4 ms·

> If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory? Interestingly, your comparison is relevant, but you

> If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory? Interestingly, your comparison is relevant, but you are responding to an argument which I don't think is being made. The OP is _not_ arguing that vaccines shouldn't be mandatory because they aren't 100% effective. On the contrary, the OP's argument is that since vaccines are relatively effective, one person's choice to not get vaccinated will not effect the others, and it should be up to them. Your seatbelt example is relevant, in that the same "no-harm-to-others" argument can be made in that case too.

MaxDPS 5y ago
Not wearing a seatbelt puts other passengers at risk. If you are t wearing a seatbelt you have a chance of being flung into someone, even if the other person is wearing a seatbelt. This can cause serious injury.
ttmb 5y ago
It's a great analogy because the no-harm-to-others argument doesn't apply in either case. In an incident, an un-seat-belted occupant can turn into a projectile and harm or kill others in the vehicle that might be wearing seatbelts.
- finite_jest 5y ago
  Perhaps, I'm really not sure how often would that happen though. I actually think the analogy is a relatively good one. Parallels also also run for the question of how much "paternalism" do we want (the limits of "for-your-own-good" argument). Interests of insurance providers (whether social or private) is also involved in both cases. In the case of vaccines, immunocompromised people's health is also a consideration. And there is the issue of side-effects, especially for young people. And there is "bodily autonomy". And the stress on healthcare system, etc. I think there could reasonable discussion about these issues. However, the sad reality is that things quickly get reduced to repeating trite "rallying cries".
Orphis 5y ago
If some group of the population is responsible for 85 to 90% of the spread of a disease, then they are directly harming also all the other people who can't be vaccinated for health reasons, they are helping the virus spread and mutate more often to promote new variants that the vaccinated people might not be resistant to, and they thus are the main reason why we still need to have measures in most countries to limit the spread. If you're not seriously doing your part, then you are actively supporting the virus and working against all the rest of the population that is either unable to get critical care or just tirelessly working in the healthcare sector treating all those avoidable critical patients.
throw0101a 5y ago
> […] one person's choice to not get vaccinated will not effect the others, and it should be up to them. But it will effect others: > But here’s the thing. A crankish libertarian – I count myself as one – might understand that seatbelts save lives, and still object to being required to wear one, on personal freedom grounds. That’s perhaps tenable when it comes to seatbelt laws, since the only life in peril from not wearing one is your own. > But vaccines not only make it less likely that you will be infected, suffer or die: They also make it less likely that you will infect others, to suffer and die – and infect still more people – in their turn. (And yes, despite what you might have heard, the evidence[1] is also clear[2] that vaccines reduce transmission rates.) This is hardly a theoretical concern, in the midst of a pandemic that has already claimed nearly 30,000 Canadian lives. > So if anything the case for vaccine mandates is even stronger than it is for seatbelt laws. The cost to personal freedom – a jab in the arm – is slight. The risk of adverse side-effects is negligible. The savings in human lives is provably enormous. How on earth could so many otherwise sensible[3] people have persuaded themselves otherwise? * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-is-the-case-for-vaccine-mandates-like-the-case-for-seatbelt-laws-no/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-is-the-case-... * https://archive.fo/ayjkf https://archive.fo/ayjkf
- finite_jest 5y ago
  Right, I agree, to some extent it does. I was trying to give a better outline of the general form of @b3nji's argument, as @Ardon's objection seemed to be based on a misunderstanding. There is a "pragmatic libertarian" argument too, which goes like this: The mandatory jab is much less costly to civil liberties than lockdowns, and if the virus is not quelled, the political support for lockdowns will only increase. There is a whole bunch of issues and trade-offs involved. [1] People have strong feelings on this [2], and discussion is often reduced to partisan "rallying cries". [1]: e.g. see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29759089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29759089 [2]: Which is somewhat understandable, some of us have lost loved ones, lost jobs, been down the dumps, felt like being in "house arrest", couldn't even hit the gym, witnessed all the paltering by the media etc.

MaxDPS 5y ago

Not wearing a seatbelt puts other passengers at risk. If you are t wearing a seatbelt you have a chance of being flung into someone, even if the other person is wearing a seatbelt. This can cause serious injury.

ttmb 5y ago

It's a great analogy because the no-harm-to-others argument doesn't apply in either case. In an incident, an un-seat-belted occupant can turn into a projectile and harm or kill others in the vehicle that might be wearing seatbelts.

finite_jest 5y ago
Perhaps, I'm really not sure how often would that happen though. I actually think the analogy is a relatively good one. Parallels also also run for the question of how much "paternalism" do we want (the limits of "for-your-own-good" argument). Interests of insurance providers (whether social or private) is also involved in both cases. In the case of vaccines, immunocompromised people's health is also a consideration. And there is the issue of side-effects, especially for young people. And there is "bodily autonomy". And the stress on healthcare system, etc. I think there could reasonable discussion about these issues. However, the sad reality is that things quickly get reduced to repeating trite "rallying cries".

Orphis 5y ago

If some group of the population is responsible for 85 to 90% of the spread of a disease, then they are directly harming also all the other people who can't be vaccinated for health reasons, they are helping the virus spread and mutate more often to promote new variants that the vaccinated people might not be resistant to, and they thus are the main reason why we still need to have measures in most countries to limit the spread. If you're not seriously doing your part, then you are actively supporting the virus and working against all the rest of the population that is either unable to get critical care or just tirelessly working in the healthcare sector treating all those avoidable critical patients.

throw0101a 5y ago

> […] one person's choice to not get vaccinated will not effect the others, and it should be up to them. But it will effect others: > But here’s the thing. A crankish libertarian – I count myself as one – might understand that seatbelts save lives, and still object to being required to wear one, on personal freedom grounds. That’s perhaps tenable when it comes to seatbelt laws, since the only life in peril from not wearing one is your own. > But vaccines not only make it less likely that you will be infected, suffer or die: They also make it less likely that you will infect others, to suffer and die – and infect still more people – in their turn. (And yes, despite what you might have heard, the evidence[1] is also clear[2] that vaccines reduce transmission rates.) This is hardly a theoretical concern, in the midst of a pandemic that has already claimed nearly 30,000 Canadian lives. > So if anything the case for vaccine mandates is even stronger than it is for seatbelt laws. The cost to personal freedom – a jab in the arm – is slight. The risk of adverse side-effects is negligible. The savings in human lives is provably enormous. How on earth could so many otherwise sensible[3] people have persuaded themselves otherwise? * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-is-the-case-for-vaccine-mandates-like-the-case-for-seatbelt-laws-no/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-is-the-case-... * https://archive.fo/ayjkf https://archive.fo/ayjkf

finite_jest 5y ago
Right, I agree, to some extent it does. I was trying to give a better outline of the general form of @b3nji's argument, as @Ardon's objection seemed to be based on a misunderstanding. There is a "pragmatic libertarian" argument too, which goes like this: The mandatory jab is much less costly to civil liberties than lockdowns, and if the virus is not quelled, the political support for lockdowns will only increase. There is a whole bunch of issues and trade-offs involved. [1] People have strong feelings on this [2], and discussion is often reduced to partisan "rallying cries". [1]: e.g. see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29759089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29759089 [2]: Which is somewhat understandable, some of us have lost loved ones, lost jobs, been down the dumps, felt like being in "house arrest", couldn't even hit the gym, witnessed all the paltering by the media etc.