15 ms·

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage oth

by ampgt 5y ago

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

fatbird 5y ago
We aren't out warring on "no shirts, no shoes, no service" mandates in private businesses, but somehow mandating a vaccine for a pandemic disease that kills is a gross infringement on our bodily autonomy? Religious exemptions for vaccinations shouldn't be allowed either.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  You can take your shirt and shoes back off once you leave a business. A better comparison would be businesses that banned certain hairstyles or tattoos.
  - fatbird 5y ago
    In fact, you are, in the US, allowed to refuse service to someone based on their tattoos or hairstyle [0]. The only prohibition in general on refusing service is to protected classes such as race or sex. So now we can refuse service to someone with a tattoo we dislike, but not because they're unvaccinated? We don't deserve to survive as a species if we're that fucking dumb. [0] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AHnJsxssHRkJ:https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2013/08/legal-to-refuse-service-over-tattoos.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AHnJsx...
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      In a lot of states, hairstyle is considered a protected class these days.
- jdjd6 5y ago
  If you are so concerned, by all means you can get as vaccines as you want. To now, it remains unanswered why others have to be forced to receive the vaccine.
  - fatbird 5y ago
    Because most of the effect of vaccines is their effect en masse. It's a solution lying almost entirely within the realm of collective action, so it's a test of whether we're collectively smart enough to implement a rational collective solution, which includes using some degree of coercive measures to achieve it. Basically, if we let a pandemic kill millions because a fetish for personal choice prevents us from doing what's necessary to prevent it, we're too fucking stupid to survive as a species. That doesn't have to mean going to door-to-door with guns and needles; getting to the critical mass we need just means refusing to let the stupidly unvaccinated into a variety of public venues like airplanes and universities long enough to make them get the vaccine.
foogazi 5y ago
That says more about the bullshit nature of religious exemptions
sorethescore 5y ago
Neither is okay. Vaccination should be mandatory.
jbluepolarbear 5y ago
How did we get to the point where so many people would rather risk death and the death of many others than receive a free vaccine? They’re putting themself and all peoples that interact with them at serious risk.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  Can you provide a citation for this? The last stat I saw was from Israel, and it was that vaccinated people who had never had COVID were ~6-7x more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people who had previously been confirmed to have had it in the past.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Can you please link the study? Thanks.
  - risyachka 5y ago
    The last I saw it prevented 99% of hospitalization.
  - robocat 5y ago
    Vaccination provides 2x better protection than naturally acquired “immunity” - see good data using search: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=covid+protection+vaccine+versus+infection https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=covid+protection+vaccine+v... “In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.” 6 August 2021 - https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... Before repeating false stats, either look up your references, or provide them. There is a HUGE amount of ongoing misinformation about Covid figures which you cannot help but be aware of. For some reason the recent information from Israel seems to be especially misinterpreted (maliciously or not) - and anything recent referencing Israel is a red flag that it is likely disinformation. https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-... It is especially egregious to ask for a citation when you don’t provide one yourself.
Grimm1 5y ago
If this was a sterilizing vaccine, such that you couldn't spread the virus or be infected after taking it I'd say neither are okay, religious or otherwise, because your personal choice has the potential to affect a wide range of people by getting them sick, making your personal choice not so personal. Your rights end where mine begin and all of that. You shouldn't be able to spread a virus to others without consequences if there is a low risk way to completely eliminate that chance. Bodily autonomy is not an excuse to prolong a deadly pandemic especially because in this instance, this type of bodily autonomy doesn't come without large measurable consequences to society at large.
- andi999 5y ago
  Even non sterilizing could be argued, it effects other people if you cannot find an ICU after your car accident because they are full with unvaccinated (and some vaccinated) covid patients.
  - xondono 5y ago
    The problem with this argument is that you can use it to also ban tobacco, and alcohol, and sugar, and red meat, and then you can move to things like sports, and start banning bungee jumping and rock climbing,… There’s no obvious way to draw a line, but you definitely need one.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wtallis 5y ago
      > There’s no obvious way to draw a line, but you definitely need one. That's why you look at the magnitude of the effect, not just the direction of the effect. Not all slopes are slippery. Our legal system does not collapse as soon as it is tasked with determining which harm is more important to prevent.
      - xondono 5y ago
thurn 5y ago
It's funny you say this, because I think everyone would actually agree that I have a strong First Amendment free speech right to tell you what to do with your body. Similarly, businesses and institutions have a First Amendment right (the right of association) to choose who they do business with.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  > Similarly, businesses and institutions have a First Amendment right (the right of association) to choose who they do business with. Private institutions. George Mason University is a public school and the situation for this professor is actually the exact opposite of what you seem to be claiming here.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    And yet they can require many things of people that are infringements of rights of expression and autonomy, such as dress codes. If en employee there notified them that they had been infected with a highly infectious disease (think smallpox) and still wanted to go to work, would they have a right to deny that person? If so, what specifically constrains them in a situation like this that wouldn't in a situation like that?
