coronavirus

[Mynnion]

To be clear I was referring to hospitalization because of Covid not deaths.  I have no reason to doubt that the numbers of deaths are not accurate and have probably be under counted.

[TheDrake]

I figure the hospitalization numbers are similarly unskewed for a couple of reasons. The first is that there are a number of people who just die at home or recover but probably were sick enough to warrant admissions, or people who are evaluated and then refuse admission. The other is that the premise is largely impossible to unravel. We just don't count such things pessimistically, and it's weird to suddenly challenge the accounting. We don't seem to bicker about whether someone is hospitalized "with" diabetes or "for" diabetes.

[Fenring]

We don't seem to bicker about whether someone is hospitalized "with" diabetes or "for" diabetes.

The issue at hand is that no one is suggesting [temporarily] suspending civil rights because of diabetes. A bit of a difference there.

[TheDeamon]

Let's throw you a bone and say that a full 50% of hospitalizations are just accidental covid detections. Does it martially change the argument? If it was only 500 thousand deaths and not 900 thousand, do we change policy over that distinction?

A virus that has killed over 665 thousand presumptive retirees(over 65 years old) and a couple hundred thousand more "nearing retirement" types is still causing economic policies that have already likely destroyed the retirement plans of just as many small business owners, and likely contributed to the draining of often too meager retirement funds on the part of Gen X and Millenials alike. In addition to likely to everything else. At what point is "maximizing life expectancy" the definition of government policy rather than life quality?

If we're now optimizing for life expectancy we haven't even made it to the top of the proverbial ice berg.

[TheDeamon]

We don't seem to bicker about whether someone is hospitalized "with" diabetes or "for" diabetes.

The issue at hand is that no one is suggesting [temporarily] suspending civil rights because of diabetes. A bit of a difference there.

I don't know, if we declare a national emergency to protect 5.5 years of somebody's life expectancy, that train might be getting ready to leave the station.

[TheDrake]

Somehow conservatives don't apply this wonderful calculus when it comes to an illegal immigrant who drinks, drives, and runs over an old person. Well, you know, they probably would have been dead anyway in a year or so. The survival rate of an encounter with an illegal immigrant is really high also.

Stop with the civil rights bull*censored*. The government already dictates where you are required to wear cloth on your body, and what shots you have to get to do certain jobs for the government. People gnashed their teeth over fascist seatbelt laws too, I guess that slope just wasn't as slippery as they thought it was.

Economic impacts were regrettable, that's why we sent money to the people affected and gave loans to small businesses. You know, the mitigation methods that prompted Republicans to howl at the moon about entitlements.

With respect to diabetes, there are some places that are implementing taxes to combat obesity. Japan has a direct fat tax. They measure people at work as of 2008, and mandate weight loss classes. They can levy fines and collect money for elderly health care. This is the "underlying condition" for covid that applies to a full third of the American adult population. But let me guess how that would go down in conservative circles.

At this point, I'd just prefer that insurers be able to create a vaxxed risk pool and keep it separate from unvaxxed - just like smokers.

[edgmatt]

Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot is associated with a 133-times greater risk of heart inflammation for teenage boy according to a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

The study, published last month by researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that myocarditis skyrocketed in men between 12 to 24 years old after both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA COVID jabs, Israel National News reported.

There's a Link to the Isreal Report and from that report: "The study, conducted by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as well as from several U.S. universities and hospitals, examined the effects of vaccination with products manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. The study’s authors used data obtained from the CDC’s VAERS reporting system which were cross-checked to ensure they complied with CDC’s definition of myocarditis; they also noted that given the passive nature of the VAERS system, the number of reported incidents is likely to be an underestimate of the extent of the phenomenon."

Back to the original article:

The study analyzed data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a vaccine injury tracking system managed by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), from December 2020 to August 2021. Out of 1,991 VAERS reports of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination, 1,626 met the CDC’s case definition, according to the researchers.

The myocarditis cases are most likely underestimated, the CDC study emphasized. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, and research shows that it significantly undercounts vaccine injuries.

[LetterRip]

Here is the paper, and the rates,

The rates of myocarditis cases were highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males aged 12 to 15 years (70.7 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), in adolescent males aged 16 to 17 years (105.9 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine), and in young men aged 18 to 24 years (52.4 and 56.3 per million doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine, respectively).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

This is about the same rate derived by earlier studies using other methodologies,

The estimated incidence per 100,000 persons who had received at least one dose of vaccine was 2.13 cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.70). The highest incidence of myocarditis (10.69 cases per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 6.93 to 14.46) was reported in male patients between the ages of 16 and 29 years. A total of 76% of cases of myocarditis were described as mild and 22% as intermediate; 1 case was associated with cardiogenic shock.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737

So 105.9 per million (highest found in the new study 16 to 17 year olds) is slightly lower than the 106.9 per million found for 16 to 29 year olds in the Israeli study.

