3 ms·

>Far too many points in one post to reply properly. Sorry, complicated issue, I could have gone much more deep as well. >This is what I want to see: everyone

>Far too many points in one post to reply properly. Sorry, complicated issue, I could have gone much more deep as well. >This is what I want to see: everyone that the vaccine is authorized for use in, should be required, under penalty of detention in quarantine bubbles, to be vaccinated. I am fully vaccinated but I will not be getting a booster until some very serious improvements in human rights are returned. Certainly an interesting take. "penalty of detention" means prison. So you want to remove voluntary and informed consent when it comes to medication under threat of force, coercion and removing free will in a matter of bodily autonomy? >Exceptions I did not read your exceptions at all. I have some questions about the first part. Let me define my position a little clearer than above. The person involved in medical treatment should have legal capacity to give consent; should be 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. Do you disagree with this statement? I would really like to know that before we continue.

mjevans 5y ago
Freedom of choice stops when it infringes upon the rights of others. Dangerous things are either banned, or regulated. This includes operating deadly equipment (drivers licenses) and it includes dress codes in pubic (sanitation is important!). Notably most places only request customers wash their hands but require employees to. That is a distinction made because of the extremely high risk of improper sanitation during food prep versus consumption. Restaurants, including fast food, __should__ be cleaning tables and other common surfaces between uses or at least very frequently to minimize risk. My position includes enforcement of "herd immunity" (vaccination to the greatest extent possible) as a requirement for participating in society, and then narrowly allows exceptions only where it would not be effective / be greatly riskier for the personal health of the individual than the prevention (thus including the person in the narrow class most protected by the immunity among _others_ rather than a personal contribution to that shared social immunity), OR for those who shun all medical care entirely as a wholistic religious exemption of entirely opting out of that social sector and responsibility as well. Limiting to only those two classes, plus those for whom the vaccines are not authorized, should hopefully still retain a sufficient group resistance to cause outbreaks to fizzle out, rather than flare up and spread. Please take the time to read my entire premise (initial reply) and make an attempt to understand the full logic before commenting on it.
- okeuro49 5y ago
  As I understand the word "vaccine", it is something the confers lasting protection. The goalposts have been shifted for this vaccine, as it only lasts for a few months. Israel is one of the most vaccinated populations in the world, but it didn't stop waves of mutations. So I won't be forced to take the 3rd, 4th, 5th "booster" to remain a part of society. In the UK we have had no mandates and our health service didn't collapse this winter time. Covid was never a lethal illness for the majority of adults. The issue was that it could cause national health services to collapse from sheer number of cases. Now that is no longer a threat, there is no longer any justification for limits on individual liberty.
  - mjevans 5y ago
    The yearly flu vaccines are similar though, and the long term protection against specific variants of CoViD-19 are also similarly lacking because the only ethical environment to gather test data in now has different, more virilant, variants. It's sort of like a riot shield's effectiveness against metal pipe club weapons, then mining picks, and now axes, all used by a mob. There is still some protection, and it is usually non-harmful to the protected, but the effectiveness is in question and annual training seems to help.
- ukraineally 5y ago
  >Please take the time to read my entire premise (initial reply) and make an attempt to understand the full logic before commenting on it. I did, I understood and had a question. You didn't answer my question. The person involved in medical treatment should have legal capacity to give consent; should be 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. Do you disagree with this statement? I would really like to know that before we continue.

mjevans 5y ago

Freedom of choice stops when it infringes upon the rights of others. Dangerous things are either banned, or regulated. This includes operating deadly equipment (drivers licenses) and it includes dress codes in pubic (sanitation is important!). Notably most places only request customers wash their hands but require employees to. That is a distinction made because of the extremely high risk of improper sanitation during food prep versus consumption. Restaurants, including fast food, __should__ be cleaning tables and other common surfaces between uses or at least very frequently to minimize risk. My position includes enforcement of "herd immunity" (vaccination to the greatest extent possible) as a requirement for participating in society, and then narrowly allows exceptions only where it would not be effective / be greatly riskier for the personal health of the individual than the prevention (thus including the person in the narrow class most protected by the immunity among _others_ rather than a personal contribution to that shared social immunity), OR for those who shun all medical care entirely as a wholistic religious exemption of entirely opting out of that social sector and responsibility as well. Limiting to only those two classes, plus those for whom the vaccines are not authorized, should hopefully still retain a sufficient group resistance to cause outbreaks to fizzle out, rather than flare up and spread. Please take the time to read my entire premise (initial reply) and make an attempt to understand the full logic before commenting on it.

okeuro49 5y ago
As I understand the word "vaccine", it is something the confers lasting protection. The goalposts have been shifted for this vaccine, as it only lasts for a few months. Israel is one of the most vaccinated populations in the world, but it didn't stop waves of mutations. So I won't be forced to take the 3rd, 4th, 5th "booster" to remain a part of society. In the UK we have had no mandates and our health service didn't collapse this winter time. Covid was never a lethal illness for the majority of adults. The issue was that it could cause national health services to collapse from sheer number of cases. Now that is no longer a threat, there is no longer any justification for limits on individual liberty.
- mjevans 5y ago
  The yearly flu vaccines are similar though, and the long term protection against specific variants of CoViD-19 are also similarly lacking because the only ethical environment to gather test data in now has different, more virilant, variants. It's sort of like a riot shield's effectiveness against metal pipe club weapons, then mining picks, and now axes, all used by a mob. There is still some protection, and it is usually non-harmful to the protected, but the effectiveness is in question and annual training seems to help.
ukraineally 5y ago
>Please take the time to read my entire premise (initial reply) and make an attempt to understand the full logic before commenting on it. I did, I understood and had a question. You didn't answer my question. The person involved in medical treatment should have legal capacity to give consent; should be 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. Do you disagree with this statement? I would really like to know that before we continue.