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Would you deny a person entrance to your building because they had Ebola or rabies? Would you deny a person entrance to your building because they weren't vaccinated against Ebola or rabies? Why the different answers?
      - kbenson 5y ago
        Those are exactly the types of things I'm trying to get the GGP comment to elucidate on. Mine was not a comment making a judgement, but seeking clarification on reasoning, by providing a case many could and would agree on to contrast against, in a similar vein to what you attempt to be doing.
masklinn 5y ago
> How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? That’s absolutely not new in any way? Public health has always been a force majeure trigger. > Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t? They’re not, but it can be quite difficult to impossible to push back against religious communities as they’ve managed to carve out lots of assumptions that you’re supposed to respect whatever they choose out of nowhere.
- bingohbangoh 5y ago
  What historical public health measures exist that are as invasive as a needle in my body on a regular basis? Non-COVID vaccinations are not the same thing here. The typical American booster shots are administered far, _far_ less frequently. They don't require yearly (or every 6mo) shots to be effective. These non-COVID vaccinations also don't require me to, say, not participate in society (per the recent vaccine mandates in swaths of Western Europe). As for schools, I knew many kids whose parents chose not to get them vaccinated when I was growing up. It was tougher to get those exemptions at the University level, but still not impossible. The way these vaccination rules are playing out, thus far anyway, are trying to make it impossible to not be vaccinated no matter what the reason. Nobody cares what your reason is, even if its medically related. [0] Also of note is that those non-COVID vaccinations work really really well. The COVID vaccinations are far less effective, as the increasing rates in places like Israel or Gibralter show. It should be noted that, at least thus far, its better to be vaccinated than non-vaccinated as the former are less likely to have severe symptoms battling the disease. But these are hardly the polio vaccine, _at least not yet_ as a better vaccine may come along. [0]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9806345/Incoming-freshman-loses-scholarship-refusing-covid-vaccine-medical-conditions.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9806345/Incoming-fr...
michaelmrose 5y ago
When your not doing something with your body results in the harm of death of people other than yourself? The right to swing your fist has always ended at others nose. What we are litigating is not that concept well established but a still somewhat fluid understanding of the situation as it stands and how to apply our understanding of fact and law to the necessary choice between your autonomy and others safety. Vaccinating someone who has already had covid is thornier and less clear. Medically it is certainly advisable a rerun isn't always mild and studies have shown individuals who are previously infected have twice the chance of reinfection compared to those who are also vaccinated. The chance of misadventure from being vaccinated is fantastically low and the risk of reinfection while a lot smaller than in a naive individual is a long way from zero. I have substantial doubts regarding any immunologist would say >and that it violates medical ethics to order unnecessary procedures. Unless he had been in a coma and had just woken up yesterday. What he is fighting for then is the right to undertake a course of action that is both meritless and brainless but I don't think we have a right to protect him from himself so the problem becomes is he risking others to an unacceptable degree. I'd say no. If he becomes infected he could infect others including the ample unvaccinated so he IS risking others by his actions but the risk is probably at this juncture small although this could change and he would be stupid to delay. Importantly the test needs to be one with an acceptably low false positive rate performed by a legitimate lab. Not a self test for practical purposes lest people find a way to foul the test (see the soda issue where kids found out that an acidic liquid led to a positive test) or sell each other spit over the internet or something equally stupid.
framecowbird 5y ago
I'm not disagreeing with you regarding vaccination. However, there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body. The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion. Why do we accept that but are suddenly outraged by vaccination? Vaccination mandates aren't new either: many countries will not even let you enter unless you are vaccinated against yellow fever. I think there are valid arguments opposing vaccine mandates but the "this is an unprecedented infringement on freedom" isn't one of them.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body. The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion. You're only applying this argument in one direction, but it works in both directions. Most people who want the vaccine to be mandatory disagree with the state restricting drug usage and abortion. If you disagree with some policy and want to get it overturned, it seems wrong to try to use it as precedent to set new policies in the meantime.
  - framecowbird 5y ago
    I agree, and I'm not arguing that X is OK just because it's similar to Y and Z. What I don't like is the pretence that this is suddenly a brand new unprecedented invasion on privacy. It builds outrage and fear off the idea what the state is doing is completely unprecedented. However, that's not entirely true. That's what I find intellectually dishonest.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > It builds outrage and fear off the idea what the state is doing is completely unprecedented. However, that's not entirely true. That's what I find intellectually dishonest. Fair, although there is one other angle from which I think this is unprecedented: aren't those other restrictions all things that you can't do, with this being the first one that's something that you have to do? For example, consider freedom of speech. Exceptions that compel speech are much rarer than exceptions that prohibit speech.