This is about 1/13th the 1460 per million for those infected with COVID-19 (note they don't break it out for age and gender together, so this is for all ages and genders, so probably more like 1/10th for the given age and gender group)

During March 2020–January 2021, the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients with COVID-19 and 0.009% among patients without COVID-19.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm

Also mild myocarditis (76% of the vaccine related) only needs rest (though it is invariably treated with a course of corticosteroids).

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-vaccines-were-deadly-in-rare-cases-governments-are-now-weighing-compensation-11645266603


"Serious side effects so far have been very rare—estimated at roughly one to 11 per 100,000 doses for some of the more serious harmful reactions identified by regulators in the most-affected age groups, according to U.S. and European government officials and researchers. They include blood clotting, nervous-system disorders and heart problems, all of which also can be caused by Covid itself.

Most of the side effects resolve quickly, but others in rare cases have required hospitalization and ongoing medical care. In even rarer instances, regulators and researchers tracking them say, side effects have been deadly...

The U.K. government declined to comment about individual cases. June Raine, head of the U.K.’s primary medicines regulator, said in a statement that no vaccine is without risk, but that the shots’ benefits outweigh risks for most people. U.K. officials credit Covid-19 vaccines with saving more than 130,000 lives."

----------------------------------------------------------

I don't doubt that the vaccines have saved millions of lives compared to how many they have killed and have improved the health of hundreds of millions more compared to how many have had their health harmed by them.

But...

I'm not sure how you get to the vaccine mandates, forcing people to get an injection when you know it will certainly kill some of them. I understand it will save millions more and that should be used to persuade people to take their chances, a one in a million chance of dying (figurative, whatever the actual odds are) and a slightly greater chance of having an adverse reaction versus the much greater chances of suffering from covid. But forcing people to get themselves killed? That seems like a step too far.

Maybe it's a version of the trolley moral dilemma. There is a runaway trolley and it's heading over the detonator of a nuclear bomb. Aliens have set it up so that the only way to stop it is for human beings to volunteer to be in a pool of people who are randomly selected to be teleported in front of the trolley to slow it down and eventually stop it with their bodies and some will die while even more will be injured, many seriously. Most of the volunteers though won't be selected and will be fine, having done their duty just by the act of volunteering. Anyone refusing to volunteer will lose their job, access to various amenities, and in some countries will be fined.

An alternative is offered whereby if seven billion people line up along the tracks and swing some face masks at the trolley, little by little that will be enough to slow it down and avoid disaster, but a lot of people think that's stupid and the physics of it don't work for them and it's also just too much trouble to bother with. Better to either let a very small number of people face certain death sacrificing their bodies to stop disaster or just ignore the problem altogether and enjoy the fireworks.

[TheDrake]

all of which also can be caused by Covid itself.

To me this is a major point. If covid were not rampant there would be little incentive for mandates. Since covid is rampant, anyone who might get harmed by the vaccine is going to go through the same bad outcome from getting covid, which is highly likely if you land in a mandate group as it stands.

Now if you're going to take this on principal, then those arguments don't apply. In which case, are we talking about never mandating a preventive measure that might kill someone? To that I would raise the question of airbags, which have killed a very small amount of people. I'm sure someone has had a safety harness get caught on something that caused them injury. Motorcycle helmets limit visibility that might prevent someone from avoiding a fatal accident. Now an anarchist or full on libertarian will say, the government should never be able to mandate any safety measures. But outside those groups, we generally just do the math, don't we?

[edgmatt]

First off, mandating having something injected into your body, which it makes it un-removable, is vastly different than an airbag, or a helmet....or anything else like that that you pick off the list of things the government has mandated.  Vastly.  As in incomparable.

Second, the enforcement of this mandate is way, and I mean way, past any other mandated thing in the history of this country.  NO ONE is being stopped and having to show proof their airbags are functioning.  NO ONE is being kicked out of grocery stores because they aren't wearing a helmet.  A police officer can't even pull you over if he thinks your not wearing a seat belt. (it has to be something else like your tail light is out, or you were speeding...and the "not wearing a seatbelt" fine gets tacked on.)

It was decided, by the left, just a few years ago that a person getting stopped anywhere in public and being asked for their legal status papers was immoral, racist, and unconstitutional.

----

Let's try a different tact.  Let's say there was data that showed that there were less violent crimes, less drug crimes and less homicides in areas where a higher percentage of the population owned firearms.

And the Republicans pushed through a law that mandated that everyone 18 and older had to register and own a gun.  They would provide it and one box of ammo free.  Under 18 would get air guns.  Anyone here in for that?  ( I wouldn't be, for the record.)

And every day there were commercials by someone from the NRA telling you how safe the gun is, how its been shown to reduce crimes and deaths.

