2 ms·

> I think all the unvaccinated want is the same absolute right to decide the same for themselves. And I, personally, refuse to grant them that courtesy. If yo

by munk-a 5y ago

> I think all the unvaccinated want is the same absolute right to decide the same for themselves. And I, personally, refuse to grant them that courtesy. If you want to smoke twelve packs a day (while living in a country with no healthcare) then feel free buddy - but not getting vaccinated effects everyone - including those who choose to help move us past this pandemic by getting vaccinated. This isn't a question of individual rights vs. the authoritarianism in the same way that wanting to be a thief isn't an individual decision. You can't be a thief without stealing from other people so we've agreed as a society to make it illegal - the same goes for vaccination. The US is currently tip-toeing on a knifes edge trying to avoid an open revolt of stupid people while also trying to make the vaccine mandatory - that open revolt would result in a severe jump in case count... but the government is facing facts that simply coddling people won't make the pandemic go away.

incrudible 5y ago
Poor analogies and collectivist arguments aside, from a medical ethics standpoint, if my personal risk from being vaccinated outweighs the personal risk of infection, you do not have a right to impose it on me. Despite this being parroted as obviously true, these analyses at this point are based on statistical modeling and conjecture with no regard to personal disposition beyond "age cohort"[1]. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download (Page 24)
logicalmonster 5y ago
> And I, personally, refuse to grant them that courtesy. Inalienable human rights are not a courtesy for you to grant.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Refusing vaccination is not an inalienable right in America - the Supreme Court has ruled many times that compelled vaccination is perfectly legal for the government. In fact the anti-vax crowd isn't particularly new in the US - it was present when both polio and MMR were being removed as common causes of death. The only real difference this time around is that anti-vax is considered a political tool by one of the US parties and thus has garnered a false legitimacy.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    I'm talking about inalienable human rights. You're talking about legal rights. There's a distinction here. And for what it's worth, I'm not concerned with legality: lawyers can and will legally justify anything they want to. I'm 100% sure that your claim about the law is correct. I'm sure that various inhuman authoritarian laws are going to be tried in America over Covid-19 and legally upheld. Politicians, businesses trying to make big bucks, and moral busybodies will never let a good crisis go to waste. I'm concerned about morality. It is utterly reprehensible to force a human to inject something into his body against his will. No judge, law, legislature, vote, or disease changes that fact.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Infants receive medical care while being unable to personally consent to it and that is generally accepted - ditto for adults when they have reduced cognition for a variety of factors. I can't disagree that compelled vaccination may be personally immoral for you - but I don't think it's in any way viewed as unethical. It is accepted at a societal level even if some individuals will reject it - and, due to the widespread effects of this pandemic, I think the society we're contemplating to derive ethics here is the global one.

by munk-a 5y ago

incrudible 5y ago

Poor analogies and collectivist arguments aside, from a medical ethics standpoint, if my personal risk from being vaccinated outweighs the personal risk of infection, you do not have a right to impose it on me. Despite this being parroted as obviously true, these analyses at this point are based on statistical modeling and conjecture with no regard to personal disposition beyond "age cohort"[1]. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download (Page 24)

logicalmonster 5y ago

> And I, personally, refuse to grant them that courtesy. Inalienable human rights are not a courtesy for you to grant.

munk-a 5y ago
Refusing vaccination is not an inalienable right in America - the Supreme Court has ruled many times that compelled vaccination is perfectly legal for the government. In fact the anti-vax crowd isn't particularly new in the US - it was present when both polio and MMR were being removed as common causes of death. The only real difference this time around is that anti-vax is considered a political tool by one of the US parties and thus has garnered a false legitimacy.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  I'm talking about inalienable human rights. You're talking about legal rights. There's a distinction here. And for what it's worth, I'm not concerned with legality: lawyers can and will legally justify anything they want to. I'm 100% sure that your claim about the law is correct. I'm sure that various inhuman authoritarian laws are going to be tried in America over Covid-19 and legally upheld. Politicians, businesses trying to make big bucks, and moral busybodies will never let a good crisis go to waste. I'm concerned about morality. It is utterly reprehensible to force a human to inject something into his body against his will. No judge, law, legislature, vote, or disease changes that fact.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Infants receive medical care while being unable to personally consent to it and that is generally accepted - ditto for adults when they have reduced cognition for a variety of factors. I can't disagree that compelled vaccination may be personally immoral for you - but I don't think it's in any way viewed as unethical. It is accepted at a societal level even if some individuals will reject it - and, due to the widespread effects of this pandemic, I think the society we're contemplating to derive ethics here is the global one.