threatofrain 5y ago
Hasn't it been this way since forever? Firstly, the US has always granted special exceptions to religion for many public policy requirements. You can complain about how it's unfair, but it's likely that the public needle of opinion won't budge past a threshold within this lifetime. Secondly, there have already been widespread medical requirements for all sorts of aspects of public life, and this hasn't been controversial. Immigrants are required to be immunized. Churches may require missionaries to be immunized. Schools may require children to be immunized.
- loxias 5y ago
  > Hasn't it been this way since forever? At least since Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). > granted special exceptions This podcast: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1027132680/can-the-government-make-me-get-the-covid-vaccine https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1027132680/can-the-government... explained the "religious exception" quite well. My paraphrasing is horrible, but the gist was something like: "religion has a sort of 'most favored' status, so if there's ever a secular exception to a rule, there must also be a religious exception". Personally, I think that's absurd, but I'm less upset about it after hearing the explanation. I highly recommend listening to the 18 minute episoide.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  I'm an immigrant into the USA and was never 'required to be immunized'
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    Ok. https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccination-requirements https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...
  - filoleg 5y ago
    What's your definition of "immigrant into the USA" here? You aren't required to get immunized for H1B and a number of other visas, but for green card (aka permanent resident card), you are absolutely required to get a general medical exam + screen for TB + get up to date on all your vaccinations. You need to do it shortly before the green card interview, because you are expected to bring those papers with you for the interview.
loxias 5y ago
> "How did we get to a point..." Every day, we all make tradeoffs as part of the price to pay for living in society. This is not a new thing. (and I assert it's counterproductive and anti-social behavior (harmful to society, the opposite of pro-social, not meaning "introverted") to assert that it is.) I can't build a DIY rocket powered car and drive it around town. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence. I can't even drive a store bought car without a drivers license. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence. I can't open a restaurant and sell food without some sort of license/permit from the city. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence. (I recently learned the hard way that) I can't even build a new wall in my home without having the design approved and permitted. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence. I can't attend school (public or private) without DTaP, Polio, and MMR vaccines, making it a de facto requirement of life. These are all restrictions on personal liberty that we accept up as part of the social contract. And yet, somehow, there is this (literally!) sickening idea going around that it's a "new thing" to require _this specific_ vaccine. Considering the fact that we know that being un-vaccinated will eventually hurt people (by increasing transmission, and hastening the onset of a disastrous mutation), I'm terrified and enraged that it's not being treated similarly to driving drunk.
- BackBlast 5y ago
  > I can't attend school (public or private) without DTaP, Polio, and MMR vaccines, making it a de facto requirement of life. > These are all restrictions on personal liberty that we accept up as part of the social contract Historically it had been trivially easy to fill out a form and go to public school without vaccines everywhere I've lived. The purpose of the form is to know who to send home from school if there is a break out of a disease that is relevant to those who choose not to vaccinate. A very accommodating position. This policy is now potentially being changed to hard requirements with no escape valve for good or ill. It is factually incorrect to say it had always been this way. This is a material change to policy, fights in legislatures about vaccine mandates have been brewing for at least two decades that I have seen. You can expect a lot of lawsuits and legislative battles along these lines as well.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PostThisTooFast 5y ago
Neither is OK. It's not OK to offer yourself up as an incubator for new and more-deadly variants of a global disease. And that's leaving out the monumental hypocrisy of any anti-vaccine and anti-abortion people. So... it's outrageous to tell people to do with their bodies... unless they're women.
elurg 5y ago
Rejecting vaccination endangers other so it should always be mandatory, except on health grounds. Religion exemptions exist only because of the political power of religious groups. They should be abolished.
maxerickson 5y ago
They weren't forcing them to do anything with their body, they were imposing a some job conditions. Imagine of they required the guy to wear clothes or something ridiculous like that.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? What do you think employment, literally, is? A gives B money and direct’s what B does (of necessity, with B’s body), both positively and negatively, within some agreed (mixed between explicit agreement and implicit agreement via governing law) parameters.
mleonhard 5y ago
It goes back as far as 1906: Mary Mallon (aka Typhoid Mary) was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid. The government barred her from working as a cook. She took a fake name and resumed cooking for others. After several people died, the government discovered her crime and imprisoned her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
archontes 5y ago
We regulate things that can harm people. If your body can harm people, it's subject to regulation. We regulate your ability to punch, to bite, and to infect. Simple as that. And this last was formally established by the SCOTUS 116 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