And the NRA made billions of dollars from this mandate.  And many Republicans and a few Democrats owned stock in certain gun manufacturers and ammo makers.

And then you had to show your firearm permit card at grocery stores, or just your gun if you had it with you.

And some business's started firing people who refused to own one.

And when people protested they were labeled racists (cause only racists wants the poor, who are mostly black, to not own a gun, and this mandate provides it) or labeled crazy people who "have chosen death" because the numbers clearly show how more guns = more saved lives.

And when people started getting shot, and you posted these stories, another poster would dismiss it as "really small compared to the number of lives saved" and mock you and belittle you.  "I mean we're just dong the math here, right?"

Etc etc etc.

Do you want to live in a country where the government can mandate things like this?  Things YOU disagree with on a deep level?  Do you want the government to be able to mandate you take an action that you deem dangerous and life threatening?

Or, do you want the choice?

[TheDrake]

But this ship already sailed. You already have to have MMR to go to school. Healthcare workers already don't get a choice about having immunizations. Members of the armed services already had to accept vaccines. I was perfectly content with that five years ago, and I still am.

I don't really understand the distinction that an injection is somehow different from other interventions, especially since it isn't just affecting the individual.

I can't really accept your firearm example considering that accidental and suicidal deaths are way higher than stand your ground saves. Not to mention cops knowing that every citizen is armed are going to use more lethal force. I appreciate what you're trying to do, so I'll make it clear. The principle of sovereign citizen means nothing to me if it puts other citizens at greater risk than the individual. That's why I'll 100% back mandates for self driving cars and fining or taxing people who insist on driving themselves around once they are orders of magnitude safer.

Btw, your assumptions about seatbelt laws are dead wrong in the majority of states.

In all 50 states except New Hampshire, failure to wear a seat belt is a misdemeanor. In 34 of those states and the District of Columbia, a driver can be pulled over just for not wearing a seatbelt. This is primary enforcement.

[edgmatt]

"It's already happened" is not a logical, concise counter argument to this.

There are people who didn't want the MMR vaccine to be mandatory before it was made mandatory.  And some of those people weren't against the MMR, they were against it being mandatory because they knew then, as I know now, that that would open the door for precisely the bad argument you are making:  "Well we already do it, so why are you upset?"

I don't really understand the distinction that an injection is somehow different from other interventions, especially since it isn't just affecting the individual.

Then you aren't thinking enough about it.  I've already posted, months ago, about this.

I can't really accept your firearm example considering that accidental and suicidal deaths are way higher than stand your ground saves.

I used that hypothetical to try and get your mind wrapped around the idea of being forced to do something you don't agree with, even if the data shows that its a net win for the population if everyone complies.  Assume, in this case, that the suicides and accidental deaths AREN'T way higher than everything else.  Assume it's a net gain of life.  Are you for the mandate of owning a gun?

That's why I'll 100% back mandates for self driving cars and fining or taxing people who insist on driving themselves around once they are orders of magnitude safer.

You and I have very different ideas of what a life of freedom looks like.  But answer the question about backing a mandate that you don't agree with, if the population benefits as a whole.  Or would you back "any" mandate in that case?

Btw, your assumptions about seatbelt laws are dead wrong in the majority of states.

But not dead wrong since it's true for NH.  And irrelevant.  Do I have to show some proof at the door that I wore my seat belt on the way to Shoprite in order to shop there?  Name something else that's mandated where I have to show proof of it before I can eat at a restaurant in NYC.  Is anyone talking about not providing medical attention to someone in a car accident if it's obvious they weren't wearing a seat belt?  Is that a question on a job application?  Are you at risk of getting fired from your job if you choose not to wear one?

[Fenring]

The principle of sovereign citizen means nothing to me if it puts other citizens at greater risk than the individual. That's why I'll 100% back mandates for self driving cars and fining or taxing people who insist on driving themselves around once they are orders of magnitude safer.

It's interesting you should take this position when you're also a strong proponent of globalism and no borders. Your position on covid falls under the general category of "government controls things to make them better" while your attitude about trade and such is "government should let people do as they wish freely." Why isn't your economic position similar, that something superior for the population should be mandated if it creates better results for the people? I imagine the answer would be that you assume it would be superior to have no borders. But let's say by hypothesis that is factually false, that it would not be superior. Would this reverse your position on that, and you'd be in favor of closed, protected trade borders if that did indeed produce a superior social result?

[yossarian22c]

What complicates vaccine mandates is that it doesn't just protect you but those around you as well. That's where freedom from and freedom to gets complicated. Should the unvaccinated be liable for the medical bills of those they infect? Because not getting vaccinated makes you much more likely to spread diseases. So the reason people are asking for proof of vaccination isn't to protect you, its to protect themselves and others from you. If all the people against mandates were for the unvaccinated being responsible for their effects then maybe you have a point. But their argument is I don't have to take basic safety measures that endangers those around me. Instead of them not wearing a seat belt its as if they are removing the seat belt of everyone they interact with.

