9 ms·

It is my personal opinion that because of the extremely high potential for abuse, all delivery mechanisms should be designed to require the host's consent. I w

It is my personal opinion that because of the extremely high potential for abuse, all delivery mechanisms should be designed to require the host's consent. I would also have to agree that bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right.

babyshake 5y ago
Would it be possible for these contagious vaccines to require some secondary medication be taken to be activated? Ideally something with no active ingredients that could be sold OTC at pharmacies.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  > Ideally something with no active ingredients that could be sold OTC at pharmacies. Which could then be added to tap water, soft drinks, added as a fortifying agent in flour and bread. That would surely be the response from conspiracy theorists, except of course that they would replace could then be with already is.
  - hanselot 5y ago
- im3w1l 5y ago
  This technique could be used to make extremely frightening bioweapons - think a disease that has no symptoms as it spreads, allowing it to fly under the radar, until a certain condition is met at which point it kills everyone at the same time. Imo it must be considered extremely taboo. Moreso than just contagious vaccines.
jayd16 5y ago
The article is about inoculating wildlife so host consent is a tall order there. I guess that would make this unfeasible in your view?
- alexfromapex 5y ago
  Indeed I would have to apply the same thinking to wildlife. I think humankind needs to set some boundaries about altering the fabric of nature at all, until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics.
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    > until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics Humankind has neither the coordination nor the process to reach a consensus on almost anything, and certainly not on the ethics of changes to the natural world. And meanwhile, we continuously make such changes, whether intentionally, unintentionally, or on the boundary between the two that is "we're doing this and we know we're doing it but we lack the coordination to stop". We should be able to make decisions on a scale of "should we eliminate all mosquitos in the world, would that be a net win or a net loss when taking all side effects into account". I expect that would in fact be a net win, even taking all side effects into account, because disease as a factor will outweigh other considerations. But in practice, I don't think we have the means of making such decisions in any coordinated fashion. And I don't think that means we should refuse to ever make such decisions at all. I think the proposal in the article is a risky one. The rewards may outweigh the risks. But right now we have no process to evaluate that. Writing articles and provoking public opinion is not a process, it's one small step in an otherwise non-existent process.
  - fsh 5y ago
    That ship has sailed roughly 12000 years ago [1]. By mass, around 96% of mammals are either humans or lifestock [2]. If you go on google earth and zoom into a random country anywhere on earth, chances are pretty good that you end up looking at a field. Our immune system is that of a hunter-gatherer. It hasn't evolved to handle close contact with animals, cities, and intercontinental travel. The result are the huge zoonotic pandemics of the last few millennia. Since there is nothing "natural" about them, maybe we have to mess with the fabric of nature in order to avoid the next one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115
_Microft 5y ago
From the article: "Most researchers agree that self-spreading vaccines could never be applied to human populations, because universal informed consent would never be achieved."
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > universal informed consent would never be achieved I wonder if these researchers are able to imagine a government mandating that all citizens must receive a vaccine.
  - internet_user 5y ago
    all is subject to definitions. even if the vaccine is medically inappropriate, or even contraindicated for millions? the comatose on life support? mandates it for foreign travellers in transit who got stuck in your country? mandates for the foreign diplomatic staff? mandates for military, which has their own medical corps and medical decision-making? What is all?
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > even if the vaccine is medically inappropriate, or even contraindicated for millions? We've already crossed the Rubicon on this, and countries will justify infringing the rights of millions if a policy has a potential of saving millions more. Fortunately I can't think of a situation where a contagious human virus would be the only or the best way to save millions, but governments have no trouble making the ethically-questionable decision that some groups of people should die through lockdowns in order that other (generally older) groups of people should survive. > mandates it for foreign travellers in transit who got stuck in your country? mandates for the foreign diplomatic staff? A government could announce the policy well in advance, to give people a chance to leave, although the distinction between at home and abroad is moot if the contagion can spread outside the country, which of course it will. Again, sadly, there are plenty of countries that take the view that citizens of other countries have effectively no moral weight and the government has no duty to protect their rights.
human 5y ago
Our laws need to be reviewed for this. I think the whole idea of adding fluoride to drinking water to improve dental health is a good and older example of this. If I will receive any form of therapeutic I should have to give my consent. We are starting to have stronger laws for personal data than for our bodily autonomy it seems.
- AgentME 5y ago
  Isn't fluoride in drinking water a massive public health success? Bringing that example up makes me wonder if our laws are right to enable more success stories like that. (Not staking any position on whether the OP story about contagious vaccines meets the necessary safety bar. It's conceivable to me that it could go either way.)
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Yes it is and parents post shows exactly why uneducated folks shouldn't be given a direct vote in pretty much any aspect of public health beyond voting for the folks in charge and those folks hiring actual subject matter experts to make such decisions.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    Fluoride in the water, and all of the examples of fortified foods don’t seem like directly comparable situations to me. There’s nothing that compels anybody to drink the water provided by their local government over any other water, or to use iodized salt over non-iodizeds salt. Drinking tap water in general is weird to me as I grew up in a place where that was certainly not something people did. But in any case, there’s no compulsion to drink tap water, no requirement to prove to others how much tap water you’ve consumed, no consequences for failing to drink tap water, and a number of readily available alternatives for anybody who doesn’t want to drink tap water.
- 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