by ampgt 5y ago

fatbird 5y ago

We aren't out warring on "no shirts, no shoes, no service" mandates in private businesses, but somehow mandating a vaccine for a pandemic disease that kills is a gross infringement on our bodily autonomy? Religious exemptions for vaccinations shouldn't be allowed either.

josephcsible 5y ago
You can take your shirt and shoes back off once you leave a business. A better comparison would be businesses that banned certain hairstyles or tattoos.
- fatbird 5y ago
  In fact, you are, in the US, allowed to refuse service to someone based on their tattoos or hairstyle [0]. The only prohibition in general on refusing service is to protected classes such as race or sex. So now we can refuse service to someone with a tattoo we dislike, but not because they're unvaccinated? We don't deserve to survive as a species if we're that fucking dumb. [0] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AHnJsxssHRkJ:https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2013/08/legal-to-refuse-service-over-tattoos.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AHnJsx...
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    In a lot of states, hairstyle is considered a protected class these days.
jdjd6 5y ago
If you are so concerned, by all means you can get as vaccines as you want. To now, it remains unanswered why others have to be forced to receive the vaccine.
- fatbird 5y ago
  Because most of the effect of vaccines is their effect en masse. It's a solution lying almost entirely within the realm of collective action, so it's a test of whether we're collectively smart enough to implement a rational collective solution, which includes using some degree of coercive measures to achieve it. Basically, if we let a pandemic kill millions because a fetish for personal choice prevents us from doing what's necessary to prevent it, we're too fucking stupid to survive as a species. That doesn't have to mean going to door-to-door with guns and needles; getting to the critical mass we need just means refusing to let the stupidly unvaccinated into a variety of public venues like airplanes and universities long enough to make them get the vaccine.

foogazi 5y ago

That says more about the bullshit nature of religious exemptions

sorethescore 5y ago

Neither is okay. Vaccination should be mandatory.

jbluepolarbear 5y ago

How did we get to the point where so many people would rather risk death and the death of many others than receive a free vaccine? They’re putting themself and all peoples that interact with them at serious risk.

