10 ms·

It seems we are heading in a direction where those who don't take the jab will be blocked from receiving government services, prevented from patronizing various

It seems we are heading in a direction where those who don't take the jab will be blocked from receiving government services, prevented from patronizing various businesses, and even restricted from traveling and the ability to work. Are most citizens really okay with this medical apartheid, or are they afraid of speaking out against it?

bmeski 5y ago
I work for a major news organization in the US and am willing to lose my highly paid job to assert my rights. I desperately urge others who are also capable to take such a hit to follow suit. Edit: Note, I'm also vaccinated. J&J March 2020.
- mwattsun 5y ago
  Could you elaborate a bit on what right you are asserting? I don't think I'm alone in not understanding what right you are fighting for. You're asking me to take a stand without telling me what I'm taking a stand for.
  - bmeski 5y ago
    Mandated COVID-19 vaccination of individuals with the current EUA approved vaccines. The devil is in the details. The EUA designation was pushed through because there was no other, "obvious" treatment (despite proven efficacy of a combination of prophylactic treatments). They are testing this thing on us. Even if it works I do not consent to be tested on.
    - mwattsun 5y ago
      Where do you derive your right to consent or not? I could say I have the right to not have my body put in jail, but I have no basis for that.
      - bmeski 5y ago
        Item 1 of the Nuremberg Code. "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment."
        mwattsun 5y ago
        The Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. In fact, the Code's reference to Hippocratic duty to the individual patient and the need to provide information was not initially favored by the American Medical Association. Wikipedia First, you would have to find a jurisdiction that officially accepted the Nuremberg code and move there, second you would have to prove that the Covid vaccination program was a medical experiment and third you would have to explain why you accepted prior vaccinations that were part of a public health program (such as polio vaccinations) I reject your call to take a stand because I don't think there's anything to stand on or any right that I'm losing.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        dekhn 5y ago
        The current application of the vaccine at scale is not being done with "human subjects" (that research was already done, on consenting subjects). It doesn't apply in situations where the legal authority has authorized the treatment. Trotting out the nuremberg code for a vaccine intended to help reduce world suffering (that is being used in a moral ways) is in poor taste, in my opinion. It was written because Nazis were using Jewish and other people in scientific experiments that make vaccine trials look pleasant. Also, all the necessary information for you to make a decision according to the code has already been provided to you, and the US government (not sure about others) has a constitutionally supported right to mandate that you take a vaccine.
    - scrollaway 5y ago
      As someone who actually tested a vaccine in phase 3 voluntarily, please do not put yourself in the same group as me. You got a jab hundreds of millions of people got. I got a jab a few thousand of people got. I got to install an app and log all sorts of things on it every couple days. You didn’t have to do that. You received a QR code to allow you to participate in a variety of things. I didn’t, and had to even-more-experimentally mix and match my untested vaccine with an EMA approved one so I could get a Covid safe ticket. I’m fine by the way.
      - bmeski 5y ago
        Exactly, why didn’t we all get that? All I got was, “sit here for 15 minutes”. I don't remember that for any other vaccine I’ve ever taken.
        scrollaway 5y ago
        I don't understand what else you were expecting. The 15 min wait is because some known side effects manifest within those 15 minutes. Everything else is either minor, or extremely rare, or both. The US has the VAERS system if you want more on side effect reporting, but your doctor is supposed to do the work. Either way, the vaccine was tested. That it didn't go through a 10 year trial period is because we didn't have the time. Will you suddenly explode or combust in 11 years? I can't prove you won't. I would happily put money on the negative though, care to wager?
        gassiss 5y ago
        That's mostly to watch for allergic reactions, which if you get you need medical assistance asap. Nothing to do with the covid vaccine itself.
        bmeski 5y ago
        So the vaccine that they inject into you, that would cause an allergic reaction, has nothing to do with the allergic reaction?
micromacrofoot 5y ago
apartheid was a racist policy that discriminated against people based on their skin color… you’re comparing this to mandating a vaccine that dramatically reduces the hospitalization rate during an international pandemic that has killed more than 5 million people in 2 years
- peteradio 5y ago
  > dramatically reduces the hospitalization rate When administered to the at risk population. When required for young, hospitalization system impact would be marginal.
  - middleclick 5y ago
    Not correct. Here is the official source: https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2021-12-31-Current-COVID-19-Risk-in-Ontario-by-Vaccination-Status.png https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2... Please cite your sources.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      Your link does not address age-specific hospitalization effects of vaccination. As a result, it is non-responsive to the GP's position. If you posted the wrong link and meant to post one that addresses GP's point of view, would you mind fixing the link? On the other hand, on the off chance it was intentional, please try to engage with more honesty and more in good faith.
      - middleclick 5y ago
        torstenvl 5y ago
some-guy 5y ago
- theodorejb 5y ago
- egberts1 5y ago
sto_hristo 5y ago
I'm pretty fine with that. I'm also fine with taking driving rights away from people caught driving drunk.
leeoniya 5y ago
i've always wondered how anti-vaxxers would feel about sending their children to schools exclusively for anti-vaxxers. is this something they would feel no hesitation in doing, or do they actually appreciate that their unvaccinated kids are surrounded by others' vaccinated kids? and also does there exist a sufficient amount of medical professionals to agree to service an all-anti-vaxxer school without complaint?
- jquery 5y ago
- bmeski 5y ago
  Within my family, they weigh the risks of what they believe the side-effects are and the disease. They all live in very remote areas with few people so the risk is low to begin with. They aren't entirely "unintelligent", and I respect their decisions.
  - leeoniya 5y ago