I know being vaccinated doesn't bring either the risk of infection or the risk of transmission to 0 but it substantially decreases it.

[edgmatt]

gets complicated. Should the unvaccinated be liable for the medical bills of those they infect? Because not getting vaccinated makes you much more likely to spread diseases. So the reason people are asking for proof of vaccination isn't to protect you, its to protect themselves and others from you.

And I'm not totally against individual people/places making that decision themselves.  It's when the government mandates it, or creates pressure for these individual places to "make their own decision" that is just the decision that the government wants them to make, that I and millions of others have a problem with.

Paying medical bills of people we infect:  That's a horrible idea because it would never be malicious, and it would be impossible to prove.

I agree that there's a balance that has to be struck between individual decisions and community welfare.  I also agree that a balance has to be struck with Law and Order which leads to tyranny if left unchecked, and individual freedom which can lead to anarchy if left unchecked.

But I am not of the idea that the individual humans purpose is being a cog in the wheel of humanity.

Right now, in my opinion (and I'm not alone on this) we're crossing over into tyranny and totalitarianism.  And if anything about the 20th century should be reviewed and learned and taught, it's what tyranny and totalitarianism has done to us humans across the globe.  As a famous person said "We've got millions of  body bags to show for it".  This is a bad path, it doesn't lead to salvation and peace and blissful livelihood.  It leads to slavery and suffering and death.

[TheDrake]

The principle of sovereign citizen means nothing to me if it puts other citizens at greater risk than the individual. That's why I'll 100% back mandates for self driving cars and fining or taxing people who insist on driving themselves around once they are orders of magnitude safer.

It's interesting you should take this position when you're also a strong proponent of globalism and no borders. Your position on covid falls under the general category of "government controls things to make them better" while your attitude about trade and such is "government should let people do as they wish freely." Why isn't your economic position similar, that something superior for the population should be mandated if it creates better results for the people? I imagine the answer would be that you assume it would be superior to have no borders. But let's say by hypothesis that is factually false, that it would not be superior. Would this reverse your position on that, and you'd be in favor of closed, protected trade borders if that did indeed produce a superior social result?

Excellent points. It isn't entirely just better results. I wouldn't enslave 50 people to give 10,000 college degrees. People can do what they wish freely until it begins to physically injure the people around them. That's why I chose operating automobiles as my example. I believe you should be free to smoke, but not in public places where it could cause someone distress or serious illness. I believe you should be able to play all the filthy music you want, but not in the public library. I'm not sure I'd be in favor of seatbelt laws in principle, but I am also not terrified that it is the beginning of the slide into tyranny.

The other thing is that in the calculation of "superior social result" I don't divide up teams. Every human being gets equal weight. I would like to see immigration controlled, in the sense that arrivals should be checked for disease, given immunizations, etc. I see the closed border as actually causing harm to the people on the other side by restraining them, as opposed to unlimited legal immigration causing harm to the current population.

I don't have zero principles, I did think Biden's OSHA ploy was wrong despite a belief that it would have saved lives. Which is why I've also been a strong advocate for a test and mask alternative like the one employed by the NFL for example. Rodgers didn't have to get vaccinated to play football, he just would have had to follow distancing and other guidelines for the unvaccinated.

[edgmatt]

Haven't read the rest of your post yet, still going.  But:

but I am also not terrified that it [seat belt law] is the beginning of the slide into tyranny.

It shouldn't be, but you yourself invoked that very thing to dismiss concerns about mandating a vaccine.  So yea, the seat belt law ITSELF shouldn't allow people to slide into tyranny, but the evidence is that people will use that very thing to gain incremental tyrannical control.  "That ship sailed".  Right?

[yossarian22c]

gets complicated. Should the unvaccinated be liable for the medical bills of those they infect? Because not getting vaccinated makes you much more likely to spread diseases. So the reason people are asking for proof of vaccination isn't to protect you, its to protect themselves and others from you.

And I'm not totally against individual people/places making that decision themselves.  It's when the government mandates it, or creates pressure for these individual places to "make their own decision" that is just the decision that the government wants them to make, that I and millions of others have a problem with.

Paying medical bills of people we infect:  That's a horrible idea because it would never be malicious, and it would be impossible to prove.
...

It is malicious when you refuse to take safety precautions. Drunk drivers rarely intend to kill people but we charge them with a crime anyway. Walking around unmasked and unvaccinated in a pandemic is tantamount to driving drunk. You're a danger to yourself and others. Legally it would be very difficult to prove who infected whom. But to say "Aww shucks, I wasn't being careful. Sucks to suck sucker." when you infect someone isn't acceptable either.

[edgmatt]

Rodgers didn't have to get vaccinated to play football, he just would have had to follow distancing and other guidelines for the unvaccinated.

