3 ms·

There is a legitimate discussion of what can be mandated you do to your body. However, that discussion was largely side-tracked by the massive amount of disinf

There is a legitimate discussion of what can be mandated you do to your body. However, that discussion was largely side-tracked by the massive amount of disinformation (eg, "Plandemic") that circulated online. There are people who to this day swear that COVID-19 was just like the flu and simultaneously claim that the vaccine spike proteins have killed around 20M people. Not just crackpots, but people with reach, like Brett Weinstein on Joe Rogan's podcast.

Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago
> There is a legitimate discussion of what can be mandated you do to your body. But we have already protocols and frameworks on public health. Also plenty of other medical choices are taken with way less input of experts (see abortion discussions for example) Not sure, the midst of a global crisis, with almost universal scientific approval is the time to have a long discussion on bodily autonomy on countries like america where 50% of people cant read at a 6th grade level.
SideburnsOfDoom 2mo ago
> There is a legitimate discussion of what can be mandated you do to your body. There is a legitimate discussion (dating back at least to Typhoid Mary (1) ) on excluding people from public spaces when they refuse to take basic public health measures. Taking a vaccine for a spreading deadly pandemic is one of those measures. Doing something so violently anti-social is not simply a "bodily autonomy" issue, and framing it only as such is deeply misguided in a way that seems particular to some USA norms. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon > In 1907, she was forcibly quarantined at the Riverside Hospital
- tasty_freeze 2mo ago
  I got the covid shot and every booster. I have no qualms about mRNA messing me up, and I think it was a tremendous life saver. As stated, there was also a ton of misinformation floating around, and people believed that misinformation. The thing is most of those people made rational objections. The problem is their reasoning was based on false information. They didn't see it as being anti social as they thought the drug was a boondoggle, untested, and that covid wasn't serious. I disagree with all of it, but it is important to understand why they objected, and not just saying they are selfish or antisocial.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 2mo ago
    > The thing is most of those people made rational objections. The problem is their reasoning was based on false information. This is how Typhoid Mary understood her status: > It did not take Mary long to react to this suggestion. She seized a carving fork and advanced in my direction. ... Mallon's refusal was based on her belief that she was not infected. ... To stop her struggles, he had to sit on her chest for the journey. And yet, locking her up over her objections her was itself a rational decision. This is the debate. I'm not saying that this kind of intervention is appropriate today, just that her "rational objections" were not be-all and end-all of the situation. Why is it more "important to understand why she objected"? Isn't it far more important to understand that she infected? The thing is, a virus doesn't care what you believe, or your political stripe. To a pathogen, you're a mass of warm cells, nothing more. Human beliefs are irrelevant to a virus, so why centre them? Stopping the spread of e.g. measles depends on vaccinating just about everybody, that's statistics and epidemiology. At the end, that is what determines if there will be an outbreak. Cutting people slack on that because they choose to believe nonsense is not helpful and will not work. Actions matter more than beliefs, voluntary or not.
    - tasty_freeze 2mo ago
      > her "rational objections" were not be-all and end-all of the situation. I hope this is not what you think my position is. If you want to change someone's mind, you need to understand it. If someone believes false information, and if they are driven my emotion due to everything they've heard, then giving them a bullet list of facts will not change their mind 95% of the time. You've probably heard of the term "steel manning" when arguing with someone. If you cannot state the other person's argument in a way that they agree with, then you are just talking past each other. If you can state their position as well or better than they can, now you in a better position to change their mind. If your goal isn't to change their mind, then go ahead, just keep calling them stupid and making no progress with them.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 2mo ago
        Given a population of people, you should aim to change some peoples minds. Indeed in a democracy it is important to get a majority or plurality in agreement. But you cannot hope to change everyone's minds, and so that should not be a goal. A system that depends on that won't work. Typhoid Mary is a counterexample.

Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago

> There is a legitimate discussion of what can be mandated you do to your body. But we have already protocols and frameworks on public health. Also plenty of other medical choices are taken with way less input of experts (see abortion discussions for example) Not sure, the midst of a global crisis, with almost universal scientific approval is the time to have a long discussion on bodily autonomy on countries like america where 50% of people cant read at a 6th grade level.

SideburnsOfDoom 2mo ago

> There is a legitimate discussion of what can be mandated you do to your body. There is a legitimate discussion (dating back at least to Typhoid Mary (1) ) on excluding people from public spaces when they refuse to take basic public health measures. Taking a vaccine for a spreading deadly pandemic is one of those measures. Doing something so violently anti-social is not simply a "bodily autonomy" issue, and framing it only as such is deeply misguided in a way that seems particular to some USA norms. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon > In 1907, she was forcibly quarantined at the Riverside Hospital

tasty_freeze 2mo ago
I got the covid shot and every booster. I have no qualms about mRNA messing me up, and I think it was a tremendous life saver. As stated, there was also a ton of misinformation floating around, and people believed that misinformation. The thing is most of those people made rational objections. The problem is their reasoning was based on false information. They didn't see it as being anti social as they thought the drug was a boondoggle, untested, and that covid wasn't serious. I disagree with all of it, but it is important to understand why they objected, and not just saying they are selfish or antisocial.
- SideburnsOfDoom 2mo ago
  > The thing is most of those people made rational objections. The problem is their reasoning was based on false information. This is how Typhoid Mary understood her status: > It did not take Mary long to react to this suggestion. She seized a carving fork and advanced in my direction. ... Mallon's refusal was based on her belief that she was not infected. ... To stop her struggles, he had to sit on her chest for the journey. And yet, locking her up over her objections her was itself a rational decision. This is the debate. I'm not saying that this kind of intervention is appropriate today, just that her "rational objections" were not be-all and end-all of the situation. Why is it more "important to understand why she objected"? Isn't it far more important to understand that she infected? The thing is, a virus doesn't care what you believe, or your political stripe. To a pathogen, you're a mass of warm cells, nothing more. Human beliefs are irrelevant to a virus, so why centre them? Stopping the spread of e.g. measles depends on vaccinating just about everybody, that's statistics and epidemiology. At the end, that is what determines if there will be an outbreak. Cutting people slack on that because they choose to believe nonsense is not helpful and will not work. Actions matter more than beliefs, voluntary or not.
  - tasty_freeze 2mo ago
    > her "rational objections" were not be-all and end-all of the situation. I hope this is not what you think my position is. If you want to change someone's mind, you need to understand it. If someone believes false information, and if they are driven my emotion due to everything they've heard, then giving them a bullet list of facts will not change their mind 95% of the time. You've probably heard of the term "steel manning" when arguing with someone. If you cannot state the other person's argument in a way that they agree with, then you are just talking past each other. If you can state their position as well or better than they can, now you in a better position to change their mind. If your goal isn't to change their mind, then go ahead, just keep calling them stupid and making no progress with them.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 2mo ago
      Given a population of people, you should aim to change some peoples minds. Indeed in a democracy it is important to get a majority or plurality in agreement. But you cannot hope to change everyone's minds, and so that should not be a goal. A system that depends on that won't work. Typhoid Mary is a counterexample.