7 ms·

I think you are right. People won't change their minds about it. But the question is, should they be allowed to control what goes inside their bodies? In my opi

I think you are right. People won't change their minds about it. But the question is, should they be allowed to control what goes inside their bodies? In my opinion, the answer is a huge YES OF COURSE.

walls 5y ago
Sure, and every institution should also be allowed to keep them out based on that decision.
- eddieroger 5y ago
  Exactly right. You get to make a choice, but choices come with consequences. Don't want a vaccine? OK, but be prepared to be rejected from places that would prefer you have one.
JulianMorrison 5y ago
When it's something like weed, sure. When it's something that is a public good on a social level, like vaccination, there's precedent for requiring it when medically safe.
- jeegsy 5y ago
  As a personal beneficiary of previous precedents being later overturned, I cannot rely on that.
daenz 5y ago
The counter that is commonly used against that is "well when it affects other people's health, then you don't get to choose." There are a lot of assumptions in that counterargument that people will hope you don't examine, for example, the assumption that the probability of a covid transmission ending in harm crosses the same probability threshold if, say, drunk driving ending in harm. I say it doesn't. And since the stakes are so high with what we're talking about allowing the government to do, the burden of proof is on needing to prove the individual's likelihood for serious harm being high.
- alonmower 5y ago
  I’d argue it’s higher given the exponential nature of disease transmission. While the odds of harm in who you directly transmit the virus to might be lower than the odds of you hurting someone drunk driving, if you play the tape forwards it’s almost a foregone conclusion that you’ll kill more people in the chain of people you infect than you would if you were drunk driving. Also vaccine requirements aren’t anything new, so is the concern here that they’re mandating vaccines or this specific vaccine due to how new it is? If the latter, then what’s your bar for acceptance?
  - daenz 5y ago
    >While the odds of harm in who you directly transmit the virus to might be lower than the odds of you hurting someone drunk driving You've introduced a new assumption though: that a unvaccinated person has and transmits covid. You must apply the probabilities to that initial assumption as well. Probability of having covid * probability of transmitting covid * probability that the person you transmit to has series harm done. >Also vaccine requirements aren’t anything new This is an argument that I've also seen but think appeals to "well we've been doing something similar already." I don't think that justification holds much water, especially in this time period where we are questioning a lot of foundational social assumptions. To your direct question about bar for acceptance, I think people can generally establish a good bar, but they have to be given accurate probabilities, and those have been hidden from us in favor of vague fear mongering.
- nathas 5y ago
  > the assumption that the probability of a covid transmission ending in harm crosses the same probability threshold if, say, drunk driving ending in harm. You do realize that drunk driving is illegal, right? Do you think drunk driving should be legal because it's "unlikely" to cause harm to others? > I say it doesn't. 628k confirmed deaths in the US from COVID. 37.8M confirmed infections. That's a death rate of 1.66%. In 2016, 10,497 people died from drunk driving. 1 million people were arrested in 2016 for drunk driving. That's a rate of 1.0497%. So COVID is literally more dangerous than drunk driving. Drunk driving stats: https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/im...
pille 5y ago
This is also about what’s coming out of their bodies and going into others’.
- daenz 5y ago
  Making it illegal to harm someone by transmitting a disease to them, and all of the logistical problems with proving it, makes more sense than mandating the covid vaccine.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    Triple health insurance premiums for people who refuse to vaccinate, like car insurance companies do when you get caught driving drunk. We can keep our precious "bodily autonomy" while still making sure reckless behavior is costly.
    - daenz 5y ago
      Not opposed to it, as long as the premiums are actually reflect the probabilities and cost of the harm. You words like "precious bodily autonomy" make me think you are looking at this from a pov of malice though, as in, let's try to financially ruin people.
  - pille 5y ago
    How so? We already require vaccinations for other diseases and it’s clearly been effective against them.
acdha 5y ago
The problem is that it’s not that simple because your choices significantly impact other people: I can’t choose whether or not to receive the viruses you spread, so I have an interest in you spreading far fewer of them. My 4 year old child can’t be vaccinated so he, along with many immune-compromised people or those with certain medical conditions, is dependent on other people getting vaccinated to sharply reduce spread. Anyone who needs medical care is dependent on those facilities not being overloaded by people who chose to remain at high risk for a preventable disease. This is not new: only the most libertarian fringes reject the idea that living in a society comes with obligations. We avoided millions of life-altering diseases with vaccination and politicizing medical care is going to go down in history as the worst move since the CIA decided to use public health workers as a cover story.
- thesis 5y ago
  Should the flu be mandatory as well? Flu & Covid have similar risks in children: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of-covid-19-and-the-flu-are-similar-but-the-risk-perception-isn https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of...
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    There are a few vaccines I had to have for school when I was younger. What’s the difference?
    - adventured 5y ago
      You're legally an adult, you have full legal control over your body, you're legally fully responsible for your choices, and you're not in school any longer. You mean other than that?
    - the_doctah 5y ago
      Compare the severity of those viruses in children to Covid. A more apt comparison is Covid to Influenza. You don't need flu shots to attend school.
maxerickson 5y ago
It's the implied "with no other impact on their lives" that people actually disagree with.

walls 5y ago

Sure, and every institution should also be allowed to keep them out based on that decision.

eddieroger 5y ago
Exactly right. You get to make a choice, but choices come with consequences. Don't want a vaccine? OK, but be prepared to be rejected from places that would prefer you have one.