Don't know if you have ever seen a football game so I'll advise:  This sentence makes no sense.

[edgmatt]

It is malicious when you refuse to take safety precautions. Drunk drivers rarely intend to kill people but we charge them with a crime anyway.

There's a difference between telling someone they cannot do X in order to do Y, and telling someone they MUST do X in order to do Y.

We tell drivers, you CANNOT drink in order to drive.  That's the main difference between that and telling Susan she MUST get this vaccine in order to keep a job she already has (for example).  Another difference is that NOT drinking isn't potentially physically dangerous, and getting the vaccine potentially is.

Right, so it comes down to what is "reasonable" safety precautions?  How much danger do I put myself in to prevent injury to you?  Because I don't see the vaccine helping ME at all.  It only seems like a risk for me.  How can you morally justify forcing ME to take on a risk with no benefit, to potentially prevent injury to someone else, without ever really knowing if I have, in fact, prevented that injury?

[NobleHunter]

They could have said the exact same thing about polio. After all, most people who got polio recovered just fine. We only hear about long polio now. Both vaccines offer protection against permanent (or near permanent) damage caused by a disease that is otherwise mild.

[Fenring]

People can do what they wish freely until it begins to physically injure the people around them. That's why I chose operating automobiles as my example.

Right, but a mandate about self-driving cars due to their superiority clearly indicates that "until it begins to physically injure the people around them" applies the moment anything dangerous (e.g. cars) exist at all. You choosing to drive, even now, puts others at risk. So it can't just be about you not being allowed to risk others; obviously your calculus must take into account permitting people to do things that may harm others *if* the mass of people doing it makes things better for the group, such as having people able to drive around, work, and buy things. I don't see how you avoid the aggregate calculation in many areas like this. How about industry - should they be allowed to pollute? In isolation you are doing harm, but having no industry and therefore extreme poverty would be even more harmful (or at minimum harmful in a different way). And note that we must refer here to 'harm done' rather than "people injuring others" because harms result of both direct impact (I hit you), indirect impact (I run you out of business and your family has no income) and systemic impact (I cut down the forest for my lumber company and now there is no room for any nature-walk companies to do business there, plus people like living there less). So the 'my rights end at your face' argument really cannot apply to things like laws and systemic design. It really only applies to street ethics, which is no help when making economic arguments.

The other thing is that in the calculation of "superior social result" I don't divide up teams. Every human being gets equal weight.

Right, I did know that about your beliefs. But let's say the U.S. government did a self-driving car mandate: they could only mandate it within the U.S. So to the extent that there's a closed border, it enforces not only physical presence but also compliance with local laws and systems. So opening borders, loosely speaking, would essentially make it hard or impossible to refuse people entry due to non-compliance with local laws such as self-driving car mandates. You really need an isolated zone with its own laws and its own people used to those laws for such a system to work in a closed loop. The U.S. would not be in a position to weigh 'every person' in the world when deciding whether it should mandate self-driving cars. Neither could it do so (too complex) nor would it be feasible practically speaking. And I don't think you'd see trade law any different. Free trade would mean no local standards could be applied meaningfully, which implies just as an example that slave labor would be back on the table since you'd be free to trade with a slave nation. In fact that's practically already the case now, and even with only semi-free trade. Imagine if it was really free trade.

So that's why I was asking you to reconcile "government decides what's best for all and mandates it" versus "others should stay out of my face unless I am hurting others". I don't see how these two views can coexist, really at all. Certainly not in the world we know right now. Maybe...in ten thousanrd years or something (not kidding).

[edgmatt]

Just a nit pick:

It is malicious when you refuse to take safety precautions

I don't agree that that makes something malicious.  I don't think a drunk driver is maliciously driving drunk (generally speaking).  He's not out there looking to cause an accident or kill someone.  Incredibly irresponsible, reckless, stupid...ok.  Not malicious.

[Fenring]

I don't think a drunk driver is maliciously driving drunk (generally speaking).  He's not out there looking to cause an accident or kill someone.  Incredibly irresponsible, reckless, stupid...ok.  Not malicious.

I sort of have a bone to pick with this argument in general. "I place no value on your life" is completely malicious - maybe as malicious as anything can ever get - IMO. It's the ethical equivalent of nihilism. Wanting to directly harm someone isn't the only way to harm them; not caring whether they live or die can be just as effective. Just an example: would you suppose that big tobacco execs who knew it caused cancer and peddled it to kids anyhow were (a) malicious, (b) merely irresponsible, or (c) just doing business? If attempting to hook kids on a dangerous substance for personal gain isn't malice then the word isn't that useful. If malice were restricted to wanting to hurt people just for the sake of hurting them I think there are other words for that, like sadism or whatever else.

[TheDrake]

Haven't read the rest of your post yet, still going.  But:

but I am also not terrified that it [seat belt law] is the beginning of the slide into tyranny.

