allowed to make those choices when they harm the health and well-being of those that fall outside that purview. You can smoke all you want, and harn your kids with second hand smoke, the same way you can choose not to get vaccinated and harm your children by refusing to let them get vaccinated. But once your choice affects the people around you, your freedom is restricted. You can’t smoke in public areas. And now some governments are making it so you can’t be unvaccinated in public areas. There is no hypocrisy here, if anything it’s the only logically consistent stance. The only difference is that you can “turn off” smoking when you go into public, and can’t do the same for being unvaccinated. But that is an issue for the unvaccinated individual to deal with. This isn’t even restricted to medical interventions. If I own a private race track, I can drive however I want to, at whatever speed I want, in whatever kind of vehicle I want. But as soon as I want to use a public roadway, there are a litany of restrictions to those freedoms I am subject to, from the speed and the direction I can go, to the type of vehicle I can drive, because not doing so can negatively impact other people. Every society on the planet has had some form of restrictions of personal freedom when they start negatively impacting other members of society in a significant way. And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way.
- ghaff 5y ago
  To the children point specifically, the state rightly gives wide latitude for parental decisions and actions before it is considered child abuse. Mistakes certainly happen (in both directions) but for the most part society draws a reasonable line based on current norms.
- miles 5y ago
  > And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way. Getting vaccinated can also harm oneself in a significant way: Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html Being forced to vaccinate in order to maintain one's livelihood is simply beyond the pale: Covid-19: Mandatory vaccination violates fundamental right to livelihood, says Meghalaya High Court https://scroll.in/latest/998409/covid-19-mandatory-vaccination-violates-fundamental-right-to-livelihood-says-meghalaya-high-court https://scroll.in/latest/998409/covid-19-mandatory-vaccinati... "Vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live."

bart_spoon 5y ago

> My point was that if governments truly cared about public health, they would have already for example banned smoking universally (or at least in situations where there is another person within X meters of the smoker), since second hand smoke is a demonstrable cause of premature death. You keep failing to see the logic in this argument you are making. The point is that the government will allow the individual to make whatever medical decisions they want to to the extent it only affects themselves and the people legally in their care, like children. You are not allowed to make those choices when they harm the health and well-being of those that fall outside that purview. You can smoke all you want, and harn your kids with second hand smoke, the same way you can choose not to get vaccinated and harm your children by refusing to let them get vaccinated. But once your choice affects the people around you, your freedom is restricted. You can’t smoke in public areas. And now some governments are making it so you can’t be unvaccinated in public areas. There is no hypocrisy here, if anything it’s the only logically consistent stance. The only difference is that you can “turn off” smoking when you go into public, and can’t do the same for being unvaccinated. But that is an issue for the unvaccinated individual to deal with. This isn’t even restricted to medical interventions. If I own a private race track, I can drive however I want to, at whatever speed I want, in whatever kind of vehicle I want. But as soon as I want to use a public roadway, there are a litany of restrictions to those freedoms I am subject to, from the speed and the direction I can go, to the type of vehicle I can drive, because not doing so can negatively impact other people. Every society on the planet has had some form of restrictions of personal freedom when they start negatively impacting other members of society in a significant way. And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way.

ghaff 5y ago
To the children point specifically, the state rightly gives wide latitude for parental decisions and actions before it is considered child abuse. Mistakes certainly happen (in both directions) but for the most part society draws a reasonable line based on current norms.
miles 5y ago
> And refusing to be vaccinated in the midst of this pandemic harms society in a significant way. Getting vaccinated can also harm oneself in a significant way: Clot risk to 18-39s from AstraZeneca vaccine is twice as high as Covid death risk, Euro study finds https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html Being forced to vaccinate in order to maintain one's livelihood is simply beyond the pale: Covid-19: Mandatory vaccination violates fundamental right to livelihood, says Meghalaya High Court https://scroll.in/latest/998409/covid-19-mandatory-vaccination-violates-fundamental-right-to-livelihood-says-meghalaya-high-court https://scroll.in/latest/998409/covid-19-mandatory-vaccinati... "Vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live."