4 ms·
To me the larger issue beyond any comparisons of risk profiles is the ethical question. If a government through its agencies coerces people to get a medical tr
by thworp 4y ago
To me the larger issue beyond any comparisons of risk profiles is the ethical question.
If a government through its agencies coerces people to get a medical treatment that harms them in any way they are responsible for that harm. Even if vaccinations are unquestionably a net benefit to everyone, the coercion makes the whole thing a serious breach of medical ethics. "First do no harm".
The "public health" (called "Volksgesundheit" ca. 1935) crowd of course have no such ethics and their goals often have conflicting aims with medicine. They gladly trade a few individuals' well-being for a greater good. Usually the diseases are so bad that this sort of approach is at least understandable (see damage from the first few iterations of polio or smallpox vaccines). But with covid they have completely lost many people. If they had just refrained from coercion (as with flu vaccines) everything would be just fine.
- somewhereoutth 4y agoMandatory vaccination has been in place for a long time, and nobody complained - not least because they understood it was for their own benefit, if not for the greater good. The question arises, why was Covid vaccination such a problem for a significant vocal minority? You mention 'do no harm', but I really don't think that is the root of it.
- ohiovr 4y agoBecause you can't introduce new technology without testing. Most people just took the vaccine on faith. In fact I'd say the faith in the vaccine was higher than any faith I have seen in my life.
- reducesuffering 4y agoEven religious fundamentalists have a core understanding that they frequently have serious doubts, and that it's okay if it takes time to get back to full faith.
- joemazerino 4y agoSome serious false equivalence here. Mandatory vaccination for deadly diseases like measles and the mumps. COVID is not deadly for the young.