4 ms·

Given all the things the government is capable of doing (drafting you, imprisoning you, taxing you, taking your property, etc), you are putting way too high a s

Given all the things the government is capable of doing (drafting you, imprisoning you, taxing you, taking your property, etc), you are putting way too high a standard on this. The government has an interest in the overall public health and will make controversial decisions to that effect. They've done it before and will do it again. There were also right in this case so that is kind of important. I agree they could have been wrong, and that would have sucked. But they weren't. The processes and safeguards to the very aggressive policies got to the correct endpoint, and saved a lot of people's lives (in some cases against their will).

at_a_remove 4y ago
Okay, so someone in a labcoat tackles me, gives me a shot, tells me it is for my own good, then runs off. That's ... okay? The end result is irrelevant. It's the "she had an orgasm, so how could it be rape?" defense. The recipient must consent, and they must be in full possession of the facts for them to make that decision. Even if it is a decision you do not agree with, it is still theirs to make.
- peter422 4y ago
  The government didn't do that though (even though they could have!). Tons of people remain unvaccinated, though I acknowledge in certain cases the person had to find a different job more compatible with their inability to do risk analysis. Remember also that if you get sick and go to an ER, they are required by law to treat you. The society has an interest in preserving this legally required service to be available to it's people. You weep at the lack of informed consent for the vaccine but have no concern for the person who bleeds out in a car accident because the EMTs were overwhelmed with COVID patients who had completely preventable serious disease. You don't want to take a measles vaccine due to the potential side effects (remember: nothing is perfectly safe), but yet want to live under the protection of everybody else who did take it. If you choose to live in a society you gotta take one for the team every now and again. Sometimes the government is wrong and it sucks, but this was not one of those times!
  - at_a_remove 4y ago
    Oh, I have taken the vaccines. I just believe that informed consent is always a must. I should be informed of the side effects, all of them. Hiding them from me is not an option. I guess we fundamentally disagree on the need for informed consent. I believe that "you don't get to know that" is not acceptable, no matter how well-meaning people are. We used to sterilize people without telling them, under the exact same auspices (Buck vs. Bell). I quote Oliver Wendell Holmes "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." So don't read about the side effects of anything you are prescribed, I would still like to.
    - peter422 4y ago
      The authorizations for these vaccines had 10+ hour public meetings and hundreds of pages of supporting documentation. The studies listed the known data on side effects. Obviously the vaccines were not without risk, and when the government said they were "safe" that did not mean they were 100% safe... Nothing is. They were safe to the standards of other vaccines in broad use. I will acknowledge that in addition to the known deaths from JNJ, I'm sure there were a bunch of unlucky people who had reactions to vaccine that caused issues or may have even killed a few people who were extra sensitive or unlucky. However if the choice is either getting the vaccine first or getting COVID first, and one is 100x safer than the other one for all of these side effects, then it's still hard to disagree with anything the government did. And at the end of the day a lot of anti-vaxxers or vax-curious people argue in bad faith with bad data (I'm not saying you are, but it is common). And even I agree that the "good" data isn't perfect. We still have reporting issues of died with COVID vs died from COVID, but even with any reasonable assumptions about these distinctions the vaccines give all people of any age enough additional protection to be worth it (for the initial 3 doses at least - I make no claims beyond that).

at_a_remove 4y ago

Okay, so someone in a labcoat tackles me, gives me a shot, tells me it is for my own good, then runs off. That's ... okay? The end result is irrelevant. It's the "she had an orgasm, so how could it be rape?" defense. The recipient must consent, and they must be in full possession of the facts for them to make that decision. Even if it is a decision you do not agree with, it is still theirs to make.

peter422 4y ago
The government didn't do that though (even though they could have!). Tons of people remain unvaccinated, though I acknowledge in certain cases the person had to find a different job more compatible with their inability to do risk analysis. Remember also that if you get sick and go to an ER, they are required by law to treat you. The society has an interest in preserving this legally required service to be available to it's people. You weep at the lack of informed consent for the vaccine but have no concern for the person who bleeds out in a car accident because the EMTs were overwhelmed with COVID patients who had completely preventable serious disease. You don't want to take a measles vaccine due to the potential side effects (remember: nothing is perfectly safe), but yet want to live under the protection of everybody else who did take it. If you choose to live in a society you gotta take one for the team every now and again. Sometimes the government is wrong and it sucks, but this was not one of those times!
- at_a_remove 4y ago
  Oh, I have taken the vaccines. I just believe that informed consent is always a must. I should be informed of the side effects, all of them. Hiding them from me is not an option. I guess we fundamentally disagree on the need for informed consent. I believe that "you don't get to know that" is not acceptable, no matter how well-meaning people are. We used to sterilize people without telling them, under the exact same auspices (Buck vs. Bell). I quote Oliver Wendell Holmes "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." So don't read about the side effects of anything you are prescribed, I would still like to.
  - peter422 4y ago
    The authorizations for these vaccines had 10+ hour public meetings and hundreds of pages of supporting documentation. The studies listed the known data on side effects. Obviously the vaccines were not without risk, and when the government said they were "safe" that did not mean they were 100% safe... Nothing is. They were safe to the standards of other vaccines in broad use. I will acknowledge that in addition to the known deaths from JNJ, I'm sure there were a bunch of unlucky people who had reactions to vaccine that caused issues or may have even killed a few people who were extra sensitive or unlucky. However if the choice is either getting the vaccine first or getting COVID first, and one is 100x safer than the other one for all of these side effects, then it's still hard to disagree with anything the government did. And at the end of the day a lot of anti-vaxxers or vax-curious people argue in bad faith with bad data (I'm not saying you are, but it is common). And even I agree that the "good" data isn't perfect. We still have reporting issues of died with COVID vs died from COVID, but even with any reasonable assumptions about these distinctions the vaccines give all people of any age enough additional protection to be worth it (for the initial 3 doses at least - I make no claims beyond that).