4 ms·

> Shouldn't people have the right to choose what they take? It's not this simple. Not taking a vaccine during a pandemic has negative externalities, since you'

by cle 5y ago

> Shouldn't people have the right to choose what they take? It's not this simple. Not taking a vaccine during a pandemic has negative externalities, since you're increasing the risk of infection and death of those you interact with, you increase the likelihood of consuming scarce resources (such as ICU beds), etc. I largely agree with you, but framing it as a simple "individual choice" issue is reductive at best.

c7DJTLrn 5y ago
1. Those who are vaccinated have a significant reduction in risk of death (not to mention that the risk is very minute for young people anyway), so that's a moot point 2. Some vaccinated people have been found to carry the same levels of the virus as unvaccinated people, so stating that unvaccinated people could be increasing risk to others is also a moot point 3. Once the so called "R" rate is below one, the virus is on a path to fizzling out It's not as though unvaccinated people will be dying in their thousands for centuries to come. Herd immunity just needs to kick in which many countries have already achieved.
- eightysixfour 5y ago
  1) It isn’t a moot point when vaccinated individuals need ICU beds for other emergencies, which are still happening. This isn’t a theoretical, this is happening in the Southeastern US.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bluGill 5y ago
  > Some vaccinated people have been found to carry the same levels of the virus as unvaccinated people, so stating that unvaccinated people could be increasing risk to others is also a moot point Some is in this case a small minority. In general you have the same level up to about day 5, then vaccinated drops down to zero over the next few days while vaccinated levels keep raising for several more days.
- renaudg 5y ago
  Even with the "same level of virus" vaccinated people are much less contagious : https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1429449468261322759 https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1429449468261322759
bopbeepboop 5y ago
All of those externalities apply to driving a car. Are you saying it would be legal to ban cars for those reasons?
- cle 5y ago
  No, I'm not saying anything about whether vaccines should be mandatory or not. Whatever your beliefs, you should be taking these externalities into account. I think there are reasonable, good faith arguments for both voluntary and involuntary vaccination, that still account for these negative externalities--pretending they don't exist does nobody any favors, and we should disregard arguments that ignore them.

by cle 5y ago

c7DJTLrn 5y ago

1. Those who are vaccinated have a significant reduction in risk of death (not to mention that the risk is very minute for young people anyway), so that's a moot point 2. Some vaccinated people have been found to carry the same levels of the virus as unvaccinated people, so stating that unvaccinated people could be increasing risk to others is also a moot point 3. Once the so called "R" rate is below one, the virus is on a path to fizzling out It's not as though unvaccinated people will be dying in their thousands for centuries to come. Herd immunity just needs to kick in which many countries have already achieved.

eightysixfour 5y ago
1) It isn’t a moot point when vaccinated individuals need ICU beds for other emergencies, which are still happening. This isn’t a theoretical, this is happening in the Southeastern US.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bluGill 5y ago
> Some vaccinated people have been found to carry the same levels of the virus as unvaccinated people, so stating that unvaccinated people could be increasing risk to others is also a moot point Some is in this case a small minority. In general you have the same level up to about day 5, then vaccinated drops down to zero over the next few days while vaccinated levels keep raising for several more days.
renaudg 5y ago
Even with the "same level of virus" vaccinated people are much less contagious : https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1429449468261322759 https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1429449468261322759

bopbeepboop 5y ago

All of those externalities apply to driving a car. Are you saying it would be legal to ban cars for those reasons?

cle 5y ago
No, I'm not saying anything about whether vaccines should be mandatory or not. Whatever your beliefs, you should be taking these externalities into account. I think there are reasonable, good faith arguments for both voluntary and involuntary vaccination, that still account for these negative externalities--pretending they don't exist does nobody any favors, and we should disregard arguments that ignore them.