JulianMorrison 5y ago

When it's something like weed, sure. When it's something that is a public good on a social level, like vaccination, there's precedent for requiring it when medically safe.

jeegsy 5y ago
As a personal beneficiary of previous precedents being later overturned, I cannot rely on that.

daenz 5y ago

The counter that is commonly used against that is "well when it affects other people's health, then you don't get to choose." There are a lot of assumptions in that counterargument that people will hope you don't examine, for example, the assumption that the probability of a covid transmission ending in harm crosses the same probability threshold if, say, drunk driving ending in harm. I say it doesn't. And since the stakes are so high with what we're talking about allowing the government to do, the burden of proof is on needing to prove the individual's likelihood for serious harm being high.

alonmower 5y ago
I’d argue it’s higher given the exponential nature of disease transmission. While the odds of harm in who you directly transmit the virus to might be lower than the odds of you hurting someone drunk driving, if you play the tape forwards it’s almost a foregone conclusion that you’ll kill more people in the chain of people you infect than you would if you were drunk driving. Also vaccine requirements aren’t anything new, so is the concern here that they’re mandating vaccines or this specific vaccine due to how new it is? If the latter, then what’s your bar for acceptance?
- daenz 5y ago
  >While the odds of harm in who you directly transmit the virus to might be lower than the odds of you hurting someone drunk driving You've introduced a new assumption though: that a unvaccinated person has and transmits covid. You must apply the probabilities to that initial assumption as well. Probability of having covid * probability of transmitting covid * probability that the person you transmit to has series harm done. >Also vaccine requirements aren’t anything new This is an argument that I've also seen but think appeals to "well we've been doing something similar already." I don't think that justification holds much water, especially in this time period where we are questioning a lot of foundational social assumptions. To your direct question about bar for acceptance, I think people can generally establish a good bar, but they have to be given accurate probabilities, and those have been hidden from us in favor of vague fear mongering.
nathas 5y ago
> the assumption that the probability of a covid transmission ending in harm crosses the same probability threshold if, say, drunk driving ending in harm. You do realize that drunk driving is illegal, right? Do you think drunk driving should be legal because it's "unlikely" to cause harm to others? > I say it doesn't. 628k confirmed deaths in the US from COVID. 37.8M confirmed infections. That's a death rate of 1.66%. In 2016, 10,497 people died from drunk driving. 1 million people were arrested in 2016 for drunk driving. That's a rate of 1.0497%. So COVID is literally more dangerous than drunk driving. Drunk driving stats: https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/im...

pille 5y ago

This is also about what’s coming out of their bodies and going into others’.

daenz 5y ago
Making it illegal to harm someone by transmitting a disease to them, and all of the logistical problems with proving it, makes more sense than mandating the covid vaccine.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Triple health insurance premiums for people who refuse to vaccinate, like car insurance companies do when you get caught driving drunk. We can keep our precious "bodily autonomy" while still making sure reckless behavior is costly.
  - daenz 5y ago
    Not opposed to it, as long as the premiums are actually reflect the probabilities and cost of the harm. You words like "precious bodily autonomy" make me think you are looking at this from a pov of malice though, as in, let's try to financially ruin people.
- pille 5y ago
  How so? We already require vaccinations for other diseases and it’s clearly been effective against them.

acdha 5y ago

The problem is that it’s not that simple because your choices significantly impact other people: I can’t choose whether or not to receive the viruses you spread, so I have an interest in you spreading far fewer of them. My 4 year old child can’t be vaccinated so he, along with many immune-compromised people or those with certain medical conditions, is dependent on other people getting vaccinated to sharply reduce spread. Anyone who needs medical care is dependent on those facilities not being overloaded by people who chose to remain at high risk for a preventable disease. This is not new: only the most libertarian fringes reject the idea that living in a society comes with obligations. We avoided millions of life-altering diseases with vaccination and politicizing medical care is going to go down in history as the worst move since the CIA decided to use public health workers as a cover story.

thesis 5y ago
Should the flu be mandatory as well? Flu & Covid have similar risks in children: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of-covid-19-and-the-flu-are-similar-but-the-risk-perception-isn https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999241558/in-kids-the-risk-of...
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  There are a few vaccines I had to have for school when I was younger. What’s the difference?
  - adventured 5y ago
    You're legally an adult, you have full legal control over your body, you're legally fully responsible for your choices, and you're not in school any longer. You mean other than that?
  - the_doctah 5y ago
    Compare the severity of those viruses in children to Covid. A more apt comparison is Covid to Influenza. You don't need flu shots to attend school.

maxerickson 5y ago

It's the implied "with no other impact on their lives" that people actually disagree with.