Ancapistani 5y ago
Can you provide a citation for this? The last stat I saw was from Israel, and it was that vaccinated people who had never had COVID were ~6-7x more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people who had previously been confirmed to have had it in the past.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Can you please link the study? Thanks.
- risyachka 5y ago
  The last I saw it prevented 99% of hospitalization.
- robocat 5y ago
  Vaccination provides 2x better protection than naturally acquired “immunity” - see good data using search: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=covid+protection+vaccine+versus+infection https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=covid+protection+vaccine+v... “In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.” 6 August 2021 - https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... Before repeating false stats, either look up your references, or provide them. There is a HUGE amount of ongoing misinformation about Covid figures which you cannot help but be aware of. For some reason the recent information from Israel seems to be especially misinterpreted (maliciously or not) - and anything recent referencing Israel is a red flag that it is likely disinformation. https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-... It is especially egregious to ask for a citation when you don’t provide one yourself.

Grimm1 5y ago

If this was a sterilizing vaccine, such that you couldn't spread the virus or be infected after taking it I'd say neither are okay, religious or otherwise, because your personal choice has the potential to affect a wide range of people by getting them sick, making your personal choice not so personal. Your rights end where mine begin and all of that. You shouldn't be able to spread a virus to others without consequences if there is a low risk way to completely eliminate that chance. Bodily autonomy is not an excuse to prolong a deadly pandemic especially because in this instance, this type of bodily autonomy doesn't come without large measurable consequences to society at large.

andi999 5y ago
Even non sterilizing could be argued, it effects other people if you cannot find an ICU after your car accident because they are full with unvaccinated (and some vaccinated) covid patients.
- xondono 5y ago
  The problem with this argument is that you can use it to also ban tobacco, and alcohol, and sugar, and red meat, and then you can move to things like sports, and start banning bungee jumping and rock climbing,… There’s no obvious way to draw a line, but you definitely need one.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wtallis 5y ago
    > There’s no obvious way to draw a line, but you definitely need one. That's why you look at the magnitude of the effect, not just the direction of the effect. Not all slopes are slippery. Our legal system does not collapse as soon as it is tasked with determining which harm is more important to prevent.
    - xondono 5y ago

thurn 5y ago

It's funny you say this, because I think everyone would actually agree that I have a strong First Amendment free speech right to tell you what to do with your body. Similarly, businesses and institutions have a First Amendment right (the right of association) to choose who they do business with.

bcrosby95 5y ago
> Similarly, businesses and institutions have a First Amendment right (the right of association) to choose who they do business with. Private institutions. George Mason University is a public school and the situation for this professor is actually the exact opposite of what you seem to be claiming here.
- kbenson 5y ago
  And yet they can require many things of people that are infringements of rights of expression and autonomy, such as dress codes. If en employee there notified them that they had been infected with a highly infectious disease (think smallpox) and still wanted to go to work, would they have a right to deny that person? If so, what specifically constrains them in a situation like this that wouldn't in a situation like that?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Would you deny a person entrance to your building because they had Ebola or rabies? Would you deny a person entrance to your building because they weren't vaccinated against Ebola or rabies? Why the different answers?
    - kbenson 5y ago
      Those are exactly the types of things I'm trying to get the GGP comment to elucidate on. Mine was not a comment making a judgement, but seeking clarification on reasoning, by providing a case many could and would agree on to contrast against, in a similar vein to what you attempt to be doing.

masklinn 5y ago

> How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? That’s absolutely not new in any way? Public health has always been a force majeure trigger. > Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t? They’re not, but it can be quite difficult to impossible to push back against religious communities as they’ve managed to carve out lots of assumptions that you’re supposed to respect whatever they choose out of nowhere.