It shouldn't be, but you yourself invoked that very thing to dismiss concerns about mandating a vaccine.  So yea, the seat belt law ITSELF shouldn't allow people to slide into tyranny, but the evidence is that people will use that very thing to gain incremental tyrannical control.  "That ship sailed".  Right?

No, I don't think they USED it to get tyrannical control or to establish complacency. I think they wanted to keep people from flying through windshields and breaking their fool necks, being dependent on medicaid and disability for the rest of their lives, and giving fellow citizens nightmares and PTSD.

Similarly, I don't think people would likely USE seatbelt laws after the fact to establish general purpose tyranny. I think you say, if our premise was true that we will sacrifice a tiny amount of liberty for safety, then are we crossing a new line or not? I don't think it has established a general acceptance of illegal search just because that would also save lives. It's all nuance. There's nothing on principle that wouldn't allow someone to argue that all drivers should wear flame retardant clothing, five point restraints, helmets and gloves - pointing to seatbelts as a precedent. All of which would save lives, but it would be an excessive intrusion compared to the gain. Not really a risk of slipping down that slope.

[edgmatt]

"I place no value on your life" is completely malicious - maybe as malicious as anything can ever get

Whoah, I never said anything like that.  Me placing my life as a higher priority than everyone else (with the exception of a few people in my life) doesn't mean I don't value other lives.  Let's make sure we're all on the same page as far as that is concerned.

I disagree with that statement also.  "I place no value on your life" is neutral, indifferent.  To get to malice it has to be actively out to get them.  "I place no value on your life and we're better off with you dead" for example, would be malicious.

The drunk driver analogy was a bad one, I think we should just drop it and stay on a better talking point.

I don't know about the cigg companies continuing to make things that cause cancer is malicious either.  They'd have to actually want people to die, making the ciggs so THAT people die and I just think they don't care at all.  Like I don't think they care if the people get cancer, or die, or live, or anything.  That's not malicious.  It's still bad and evil, but not malicious.

Attempting to get someone hooked on a cigg/drug/other bad thing....for any reason...yea that part is malicious, in my opinion.  "Out to get them" is a good phrase that isn't quite sadistic.  I think they are closely related words anyway.

-----

Why don't we just ban the people who are the most susceptible to Corona from being in public.  The elderly and the ones who have certain health issues.  They can't go out.  They have to have food delivered, they can't drive anywhere, they can't walk out of their house.  Quarantine them.  Fine and jail them if they break quarantine.  Preventing someone from taking an action that would harm them, is less tyrannical than forcing someone else to take an action for someone else's good.  That'd be a much closer thing to the seat belt rule. 

So what is the reason we don't do that or something like that?  Answer that, and you'll have many of my reasons for being against a vaccine mandate.

[TheDrake]

Why don't we put susceptible people in preemptive permanent quarantine? Is that a serious question?

1. Those people going out are primarily risking their own lives.
2. This is why quarantine applies to people who are sick and can hurt others.
3. The goal is, or was, to achieve herd immunity where everyone can go out, this solution makes no advance in that direction.
4. It is completely impractical. Just start with long term nursing care. Are you suggesting we'd also seal caregivers in the tomb with the sick and elderly?
5. Are we saying that your right to reject a vaccine is greater than your right to freedom of movement?
6. There's probably a calculus here. We don't take extreme measures to prevent the spread of common illness that might kill the very frail.

[edgmatt]

Yes it's serious, and considering all the reasons that have been listed for why I should get the vaccine, namely to prevent someone else from getting sick, it would seem to me some of those same reasons might apply to my question.

1. Those people going out are primarily risking their own lives

Same reason for seat belt law, right?  So if we can mandate a seat belt for someone (they are only risking their own life if they choose not to wear it), let's mandate elderly can't leave their homes.

2. This is why quarantine applies to people who are sick and can hurt others.

No no, quarantine ALL the elderly and ALL the obese people and anyone else who has compromised immunity or is in the age group most susceptible.  We can't know who's actually sick and we can't know who's really in danger.  We're much better off just blanket quarantining.

3. The goal is, or was, to achieve herd immunity where everyone can go out, this solution makes no advance in that direction.

Then why are people who aren't vaccinated not allowed to eat at NYC restaurants, or being fired from their jobs?  It makes no advance towards herd immunity.

4. It is completely impractical. Just start with long term nursing care. Are you suggesting we'd also seal caregivers in the tomb with the sick and elderly

It cant be more complicated than keeping track of the unvaxxed.  Just have them show ID or a paper saying they are a certain age and have been checked out by a doctor to be level X healthy.

5. Are we saying that your right to reject a vaccine is greater than your right to freedom of movement?

I'm saying MY right to freedom of movement is precisely the same as everyone else's, vaxxed or not.  If you can cancel out my freedom of movement because Im not vaxxed and that could potentially harm someone else, then I can cancel out someone's freedom of movement because they could potentially harm themselves.

