5 ms·

Is agency over ones body not a civil rights issue? I'm fully vaccinated and even boostered, but I'm extremely uncomfortable telling other people that they have

by enjo 5y ago

Is agency over ones body not a civil rights issue? I'm fully vaccinated and even boostered, but I'm extremely uncomfortable telling other people that they have to do something to their own body. And I don't think taking vaccines (usually as a child) by mandate in the past changes the ethics of it. I think it's fair for there to be consequences to refusing the vaccine. Your work may decide they don't want to expose their staff to an unvaccinated human... so you may lose your job. Government may decide that the risk of sitting inside with someone unvaccinated is too high so you may not be welcome at certain businesses. Maybe you have to wear a mask when others don't. That doesn't cross a line to me, but saying "you absolutely must take this vaccine or we're going to use the force of government to make you" does.

selectodude 5y ago
> That doesn't cross a line to me, but saying "you absolutely must take this vaccine or we're going to use the force of government to make you" does. You're absolutely right about that but there is a cost-benefit analysis here. If we don't want the government to be able to track our every move (to make sure that the unvaccinated don't violate the public interest) then it's simpler and probably more democratic to just mandate vaccination.
skulk 5y ago
> I'm extremely uncomfortable telling other people that they have to do something to their own body. I'm extremely uncomfortable with granting a novel coronavirus a gigantic reservoir of freely available incubators to infect and try out new ways to use the human body for its own goals, all the while having a way to largely prevent it. The concept of "individual rights" as you present it here is at odds with best practices learned from epidemiology. Is that in-and-of-itself a troublesome fact? Absolutely.
- zzt123 5y ago
  I am vaxed but… this reminds of the abortion argument. If one is against allowing someone right to bodily autonomy (remain unvaccinated) because then exercising that right could lead to the suffering and/or death of another, then that person ought to also be against abortion, as there should be no right to bodily autonomy in that event either, given that the death of another is guaranteed. Yet on the left we have many who anti-anti-vax while pro-abortion. I don’t understand the consistency of that position.
  - kmonad 5y ago
    maybe try once more, focussing on the differences rather than the similarities between the two scenarios.
    - zzt123 5y ago
      What’s your argument for it, if I may ask? I cannot convince myself that abortion is a judicial matter as opposed to a legislative one. If it’s an innate right, there shouldn’t be any issue aborting an 8 month old fetus.
      - kmonad 5y ago
        I doubt your sincere participation in the argument unless you attempt to see differences between your scenarios.
        TheRealNGenius 5y ago
        In effect, the parent comment is attempting to argue their position through proof by lack of counterexample. Now, whether this is a valid proof construction technique, and hence, whether their stated position is of any meaningful merit besides an exquisite example of doublethink, is left to the interpretation of the reader as an exercise.
      - inkblotuniverse 5y ago
        Or a newborn, for that matter. What's the difference? It's taking up a valuable hospital bed/nurse/healthcare worker, and will need over a decade of work before it can live on its own. Think of how many 70-year olds we could save with that labour!
  - TheRealNGenius 5y ago
    Right, it's simply doublethink as simple as that. Some people hold contradictory opinions whenever it serves them best without regard for self-consistency.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > I'm extremely uncomfortable with granting a novel coronavirus a gigantic reservoir of freely available incubators to infect and try out new ways to use the human body for its own goals Then you should be extremely uncomfortable with vaccine mandates, because this is exactly what mass vaccination is doing. Since none of the vaccines prevent people from getting COVID or passing it on to others, the vaccines are creating an evolutionary environment where there is high selection pressure for the virus to evolve variants that resist the vaccines. Mandating vaccines just makes that worse.
  - kmonad 5y ago