    the problem is 1. infectious disease that can kill others. it's great that they are remote, but they still interact with others sometimes. no one requires them to wear warning signs. as numerous others have pointed out, it's like drunk driving. drinking while driving is not just personal choice, even if it seems like just you minding your own alcohol. 1a. even if the disease itself is not sufficient to kill people but causes them to seek medical attention, beyond the capacity of the healthcare system, this means worse outcomes for those who could not have avoided ending up in the hospital. 2. ask what doctors think about treating them when they get polio or things we havent seen in many generations. even intelligent people are terrible at assessing risk in areas where they are not professionals. see how many doctors are antivaxxers, how many security professionals click on https://chase.myaccount.com https://chase.myaccount.com links, etc.
IgorPartola 5y ago
Yes, I am ok with society not supporting those who choose to actively work against its well being. This isn’t a slippery slope situation, let’s not get carried away with that. Either do your patriotic duty, or do the selfish thing and suffer the consequences.
mynameishere 5y ago
moh_maya 5y ago
So I don’t think we are anywhere close to what you are suggesting. But if it comes down to it, I’m actually completely ok with such an approach. How is this any different than mandating the small pox vaccine, or the polio vaccine? The vaccine dramatically lowers the probability of a severe infection; reduces the burden on healthcare systems - which in, in many countries apart from the US (for instance, Canada) is a public good. And therefore enables hospitals to provide care for patients with other diseases; patients who need urgent surgical procedures. Even where there is private healthcare, it still is a public resource. One possible symmetric response to people who refuse to get vaccinated is to deny them access to healthcare if they get a covid infection and need medical care - But I think that is far more draconian and inhumane, and is arguably more akin to medical apartheid, than denying those who chose to remain unvaccinated (without broadly accepted medical reasons) access to public goods when they do not accept their responsibility towards public welfare.
- casuaobserv 5y ago
m-p-3 5y ago
I personally have no issue with this for the well-being of the majority and the medically vulnerables, and to make sure our healthcare system isn't overwhelmed with COVID cases that could otherwise be avoided or at least won't require hospitalization.
- bmeski 5y ago
  Hospitalizations are up because the governing health agencies are actively making it difficult to access proven prophylactic treatments. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2021/12/23/us-pauses-distribution-of-monoclonal-antibody-treatments-that-proved-ineffective-against-omicron/?sh=274730584c62 https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2021/12/23/us-paus...) Odd thought: Even if ineffective against omicron, why would the government pause distribution of any, safe medicine? Doctor's should still be allowed to use it as they see fit, no?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
middleclick 5y ago
> blocked from receiving government services Quite the hyperbole: not all government services, just employment insurance and that too if you were only fired for not receiving the vaccine. A reminder that in many of these jobs, there was already a requirement for getting a set of vaccines so this is not new. Though for some people, this vaccine is "different" but once you ask them to explain why they can't. So no new rules. You needed vaccines for most of the jobs and this just an additional one. You will still receive employment insurance for other stuff, irrespective of your vaccination status. > prevented from patronizing various businesses You are not prevented from accessing essential businesses and no one checks your vaccination status or even asks for one. > even restricted from traveling and the ability to work You are still free to drive to work or take local public transit. The difference between ICU rates of unvaccinated and vaccinated people in Ontario for example tells us that the vaccination is working: https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2021-12-31-Current-COVID-19-Risk-in-Ontario-by-Vaccination-Status.png https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2... ^ Please see the above graph. If you cannot participate in society moving forward, then you should not expect society to cater to your needs.
- dontcare007 5y ago
- zo1 5y ago
  > "You are still free to drive to work or take local public transit." Then the whole point of this thing is pointless. We're selectively punishing people. We don't prevent or punish positive cases from going around to work, public transport, etc and infecting others, yet we punish people that choose to simply not vaccinate. > "If you cannot participate in society moving forward, then you should not expect society to cater to your needs." Just like to point out that you can use the same line of reasoning for a host of other things, even unrelated to medical themes. Like say allowing facial recognition cameras in all homes to prevent domestic violence and child abuse. Yet most people supposedly stand on principle against it, despite the "pragmatism" of it. Likewise we should be standing here on plain old and impractical "body autonomy" and protecting people's personal medical choices. It just depends on how far you want to take the hyperbole and how far you want to extrapolate the doomsday predictions that flow from this. E.g. How about state-mandated abortions for down-syndrome? Or preventing pro-creation of known carriers of genetic disorders? Look at how we tip-toed around aids after we eventually acknowledged it. As a side note, we should all be worried about how this entire world-incident is allowing laws and understandings that we've had and worked on attaining for decades if not centuries to be simply and casually bypassed under some banner of "safety", "science" and pragmatism. There has to be a better way to deal with this and as you say, move society forward instead of backward.
14 5y ago
Health care worker here in Canada. It’s complete BS. I can’t believe it. Where are the protests I want in. Sadly if you have ever visited r/Canada it is full of people who believe this kind of thing is the right thing to do. I have to believe it is a state campaign with dozens of fake accounts promoting a narrative. This is too messed up for January 1st 2022.
- klipklop 5y ago
  Reddit is very far from reality. You can’t trust the people that run that site or the moderators. The company has had petty CEOs that did shady things with users posts and data.
vidarh 5y ago
It's incredibly offensive to compare differences in treatment based on some people's choice to knowingly putting others at risk with oppression on the basis of something people could not change.
mindslight 5y ago
I for one would be speaking out against it from an idealistic perspective, but I'm tired of my tolerance for regressive views being taken advantage of. The anti-vax thing was cute when it was maybe 5% of the population and just created the occasional localized outbreak. I'm still a libertarian, but the biggest impingement on my freedom here has been because of top-down political disinformation campaigns utterly destroying the public health response. They're playing off the failings of our society to herd people into utterly destructive directions, and following them needs to be called out for what it is rather than letting it continue to be passed off as some manifestation of individual freedom.
bernardv 5y ago
Totally fine with that.Enough whining. Get with the program.
Daishiman 5y ago
I certainly am.

