4 ms·

I'm not sure the specific rationalizations are as relevant as the moral questions. Do individuals have a right to their own body? Does a collective or a techn

I'm not sure the specific rationalizations are as relevant as the moral questions. Do individuals have a right to their own body? Does a collective or a technocrat have a right to coerce an individual into a medical procedure? If we answer "yes" to the second question, only then does it become relevant because we must next ask: Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line?

cogman10 5y ago
> Do individuals have a right to their own body? Insofar as their rights don't impact the rights of others. Individuals have a right to drink alcohol. They do not have a right to then drive a car. Vaccination by mandate is an extension of that reasoning. You have a right not to get vaccinated, but you don't have a right to participate in the public. Because restricting public interaction is neigh impossible (Even with imprisonment) the lesser of the two evils is mandated vaccination. > Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line? Yes, communicable illnesses prevention. That's the line. It's something that seems to have been lost on the modern era. It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people with disease by force of government (but often just voluntarily). This notion that there is no public interest in disease prevention and instead it's a "individual choice" is modern. Likely due to the advances in medicine, ironically vaccination, that have weakened the effects of most diseases. I dislike this moral pearl clutching. Perhaps it's because I'm more morally a utilitarian. At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society to work in general. The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Thanks for your response. >It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions. There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise? >At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society... And if this were untrue, where would we see this information? Are there no other incentives we should be considering, such as the great reset, vaccine passports, digital ID, CBDCs or even vanilla economic interventions? We're dealing with a trust deficit in public figures and media institutions. It is hard to blame the cynic for previous incidents of propaganda. > The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths. I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives.
  - kiba 5y ago
    However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions. These are ineffective because of people's refusal to cooperate. These methods work best if we work together. Because some people chose to ignore measures, it means we're prolonging the misery. There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise? Because the least vulnerable and healthy population can spread diseases to the obese and the elderly. Exercise is a useful health intervention. It's also not very effective for losing weight. It's also the government's fault that we are obese to begin with, because the governments are responsible for urban design, dietary and market regulation. I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives. It is unclear to me why only partial quarantine would be useful. It just means that the virus are spreading among the healthy. The moment we stop the quarantine, the moment people starts dying.
    - AndrewBissell 5y ago
      > These are ineffective because of people's refusal to cooperate. In what sense is this not an unfalsifiable hypothesis? Are cases exploding in Japan because of the 1% of people who don't wear masks in public there? Are Australia and New Zealand trapped in dystopian house arrest because there are just boatloads of degenerates who won't follow the rules? What the hell good is a public health intervention if it requires an impossibly perfect 100% level of compliance to even work? And crumbles to pieces the second you relax the restriction?
      - cogman10 5y ago
        If 10% or 20% weren't following the rules, it'd probably be fine. However, because COVID in the US is a political thing, it's easily 30%+ of americans that aren't "following the rules". In my state of Idaho, there were rallies to get together and burn masks. [1] Have you ever heard of mask burning rallies in either Japan or Australia? It's not political in most nations. This is primarily a US problem. Anecdotally, at the height of COVID compliance in Idaho I never saw > 50% masking participation. [1] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/08/mask-burning-idaho-oregon-peoples-rights-far-right/ https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/08/mask-burning-idaho-or...
- angelzen 5y ago
  Wild. 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 13.1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... 'quarantine people with disease'. This is an elementary precaution that everyone, vaccinated or not, should voluntarily take at symptom onset. Not only for covid, but for flu as well. However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    > However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of. It is not. In fact, most quarantines take exactly that form where entire households, communities, or in the extreme case cities are locked down. [1] COVID is unique in that it is both more deadly and more infectious than the flu. That's why the measures have been so extreme. They are warranted. Further, COVID has the major issue that a large number of people are asymptomatic. It doesn't work to say "Well, just have people feeling sick stay home" when a large number of people that are spreading the disease don't even know they have it. [2] > 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. I was perhaps unclear, I mean "being infected with a disease removes your right to participate in public". Without the disease modifier, yes, you have a right to public interaction. Just like you have a right to drive without the drunk modifier. In any event, even the UN agrees that quarantining seemingly healthy people in the face of covid isn't a human rights violation. [3] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html [2] https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleId=29806&publicid=743 https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-deta... [3] https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/guidance_on_quarantine_of_non-sick_un_personnel.pdf https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/guidance_on_quaran...
    - angelzen 5y ago

