3 ms·

If you really want to know why I oppose them honest to God? Because whenever the government does something, or is given the ability to do something, whether de

If you really want to know why I oppose them honest to God? Because whenever the government does something, or is given the ability to do something, whether de jure, or de facto, I ask myself "Would I feel comfortable with my worst political enemy having the power to do this?" EDIT: The answer I was responding to edited his answer before I finished posting, so the original question was just. "Why do you opposse vax mandates?" My answer still stands.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
I'm personally not sending my kid to any school that doesn't require the standard vaccines: here it is Hepatitis B, DTaP, IPV, MMR and Varicella. It is weird that vaccines mandates didn't gather as much resistance for the last century, but I guess things are just way more political now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SamReidHughes 5y ago
  Those vaccines were for diseases that were highly lethal, and also highly lethal to children (well, not varicella), and they had years of research behind their safety. Mass vaccination also effectively stopped transmission. Schools also allowed medical and religious exemptions, with California's recent removal of that option being very controversial.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    The polio vaccine was mandated five years after it was invented, and that was in the early days of the field. Mass vaccination is the only way to stop transmission, of course, you just can’t have some people vaccinated and others not, vaccines don’t work like that. The exemptions have never been very deep (very few takers each year), but if they exceed something like 5%, then an adjustment must be made. Washington state for example, revoked personal and philosophical exemptions for MMR vaccines after an outbreak. Religious exemptions are still allowed, but those have a much higher bar than a philosophical exemption. Medical exemptions are always allowed, they are one major reason why most everyone else needs to get vaccinated in the first place (because people who can’t get the vaccine are at risk from transmission). I guess one could argue that everyone that wants to should get vaccinated to better protect those who don’t want to be vaccinated. That makes sense, but hardly seems fair.
    - SamReidHughes 5y ago
      Five years. And that was Polio. Coronavirus isn't Polio.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Yes, because polio was killing kids rather than older people with health problems. Also, they shut down a lot of infrastructure (like swimming pools) to prevent transmission before a vaccine controlled the problem, similar to are lockdowns and mask mandates today p. And you know, I’d like life to go back to normal, it’s just a quick needle prick.
        SamReidHughes 5y ago
        Life already has gone back to normal.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Oh, then I can finally book that trip to Tokyo I’ve been meaning to get to for a couple of years?
        SamReidHughes 5y ago
        Well I can book a trip to the non-neurotic portions of America.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Sure, but the rest of the world thinks those are the crazy places.
labster 5y ago
I assume you are a big opponent of capital punishment and nuclear weapons, then.
lern_too_spel 5y ago
That could be applied to making any law. We're talking about a specific law. This specific law lets Canada transition to endemic Covid, where there is enough community immunity that its public health system isn't overwhelmed and rationed. Without it, Canadians either have to wait through prolonged mitigations until community immunity is built up naturally or Paxlovid supply becomes sufficient, suffering the economic consequences of those mitigations, or rip the mitigation band-aid off and let care be rationed (and divert taxes to pay for all the hospitalizations) until natural immunity takes care of the problem. If my worst political enemy likewise justified their policies in my interest, I would happily let them implement those policies. If my best political friend did not justify a policy in my interest, I would oppose it. Each policy should be evaluated on its merits. Your appraisal is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. The only slippery slope is encouraging people to evaluate policies by who is proposing them rather than whether the policy is beneficial. Then the person who is proposing policy can get away with policies that are more and more in their interest and less in mine. As long as the standard of evaluating policy by whether it is beneficial is upheld, there is no slippery slope.
Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago
> Would I feel comfortable with my worst political enemy having the power to do this? Why would that be any different than your preferred political party/politician telling you to get vaccinated? Just because you don't agree with someone on some (many?) topics, doesn't mean you can't ever agree with them. We're talking about well established scientifically backed public health advice. It doesn't matter who most recently repeated the advice, it's the advice itself that's important.
- buscoquadnary 5y ago
  I think you misunderstand I don't do this with just the things I agree with. I do it with everything the government tries to do, regardless of the politician supporting it or my personal feelings on the subject. For example the creation of the no fly list, red flag laws, drug laws, civil asset forfeiture, hate crime laws, etc. Laws have a tendency to get divorced from the situation that created them over the many years but seldom are repealed when their original cause is gone. As such it is often very likely that my political enemy or your political enemy will have the power of those laws. This just like development one must always think of the edge cases and error path not just the happy path.
  - Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago
    I think you're right. I do misunderstand you. Do you oppose this vaccine mandate or the Emergencies Act? Because you've indicated you oppose this vaccine mandate. We're discussing a specific use of an already existing piece of legislation (Emergencies Act). There's no additional power granted here, the act was pre-existing, it's being applied. You certainly may take issue with the fact the Emergencies Act could be used for nefarious purposes i.e. that the scope is too large. That's likely a valid concern. Sadly, most laws and legislations are open to interpretation and susceptible to abuse. However, if this mandate were to be rolled back, the Emergencies Act isn't going anywhere. The Emergencies Acts is still sitting there available to future leaders. Let's suppose you think a Covid vaccine mandate is a good thing, but you're ideologically opposed to it coming into force via an act that could be abused. Firstly, you're most certainly not on the same page as the majority of people opposing this mandate. Secondly, what's your plan? Get rid of the Emergencies Act and come up with new legislation for a vaccine mandate, in record time, and with no holes in it, all the while people are unnecessarily dying, hospitals are unnecessarily overloaded and there's unnecessary economic damage... for ideological reasons?