bmeski 5y ago

I work for a major news organization in the US and am willing to lose my highly paid job to assert my rights. I desperately urge others who are also capable to take such a hit to follow suit. Edit: Note, I'm also vaccinated. J&J March 2020.

mwattsun 5y ago
Could you elaborate a bit on what right you are asserting? I don't think I'm alone in not understanding what right you are fighting for. You're asking me to take a stand without telling me what I'm taking a stand for.
- bmeski 5y ago
  Mandated COVID-19 vaccination of individuals with the current EUA approved vaccines. The devil is in the details. The EUA designation was pushed through because there was no other, "obvious" treatment (despite proven efficacy of a combination of prophylactic treatments). They are testing this thing on us. Even if it works I do not consent to be tested on.
  - mwattsun 5y ago
    Where do you derive your right to consent or not? I could say I have the right to not have my body put in jail, but I have no basis for that.
    - bmeski 5y ago
      Item 1 of the Nuremberg Code. "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment."
      - mwattsun 5y ago
        The Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. In fact, the Code's reference to Hippocratic duty to the individual patient and the need to provide information was not initially favored by the American Medical Association. Wikipedia First, you would have to find a jurisdiction that officially accepted the Nuremberg code and move there, second you would have to prove that the Covid vaccination program was a medical experiment and third you would have to explain why you accepted prior vaccinations that were part of a public health program (such as polio vaccinations) I reject your call to take a stand because I don't think there's anything to stand on or any right that I'm losing.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - dekhn 5y ago
        The current application of the vaccine at scale is not being done with "human subjects" (that research was already done, on consenting subjects). It doesn't apply in situations where the legal authority has authorized the treatment. Trotting out the nuremberg code for a vaccine intended to help reduce world suffering (that is being used in a moral ways) is in poor taste, in my opinion. It was written because Nazis were using Jewish and other people in scientific experiments that make vaccine trials look pleasant. Also, all the necessary information for you to make a decision according to the code has already been provided to you, and the US government (not sure about others) has a constitutionally supported right to mandate that you take a vaccine.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    As someone who actually tested a vaccine in phase 3 voluntarily, please do not put yourself in the same group as me. You got a jab hundreds of millions of people got. I got a jab a few thousand of people got. I got to install an app and log all sorts of things on it every couple days. You didn’t have to do that. You received a QR code to allow you to participate in a variety of things. I didn’t, and had to even-more-experimentally mix and match my untested vaccine with an EMA approved one so I could get a Covid safe ticket. I’m fine by the way.
    - bmeski 5y ago
      Exactly, why didn’t we all get that? All I got was, “sit here for 15 minutes”. I don't remember that for any other vaccine I’ve ever taken.
      - scrollaway 5y ago
        I don't understand what else you were expecting. The 15 min wait is because some known side effects manifest within those 15 minutes. Everything else is either minor, or extremely rare, or both. The US has the VAERS system if you want more on side effect reporting, but your doctor is supposed to do the work. Either way, the vaccine was tested. That it didn't go through a 10 year trial period is because we didn't have the time. Will you suddenly explode or combust in 11 years? I can't prove you won't. I would happily put money on the negative though, care to wager?
      - gassiss 5y ago
        That's mostly to watch for allergic reactions, which if you get you need medical assistance asap. Nothing to do with the covid vaccine itself.
        bmeski 5y ago
        So the vaccine that they inject into you, that would cause an allergic reaction, has nothing to do with the allergic reaction?