bingohbangoh 5y ago
What historical public health measures exist that are as invasive as a needle in my body on a regular basis? Non-COVID vaccinations are not the same thing here. The typical American booster shots are administered far, _far_ less frequently. They don't require yearly (or every 6mo) shots to be effective. These non-COVID vaccinations also don't require me to, say, not participate in society (per the recent vaccine mandates in swaths of Western Europe). As for schools, I knew many kids whose parents chose not to get them vaccinated when I was growing up. It was tougher to get those exemptions at the University level, but still not impossible. The way these vaccination rules are playing out, thus far anyway, are trying to make it impossible to not be vaccinated no matter what the reason. Nobody cares what your reason is, even if its medically related. [0] Also of note is that those non-COVID vaccinations work really really well. The COVID vaccinations are far less effective, as the increasing rates in places like Israel or Gibralter show. It should be noted that, at least thus far, its better to be vaccinated than non-vaccinated as the former are less likely to have severe symptoms battling the disease. But these are hardly the polio vaccine, _at least not yet_ as a better vaccine may come along. [0]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9806345/Incoming-freshman-loses-scholarship-refusing-covid-vaccine-medical-conditions.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9806345/Incoming-fr...

michaelmrose 5y ago

When your not doing something with your body results in the harm of death of people other than yourself? The right to swing your fist has always ended at others nose. What we are litigating is not that concept well established but a still somewhat fluid understanding of the situation as it stands and how to apply our understanding of fact and law to the necessary choice between your autonomy and others safety. Vaccinating someone who has already had covid is thornier and less clear. Medically it is certainly advisable a rerun isn't always mild and studies have shown individuals who are previously infected have twice the chance of reinfection compared to those who are also vaccinated. The chance of misadventure from being vaccinated is fantastically low and the risk of reinfection while a lot smaller than in a naive individual is a long way from zero. I have substantial doubts regarding any immunologist would say >and that it violates medical ethics to order unnecessary procedures. Unless he had been in a coma and had just woken up yesterday. What he is fighting for then is the right to undertake a course of action that is both meritless and brainless but I don't think we have a right to protect him from himself so the problem becomes is he risking others to an unacceptable degree. I'd say no. If he becomes infected he could infect others including the ample unvaccinated so he IS risking others by his actions but the risk is probably at this juncture small although this could change and he would be stupid to delay. Importantly the test needs to be one with an acceptably low false positive rate performed by a legitimate lab. Not a self test for practical purposes lest people find a way to foul the test (see the soda issue where kids found out that an acidic liquid led to a positive test) or sell each other spit over the internet or something equally stupid.

framecowbird 5y ago

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding vaccination. However, there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body. The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion. Why do we accept that but are suddenly outraged by vaccination? Vaccination mandates aren't new either: many countries will not even let you enter unless you are vaccinated against yellow fever. I think there are valid arguments opposing vaccine mandates but the "this is an unprecedented infringement on freedom" isn't one of them.

josephcsible 5y ago
> there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body. The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion. You're only applying this argument in one direction, but it works in both directions. Most people who want the vaccine to be mandatory disagree with the state restricting drug usage and abortion. If you disagree with some policy and want to get it overturned, it seems wrong to try to use it as precedent to set new policies in the meantime.
- framecowbird 5y ago
  I agree, and I'm not arguing that X is OK just because it's similar to Y and Z. What I don't like is the pretence that this is suddenly a brand new unprecedented invasion on privacy. It builds outrage and fear off the idea what the state is doing is completely unprecedented. However, that's not entirely true. That's what I find intellectually dishonest.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > It builds outrage and fear off the idea what the state is doing is completely unprecedented. However, that's not entirely true. That's what I find intellectually dishonest. Fair, although there is one other angle from which I think this is unprecedented: aren't those other restrictions all things that you can't do, with this being the first one that's something that you have to do? For example, consider freedom of speech. Exceptions that compel speech are much rarer than exceptions that prohibit speech.

threatofrain 5y ago

Hasn't it been this way since forever? Firstly, the US has always granted special exceptions to religion for many public policy requirements. You can complain about how it's unfair, but it's likely that the public needle of opinion won't budge past a threshold within this lifetime. Secondly, there have already been widespread medical requirements for all sorts of aspects of public life, and this hasn't been controversial. Immigrants are required to be immunized. Churches may require missionaries to be immunized. Schools may require children to be immunized.

