4 ms·

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

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.
    - internet_user 5y ago
      Where is this Rubicon you speak of? Yes, people were "nudged" to get vaccinated to by restricting travel and ability to work, aka denial of food and shelter, but not quite physical force yet. However, I don't recall any civilized government using physical force to pin down their subjects and force-vaccinate them.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        > I don't recall any civilized government using physical force to pin down their subjects and force-vaccinate them. Austria may have backed down on their plan to mandate vaccination, but Indonesia went ahead with it[0]. Hopefully you don't view that country as uncivilized. It's true that they "only" went as far as fining people who refused, but I'm sure if you refused to pay the fine there would eventually be some arm of the government willing to use force against you. [0] https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-makes-covid-19-vaccines-compulsory-allows-for-private-vaccination https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-makes-co...
- ada1981 5y ago
  I predict that if these are developed and used in animals. 1) they will of course mutate and jump to humans at some point. 2) we will be told it’s a matter of public health to release ones for humans.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  A vaccine mandate admits the possibility of following the law that effective in different jurisdictions, exceptions as required by law, court challenges and so forth. A vaccine that spread like a disease may be introduced in one nation and pass trivially behind national boundaries subject to no law of man. Insofar as legal mandates we've been mandating that school children be vaccinated for various things for a very long time. I don't see any problem with not allowing a single person to opt to subject the entire rest of society to sickness and death. That seems like a morally dubious sort of freedom.
  - internet_user 5y ago
    you are in for a big surprise: there are quite a few people that do not build up any response to vaccination naturally, called either primary or acquired immunodeficiency, as well as immunosuppressed who cannot produce a response to a vaccine (those on CD20 inhibitors, or on daily equivalent of 1mg/kg of prednisone, etc, etc, etc). There are millions of people with primary (1 in 1000), some more acquired, and hundreds of millions of immunosuppressed globally. "not a single person" just sounds laughable in this context. 500,000,000 vs 1. Is that science? or is it hysteria?
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      I said. > I don't see any problem with not allowing a single person to opt to subject the entire rest of society to sickness and death. That is I don't think its OK to allow individuals to opt out of vaccination because that ignorant minority can not only spread their contagion to vulnerable individuals but also potentially act as a lab for the creation of entirely new variant that bypass existing immunity. Every unnecessary infection is a dice roll with the rest of the human race. Nobody said anything at all about immunosuppressed individuals. Few of them are incidentally entirely without an immune system else they would soon be dead outside of a clean room. This is to say that their decreased immune systems results in them being at a vastly increased risk compared to the general population and it is more critical not less to vaccinate them even though it doesn't wholly ameliorate their greater risk. I am well aware of this due to my own research my wife's doctors advice. Lastly 500M would be 1 in 16 not 1 in 1000. In further communication please review the post you are replying to so that it at least makes contextual sense and double check math so as to ensure you aren't wasting the other readers time with trivial errors instead of substantial discussion.
giantg2 5y ago
If the whole rationale is to stop diseases from jumping from animals to humans, then isn't it possible the contagious vaccine could do the same...

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.
  - internet_user 5y ago
    Where is this Rubicon you speak of? Yes, people were "nudged" to get vaccinated to by restricting travel and ability to work, aka denial of food and shelter, but not quite physical force yet. However, I don't recall any civilized government using physical force to pin down their subjects and force-vaccinate them.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > I don't recall any civilized government using physical force to pin down their subjects and force-vaccinate them. Austria may have backed down on their plan to mandate vaccination, but Indonesia went ahead with it[0]. Hopefully you don't view that country as uncivilized. It's true that they "only" went as far as fining people who refused, but I'm sure if you refused to pay the fine there would eventually be some arm of the government willing to use force against you. [0] https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-makes-covid-19-vaccines-compulsory-allows-for-private-vaccination https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-makes-co...
ada1981 5y ago
I predict that if these are developed and used in animals. 1) they will of course mutate and jump to humans at some point. 2) we will be told it’s a matter of public health to release ones for humans.
michaelmrose 5y ago
A vaccine mandate admits the possibility of following the law that effective in different jurisdictions, exceptions as required by law, court challenges and so forth. A vaccine that spread like a disease may be introduced in one nation and pass trivially behind national boundaries subject to no law of man. Insofar as legal mandates we've been mandating that school children be vaccinated for various things for a very long time. I don't see any problem with not allowing a single person to opt to subject the entire rest of society to sickness and death. That seems like a morally dubious sort of freedom.
- internet_user 5y ago
  you are in for a big surprise: there are quite a few people that do not build up any response to vaccination naturally, called either primary or acquired immunodeficiency, as well as immunosuppressed who cannot produce a response to a vaccine (those on CD20 inhibitors, or on daily equivalent of 1mg/kg of prednisone, etc, etc, etc). There are millions of people with primary (1 in 1000), some more acquired, and hundreds of millions of immunosuppressed globally. "not a single person" just sounds laughable in this context. 500,000,000 vs 1. Is that science? or is it hysteria?
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    I said. > I don't see any problem with not allowing a single person to opt to subject the entire rest of society to sickness and death. That is I don't think its OK to allow individuals to opt out of vaccination because that ignorant minority can not only spread their contagion to vulnerable individuals but also potentially act as a lab for the creation of entirely new variant that bypass existing immunity. Every unnecessary infection is a dice roll with the rest of the human race. Nobody said anything at all about immunosuppressed individuals. Few of them are incidentally entirely without an immune system else they would soon be dead outside of a clean room. This is to say that their decreased immune systems results in them being at a vastly increased risk compared to the general population and it is more critical not less to vaccinate them even though it doesn't wholly ameliorate their greater risk. I am well aware of this due to my own research my wife's doctors advice. Lastly 500M would be 1 in 16 not 1 in 1000. In further communication please review the post you are replying to so that it at least makes contextual sense and double check math so as to ensure you aren't wasting the other readers time with trivial errors instead of substantial discussion.

giantg2 5y ago

If the whole rationale is to stop diseases from jumping from animals to humans, then isn't it possible the contagious vaccine could do the same...