3 ms·

Mandating a medical treatment may be in some cases ethically acceptable, but it should only be done if absolutely necessary. In our current context, this is pro

Mandating a medical treatment may be in some cases ethically acceptable, but it should only be done if absolutely necessary. In our current context, this is probably about the COVID vaccines. They don't seem to stop transmission, so mandating them on populations that aren't at risk is hard to justify. Personally I think if someone only increases risk on themselves, it's the same as refusing cancer treatment or anything else, that's their choice. If it imposes risk on others there is some threshold where mandates might make sense, but I don't think we met it with COVID, given the insufficient safety and efficacy data we had at the time of the mandates. It seems for at least some populations it is a pretty risky (relatively, not absolutely) vaccine.

LoganDark 4y ago
> In our current context, this is probably about the COVID vaccines. Of course. > They don't seem to stop transmission, so mandating them on populations that aren't at risk is hard to justify. If you transmit to someone who is vaccinated, there's a lower chance they'll get sick. Vaccines are a preventative measure; I would rather see people vaccinated before they become at risk rather than seeing them get COVID because they weren't vaccinated in time. (Not claiming vaccines completely prevent COVID, just that they definitely seem to reduce the risk of one getting sick from it.) And what about herd immunity? If, say, 99% of a population is vaccinated, then will 1 in 100 people still be at great (or greater) risk due to the vaccinated population still carrying and transmitting the virus freely? Or would those 1 in 100 people be at lesser risk due to less people coughing and sneezing everywhere? -Emily
- realjhol 4y ago
  > If you transmit to someone who is vaccinated, there's a lower chance they'll get sick. Not if they already had it and recovered with mild symptoms. > would rather see people vaccinated before they become at risk rather than seeing them get COVID because they weren't vaccinated in time. It doesn't matter what you want. It matters what the patient receiving the treatment wants. It's their body not yours. > And what about herd immunity? Herd immunity means widespread natural immunity, which is what the largely benign but highly transmissible omicron strain gave to us over a year ago.

LoganDark 4y ago

> In our current context, this is probably about the COVID vaccines. Of course. > They don't seem to stop transmission, so mandating them on populations that aren't at risk is hard to justify. If you transmit to someone who is vaccinated, there's a lower chance they'll get sick. Vaccines are a preventative measure; I would rather see people vaccinated before they become at risk rather than seeing them get COVID because they weren't vaccinated in time. (Not claiming vaccines completely prevent COVID, just that they definitely seem to reduce the risk of one getting sick from it.) And what about herd immunity? If, say, 99% of a population is vaccinated, then will 1 in 100 people still be at great (or greater) risk due to the vaccinated population still carrying and transmitting the virus freely? Or would those 1 in 100 people be at lesser risk due to less people coughing and sneezing everywhere? -Emily

realjhol 4y ago
> If you transmit to someone who is vaccinated, there's a lower chance they'll get sick. Not if they already had it and recovered with mild symptoms. > would rather see people vaccinated before they become at risk rather than seeing them get COVID because they weren't vaccinated in time. It doesn't matter what you want. It matters what the patient receiving the treatment wants. It's their body not yours. > And what about herd immunity? Herd immunity means widespread natural immunity, which is what the largely benign but highly transmissible omicron strain gave to us over a year ago.