4 ms·

This particular conversation typically conflates two separate questions: 1) is a person's decision to get a vaccine based on (however defined) accurate knowledg

This particular conversation typically conflates two separate questions: 1) is a person's decision to get a vaccine based on (however defined) accurate knowledge of vaccines and how they work? and 2) how can we ensure that individual rights to choose one's own medical and preventative treatments are protected regardless of the perceived answer to #1?

rootusrootus 4y ago
3) is it okay for society to collectively make decisions that reduce the liberty of an individual if that individual makes choices that endanger everyone else?
- logicchains 4y ago
  > 3) is it okay for society to collectively make decisions that reduce the liberty of an individual if that individual makes choices that endanger everyone else? I believe you mean: "Is it okay for society to collectively make decisions that reduce the liberty of an individual and endanger their life if that individual makes choices that endanger everyone else". Because for the covid vaccines at least there's ample evidence they're not without nontrivial risk: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z
  - rgrieselhuber 4y ago
    It's also very problematic to suggest that a human in their natural state of being poses a risk to society at large.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > It's also very problematic to suggest that a human in their natural state of being poses a risk to society at large. Problematic is kind of an overloaded term, so it's not clear to me exactly what you mean here. It can certainly be true that "a human in their natural state of being poses a risk to society at large." There are a lot of example of that (e.g. unvaccinated people with naive immune systems allowing the resurgence of disease, violent psychopaths). That fact certainly can cause problems where the contradictions between the sloganized-forms of certain social axioms need to be resolved.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Many (most?) "natural" states and activities of human beings are considered unacceptable in society even without posing existential risk to other humans (you might find anything adjacent to reproduction in particular quite a minefield). Should vaccination be any exception? I suspect if we tried to define "natural" we'd find the term meaningless and applied very selectively where it suits someone's agenda.
      - rgrieselhuber 4y ago
        If the difference between telling people to put some clothes on & avoid sex in public vs. forcefully injecting chemicals into their bodies is not clear, I’m not sure what to tell you.
        throwaway290 4y ago
        Not telling people but incarcerating them, and one of those "natural states" can't even hold a candle to the other in terms of risk. Or are we now switching up "natural" to mean how what we take into our bodies differs from our ancestors at various times in the past? Then compared to the amount of microplastics, PFAS, etc. a modern human anywhere on the planet consumes (inhales, absorbs) a couple of vaccine shots strikes me as truly insignificant.
        rootusrootus 4y ago
        I do not recall any serious proposals to force vaccines into anyone. Restrictions on what you may do when unvaccinated are not forcing you to get injected, they are simply the way society balances the liberty of the people who do not want to be infected by you against your liberty not to be medicated against your will.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Society is most certainly okay making decisions that endanger an individual's life and limit their liberty even for choices that did not endanger anyone else's life (cf. prison system), vaccination is small beans by comparison.
    - moistly 4y ago
      https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2021/03/jacobson-supreme-court-vaccination/618359/ https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2021/03/jacobso... “The Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision made clear that the government could mandate vaccination, arguing that collective good sometimes outweighs individual rights. But…” The “but” is explained near the end of the transcript: eugenics. Forced sterilization by government mandate. Virginia law: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Since overturned. (It happens to this day tho not by mandate: several Canadian Native women have recent and ongoing legal cases wrt unlawful medical treatment.) The government theoretically has a mandate to do its best for the population taken as a whole. Smallpox was literally killing one third[0] of the population! Damn straight that the government enforced vaccination to achieve herd immunity; the alternative was ruination. Over a third of nurses now intend to quit. Case rates surged high enough to break our healthcare system. A crazy number of people died, families broken, worker knowledge and skills dying with them. Continuing global supply chain failures. Economies are crashing. We are paying dearly for not remembering Jacobson. [0] https://biosecurity.fas.org/resource/factsheets/smallpox.htm https://biosecurity.fas.org/resource/factsheets/smallpox.htm

rootusrootus 4y ago

3) is it okay for society to collectively make decisions that reduce the liberty of an individual if that individual makes choices that endanger everyone else?

logicchains 4y ago
> 3) is it okay for society to collectively make decisions that reduce the liberty of an individual if that individual makes choices that endanger everyone else? I believe you mean: "Is it okay for society to collectively make decisions that reduce the liberty of an individual and endanger their life if that individual makes choices that endanger everyone else". Because for the covid vaccines at least there's ample evidence they're not without nontrivial risk: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z
- rgrieselhuber 4y ago
  It's also very problematic to suggest that a human in their natural state of being poses a risk to society at large.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > It's also very problematic to suggest that a human in their natural state of being poses a risk to society at large. Problematic is kind of an overloaded term, so it's not clear to me exactly what you mean here. It can certainly be true that "a human in their natural state of being poses a risk to society at large." There are a lot of example of that (e.g. unvaccinated people with naive immune systems allowing the resurgence of disease, violent psychopaths). That fact certainly can cause problems where the contradictions between the sloganized-forms of certain social axioms need to be resolved.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Many (most?) "natural" states and activities of human beings are considered unacceptable in society even without posing existential risk to other humans (you might find anything adjacent to reproduction in particular quite a minefield). Should vaccination be any exception? I suspect if we tried to define "natural" we'd find the term meaningless and applied very selectively where it suits someone's agenda.
    - rgrieselhuber 4y ago
      If the difference between telling people to put some clothes on & avoid sex in public vs. forcefully injecting chemicals into their bodies is not clear, I’m not sure what to tell you.
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        Not telling people but incarcerating them, and one of those "natural states" can't even hold a candle to the other in terms of risk. Or are we now switching up "natural" to mean how what we take into our bodies differs from our ancestors at various times in the past? Then compared to the amount of microplastics, PFAS, etc. a modern human anywhere on the planet consumes (inhales, absorbs) a couple of vaccine shots strikes me as truly insignificant.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        I do not recall any serious proposals to force vaccines into anyone. Restrictions on what you may do when unvaccinated are not forcing you to get injected, they are simply the way society balances the liberty of the people who do not want to be infected by you against your liberty not to be medicated against your will.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Society is most certainly okay making decisions that endanger an individual's life and limit their liberty even for choices that did not endanger anyone else's life (cf. prison system), vaccination is small beans by comparison.
  - moistly 4y ago
    https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2021/03/jacobson-supreme-court-vaccination/618359/ https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2021/03/jacobso... “The Jacobson v. Massachusetts decision made clear that the government could mandate vaccination, arguing that collective good sometimes outweighs individual rights. But…” The “but” is explained near the end of the transcript: eugenics. Forced sterilization by government mandate. Virginia law: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Since overturned. (It happens to this day tho not by mandate: several Canadian Native women have recent and ongoing legal cases wrt unlawful medical treatment.) The government theoretically has a mandate to do its best for the population taken as a whole. Smallpox was literally killing one third[0] of the population! Damn straight that the government enforced vaccination to achieve herd immunity; the alternative was ruination. Over a third of nurses now intend to quit. Case rates surged high enough to break our healthcare system. A crazy number of people died, families broken, worker knowledge and skills dying with them. Continuing global supply chain failures. Economies are crashing. We are paying dearly for not remembering Jacobson. [0] https://biosecurity.fas.org/resource/factsheets/smallpox.htm https://biosecurity.fas.org/resource/factsheets/smallpox.htm