    the vast majority of viral replications take place in susceptible infected bodies, i.e. predominantly those of unvaccinated individuals. variants, therefore, mostly arise among unvaccinated. sometimes, by chance, a variant then may emerge that is able to evade some of the vaccine induced immunity. unvaccinated individuals therefore represent a source of escape variants, and therefore jeopardize the success of vaccine campaigns.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > the vast majority of viral replications take place in susceptible infected bodies, i.e. predominantly those of unvaccinated individuals. I'm not sure this is true, but even if it is, this... > variants, therefore, mostly arise among unvaccinated. ...does not follow from it. The key thing driving evolution of variants is not number of replications but selective pressure. Selective pressure is much larger in a vaccinated individual than an unvaccinated individual (or at least an unvaccinated individual that has not had COVID and does not have natural immunity).
      - kmonad 5y ago
        Selection can drive evolution, and in a vaccinated body there exist other selection pressures than in an unvaccinated body. Variants which may by chance be suited well to strive in a new environment need to arise first. This will happen only when replication occurs. The unvaccinated population is the major breeding ground for variants, not the other way around.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > The concept of "individual rights" as you present it here is at odds with best practices learned from epidemiology. No, it isn't, because science cannot make value judgments. Epidemiology can tell you things like: if you do A, B will happen; if you do C, D will happen; etc. That's all "best practices" based on epidemiology or any other science can amount to. But no amount of science can tell you whether doing A to make B happen, or doing C to make D happen, is worth the cost of doing those things or the other side effects they will have. Those are value judgments, and value judgments should not be forced on people.
  - skulk 5y ago
    That's why we start with a value judgement that everyone agrees on, instead of leaving it implicit. Consider the following value judgement: > The evolution of a novel coronavirus that is both highly infectious and deadly must be avoided at all costs. Barring any reasonable objection to this (of which I can think of none), the ball is in science's court to prescribe a course of action. If that course of action is mandatory vaccination, then so be it.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > Barring any reasonable objection to this (of which I can think of none), Then you haven't thought very hard. "At all costs" is way, way, way too strong. We already have viruses that are much more infectious and deadly than SARS-CoV-2, for example Ebola, and we have not taken this "at all costs" attitude towards them. We expend some effort towards fighting and containing them, but only in proportion, since there are so many other things we also need to expend effort towards doing. > the ball is in science's court to prescribe a course of action No, it isn't. Choosing a course of action requires attaching value to different possible future states of affairs. Science cannot do that. It requires value judgments, and science cannot make value judgments. To take your example, science can to some extent tell you what will happen if you impose mandatory vaccination or if you don't--although since much of what needs to be predicted involves second, third, fourth, and higher order effects and includes various aspects of human psychology and free choice that are not at all well understood scientifically, science's ability to make accurate predictions about such outcomes is limited. But science cannot tell you which of those two possible states of affairs is to be preferred, all things considered.
d4mi3n 5y ago
I feel the same hesitation around bodily autonomy, but there's a VERY important point: the decision impacts more than your own body. It's the same logic we use to outlaw certain substances like heroin or PCP--you have a right to do things with your body up until the point where that decision impacts the health and safety of people around you. Looking at things through that framework is how we end up with controlled substances, anti-smoking laws, DUI laws, and a whole host of other things. One's rights in the US usually stop at the point where they impact the ability of people around you to live their life without undue interference.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
thechao 5y ago
This is a Trolley Car problem: you're going to kill someone: do you flip the switch to kill the baby, or let the Trolley plow through the crowd of people? Now you know why Philosophy professors teach this problem in Philosophy 101.

