8 ms·

> The number of comments here that fall back on some sort of a slippery slope argument, based in a worry about government overreach, is really disheartening. If

> The number of comments here that fall back on some sort of a slippery slope argument, based in a worry about government overreach, is really disheartening. If COVID has proven anything in the US, it's how little control the federal government actually has. They've barely been able to enforce mask mandates. This is by design. We don't want a strong federal government. > The slippery slope argument doesn't hold water here. I think we can look at the facts - 700,000 people dead, hospitals overwhelmed, countless people injured or disabled from COVID, and no end in sight - and decide that a strong mandate makes sense here, and that a mandate won't make sense in future cases. here's some more facts that change the landscape significantly. 5% of COVID deaths were without co-morbidities. On average, a person who died of COVID had 4.0 co-morbidities. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Comorbidities https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Co...) The vast majority of those dying are 65+. We don't have a COVID problem, we have a health problem. Has the government been encouraging people to take vitamin D, get fresh air, exercise, and get to a healthy weight? The rhetoric has been sit down and get the jab. > The "government is always bad, personal choice should always win" mindset runs deep in this country unfortunately, and from what I can see, it's often based in nothing other than veiled conservatism and a preference for division and anti-cooperativeness. The government polices are extreme overreactions by any measure of the data, and government doesn't give power back once it has it. > Above all else, this sentiment holds very little water when it's coming from people who speak out against a vaccine mandate but choose to stay quiet on things like abortion rights. I can almost agree here, except the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions

jasonlaramburu 5y ago
>Has the government been encouraging people to take vitamin D, get fresh air, exercise, and get to a healthy weight? The government has been advocating for exercise and general health for decades. Despite this, we remain one of the least fit countries in the world. If the government cannot convince someone to take a safe, free shot that might save their lives, how can you reasonably expect them to convince someone to exercise?
- moistrobot 5y ago
  Because obesity will kill them. That's the message that's not being said in a COVID context. Healthy at every size is one of the biggest health lies in America
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    >Because obesity will kill them. That's the message that's not being said in a COVID context. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in America, and obesity is the #1 risk factor for it. This message has been clear and emphasized since the 1970s. Despite messaging, obesity has gotten worse, not better. You are wrong and oversimplifying the problem if you think COVID can be solved by telling people to lose weight.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      That message can be reinforced in the context of COVID, given obesity is the leading preventable risk factor for COVID. Instead, a huge number of people are laser focused on rationalizing the imposition of mandates, especially on extremely low-risk group, even children.
      - edanm 5y ago
        It's really not an either-or situation. You can encourage people to be generally healthier, and also encourage them to get vaccinated (or force them). And if you compare the two, the vaccine is much closer to a magic cure - it's very dependable and takes "1 month" to work (assuming a two shot vaccine). Whereas encouraging people to be less obese is both incredibly hard (as decades of campaigns prove), and even in the best case scenario, would take a long time for most people.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
> > the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions Well, not from the "governments are either allowed or not allowed to tell people to do things" angle. From the "what do medical experts suggest we do to minimize unnecessary death and suffering" point of view it's possible to be consistently on the same side though.
- caeril 5y ago
  It's definitely not consistent from the bodily autonomy angle, though. And that's a pretty major angle, considering how deeply we're connected with our bodies. Personally, I think anybody who advocates for abrogation of bodily autonomy is an absolute monster, whether an anti-abortionist, a pro-vaccine-mandateist, or an anti-recreational-druggist. Our bodies are all we have. This is the most important freedom we hold. "If you want to keep this job you'll stick this needle in your arm" is no different, morally, from "If you want to keep this job you'll stick my dick in your mouth." And tens of thousands of HR departments tasked with preventing the latter will now rush to enforce the former. Absolutely disgusting.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    There's a difference between asking people to do something and asking them to do nothing though. In general, bodily autonomy is important and this the best abortion defense in my opinion as an anti abortionist.
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      While there is a difference, bodily autonomy is about the right to make decision around your own body, not the right for your body to run on it's own. So I would argue it is not a good argument as you say.
      - iammisc 5y ago
        But your body runs according to the dictates of nature, not solely your will. For example, my body often breathes even when I don't particularly will it. I also cannot stop the process of digestion with my mind. If I were to ask for the 'right' to stop digestion by asking a doctor to sever my intestines, it would be good for the government to then charge such an irreputable doctor with assault and maybe murder.
sterlind 5y ago
> We don't have a COVID problem, we have a health problem. Has the government been encouraging people to take vitamin D, get fresh air, exercise, and get to a healthy weight? The rhetoric has been sit down and get the jab. I'm disabled and it's not my fault. I'm a healthy weight, I have a vegetarian diet high in vegetables, I do my rehab exercises every day and see the doctor frequently. And yet my condition is progressing, because that's the nature of it. My comorbidities aren't a moral failing.
- coryfklein 5y ago
  Would you advocate for government mandates on everyone else for your sole benefit? Or do you feel that you're a representative sample of the high-risk group?
  - thenanyu 5y ago
    There are many government mandates for the benefit of disabled people. We generally think this is ok.
    - furgooswft13 5y ago
      Which of those mandates require other people to lose their jobs for not getting a chemical injection?
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        You can get weekly tests.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        Having to undergo the inconvenience of weekly tests, to be allowed to do a large fractions of jobs, which makes you undesirable to employers as well to do the cost of testing, is discrimination.
ifonly321 5y ago
Medicine is concerned with treatments that work. It’s been pretty convulsively proven that effectively 100% of the population will not lose weight TO SAVE THEIR LIVES. Whereas, you can give someone the vaccination and it makes an immediate and sustained reduction of risk. But yeah, let’s hear about how you’re going to solve it with a bit of sunshine on the asshole and some vitamins, there Pepper Pots. If anything, this is a severe under-reaction based on the federal governments own fucking pandemic playbook from before the pandemic. But yeah, vitamins and sunlight. Sure.
billyhoffman 5y ago
> except the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions It’s about how your personal choices impact other people. To be deliberately shocking to help show why these are different: You can’t cough on me and give me an abortion. I can’t choose to have an abortion and that creates a super spreader event that gives everyone around me an abortion. You can choose not to get vaccinated, be an asymptomatic spreader, and pass Covid on to other people. Your choice of taking the vaccine or not taking the vaccine can impact lots of people, and even hasten their death. Societies have various laws that prohibit certain choices you make that can have a negative impact on others. For example see drunk driving, or someones choice to use speech to inflame a riot. Where those lines are drawn, or should be drawn, can certainly be up for debate. Reasonable people can disgree
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  COVID vaccines don't stop transmission, so this is not about protecting other people.
  - trekz 5y ago
    Exactly. In addition to that, this recurring argument that compares vaccine mandates to mandates prohibiting "bad" acts is odd. Legally speaking, mandating the vaccine is forcing a person to act (get jabbed) through no act of their own. Mandating abortion bans is prohibiting an act (getting an abortion). So the two scenarios aren't comparable.
    - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
      > Mandating abortion bans is prohibiting an act (getting an abortion). Banning abortion means de facto forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
  - gilbetron 5y ago
    For variants other than Delta they greatly reduce transmission, with Delta they still reduce it, but not nearly as much.
TheCoelacanth 5y ago
I believe you are misinterpreting that data. 5% of COVID deaths listed COVID as the only cause. The other 95% list additional causes. In some cases, those are pre-existing conditions like "hypertensive diseases" or "diabetes", but not all of them are. Some of the most common causes are things like "influenza and pneumonia", "respiratory failure" and "cardiac arrest". Pneumonia, respiratory failure and cardiac arrest are symptoms of COVID. They aren't pre-existing conditions that make COVID worse. They are just more specific explanations about the exact mechanism by which COVID killed the person.
ddingus 5y ago
So what? At any given time, someone the population is weak in some way. Had there not been covid, most of those people would be alive. Cause of death is covid. That covid killed them more easily is a different matter. Today, those same people can get a vaccine and are extremely likely to avoid the hospital and death. I am consistently shocked at just how willing so many of us are to blame others. And that is all.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago

>Has the government been encouraging people to take vitamin D, get fresh air, exercise, and get to a healthy weight? The government has been advocating for exercise and general health for decades. Despite this, we remain one of the least fit countries in the world. If the government cannot convince someone to take a safe, free shot that might save their lives, how can you reasonably expect them to convince someone to exercise?

moistrobot 5y ago
Because obesity will kill them. That's the message that's not being said in a COVID context. Healthy at every size is one of the biggest health lies in America
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  >Because obesity will kill them. That's the message that's not being said in a COVID context. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in America, and obesity is the #1 risk factor for it. This message has been clear and emphasized since the 1970s. Despite messaging, obesity has gotten worse, not better. You are wrong and oversimplifying the problem if you think COVID can be solved by telling people to lose weight.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    That message can be reinforced in the context of COVID, given obesity is the leading preventable risk factor for COVID. Instead, a huge number of people are laser focused on rationalizing the imposition of mandates, especially on extremely low-risk group, even children.
    - edanm 5y ago
      It's really not an either-or situation. You can encourage people to be generally healthier, and also encourage them to get vaccinated (or force them). And if you compare the two, the vaccine is much closer to a magic cure - it's very dependable and takes "1 month" to work (assuming a two shot vaccine). Whereas encouraging people to be less obese is both incredibly hard (as decades of campaigns prove), and even in the best case scenario, would take a long time for most people.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

> > the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions Well, not from the "governments are either allowed or not allowed to tell people to do things" angle. From the "what do medical experts suggest we do to minimize unnecessary death and suffering" point of view it's possible to be consistently on the same side though.

