5 ms·

> […] 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

> […] 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.

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.