7 ms·

> If you follow this reasoning, then you must also beleive that we should stigmatise people with other life choices that fill hospitals? Stigmatising obese peop

> If you follow this reasoning, then you must also beleive that we should stigmatise people with other life choices that fill hospitals? Stigmatising obese people, people who drink alcohol, people who do extreme sports, people who have children late in life. Where does it end? It's pretty simple: we stigmatize people whose choices place undue burden on others' ability to live safely. Driving drunk? Driving 90/55 on a crowded road? Indiscriminately discharging a firearm into the air? Exposing people to typhi salmonella after being established as a carrier? Exposing people to HIV (and other STDs) knowingly? Choosing to be unvaccinated against covid? We seem to have a pretty consistent pattern here, and considering that remaining unvaccinated increases spread and increases everyone's risk of death (especially those who can't receive the vaccine), stigmatization of those who choose not to vaccinate without sound medical grounds fits this easy binary filter.

mardifoufs 5y ago
Okay so do you agree on putting obesity and obese people on that list too?
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  The Alabama department of Public Health puts posters up asking you to walk more, eat healthy, all that stuff. So, yes, obesity is a public health problem, and it's being addressed. What are you trying to say with that comment?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    But we're doing way, way more than putting up posters saying to get vaccinated. For example, imagine how you'd react if Alabama mandated that every worker with a BMI above 30 had to be fired.
    - Volundr 5y ago
      How does a BMI of over 30 put other workers at risk? These situations are not analogous. And unless Alabama has a far more strict proposal than the proposed federal mandate, no one is requiring unvaccinated workers be fired, only they be tested weekly, so the analogy breaks down on that front as well.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        > How does a BMI of over 30 put other workers at risk? How do unvaccinated people who work from home put other workers at risk?
        Volundr 5y ago
        I didn't say that they did? You've ignored the entire content of my comment to engage with an argument I didn't make.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        You said the situations weren't analogous. I'm saying they are, because firing an unvaccinated remote worker doesn't make anyone else any safer than firing an obese remote worker does.
        Volundr 5y ago
        Except most workers aren't remote workers, and as stated in my original comment that you chose to ignore, there is no mandate that anyone be fired for being unvaccinated. So being unvaccinated is risky to others around you while having a high BMI is not, and you suggested firing employees with a high BMI, while the mandate only calls for testing unvaccinated employees. So again, the analogy falls apart two different ways.
  - fileeditview 5y ago
    Maybe it would be a better comparison if they called obese people "fat and crazy persons that endanger society by using up capacity in the healthcare system" or similar. Because this kind of speech is used by officials to describe people that don't want the vaccination.
- modriano 5y ago
  How does obesity place undue burden on others' ability to live safely?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Because obesity makes it more likely you'll end up taking up a hospital bed that someone else might need.
    - eganist 5y ago
      The healthcare system manages this inconsequentially because relative to refusing a vaccine, the increased likelihood of this happening with obesity is marginal. Prior to the pandemic (and also today during the pandemic), there wasn't a concern about people dying from treatable medical conditions because healthcare capacity was taken up by those suffering from obesity.
    - modriano 5y ago
      Obesity isn't contagious, so it doesn't really tax healthcare systems like a virus that produces exponentially increasing demands on local healthcare systems. It's kind of like trying to compare O(n) to O(2^n) without admitting that [the system was operating fine in the O(n) regime and is falling apart in the O(2^n) regime]. My sister-in-law is a nurse practitioner and she has been reposting job listings for RNs and NPs over the past year or so offering $6k+ per week (!!!) for RNs and NPs to do stints in hospital systems under extreme load around the country.
fallingknife 5y ago
Pretty much all experts now admit the virus will be endemic (even if everyone were vaccinated), so you will encounter it eventually. This means that refusing the vaccine is really just hurting yourself.
josephcsible 5y ago
> Exposing people to HIV (and other STDs) knowingly? But doesn't California's SB 239 mean that a lot of people don't believe this anymore? And don't most people who think SB 239 was a good thing also hate people who don't want the vaccine?
- eganist 5y ago
  > But didn't California just move in the exact opposite direction on this particular point? From my reading, Cali HSC 120290 criminalizes knowingly transmitting any STD, which fits the bill for stigmatization. I'm guessing your point is it seems like transmitting any STD is a misdemeanor now, whereas in the past, only HIV would be tagged — with a felony, specifically. Right? I'd venture that it's an adjustment with the times, specifically that HIV is no longer a death sentence especially as drugs for HIV come upon patent expiration in ~6 years time. Still a stigma, and it still impairs a person's ability to have a normal romantic life, but it's no longer murder-adjacent.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    But shouldn't the punishment for knowingly transmitting a permanent STD be worse than for transmitting ones that can be completely cured with some antibiotics?
  - bluecalm 5y ago
    I haven't heard something as offensive to my sense of justice as downgrading giving STDs to others from felony to misdemeanor for a very long time. I mean seriously, is there anyone out there who prefers getting an STD (let alone a very serious one) then getting punched in the face for example or getting your home broken into?
    - eganist 5y ago
      I'm not defending it; just giving context around how it may have come to pass.
tobias3 5y ago
Difficult to categorize as such, because the vaccinated still spread the virus. And as long as R_t>1 pretty much everyone will get it. So unvaccinated cause harm to others indirectly by burding the healthcare system. And one also does that by socially acceptable stuff like motorcycling (or maybe that's a plus if one is organ donor?).
- 08-15 5y ago
  Indeed. That's why helmets are mandatory for motorcyclists. Helmets are to motorcycles as vaccines are to COVID. Neither guarantees that you don't die or need intensive care, but both reduce the likelihood.
  - brutusborn 5y ago
    I really like this comparison but it misses the main reason that this is such a huge issue: there are basically no downsides to wearing a helmet, but for some people vaccinations will cause health problems. I know that P(issues from Covid) > P(issues from Covid Vaccines) for almost all cases, but the downside is hard for people to ignore.
- eganist 5y ago
  https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/vaccinated-individuals-can-still-pass-covid-19-in-household-settings https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/vaccinated-individuals-ca... > The viral load declined more rapidly for those who were fully vaccinated than those who were unvaccinated. However, investigators noted that vaccinated individuals did not have a lower peak viral load than those who were vaccinated. Tldr: there's probably a window where vaccinated people can transmit the virus as effectively as unvaccinated people, but that window is almost certainly shorter. While that's probably not helpful in household settings, it's still plenty useful in cutting disease spread during short terms in confined spaces.
brutusborn 5y ago
Why did you ignore all the counter-examples I gave? Are you saying you stigmatise obese people, and people who drink?
- eganist 5y ago
  > Why did you ignore all the counter-examples I gave? Are you saying you stigmatise obese people, and people who drink? Your points were addressed implicitly, but I can do so explicitly at your behest: Obesity and alcoholism aren't preventing people with other conditions from seeking medical care because the current medical system (at least in western nations) can account for and manage these conditions successfully, unlike COVID which has consistently resulted in resource, capacity, and utility shortages throughout the pandemic thereby posing an undue risk to general welfare and the lives of others. I also say this as someone who's been both obese and not obese: unlike a decision to refuse a life-saving vaccine, refusing to eat is far, far harder. And as someone who refuses to drink specifically because I know my own tendencies towards addiction, I empathize with those who started drinking socially and suddenly found themselves trapped by the vice grip of an alcohol abuse disorder. None of these compare to to choosing to refuse a vaccine without sound medical grounds. There's nothing much to debate here; the topics you flagged are pretty personal topics for me, so I'll gladly and passionately defend against their misuse in debate.
  - brutusborn 5y ago
    Thankyou for your explanation, I genuinely didn't understand the implicit response. And I think I agree with you, that the essential difference is how easy it is to get vaccinated. I probably come to different conclusions because I know people for whom it's not "easy". This is because they are fearful of vaccines, mistrust authority, are uneducated or are paranoid. I think there is a parallel between an alcoholic slowly ruining their life through denial of the effects of drinking, and someone refusing a useful vaccine due to fear. In both cases, stigma may help them change course, but in my experience is is more likely to entrench the behaviour. Thus I don't think it should be used.
  - native_samples 5y ago

mardifoufs 5y ago

Okay so do you agree on putting obesity and obese people on that list too?

HarryHirsch 5y ago
The Alabama department of Public Health puts posters up asking you to walk more, eat healthy, all that stuff. So, yes, obesity is a public health problem, and it's being addressed. What are you trying to say with that comment?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  But we're doing way, way more than putting up posters saying to get vaccinated. For example, imagine how you'd react if Alabama mandated that every worker with a BMI above 30 had to be fired.
  - Volundr 5y ago
    How does a BMI of over 30 put other workers at risk? These situations are not analogous. And unless Alabama has a far more strict proposal than the proposed federal mandate, no one is requiring unvaccinated workers be fired, only they be tested weekly, so the analogy breaks down on that front as well.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > How does a BMI of over 30 put other workers at risk? How do unvaccinated people who work from home put other workers at risk?
      - Volundr 5y ago
        I didn't say that they did? You've ignored the entire content of my comment to engage with an argument I didn't make.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        You said the situations weren't analogous. I'm saying they are, because firing an unvaccinated remote worker doesn't make anyone else any safer than firing an obese remote worker does.
        Volundr 5y ago
        Except most workers aren't remote workers, and as stated in my original comment that you chose to ignore, there is no mandate that anyone be fired for being unvaccinated. So being unvaccinated is risky to others around you while having a high BMI is not, and you suggested firing employees with a high BMI, while the mandate only calls for testing unvaccinated employees. So again, the analogy falls apart two different ways.
- fileeditview 5y ago
  Maybe it would be a better comparison if they called obese people "fat and crazy persons that endanger society by using up capacity in the healthcare system" or similar. Because this kind of speech is used by officials to describe people that don't want the vaccination.
modriano 5y ago
How does obesity place undue burden on others' ability to live safely?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Because obesity makes it more likely you'll end up taking up a hospital bed that someone else might need.
  - eganist 5y ago
    The healthcare system manages this inconsequentially because relative to refusing a vaccine, the increased likelihood of this happening with obesity is marginal. Prior to the pandemic (and also today during the pandemic), there wasn't a concern about people dying from treatable medical conditions because healthcare capacity was taken up by those suffering from obesity.
  - modriano 5y ago
    Obesity isn't contagious, so it doesn't really tax healthcare systems like a virus that produces exponentially increasing demands on local healthcare systems. It's kind of like trying to compare O(n) to O(2^n) without admitting that [the system was operating fine in the O(n) regime and is falling apart in the O(2^n) regime]. My sister-in-law is a nurse practitioner and she has been reposting job listings for RNs and NPs over the past year or so offering $6k+ per week (!!!) for RNs and NPs to do stints in hospital systems under extreme load around the country.

fallingknife 5y ago

Pretty much all experts now admit the virus will be endemic (even if everyone were vaccinated), so you will encounter it eventually. This means that refusing the vaccine is really just hurting yourself.

josephcsible 5y ago

> Exposing people to HIV (and other STDs) knowingly? But doesn't California's SB 239 mean that a lot of people don't believe this anymore? And don't most people who think SB 239 was a good thing also hate people who don't want the vaccine?

eganist 5y ago
> But didn't California just move in the exact opposite direction on this particular point? From my reading, Cali HSC 120290 criminalizes knowingly transmitting any STD, which fits the bill for stigmatization. I'm guessing your point is it seems like transmitting any STD is a misdemeanor now, whereas in the past, only HIV would be tagged — with a felony, specifically. Right? I'd venture that it's an adjustment with the times, specifically that HIV is no longer a death sentence especially as drugs for HIV come upon patent expiration in ~6 years time. Still a stigma, and it still impairs a person's ability to have a normal romantic life, but it's no longer murder-adjacent.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  But shouldn't the punishment for knowingly transmitting a permanent STD be worse than for transmitting ones that can be completely cured with some antibiotics?
- bluecalm 5y ago
  I haven't heard something as offensive to my sense of justice as downgrading giving STDs to others from felony to misdemeanor for a very long time. I mean seriously, is there anyone out there who prefers getting an STD (let alone a very serious one) then getting punched in the face for example or getting your home broken into?
  - eganist 5y ago
    I'm not defending it; just giving context around how it may have come to pass.

tobias3 5y ago

Difficult to categorize as such, because the vaccinated still spread the virus. And as long as R_t>1 pretty much everyone will get it. So unvaccinated cause harm to others indirectly by burding the healthcare system. And one also does that by socially acceptable stuff like motorcycling (or maybe that's a plus if one is organ donor?).

08-15 5y ago
Indeed. That's why helmets are mandatory for motorcyclists. Helmets are to motorcycles as vaccines are to COVID. Neither guarantees that you don't die or need intensive care, but both reduce the likelihood.
- brutusborn 5y ago
  I really like this comparison but it misses the main reason that this is such a huge issue: there are basically no downsides to wearing a helmet, but for some people vaccinations will cause health problems. I know that P(issues from Covid) > P(issues from Covid Vaccines) for almost all cases, but the downside is hard for people to ignore.
eganist 5y ago
https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/vaccinated-individuals-can-still-pass-covid-19-in-household-settings https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/vaccinated-individuals-ca... > The viral load declined more rapidly for those who were fully vaccinated than those who were unvaccinated. However, investigators noted that vaccinated individuals did not have a lower peak viral load than those who were vaccinated. Tldr: there's probably a window where vaccinated people can transmit the virus as effectively as unvaccinated people, but that window is almost certainly shorter. While that's probably not helpful in household settings, it's still plenty useful in cutting disease spread during short terms in confined spaces.

brutusborn 5y ago

Why did you ignore all the counter-examples I gave? Are you saying you stigmatise obese people, and people who drink?

eganist 5y ago
> Why did you ignore all the counter-examples I gave? Are you saying you stigmatise obese people, and people who drink? Your points were addressed implicitly, but I can do so explicitly at your behest: Obesity and alcoholism aren't preventing people with other conditions from seeking medical care because the current medical system (at least in western nations) can account for and manage these conditions successfully, unlike COVID which has consistently resulted in resource, capacity, and utility shortages throughout the pandemic thereby posing an undue risk to general welfare and the lives of others. I also say this as someone who's been both obese and not obese: unlike a decision to refuse a life-saving vaccine, refusing to eat is far, far harder. And as someone who refuses to drink specifically because I know my own tendencies towards addiction, I empathize with those who started drinking socially and suddenly found themselves trapped by the vice grip of an alcohol abuse disorder. None of these compare to to choosing to refuse a vaccine without sound medical grounds. There's nothing much to debate here; the topics you flagged are pretty personal topics for me, so I'll gladly and passionately defend against their misuse in debate.
- brutusborn 5y ago
  Thankyou for your explanation, I genuinely didn't understand the implicit response. And I think I agree with you, that the essential difference is how easy it is to get vaccinated. I probably come to different conclusions because I know people for whom it's not "easy". This is because they are fearful of vaccines, mistrust authority, are uneducated or are paranoid. I think there is a parallel between an alcoholic slowly ruining their life through denial of the effects of drinking, and someone refusing a useful vaccine due to fear. In both cases, stigma may help them change course, but in my experience is is more likely to entrench the behaviour. Thus I don't think it should be used.
- native_samples 5y ago