caeril 5y ago
It's definitely not consistent from the bodily autonomy angle, though. And that's a pretty major angle, considering how deeply we're connected with our bodies. Personally, I think anybody who advocates for abrogation of bodily autonomy is an absolute monster, whether an anti-abortionist, a pro-vaccine-mandateist, or an anti-recreational-druggist. Our bodies are all we have. This is the most important freedom we hold. "If you want to keep this job you'll stick this needle in your arm" is no different, morally, from "If you want to keep this job you'll stick my dick in your mouth." And tens of thousands of HR departments tasked with preventing the latter will now rush to enforce the former. Absolutely disgusting.
- iammisc 5y ago
  There's a difference between asking people to do something and asking them to do nothing though. In general, bodily autonomy is important and this the best abortion defense in my opinion as an anti abortionist.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    While there is a difference, bodily autonomy is about the right to make decision around your own body, not the right for your body to run on it's own. So I would argue it is not a good argument as you say.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      But your body runs according to the dictates of nature, not solely your will. For example, my body often breathes even when I don't particularly will it. I also cannot stop the process of digestion with my mind. If I were to ask for the 'right' to stop digestion by asking a doctor to sever my intestines, it would be good for the government to then charge such an irreputable doctor with assault and maybe murder.

sterlind 5y ago

> We don't have a COVID problem, we have a health problem. Has the government been encouraging people to take vitamin D, get fresh air, exercise, and get to a healthy weight? The rhetoric has been sit down and get the jab. I'm disabled and it's not my fault. I'm a healthy weight, I have a vegetarian diet high in vegetables, I do my rehab exercises every day and see the doctor frequently. And yet my condition is progressing, because that's the nature of it. My comorbidities aren't a moral failing.

coryfklein 5y ago
Would you advocate for government mandates on everyone else for your sole benefit? Or do you feel that you're a representative sample of the high-risk group?
- thenanyu 5y ago
  There are many government mandates for the benefit of disabled people. We generally think this is ok.
  - furgooswft13 5y ago
    Which of those mandates require other people to lose their jobs for not getting a chemical injection?
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      You can get weekly tests.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        Having to undergo the inconvenience of weekly tests, to be allowed to do a large fractions of jobs, which makes you undesirable to employers as well to do the cost of testing, is discrimination.

ifonly321 5y ago

Medicine is concerned with treatments that work. It’s been pretty convulsively proven that effectively 100% of the population will not lose weight TO SAVE THEIR LIVES. Whereas, you can give someone the vaccination and it makes an immediate and sustained reduction of risk. But yeah, let’s hear about how you’re going to solve it with a bit of sunshine on the asshole and some vitamins, there Pepper Pots. If anything, this is a severe under-reaction based on the federal governments own fucking pandemic playbook from before the pandemic. But yeah, vitamins and sunlight. Sure.

billyhoffman 5y ago

> except the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions It’s about how your personal choices impact other people. To be deliberately shocking to help show why these are different: You can’t cough on me and give me an abortion. I can’t choose to have an abortion and that creates a super spreader event that gives everyone around me an abortion. You can choose not to get vaccinated, be an asymptomatic spreader, and pass Covid on to other people. Your choice of taking the vaccine or not taking the vaccine can impact lots of people, and even hasten their death. Societies have various laws that prohibit certain choices you make that can have a negative impact on others. For example see drunk driving, or someones choice to use speech to inflame a riot. Where those lines are drawn, or should be drawn, can certainly be up for debate. Reasonable people can disgree

CryptoPunk 5y ago
COVID vaccines don't stop transmission, so this is not about protecting other people.
- trekz 5y ago
  Exactly. In addition to that, this recurring argument that compares vaccine mandates to mandates prohibiting "bad" acts is odd. Legally speaking, mandating the vaccine is forcing a person to act (get jabbed) through no act of their own. Mandating abortion bans is prohibiting an act (getting an abortion). So the two scenarios aren't comparable.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    > Mandating abortion bans is prohibiting an act (getting an abortion). Banning abortion means de facto forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
- gilbetron 5y ago
  For variants other than Delta they greatly reduce transmission, with Delta they still reduce it, but not nearly as much.

TheCoelacanth 5y ago

I believe you are misinterpreting that data. 5% of COVID deaths listed COVID as the only cause. The other 95% list additional causes. In some cases, those are pre-existing conditions like "hypertensive diseases" or "diabetes", but not all of them are. Some of the most common causes are things like "influenza and pneumonia", "respiratory failure" and "cardiac arrest". Pneumonia, respiratory failure and cardiac arrest are symptoms of COVID. They aren't pre-existing conditions that make COVID worse. They are just more specific explanations about the exact mechanism by which COVID killed the person.

ddingus 5y ago

So what? At any given time, someone the population is weak in some way. Had there not been covid, most of those people would be alive. Cause of death is covid. That covid killed them more easily is a different matter. Today, those same people can get a vaccine and are extremely likely to avoid the hospital and death. I am consistently shocked at just how willing so many of us are to blame others. And that is all.