by enjo 5y ago

selectodude 5y ago

> That doesn't cross a line to me, but saying "you absolutely must take this vaccine or we're going to use the force of government to make you" does. You're absolutely right about that but there is a cost-benefit analysis here. If we don't want the government to be able to track our every move (to make sure that the unvaccinated don't violate the public interest) then it's simpler and probably more democratic to just mandate vaccination.

skulk 5y ago

> I'm extremely uncomfortable telling other people that they have to do something to their own body. I'm extremely uncomfortable with granting a novel coronavirus a gigantic reservoir of freely available incubators to infect and try out new ways to use the human body for its own goals, all the while having a way to largely prevent it. The concept of "individual rights" as you present it here is at odds with best practices learned from epidemiology. Is that in-and-of-itself a troublesome fact? Absolutely.

zzt123 5y ago
I am vaxed but… this reminds of the abortion argument. If one is against allowing someone right to bodily autonomy (remain unvaccinated) because then exercising that right could lead to the suffering and/or death of another, then that person ought to also be against abortion, as there should be no right to bodily autonomy in that event either, given that the death of another is guaranteed. Yet on the left we have many who anti-anti-vax while pro-abortion. I don’t understand the consistency of that position.
- kmonad 5y ago
  maybe try once more, focussing on the differences rather than the similarities between the two scenarios.
  - zzt123 5y ago
    What’s your argument for it, if I may ask? I cannot convince myself that abortion is a judicial matter as opposed to a legislative one. If it’s an innate right, there shouldn’t be any issue aborting an 8 month old fetus.
    - kmonad 5y ago
      I doubt your sincere participation in the argument unless you attempt to see differences between your scenarios.
      - TheRealNGenius 5y ago
        In effect, the parent comment is attempting to argue their position through proof by lack of counterexample. Now, whether this is a valid proof construction technique, and hence, whether their stated position is of any meaningful merit besides an exquisite example of doublethink, is left to the interpretation of the reader as an exercise.
    - inkblotuniverse 5y ago
      Or a newborn, for that matter. What's the difference? It's taking up a valuable hospital bed/nurse/healthcare worker, and will need over a decade of work before it can live on its own. Think of how many 70-year olds we could save with that labour!
- TheRealNGenius 5y ago
  Right, it's simply doublethink as simple as that. Some people hold contradictory opinions whenever it serves them best without regard for self-consistency.
pdonis 5y ago
> I'm extremely uncomfortable with granting a novel coronavirus a gigantic reservoir of freely available incubators to infect and try out new ways to use the human body for its own goals Then you should be extremely uncomfortable with vaccine mandates, because this is exactly what mass vaccination is doing. Since none of the vaccines prevent people from getting COVID or passing it on to others, the vaccines are creating an evolutionary environment where there is high selection pressure for the virus to evolve variants that resist the vaccines. Mandating vaccines just makes that worse.
- kmonad 5y ago
  the vast majority of viral replications take place in susceptible infected bodies, i.e. predominantly those of unvaccinated individuals. variants, therefore, mostly arise among unvaccinated. sometimes, by chance, a variant then may emerge that is able to evade some of the vaccine induced immunity. unvaccinated individuals therefore represent a source of escape variants, and therefore jeopardize the success of vaccine campaigns.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > the vast majority of viral replications take place in susceptible infected bodies, i.e. predominantly those of unvaccinated individuals. I'm not sure this is true, but even if it is, this... > variants, therefore, mostly arise among unvaccinated. ...does not follow from it. The key thing driving evolution of variants is not number of replications but selective pressure. Selective pressure is much larger in a vaccinated individual than an unvaccinated individual (or at least an unvaccinated individual that has not had COVID and does not have natural immunity).
    - kmonad 5y ago
      Selection can drive evolution, and in a vaccinated body there exist other selection pressures than in an unvaccinated body. Variants which may by chance be suited well to strive in a new environment need to arise first. This will happen only when replication occurs. The unvaccinated population is the major breeding ground for variants, not the other way around.
pdonis 5y ago
> The concept of "individual rights" as you present it here is at odds with best practices learned from epidemiology. No, it isn't, because science cannot make value judgments. Epidemiology can tell you things like: if you do A, B will happen; if you do C, D will happen; etc. That's all "best practices" based on epidemiology or any other science can amount to. But no amount of science can tell you whether doing A to make B happen, or doing C to make D happen, is worth the cost of doing those things or the other side effects they will have. Those are value judgments, and value judgments should not be forced on people.
- skulk 5y ago
  That's why we start with a value judgement that everyone agrees on, instead of leaving it implicit. Consider the following value judgement: > The evolution of a novel coronavirus that is both highly infectious and deadly must be avoided at all costs. Barring any reasonable objection to this (of which I can think of none), the ball is in science's court to prescribe a course of action. If that course of action is mandatory vaccination, then so be it.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > Barring any reasonable objection to this (of which I can think of none), Then you haven't thought very hard. "At all costs" is way, way, way too strong. We already have viruses that are much more infectious and deadly than SARS-CoV-2, for example Ebola, and we have not taken this "at all costs" attitude towards them. We expend some effort towards fighting and containing them, but only in proportion, since there are so many other things we also need to expend effort towards doing. > the ball is in science's court to prescribe a course of action No, it isn't. Choosing a course of action requires attaching value to different possible future states of affairs. Science cannot do that. It requires value judgments, and science cannot make value judgments. To take your example, science can to some extent tell you what will happen if you impose mandatory vaccination or if you don't--although since much of what needs to be predicted involves second, third, fourth, and higher order effects and includes various aspects of human psychology and free choice that are not at all well understood scientifically, science's ability to make accurate predictions about such outcomes is limited. But science cannot tell you which of those two possible states of affairs is to be preferred, all things considered.

d4mi3n 5y ago

I feel the same hesitation around bodily autonomy, but there's a VERY important point: the decision impacts more than your own body. It's the same logic we use to outlaw certain substances like heroin or PCP--you have a right to do things with your body up until the point where that decision impacts the health and safety of people around you. Looking at things through that framework is how we end up with controlled substances, anti-smoking laws, DUI laws, and a whole host of other things. One's rights in the US usually stop at the point where they impact the ability of people around you to live their life without undue interference.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

thechao 5y ago

This is a Trolley Car problem: you're going to kill someone: do you flip the switch to kill the baby, or let the Trolley plow through the crowd of people? Now you know why Philosophy professors teach this problem in Philosophy 101.