3 ms·

Does anyone outside of propaganda or extremism actually, literally, take the stance that bank accounts or travel (blanket! Not certain countries) should be deni

by marvin 5y ago

Does anyone outside of propaganda or extremism actually, literally, take the stance that bank accounts or travel (blanket! Not certain countries) should be denied to unvaccinated folks? I ask because some situations where vaccines are required are present in my European country, eg. healthcare. But there’s democratic consensus about it. The USA does have a strong current of authoritarianism these days though. That much is pretty obvious. It’s very worrisome.

ben_w 5y ago
> bank accounts or travel (blanket! Not certain countries) This is also the first I’ve heard of even considering denying banking to unvaccinated. Denied banking seems pointlessly vindictive to me also. Travel, however… well, I think it can be argued that any form of mass transit (including aircraft) should be temporarily unavailable without a vaccine in locations where the incidence rate is still high, but only in combination with an equally temporary government subsidy for their salaries so that the people who have genuine medical issues preventing vaccination don’t starve, and homeschool provision for kids not entitled to the vaccine and their parents, and similar for other legit exemptions. Unvaccinated people are a danger to themselves and others, after all. Some (kids, immunosuppressed, etc.) will need a carrot because they know that and don’t have a meaningful choice to be otherwise without intervention; others I think need a stick, though I accept I’m not politically astute and such might backfire spectacularly, and has done in the past for some but not all vaccination drives. Edit: Banning a private family that lives together anyway from taking a trip in their own car would also be pointless, and feel vindictive to me.
- donw 5y ago
  > Unvaccinated people are a danger to themselves and others. False for COVID. The available prophylaxes do not prevent spread. They merely prevent the disease from becoming acute. E.g., get the shot, get covid, and you're less likely to suffer severe effects from the disease. That's it. You could argue "a danger to themselves", but that's their choice. Hence, my stance is science-based: Get the shot if you have a risk factor (especially obesity!), or if you just want to. Or don't. Either way, you get to make that call.
  - croon 5y ago
    > An Associated Press analysis of available government data from May shows that “breakthrough” infections in fully vaccinated people accounted for fewer than 1,200 of more than 107,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations. That’s about 1.1%. > And only about 150 of the more than 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were in fully vaccinated people. That translates to about 0.8%, or five deaths per day on average. https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187 https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fc...
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Vaccines have 71% effectiveness against transmission of COVID: > The researchers looked at 113,582 adult index cases and 253,168 close contacts of all ages; 5,394 fell under both categories. (A close contact was also classified as an index case when they tested positive.) Less than 1% (0.5%) of index cases were fully vaccinated, while 1.8% were partially vaccinated. For close contacts, 2.1% of were fully vaccinated and 1.7% were partially vaccinated. > Overall, the researchers say adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) for fully vaccinated household contacts after confirmed exposure was 75% and 79% for other close contacts (95% CIs, 72% to 78% and 74% to 83%, respectively). https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ti...
  - marvin 5y ago
    Vaccines reduce the likelihood of getting infected in the first place, and hence also the likelihood of passing it on after exposure. It doesn’t eliminate the possibility, but on a societal level it has a significant effect. I certainly agree that vaccination should be voluntary, but you haven’t shown that the extreme level of coercion you’re implying actually happens, or that what is policy is disproportional.
  - ssully 5y ago
    Based on your previous posts, this seems like one of those times where you could admit you were wrong and explain why.
xboxnolifes 5y ago
> Does anyone outside of propaganda or extremism actually... I'd say yes (since I know people in real life with the view). Well, not bank accounts, since I don't see how that applies to covid, but certainly travel, restaurants, crowded events, school, etc. Aside, how do you define what is extremism here? The only way I see it is that extremism is defined by your views, so the only way that this view isn't extremist is if you do not define it as an extremist view.
- marvin 5y ago
  Well, in all friendliness, discussions that start with "how do you define" generally end up in a discussion of semantics, which is rarely an interesting place to go. I should preface this by saying I know very little about what's going on in US rhetoric and politics, except that it seems quite bonkers and distracted from the discussions that would actually improve people's lives. My point was that someone who e.g. says "if you don't take the covid vaccine, you should be denied a bank account and never be allowed to travel anywhere in your car" has an extreme opinion in the sense that it's shared by very few and the vast majority disagree. So if you're discussing policy, it's sensible to just filter out this loud but tiny minority. You can find any stance among the world's 8 billion people, but representing a tiny minority as relevant just serves to derail the discussion. One could certainly label them nazis or facists, but if you filter a large population enough, it's not hard to find people holding literally nazistic of facist opinions. If these groups become large enough to threaten approaching relevancy, however, that's an interesting and dangerous development.

by marvin 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago

> bank accounts or travel (blanket! Not certain countries) This is also the first I’ve heard of even considering denying banking to unvaccinated. Denied banking seems pointlessly vindictive to me also. Travel, however… well, I think it can be argued that any form of mass transit (including aircraft) should be temporarily unavailable without a vaccine in locations where the incidence rate is still high, but only in combination with an equally temporary government subsidy for their salaries so that the people who have genuine medical issues preventing vaccination don’t starve, and homeschool provision for kids not entitled to the vaccine and their parents, and similar for other legit exemptions. Unvaccinated people are a danger to themselves and others, after all. Some (kids, immunosuppressed, etc.) will need a carrot because they know that and don’t have a meaningful choice to be otherwise without intervention; others I think need a stick, though I accept I’m not politically astute and such might backfire spectacularly, and has done in the past for some but not all vaccination drives. Edit: Banning a private family that lives together anyway from taking a trip in their own car would also be pointless, and feel vindictive to me.

donw 5y ago
> Unvaccinated people are a danger to themselves and others. False for COVID. The available prophylaxes do not prevent spread. They merely prevent the disease from becoming acute. E.g., get the shot, get covid, and you're less likely to suffer severe effects from the disease. That's it. You could argue "a danger to themselves", but that's their choice. Hence, my stance is science-based: Get the shot if you have a risk factor (especially obesity!), or if you just want to. Or don't. Either way, you get to make that call.
- croon 5y ago
  > An Associated Press analysis of available government data from May shows that “breakthrough” infections in fully vaccinated people accounted for fewer than 1,200 of more than 107,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations. That’s about 1.1%. > And only about 150 of the more than 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were in fully vaccinated people. That translates to about 0.8%, or five deaths per day on average. https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187 https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fc...
- ben_w 5y ago
  Vaccines have 71% effectiveness against transmission of COVID: > The researchers looked at 113,582 adult index cases and 253,168 close contacts of all ages; 5,394 fell under both categories. (A close contact was also classified as an index case when they tested positive.) Less than 1% (0.5%) of index cases were fully vaccinated, while 1.8% were partially vaccinated. For close contacts, 2.1% of were fully vaccinated and 1.7% were partially vaccinated. > Overall, the researchers say adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) for fully vaccinated household contacts after confirmed exposure was 75% and 79% for other close contacts (95% CIs, 72% to 78% and 74% to 83%, respectively). https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ti...
- marvin 5y ago
  Vaccines reduce the likelihood of getting infected in the first place, and hence also the likelihood of passing it on after exposure. It doesn’t eliminate the possibility, but on a societal level it has a significant effect. I certainly agree that vaccination should be voluntary, but you haven’t shown that the extreme level of coercion you’re implying actually happens, or that what is policy is disproportional.
- ssully 5y ago
  Based on your previous posts, this seems like one of those times where you could admit you were wrong and explain why.

xboxnolifes 5y ago

> Does anyone outside of propaganda or extremism actually... I'd say yes (since I know people in real life with the view). Well, not bank accounts, since I don't see how that applies to covid, but certainly travel, restaurants, crowded events, school, etc. Aside, how do you define what is extremism here? The only way I see it is that extremism is defined by your views, so the only way that this view isn't extremist is if you do not define it as an extremist view.

marvin 5y ago
Well, in all friendliness, discussions that start with "how do you define" generally end up in a discussion of semantics, which is rarely an interesting place to go. I should preface this by saying I know very little about what's going on in US rhetoric and politics, except that it seems quite bonkers and distracted from the discussions that would actually improve people's lives. My point was that someone who e.g. says "if you don't take the covid vaccine, you should be denied a bank account and never be allowed to travel anywhere in your car" has an extreme opinion in the sense that it's shared by very few and the vast majority disagree. So if you're discussing policy, it's sensible to just filter out this loud but tiny minority. You can find any stance among the world's 8 billion people, but representing a tiny minority as relevant just serves to derail the discussion. One could certainly label them nazis or facists, but if you filter a large population enough, it's not hard to find people holding literally nazistic of facist opinions. If these groups become large enough to threaten approaching relevancy, however, that's an interesting and dangerous development.