micromacrofoot 5y ago

apartheid was a racist policy that discriminated against people based on their skin color… you’re comparing this to mandating a vaccine that dramatically reduces the hospitalization rate during an international pandemic that has killed more than 5 million people in 2 years

peteradio 5y ago
> dramatically reduces the hospitalization rate When administered to the at risk population. When required for young, hospitalization system impact would be marginal.
- middleclick 5y ago
  Not correct. Here is the official source: https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2021-12-31-Current-COVID-19-Risk-in-Ontario-by-Vaccination-Status.png https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2... Please cite your sources.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Your link does not address age-specific hospitalization effects of vaccination. As a result, it is non-responsive to the GP's position. If you posted the wrong link and meant to post one that addresses GP's point of view, would you mind fixing the link? On the other hand, on the off chance it was intentional, please try to engage with more honesty and more in good faith.
    - middleclick 5y ago
      - torstenvl 5y ago

some-guy 5y ago

theodorejb 5y ago
egberts1 5y ago

sto_hristo 5y ago

I'm pretty fine with that. I'm also fine with taking driving rights away from people caught driving drunk.

leeoniya 5y ago

i've always wondered how anti-vaxxers would feel about sending their children to schools exclusively for anti-vaxxers. is this something they would feel no hesitation in doing, or do they actually appreciate that their unvaccinated kids are surrounded by others' vaccinated kids? and also does there exist a sufficient amount of medical professionals to agree to service an all-anti-vaxxer school without complaint?

jquery 5y ago
bmeski 5y ago
Within my family, they weigh the risks of what they believe the side-effects are and the disease. They all live in very remote areas with few people so the risk is low to begin with. They aren't entirely "unintelligent", and I respect their decisions.
- leeoniya 5y ago
  the problem is 1. infectious disease that can kill others. it's great that they are remote, but they still interact with others sometimes. no one requires them to wear warning signs. as numerous others have pointed out, it's like drunk driving. drinking while driving is not just personal choice, even if it seems like just you minding your own alcohol. 1a. even if the disease itself is not sufficient to kill people but causes them to seek medical attention, beyond the capacity of the healthcare system, this means worse outcomes for those who could not have avoided ending up in the hospital. 2. ask what doctors think about treating them when they get polio or things we havent seen in many generations. even intelligent people are terrible at assessing risk in areas where they are not professionals. see how many doctors are antivaxxers, how many security professionals click on https://chase.myaccount.com https://chase.myaccount.com links, etc.

IgorPartola 5y ago

Yes, I am ok with society not supporting those who choose to actively work against its well being. This isn’t a slippery slope situation, let’s not get carried away with that. Either do your patriotic duty, or do the selfish thing and suffer the consequences.

mynameishere 5y ago

moh_maya 5y ago

So I don’t think we are anywhere close to what you are suggesting. But if it comes down to it, I’m actually completely ok with such an approach. How is this any different than mandating the small pox vaccine, or the polio vaccine? The vaccine dramatically lowers the probability of a severe infection; reduces the burden on healthcare systems - which in, in many countries apart from the US (for instance, Canada) is a public good. And therefore enables hospitals to provide care for patients with other diseases; patients who need urgent surgical procedures. Even where there is private healthcare, it still is a public resource. One possible symmetric response to people who refuse to get vaccinated is to deny them access to healthcare if they get a covid infection and need medical care - But I think that is far more draconian and inhumane, and is arguably more akin to medical apartheid, than denying those who chose to remain unvaccinated (without broadly accepted medical reasons) access to public goods when they do not accept their responsibility towards public welfare.