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

I'm personally not sending my kid to any school that doesn't require the standard vaccines: here it is Hepatitis B, DTaP, IPV, MMR and Varicella. It is weird that vaccines mandates didn't gather as much resistance for the last century, but I guess things are just way more political now.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
SamReidHughes 5y ago
Those vaccines were for diseases that were highly lethal, and also highly lethal to children (well, not varicella), and they had years of research behind their safety. Mass vaccination also effectively stopped transmission. Schools also allowed medical and religious exemptions, with California's recent removal of that option being very controversial.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  The polio vaccine was mandated five years after it was invented, and that was in the early days of the field. Mass vaccination is the only way to stop transmission, of course, you just can’t have some people vaccinated and others not, vaccines don’t work like that. The exemptions have never been very deep (very few takers each year), but if they exceed something like 5%, then an adjustment must be made. Washington state for example, revoked personal and philosophical exemptions for MMR vaccines after an outbreak. Religious exemptions are still allowed, but those have a much higher bar than a philosophical exemption. Medical exemptions are always allowed, they are one major reason why most everyone else needs to get vaccinated in the first place (because people who can’t get the vaccine are at risk from transmission). I guess one could argue that everyone that wants to should get vaccinated to better protect those who don’t want to be vaccinated. That makes sense, but hardly seems fair.
  - SamReidHughes 5y ago
    Five years. And that was Polio. Coronavirus isn't Polio.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Yes, because polio was killing kids rather than older people with health problems. Also, they shut down a lot of infrastructure (like swimming pools) to prevent transmission before a vaccine controlled the problem, similar to are lockdowns and mask mandates today p. And you know, I’d like life to go back to normal, it’s just a quick needle prick.
      - SamReidHughes 5y ago
        Life already has gone back to normal.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Oh, then I can finally book that trip to Tokyo I’ve been meaning to get to for a couple of years?
        SamReidHughes 5y ago
        Well I can book a trip to the non-neurotic portions of America.
        seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        Sure, but the rest of the world thinks those are the crazy places.

labster 5y ago

I assume you are a big opponent of capital punishment and nuclear weapons, then.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

That could be applied to making any law. We're talking about a specific law. This specific law lets Canada transition to endemic Covid, where there is enough community immunity that its public health system isn't overwhelmed and rationed. Without it, Canadians either have to wait through prolonged mitigations until community immunity is built up naturally or Paxlovid supply becomes sufficient, suffering the economic consequences of those mitigations, or rip the mitigation band-aid off and let care be rationed (and divert taxes to pay for all the hospitalizations) until natural immunity takes care of the problem. If my worst political enemy likewise justified their policies in my interest, I would happily let them implement those policies. If my best political friend did not justify a policy in my interest, I would oppose it. Each policy should be evaluated on its merits. Your appraisal is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. The only slippery slope is encouraging people to evaluate policies by who is proposing them rather than whether the policy is beneficial. Then the person who is proposing policy can get away with policies that are more and more in their interest and less in mine. As long as the standard of evaluating policy by whether it is beneficial is upheld, there is no slippery slope.

Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago

> Would I feel comfortable with my worst political enemy having the power to do this? Why would that be any different than your preferred political party/politician telling you to get vaccinated? Just because you don't agree with someone on some (many?) topics, doesn't mean you can't ever agree with them. We're talking about well established scientifically backed public health advice. It doesn't matter who most recently repeated the advice, it's the advice itself that's important.

buscoquadnary 5y ago
I think you misunderstand I don't do this with just the things I agree with. I do it with everything the government tries to do, regardless of the politician supporting it or my personal feelings on the subject. For example the creation of the no fly list, red flag laws, drug laws, civil asset forfeiture, hate crime laws, etc. Laws have a tendency to get divorced from the situation that created them over the many years but seldom are repealed when their original cause is gone. As such it is often very likely that my political enemy or your political enemy will have the power of those laws. This just like development one must always think of the edge cases and error path not just the happy path.
- Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago
  I think you're right. I do misunderstand you. Do you oppose this vaccine mandate or the Emergencies Act? Because you've indicated you oppose this vaccine mandate. We're discussing a specific use of an already existing piece of legislation (Emergencies Act). There's no additional power granted here, the act was pre-existing, it's being applied. You certainly may take issue with the fact the Emergencies Act could be used for nefarious purposes i.e. that the scope is too large. That's likely a valid concern. Sadly, most laws and legislations are open to interpretation and susceptible to abuse. However, if this mandate were to be rolled back, the Emergencies Act isn't going anywhere. The Emergencies Acts is still sitting there available to future leaders. Let's suppose you think a Covid vaccine mandate is a good thing, but you're ideologically opposed to it coming into force via an act that could be abused. Firstly, you're most certainly not on the same page as the majority of people opposing this mandate. Secondly, what's your plan? Get rid of the Emergencies Act and come up with new legislation for a vaccine mandate, in record time, and with no holes in it, all the while people are unnecessarily dying, hospitals are unnecessarily overloaded and there's unnecessary economic damage... for ideological reasons?