3 ms·

I'm not the parent but you have posed a funny question. > in an alternate reality where the vaccine is super effective at reducing transmission of Omicron, and

I'm not the parent but you have posed a funny question. > in an alternate reality where the vaccine is super effective at reducing transmission of Omicron, and where Omicron is super deadly If either of these were true then mandates would be far less required because people would be far more willing to take them voluntarily. Instinctively though I do want to answer yes, I would support mandates more under higher risk scenarios. In an ideal world though I would probably prefer if communities could self select by risk tolerance i.e it's possible to live/work/party somewhere nearby with like minded people.

u801e 5y ago
>> in an alternate reality where the vaccine is super effective at reducing transmission of Omicron, and where Omicron is super deadly > If either of these were true then mandates would be far less required because people would be far more willing to take them voluntarily. I don't know whether that would necessarily be the case. We have seen how easily people are manipulated via misinformation campaigns.
- throwawaythekey 5y ago
  > We have seen how easily people are manipulated via misinformation campaigns. I'm also not against a small amount of natural selection. People choosing their own fates helps to keep everyone happy and some Darwinism is probably a good outcome for humanity in the long term.
jbay808 5y ago
Thanks for the answer! I posted a followup question to the sibling but I'm curious about your thoughts there too, ie if hypothetically, say, the virus had selective lethality based on eye colour or blood type, so most people with that trait feel safe without themselves getting a vaccine. Self selected communities are another good answer although I imagine it's hard to totally bubble communities up along the axis of vaccine-opinionation without any overlap.
- throwawaythekey 5y ago
  > if hypothetically, say, the virus had selective lethality It might depend on how selective the lethality is! If a small population is vulnerable then I don't have a problem with them protecting themself to the best of their own abilities (no mandates). This is fairly common already with the immunocompromised etc. If a large portion of the population is vulnerable then it becomes more grey. I'm pretty uncomfortable with there being a large amount of preventable suffering but intellectually my brain wants to take a long term view. The best possible society in the future seems like one where humans have stronger immune systems and take fewer vaccinations, not more. Is this something we can evolve towards? Is my poor knowledge of biology leading me astray? Who knows! Given I know nothing I'm happy to fall back onto the distributed decision making apparatus (individual choice).
  - jbay808 5y ago
    Fair enough, if that's your view! For me, this hypothetical is more a situation where we're talking about one's freedom to make choices that endanger those around them, in addition themselves. When the principal danger is to oneself I think restrictions are rarely justified, but when the consequences are borne by others, I think it's more justified. For example, when operating cars, we don't allow you to drink and drive, run red lights, or drive on the sidewalk, primarily because it creates at least as much risk for your neighbours as it does for yourself.
    - throwawaythekey 5y ago
      > When the principal danger is to oneself I think restrictions are rarely justified, but when the consequences are borne by others, I think it's more justified. I think this point makes broad sense but needs refinement. For example if we assume there is a vaccine available that: - Reduces personal injury - Does not prevent transmission Using the above logic would mean that after taking the vaccine restrictions are more justified because the burden of the disease has shifted. I don't think that's what you intended and probably means that there still needs to be reference to absolute harm and taking reasonable minimization measures.

u801e 5y ago

>> in an alternate reality where the vaccine is super effective at reducing transmission of Omicron, and where Omicron is super deadly > If either of these were true then mandates would be far less required because people would be far more willing to take them voluntarily. I don't know whether that would necessarily be the case. We have seen how easily people are manipulated via misinformation campaigns.

throwawaythekey 5y ago
> We have seen how easily people are manipulated via misinformation campaigns. I'm also not against a small amount of natural selection. People choosing their own fates helps to keep everyone happy and some Darwinism is probably a good outcome for humanity in the long term.

jbay808 5y ago

Thanks for the answer! I posted a followup question to the sibling but I'm curious about your thoughts there too, ie if hypothetically, say, the virus had selective lethality based on eye colour or blood type, so most people with that trait feel safe without themselves getting a vaccine. Self selected communities are another good answer although I imagine it's hard to totally bubble communities up along the axis of vaccine-opinionation without any overlap.

throwawaythekey 5y ago
> if hypothetically, say, the virus had selective lethality It might depend on how selective the lethality is! If a small population is vulnerable then I don't have a problem with them protecting themself to the best of their own abilities (no mandates). This is fairly common already with the immunocompromised etc. If a large portion of the population is vulnerable then it becomes more grey. I'm pretty uncomfortable with there being a large amount of preventable suffering but intellectually my brain wants to take a long term view. The best possible society in the future seems like one where humans have stronger immune systems and take fewer vaccinations, not more. Is this something we can evolve towards? Is my poor knowledge of biology leading me astray? Who knows! Given I know nothing I'm happy to fall back onto the distributed decision making apparatus (individual choice).
- jbay808 5y ago
  Fair enough, if that's your view! For me, this hypothetical is more a situation where we're talking about one's freedom to make choices that endanger those around them, in addition themselves. When the principal danger is to oneself I think restrictions are rarely justified, but when the consequences are borne by others, I think it's more justified. For example, when operating cars, we don't allow you to drink and drive, run red lights, or drive on the sidewalk, primarily because it creates at least as much risk for your neighbours as it does for yourself.
  - throwawaythekey 5y ago
    > When the principal danger is to oneself I think restrictions are rarely justified, but when the consequences are borne by others, I think it's more justified. I think this point makes broad sense but needs refinement. For example if we assume there is a vaccine available that: - Reduces personal injury - Does not prevent transmission Using the above logic would mean that after taking the vaccine restrictions are more justified because the burden of the disease has shifted. I don't think that's what you intended and probably means that there still needs to be reference to absolute harm and taking reasonable minimization measures.