casuaobserv 5y ago

m-p-3 5y ago

I personally have no issue with this for the well-being of the majority and the medically vulnerables, and to make sure our healthcare system isn't overwhelmed with COVID cases that could otherwise be avoided or at least won't require hospitalization.

bmeski 5y ago
Hospitalizations are up because the governing health agencies are actively making it difficult to access proven prophylactic treatments. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2021/12/23/us-pauses-distribution-of-monoclonal-antibody-treatments-that-proved-ineffective-against-omicron/?sh=274730584c62 https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2021/12/23/us-paus...) Odd thought: Even if ineffective against omicron, why would the government pause distribution of any, safe medicine? Doctor's should still be allowed to use it as they see fit, no?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

middleclick 5y ago

> blocked from receiving government services Quite the hyperbole: not all government services, just employment insurance and that too if you were only fired for not receiving the vaccine. A reminder that in many of these jobs, there was already a requirement for getting a set of vaccines so this is not new. Though for some people, this vaccine is "different" but once you ask them to explain why they can't. So no new rules. You needed vaccines for most of the jobs and this just an additional one. You will still receive employment insurance for other stuff, irrespective of your vaccination status. > prevented from patronizing various businesses You are not prevented from accessing essential businesses and no one checks your vaccination status or even asks for one. > even restricted from traveling and the ability to work You are still free to drive to work or take local public transit. The difference between ICU rates of unvaccinated and vaccinated people in Ontario for example tells us that the vaccination is working: https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2021-12-31-Current-COVID-19-Risk-in-Ontario-by-Vaccination-Status.png https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2... ^ Please see the above graph. If you cannot participate in society moving forward, then you should not expect society to cater to your needs.

dontcare007 5y ago
zo1 5y ago
> "You are still free to drive to work or take local public transit." Then the whole point of this thing is pointless. We're selectively punishing people. We don't prevent or punish positive cases from going around to work, public transport, etc and infecting others, yet we punish people that choose to simply not vaccinate. > "If you cannot participate in society moving forward, then you should not expect society to cater to your needs." Just like to point out that you can use the same line of reasoning for a host of other things, even unrelated to medical themes. Like say allowing facial recognition cameras in all homes to prevent domestic violence and child abuse. Yet most people supposedly stand on principle against it, despite the "pragmatism" of it. Likewise we should be standing here on plain old and impractical "body autonomy" and protecting people's personal medical choices. It just depends on how far you want to take the hyperbole and how far you want to extrapolate the doomsday predictions that flow from this. E.g. How about state-mandated abortions for down-syndrome? Or preventing pro-creation of known carriers of genetic disorders? Look at how we tip-toed around aids after we eventually acknowledged it. As a side note, we should all be worried about how this entire world-incident is allowing laws and understandings that we've had and worked on attaining for decades if not centuries to be simply and casually bypassed under some banner of "safety", "science" and pragmatism. There has to be a better way to deal with this and as you say, move society forward instead of backward.

14 5y ago

Health care worker here in Canada. It’s complete BS. I can’t believe it. Where are the protests I want in. Sadly if you have ever visited r/Canada it is full of people who believe this kind of thing is the right thing to do. I have to believe it is a state campaign with dozens of fake accounts promoting a narrative. This is too messed up for January 1st 2022.

klipklop 5y ago
Reddit is very far from reality. You can’t trust the people that run that site or the moderators. The company has had petty CEOs that did shady things with users posts and data.

vidarh 5y ago

It's incredibly offensive to compare differences in treatment based on some people's choice to knowingly putting others at risk with oppression on the basis of something people could not change.

mindslight 5y ago

I for one would be speaking out against it from an idealistic perspective, but I'm tired of my tolerance for regressive views being taken advantage of. The anti-vax thing was cute when it was maybe 5% of the population and just created the occasional localized outbreak. I'm still a libertarian, but the biggest impingement on my freedom here has been because of top-down political disinformation campaigns utterly destroying the public health response. They're playing off the failings of our society to herd people into utterly destructive directions, and following them needs to be called out for what it is rather than letting it continue to be passed off as some manifestation of individual freedom.

bernardv 5y ago

Totally fine with that.Enough whining. Get with the program.

Daishiman 5y ago

I certainly am.