6. There's probably a calculus here. We don't take extreme measures to prevent the spread of common illness that might kill the very frail.

I'm not sure what your saying here.  This seems to be tounge in cheek or sarcasm.  What measures have we taken with Covid that you consider NOT extreme?

[TheDeamon]

But this ship already sailed. You already have to have MMR to go to school. Healthcare workers already don't get a choice about having immunizations. Members of the armed services already had to accept vaccines. I was perfectly content with that five years ago, and I still am.

MMR is required to go to public school, and many private ones, but the public schooling option gets an asterisk. Homeschooling is an alternative in many places, and if you dig deep enough, I'm sure schools could be found that won't require MMR without further questions.

Note, I said the public schools require an asterisk. Here is why:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx

All 50 states have legislation requiring specified vaccines for students. Although exemptions vary from state to state, all school immunization laws grant exemptions to children for medical reasons. There are 44 states and Washington D.C. that grant religious exemptions for people who have religious objections to immunizations. Currently, 15 states allow philosophical exemptions for children whose parents object to immunizations because of personal, moral or other beliefs.

And many of those states have such provisions in their laws because they had people challenge the previous laws under 1st Amendment and other grounds in the past, so the exceptions exist to bring them in compliance with either court rulings(which may have been state level), or what their own interpretation of the constitution at the time dictated.

So yes, the vaccinations are required, but in most states, "there is a waiver for that."

As to medical practitioners, nobody forces them to work in a hospital that has a vaccination mandate, plenty of medical practices exist where vaccination is not required in order to work for them. Many Libertarians would argue this is a combination of "employer choice" on setting standards for their employees, and "employee choice" on if they want to meet those requirements. Alternatives exist, so it isn't a civil rights concern.

The last man drafted into military service for the United States did so on June 30th, 1973. The last person on active duty/reserve status to enter military service by way of the draft retired in 2011. Needless to say, given the typical duration for draft enrollments, barring the person voluntarily re-upping, the US is probably going to be reaching 50 years without a person serving under conscription at either the end of 2024, or start of 2025.

Given the US Military is an "All Volunteer Force" this brings back the matter of "they could have simply decided to not sign up in the first place." Although there is something of an argument to be made about their not having signed up for Military Service with the idea of getting the Covid19 vaccine, given 4 to 6 year enlistment periods are common, Covid19 didn't even exist on the public's radar when many of those servicemembers last signed a contract with the Government.

...And the Government has a poor track record with carrying out dubious medical experiments on its own troops. If you go back to the 2002/2003 period, you'll also find plenty of active duty and reserve people fighting against getting the Anthrax Vaccine as well as the Smallpox Vaccine which had been brought back out of obscurity. So to say that the Covid19 pushback is unique to Covid19 isn't valid either.

[TheDeamon]

What complicates vaccine mandates is that it doesn't just protect you but those around you as well. That's where freedom from and freedom to gets complicated. Should the unvaccinated be liable for the medical bills of those they infect? Because not getting vaccinated makes you much more likely to spread diseases. So the reason people are asking for proof of vaccination isn't to protect you, its to protect themselves and others from you. If all the people against mandates were for the unvaccinated being responsible for their effects then maybe you have a point. But their argument is I don't have to take basic safety measures that endangers those around me. Instead of them not wearing a seat belt its as if they are removing the seat belt of everyone they interact with.

I know being vaccinated doesn't bring either the risk of infection or the risk of transmission to 0 but it substantially decreases it.

Except in the case of the Covid19 vaccines, it has been demonstrated that in a clear majority of cases, it doesn't prevent you from getting sick with Covid19, it simply potentially makes you "less sick" with less severe symptoms. It also doesn't prevent you from spreading Covid19, and because your symptoms are much less severe, absent other far more intrusive tracking systems being employed, you may never realize you had it and were in fact spreading it around Typhoid Mary style.

[TheDeamon]

Rodgers didn't have to get vaccinated to play football, he just would have had to follow distancing and other guidelines for the unvaccinated.

Don't know if you have ever seen a football game so I'll advise:  This sentence makes no sense.

He should be fine so long as he only plays football with others while outdoors. 

Which makes playing in an enclosed stadium a bit of a problem.

[TheDeamon]

It is malicious when you refuse to take safety precautions. Drunk drivers rarely intend to kill people but we charge them with a crime anyway.

There's a difference between telling someone they cannot do X in order to do Y, and telling someone they MUST do X in order to do Y.

We tell drivers, you CANNOT drink in order to drive.  That's the main difference between that and telling Susan she MUST get this vaccine in order to keep a job she already has (for example).  Another difference is that NOT drinking isn't potentially physically dangerous, and getting the vaccine potentially is.

