6 ms·

Maybe this is due to the fact, that this is inherently undemocratic? SCOTUS ruled that mandatory vaccines are constitutional back in 1905. https://en.wikipedia

Maybe this is due to the fact, that this is inherently undemocratic? SCOTUS ruled that mandatory vaccines are constitutional back in 1905. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

quotemstr 5y ago
The rationale in that case doesn't apply here: the COVID vaccines don't stop the spread of the virus. Because COVID vaccines can't actually stop the spread of the disease under any plausible level of vaccination (the R0 of the virus is too high), vaccines can serve only to safeguard the health of individuals, and we generally don't use heavy-handed nation-wide mandates to force people to do things that are merely good for them health-wise on an individual basis. The same reasoning that justifies this mandate would justify a state-imposed limit on daily calorie consumption, a state-imposed exercise requirement, and all sorts of other coercive measures that, while good for people's health, are flagrant violations of principles of bodily autonomy and informed consent for medical treatment. This isn't about the vaccine and it's not even about COVID. This is about one political tribe using the state to hurt the other political tribe.
- davmar 5y ago
  Wow, you are very wrong on every point.
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    > Wow, you are very wrong on every point. Maybe so, but you've offered nothing that would convince me or anything else that I'm wrong. "Wow, just wow" is not an argument.
    - davmar 5y ago
      I didn't bother since you didn't provide any arguments either.
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  We don’t need to eliminate transmission for the vaccines to be useful. My understanding is that they do meaningfully reduce transmission, even for Delta. You are also missing another important factor. In addition to reducing transmission, the vaccines greatly reduce the chance of hospitalization, which together significantly reduces the peak load on the health system so that it continues to function well and serve non-COVID patients. In many areas, hospitals were nearing or at capacity due to the recent Delta surge.
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    I don't think reducing transmission matters that much as long as R_0 is above 1. If it's above 1, everyone is getting this thing.
  - anonygler 5y ago
    There are 2 separate issues. Reduce transmission, which it only does marginally. Preventing hospitalization is a separate matter and not really worthy of a mandate. Banning alcohol and fast food will save far more lives, in that case.
    - ZetaZero 5y ago
      > Reduce transmission, which it only does marginally. 91% is a huge reduction. "COVID-19 vaccines ... reduce the risk of infection by 91 percent" https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-ri...
      - quotemstr 5y ago
        Maybe so --- but places like Iceland still have big COVID waves despite very high vaccination rates, so clearly, the vaccine doesn't reduce the risk of infection enough to stop the spread, and that's what matters.
        ZetaZero 5y ago
ModernMech 5y ago
Undemocratic does not mean unconstitutional. The Electoral College is undemocratic, yet constitutional by definition, for instance. SCOTUS itself is undemocratic yet constitutional.
- ZetaZero 5y ago
  > Undemocratic ... The USA has always been a Representative Democracy. We elect leaders whom have the power to enact rules and laws. And this is what happened here. Don't confuse what we have with "direct democracy".
totony 5y ago
Note all the "reasonable" and "great danger" in the decision. It's unclear (and to be determined) if covid fits that description
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  What do you mean, it is unclear? Do overfilled hospitals not create a great danger?
- oliyoung 5y ago
  > It's unclear (and to be determined) if covid fits that description 700,000 people have died in the United States 18 months, 4.5 million world wide. Like, what else needs to happen for this pandemic to meet that description?
  - makomk 5y ago
    Jacobson v. Massachusetts was a case about smallpox vaccination. For context, smallpox kills about 30% of those who are infected and the vaccine is so effective that the disease has been completely eradicated. Covid-19 is a lot less deadly than that and all indications are that the vaccine for it isn't remotely as effective at preventing infection and spread.

quotemstr 5y ago

The rationale in that case doesn't apply here: the COVID vaccines don't stop the spread of the virus. Because COVID vaccines can't actually stop the spread of the disease under any plausible level of vaccination (the R0 of the virus is too high), vaccines can serve only to safeguard the health of individuals, and we generally don't use heavy-handed nation-wide mandates to force people to do things that are merely good for them health-wise on an individual basis. The same reasoning that justifies this mandate would justify a state-imposed limit on daily calorie consumption, a state-imposed exercise requirement, and all sorts of other coercive measures that, while good for people's health, are flagrant violations of principles of bodily autonomy and informed consent for medical treatment. This isn't about the vaccine and it's not even about COVID. This is about one political tribe using the state to hurt the other political tribe.

davmar 5y ago
Wow, you are very wrong on every point.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > Wow, you are very wrong on every point. Maybe so, but you've offered nothing that would convince me or anything else that I'm wrong. "Wow, just wow" is not an argument.
  - davmar 5y ago
    I didn't bother since you didn't provide any arguments either.
dwaltrip 5y ago
We don’t need to eliminate transmission for the vaccines to be useful. My understanding is that they do meaningfully reduce transmission, even for Delta. You are also missing another important factor. In addition to reducing transmission, the vaccines greatly reduce the chance of hospitalization, which together significantly reduces the peak load on the health system so that it continues to function well and serve non-COVID patients. In many areas, hospitals were nearing or at capacity due to the recent Delta surge.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  I don't think reducing transmission matters that much as long as R_0 is above 1. If it's above 1, everyone is getting this thing.
- anonygler 5y ago
  There are 2 separate issues. Reduce transmission, which it only does marginally. Preventing hospitalization is a separate matter and not really worthy of a mandate. Banning alcohol and fast food will save far more lives, in that case.
  - ZetaZero 5y ago
    > Reduce transmission, which it only does marginally. 91% is a huge reduction. "COVID-19 vaccines ... reduce the risk of infection by 91 percent" https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-ri...
    - quotemstr 5y ago
      Maybe so --- but places like Iceland still have big COVID waves despite very high vaccination rates, so clearly, the vaccine doesn't reduce the risk of infection enough to stop the spread, and that's what matters.
      - ZetaZero 5y ago

ModernMech 5y ago

Undemocratic does not mean unconstitutional. The Electoral College is undemocratic, yet constitutional by definition, for instance. SCOTUS itself is undemocratic yet constitutional.

ZetaZero 5y ago
> Undemocratic ... The USA has always been a Representative Democracy. We elect leaders whom have the power to enact rules and laws. And this is what happened here. Don't confuse what we have with "direct democracy".

totony 5y ago

Note all the "reasonable" and "great danger" in the decision. It's unclear (and to be determined) if covid fits that description

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
What do you mean, it is unclear? Do overfilled hospitals not create a great danger?
oliyoung 5y ago
> It's unclear (and to be determined) if covid fits that description 700,000 people have died in the United States 18 months, 4.5 million world wide. Like, what else needs to happen for this pandemic to meet that description?
- makomk 5y ago
  Jacobson v. Massachusetts was a case about smallpox vaccination. For context, smallpox kills about 30% of those who are infected and the vaccine is so effective that the disease has been completely eradicated. Covid-19 is a lot less deadly than that and all indications are that the vaccine for it isn't remotely as effective at preventing infection and spread.