cogman10 5y ago

> Do individuals have a right to their own body? Insofar as their rights don't impact the rights of others. Individuals have a right to drink alcohol. They do not have a right to then drive a car. Vaccination by mandate is an extension of that reasoning. You have a right not to get vaccinated, but you don't have a right to participate in the public. Because restricting public interaction is neigh impossible (Even with imprisonment) the lesser of the two evils is mandated vaccination. > Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line? Yes, communicable illnesses prevention. That's the line. It's something that seems to have been lost on the modern era. It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people with disease by force of government (but often just voluntarily). This notion that there is no public interest in disease prevention and instead it's a "individual choice" is modern. Likely due to the advances in medicine, ironically vaccination, that have weakened the effects of most diseases. I dislike this moral pearl clutching. Perhaps it's because I'm more morally a utilitarian. At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society to work in general. The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths.

aww_dang 5y ago
Thanks for your response. >It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions. There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise? >At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society... And if this were untrue, where would we see this information? Are there no other incentives we should be considering, such as the great reset, vaccine passports, digital ID, CBDCs or even vanilla economic interventions? We're dealing with a trust deficit in public figures and media institutions. It is hard to blame the cynic for previous incidents of propaganda. > The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths. I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives.
- kiba 5y ago
  However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions. These are ineffective because of people's refusal to cooperate. These methods work best if we work together. Because some people chose to ignore measures, it means we're prolonging the misery. There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise? Because the least vulnerable and healthy population can spread diseases to the obese and the elderly. Exercise is a useful health intervention. It's also not very effective for losing weight. It's also the government's fault that we are obese to begin with, because the governments are responsible for urban design, dietary and market regulation. I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives. It is unclear to me why only partial quarantine would be useful. It just means that the virus are spreading among the healthy. The moment we stop the quarantine, the moment people starts dying.
  - AndrewBissell 5y ago
    > These are ineffective because of people's refusal to cooperate. In what sense is this not an unfalsifiable hypothesis? Are cases exploding in Japan because of the 1% of people who don't wear masks in public there? Are Australia and New Zealand trapped in dystopian house arrest because there are just boatloads of degenerates who won't follow the rules? What the hell good is a public health intervention if it requires an impossibly perfect 100% level of compliance to even work? And crumbles to pieces the second you relax the restriction?
    - cogman10 5y ago
      If 10% or 20% weren't following the rules, it'd probably be fine. However, because COVID in the US is a political thing, it's easily 30%+ of americans that aren't "following the rules". In my state of Idaho, there were rallies to get together and burn masks. [1] Have you ever heard of mask burning rallies in either Japan or Australia? It's not political in most nations. This is primarily a US problem. Anecdotally, at the height of COVID compliance in Idaho I never saw > 50% masking participation. [1] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/08/mask-burning-idaho-oregon-peoples-rights-far-right/ https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/08/mask-burning-idaho-or...
angelzen 5y ago
Wild. 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 13.1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... 'quarantine people with disease'. This is an elementary precaution that everyone, vaccinated or not, should voluntarily take at symptom onset. Not only for covid, but for flu as well. However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of.
- cogman10 5y ago
  > However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of. It is not. In fact, most quarantines take exactly that form where entire households, communities, or in the extreme case cities are locked down. [1] COVID is unique in that it is both more deadly and more infectious than the flu. That's why the measures have been so extreme. They are warranted. Further, COVID has the major issue that a large number of people are asymptomatic. It doesn't work to say "Well, just have people feeling sick stay home" when a large number of people that are spreading the disease don't even know they have it. [2] > 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'. I was perhaps unclear, I mean "being infected with a disease removes your right to participate in public". Without the disease modifier, yes, you have a right to public interaction. Just like you have a right to drive without the drunk modifier. In any event, even the UN agrees that quarantining seemingly healthy people in the face of covid isn't a human rights violation. [3] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html [2] https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleId=29806&publicid=743 https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-deta... [3] https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/guidance_on_quarantine_of_non-sick_un_personnel.pdf https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/guidance_on_quaran...
  - angelzen 5y ago