loxias 5y ago
> Hasn't it been this way since forever? At least since Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). > granted special exceptions This podcast: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1027132680/can-the-government-make-me-get-the-covid-vaccine https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1027132680/can-the-government... explained the "religious exception" quite well. My paraphrasing is horrible, but the gist was something like: "religion has a sort of 'most favored' status, so if there's ever a secular exception to a rule, there must also be a religious exception". Personally, I think that's absurd, but I'm less upset about it after hearing the explanation. I highly recommend listening to the 18 minute episoide.
olivermarks 5y ago
I'm an immigrant into the USA and was never 'required to be immunized'
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Ok. https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccination-requirements https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...
- filoleg 5y ago
  What's your definition of "immigrant into the USA" here? You aren't required to get immunized for H1B and a number of other visas, but for green card (aka permanent resident card), you are absolutely required to get a general medical exam + screen for TB + get up to date on all your vaccinations. You need to do it shortly before the green card interview, because you are expected to bring those papers with you for the interview.

loxias 5y ago

> "How did we get to a point..." Every day, we all make tradeoffs as part of the price to pay for living in society. This is not a new thing. (and I assert it's counterproductive and anti-social behavior (harmful to society, the opposite of pro-social, not meaning "introverted") to assert that it is.) I can't build a DIY rocket powered car and drive it around town. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence. I can't even drive a store bought car without a drivers license. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence. I can't open a restaurant and sell food without some sort of license/permit from the city. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence. (I recently learned the hard way that) I can't even build a new wall in my home without having the design approved and permitted. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence. I can't attend school (public or private) without DTaP, Polio, and MMR vaccines, making it a de facto requirement of life. These are all restrictions on personal liberty that we accept up as part of the social contract. And yet, somehow, there is this (literally!) sickening idea going around that it's a "new thing" to require _this specific_ vaccine. Considering the fact that we know that being un-vaccinated will eventually hurt people (by increasing transmission, and hastening the onset of a disastrous mutation), I'm terrified and enraged that it's not being treated similarly to driving drunk.

BackBlast 5y ago
> I can't attend school (public or private) without DTaP, Polio, and MMR vaccines, making it a de facto requirement of life. > These are all restrictions on personal liberty that we accept up as part of the social contract Historically it had been trivially easy to fill out a form and go to public school without vaccines everywhere I've lived. The purpose of the form is to know who to send home from school if there is a break out of a disease that is relevant to those who choose not to vaccinate. A very accommodating position. This policy is now potentially being changed to hard requirements with no escape valve for good or ill. It is factually incorrect to say it had always been this way. This is a material change to policy, fights in legislatures about vaccine mandates have been brewing for at least two decades that I have seen. You can expect a lot of lawsuits and legislative battles along these lines as well.
s1artibartfast 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

PostThisTooFast 5y ago

Neither is OK. It's not OK to offer yourself up as an incubator for new and more-deadly variants of a global disease. And that's leaving out the monumental hypocrisy of any anti-vaccine and anti-abortion people. So... it's outrageous to tell people to do with their bodies... unless they're women.

elurg 5y ago

Rejecting vaccination endangers other so it should always be mandatory, except on health grounds. Religion exemptions exist only because of the political power of religious groups. They should be abolished.

maxerickson 5y ago

They weren't forcing them to do anything with their body, they were imposing a some job conditions. Imagine of they required the guy to wear clothes or something ridiculous like that.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? What do you think employment, literally, is? A gives B money and direct’s what B does (of necessity, with B’s body), both positively and negatively, within some agreed (mixed between explicit agreement and implicit agreement via governing law) parameters.

mleonhard 5y ago

It goes back as far as 1906: Mary Mallon (aka Typhoid Mary) was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid. The government barred her from working as a cook. She took a fake name and resumed cooking for others. After several people died, the government discovered her crime and imprisoned her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

archontes 5y ago

We regulate things that can harm people. If your body can harm people, it's subject to regulation. We regulate your ability to punch, to bite, and to infect. Simple as that. And this last was formally established by the SCOTUS 116 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts