4 ms·

I didn't miss any part of that statement. Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else. The person I was replying to clearly inferred that va

I didn't miss any part of that statement. Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else. The person I was replying to clearly inferred that vaccinated individuals don't infect others, and that's dangerously wrong. As for schools requiring vaccines, there is a lot to take issue with there - mRNA vaccines are different, with no long term data, for a different virus. The mandated vaccines don't require biannual top ups, and are for viruses that actually threaten children themselves - school agechildren have a near-zero mortality risk form COVID. But the fact remains, regardless of all the weeds we could get into there, and NY state law notwithstanding, **human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment**. As I said, civil liberties groups have written on this at length, and been largely ignored. I think ignoring them requires a level of stupidity bordering on evil.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else. You left a pretty important bit out. Lying by omission is still lying. > human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment Thought experiment: If SARS-CoV-2 were as transmissible as it is currently, but 50% fatal, would you still hold that position? Do human beings perhaps also have a right to life and a certain level of protection from others who might do them harm?
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Vaccines still allow for transmission. That there may be lower infection rates for Delta and Omicron - may - isn't part of that fact, unless I claim to present a big picture, which I clearly fucking didn't. If the virus were 50% fatal that would be a *250x* increase in mortality rate for 18-44 yos... That's the difference between dying in a pedestrian accident, and dying by lightning strike. Even if I conceded that in such a situation, extreme measures might trump human rights - which I don't, because human rights are inalienable - would mandating vaccines actually help? Would people not voluntarily take them, and have wildly increased social pressure to take them? And once people were mandated into taking a vaccine, how often would it be boosted: every 6 months? Would Pfizer be allowed to keep their contracts secret, and allowed to prevent other countries from sharing vaccines or making their own? Even when other countries have abysmal vaccination rates? At what point would the vaccination boosters stop? When 90% of the population has been through the virus? Or never, because a new variant could come along? What if they start raising the prices, and only the wealthy can stay alive? And this is all assuming that in this alternate universe, the vaccines actually prevent transmission. Which ours don't. Fun thought experiment; I suggest you think about it a bit more.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    A whole Gish Gallop worth of dodges there. Let's see if we can nail it down. If we had a vaccine that perfectly prevented transmission, and the virus had a 50% mortality rate, would your proposed human right be flexible, or does it remain a societal suicide pact? Is it possible for two human rights to be in conflict with each other?
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      That's not a Gish Gallop, those are all relevant points. If you choose not to see that, that's on you. Because there is a profit motive, and there are secret contracts, and there are profound inequalities in global distribution. But sure, let's "nail it down" in this hypothetical fantasy, where vaccines perfectly stop transmission and the virus is orders of magnitude more lethal: You still don't have a right to put Pfizer's goop into people who don't want it. Clear? And, if the vaccination perfectly prevented transmission, then people who don't take it would only be hurting themselves. Your argument falls apart completely.
      - yibg 5y ago
        Except for people that can't get vaccinated, which while is a minority isn't a small amount. People have rights, unless those rights interfere with other people's rights. You don't have the right to be a walking bio weapon. I don't think you should be forced to be vaccinated, but I think society has a right to place restrictions on where you can go if you choose to remain infectious.
        mandmandam 5y ago
        Re those who can't get vaccinated, once again: Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Do you get it? ... A walking Bioweapon? Please, tell me - if you can - what the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) is, in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission or death. If you can't tell me that, then you have no leg to stand on to accuse people of being "walking bioweapons" (jesus h christ). And once you find any of those 4 NNTVs, I think you'll be more than a little surprised, if you have any intellectual honesty at all

ceejayoz 5y ago

> Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else. You left a pretty important bit out. Lying by omission is still lying. > human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment Thought experiment: If SARS-CoV-2 were as transmissible as it is currently, but 50% fatal, would you still hold that position? Do human beings perhaps also have a right to life and a certain level of protection from others who might do them harm?

mandmandam 5y ago
Vaccines still allow for transmission. That there may be lower infection rates for Delta and Omicron - may - isn't part of that fact, unless I claim to present a big picture, which I clearly fucking didn't. If the virus were 50% fatal that would be a *250x* increase in mortality rate for 18-44 yos... That's the difference between dying in a pedestrian accident, and dying by lightning strike. Even if I conceded that in such a situation, extreme measures might trump human rights - which I don't, because human rights are inalienable - would mandating vaccines actually help? Would people not voluntarily take them, and have wildly increased social pressure to take them? And once people were mandated into taking a vaccine, how often would it be boosted: every 6 months? Would Pfizer be allowed to keep their contracts secret, and allowed to prevent other countries from sharing vaccines or making their own? Even when other countries have abysmal vaccination rates? At what point would the vaccination boosters stop? When 90% of the population has been through the virus? Or never, because a new variant could come along? What if they start raising the prices, and only the wealthy can stay alive? And this is all assuming that in this alternate universe, the vaccines actually prevent transmission. Which ours don't. Fun thought experiment; I suggest you think about it a bit more.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  A whole Gish Gallop worth of dodges there. Let's see if we can nail it down. If we had a vaccine that perfectly prevented transmission, and the virus had a 50% mortality rate, would your proposed human right be flexible, or does it remain a societal suicide pact? Is it possible for two human rights to be in conflict with each other?
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    That's not a Gish Gallop, those are all relevant points. If you choose not to see that, that's on you. Because there is a profit motive, and there are secret contracts, and there are profound inequalities in global distribution. But sure, let's "nail it down" in this hypothetical fantasy, where vaccines perfectly stop transmission and the virus is orders of magnitude more lethal: You still don't have a right to put Pfizer's goop into people who don't want it. Clear? And, if the vaccination perfectly prevented transmission, then people who don't take it would only be hurting themselves. Your argument falls apart completely.
    - yibg 5y ago
      Except for people that can't get vaccinated, which while is a minority isn't a small amount. People have rights, unless those rights interfere with other people's rights. You don't have the right to be a walking bio weapon. I don't think you should be forced to be vaccinated, but I think society has a right to place restrictions on where you can go if you choose to remain infectious.
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        Re those who can't get vaccinated, once again: Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Do you get it? ... A walking Bioweapon? Please, tell me - if you can - what the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) is, in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission or death. If you can't tell me that, then you have no leg to stand on to accuse people of being "walking bioweapons" (jesus h christ). And once you find any of those 4 NNTVs, I think you'll be more than a little surprised, if you have any intellectual honesty at all