babyshake 5y ago

Would it be possible for these contagious vaccines to require some secondary medication be taken to be activated? Ideally something with no active ingredients that could be sold OTC at pharmacies.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kwhitefoot 5y ago
> Ideally something with no active ingredients that could be sold OTC at pharmacies. Which could then be added to tap water, soft drinks, added as a fortifying agent in flour and bread. That would surely be the response from conspiracy theorists, except of course that they would replace could then be with already is.
- hanselot 5y ago
im3w1l 5y ago
This technique could be used to make extremely frightening bioweapons - think a disease that has no symptoms as it spreads, allowing it to fly under the radar, until a certain condition is met at which point it kills everyone at the same time. Imo it must be considered extremely taboo. Moreso than just contagious vaccines.

jayd16 5y ago

The article is about inoculating wildlife so host consent is a tall order there. I guess that would make this unfeasible in your view?

alexfromapex 5y ago
Indeed I would have to apply the same thinking to wildlife. I think humankind needs to set some boundaries about altering the fabric of nature at all, until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  > until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics Humankind has neither the coordination nor the process to reach a consensus on almost anything, and certainly not on the ethics of changes to the natural world. And meanwhile, we continuously make such changes, whether intentionally, unintentionally, or on the boundary between the two that is "we're doing this and we know we're doing it but we lack the coordination to stop". We should be able to make decisions on a scale of "should we eliminate all mosquitos in the world, would that be a net win or a net loss when taking all side effects into account". I expect that would in fact be a net win, even taking all side effects into account, because disease as a factor will outweigh other considerations. But in practice, I don't think we have the means of making such decisions in any coordinated fashion. And I don't think that means we should refuse to ever make such decisions at all. I think the proposal in the article is a risky one. The rewards may outweigh the risks. But right now we have no process to evaluate that. Writing articles and provoking public opinion is not a process, it's one small step in an otherwise non-existent process.
- fsh 5y ago
  That ship has sailed roughly 12000 years ago [1]. By mass, around 96% of mammals are either humans or lifestock [2]. If you go on google earth and zoom into a random country anywhere on earth, chances are pretty good that you end up looking at a field. Our immune system is that of a hunter-gatherer. It hasn't evolved to handle close contact with animals, cities, and intercontinental travel. The result are the huge zoonotic pandemics of the last few millennia. Since there is nothing "natural" about them, maybe we have to mess with the fabric of nature in order to avoid the next one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

_Microft 5y ago

From the article: "Most researchers agree that self-spreading vaccines could never be applied to human populations, because universal informed consent would never be achieved."

dane-pgp 5y ago
> universal informed consent would never be achieved I wonder if these researchers are able to imagine a government mandating that all citizens must receive a vaccine.
- internet_user 5y ago
  all is subject to definitions. even if the vaccine is medically inappropriate, or even contraindicated for millions? the comatose on life support? mandates it for foreign travellers in transit who got stuck in your country? mandates for the foreign diplomatic staff? mandates for military, which has their own medical corps and medical decision-making? What is all?
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > even if the vaccine is medically inappropriate, or even contraindicated for millions? We've already crossed the Rubicon on this, and countries will justify infringing the rights of millions if a policy has a potential of saving millions more. Fortunately I can't think of a situation where a contagious human virus would be the only or the best way to save millions, but governments have no trouble making the ethically-questionable decision that some groups of people should die through lockdowns in order that other (generally older) groups of people should survive. > mandates it for foreign travellers in transit who got stuck in your country? mandates for the foreign diplomatic staff? A government could announce the policy well in advance, to give people a chance to leave, although the distinction between at home and abroad is moot if the contagion can spread outside the country, which of course it will. Again, sadly, there are plenty of countries that take the view that citizens of other countries have effectively no moral weight and the government has no duty to protect their rights.

human 5y ago

Our laws need to be reviewed for this. I think the whole idea of adding fluoride to drinking water to improve dental health is a good and older example of this. If I will receive any form of therapeutic I should have to give my consent. We are starting to have stronger laws for personal data than for our bodily autonomy it seems.

AgentME 5y ago
Isn't fluoride in drinking water a massive public health success? Bringing that example up makes me wonder if our laws are right to enable more success stories like that. (Not staking any position on whether the OP story about contagious vaccines meets the necessary safety bar. It's conceivable to me that it could go either way.)
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Yes it is and parents post shows exactly why uneducated folks shouldn't be given a direct vote in pretty much any aspect of public health beyond voting for the folks in charge and those folks hiring actual subject matter experts to make such decisions.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  Fluoride in the water, and all of the examples of fortified foods don’t seem like directly comparable situations to me. There’s nothing that compels anybody to drink the water provided by their local government over any other water, or to use iodized salt over non-iodizeds salt. Drinking tap water in general is weird to me as I grew up in a place where that was certainly not something people did. But in any case, there’s no compulsion to drink tap water, no requirement to prove to others how much tap water you’ve consumed, no consequences for failing to drink tap water, and a number of readily available alternatives for anybody who doesn’t want to drink tap water.
5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]