The other side of the argument to made re: drunk driving is that we've established in the courts that Driving is not a "right" in and of itself. It's a privilege which society(the government) can restrict any time it decides to do so. You can always walk, call an Uber, ride a bicycle, or use a number of other means of conveyance(although they might also get you a DUI if you use them while drunk, but that's an entirely different discussion about how you can get DUI while on horseback, even though you don't need a license to ride a horse).

[TheDrake]

Yes it's serious, and considering all the reasons that have been listed for why I should get the vaccine, namely to prevent someone else from getting sick, it would seem to me some of those same reasons might apply to my question.

1. Those people going out are primarily risking their own lives

Same reason for seat belt law, right?  So if we can mandate a seat belt for someone (they are only risking their own life if they choose not to wear it), let's mandate elderly can't leave their homes.

Matter of degree, not principle. If a seatbelt took 20 minutes to strap into, we wouldn't do that. Like my example about flame retardant suits. The seatbelt is a trivial amount of discomfort impact compared to imprisoning someone for life.

2. This is why quarantine applies to people who are sick and can hurt others.

No no, quarantine ALL the elderly and ALL the obese people and anyone else who has compromised immunity or is in the age group most susceptible.  We can't know who's actually sick and we can't know who's really in danger.  We're much better off just blanket quarantining.

And you think lockdowns of restaurants and vaccine passports hurt the economy. And as you say, we can't know who is really in danger including 42 year old mountain climbers with no underlying health conditions, so I guess the entire population will have to go into your quarantine.

3. The goal is, or was, to achieve herd immunity where everyone can go out, this solution makes no advance in that direction.

Then why are people who aren't vaccinated not allowed to eat at NYC restaurants, or being fired from their jobs?  It makes no advance towards herd immunity.

That's nonsensical. We have to do everything possible in order to advance that goal? No, we don't we just have to do enough. Many areas did decide that this was necessary, including New Orleans.

4. It is completely impractical. Just start with long term nursing care. Are you suggesting we'd also seal caregivers in the tomb with the sick and elderly

It cant be more complicated than keeping track of the unvaxxed.  Just have them show ID or a paper saying they are a certain age and have been checked out by a doctor to be level X healthy.

Doesn't address my point. Quarantine means nobody goes in or out, as you stipulated everything is by delivery. If doctors and nurses are running around exposed to the negligent unvaxxed, they can bring that back in to the people you're trying to protect.

5. Are we saying that your right to reject a vaccine is greater than your right to freedom of movement?

I'm saying MY right to freedom of movement is precisely the same as everyone else's, vaxxed or not.  If you can cancel out my freedom of movement because Im not vaxxed and that could potentially harm someone else, then I can cancel out someone's freedom of movement because they could potentially harm themselves.

In public spaces, like city streets, sure. I wouldn't advocate having a seatbelt vax type law, or vaccine checkpoints, or proof of vaccine to get a driver's license. But none of those things are happening. Your freedom of movement doesn't apply to private spaces who put restrictions on your entry. You might argue that government mandates requiring vaccination to enter establishments, like New Orleans, restricts your ability to go into that establishment. But that freedom is not sacrosanct. You are also not allowed to bring your dog into the restaurant in some jurisdictions. You're required to wear shoes. In many areas, including even Texas, you can be prohibited from entering the premises with your firearm. All of these because of the potential danger to others!!

6. There's probably a calculus here. We don't take extreme measures to prevent the spread of common illness that might kill the very frail.

I'm not sure what your saying here.  This seems to be tounge in cheek or sarcasm.  What measures have we taken with Covid that you consider NOT extreme?

I think they have been mostly measured and appropriate in scale. I wish there had been more. By extreme, I guess I mean excessive or not warranted.

[TheDrake]

What complicates vaccine mandates is that it doesn't just protect you but those around you as well. That's where freedom from and freedom to gets complicated. Should the unvaccinated be liable for the medical bills of those they infect? Because not getting vaccinated makes you much more likely to spread diseases. So the reason people are asking for proof of vaccination isn't to protect you, its to protect themselves and others from you. If all the people against mandates were for the unvaccinated being responsible for their effects then maybe you have a point. But their argument is I don't have to take basic safety measures that endangers those around me. Instead of them not wearing a seat belt its as if they are removing the seat belt of everyone they interact with.

I know being vaccinated doesn't bring either the risk of infection or the risk of transmission to 0 but it substantially decreases it.

Except in the case of the Covid19 vaccines, it has been demonstrated that in a clear majority of cases, it doesn't prevent you from getting sick with Covid19, it simply potentially makes you "less sick" with less severe symptoms. It also doesn't prevent you from spreading Covid19, and because your symptoms are much less severe, absent other far more intrusive tracking systems being employed, you may never realize you had it and were in fact spreading it around Typhoid Mary style.

It doesn't have to be perfect prevention. It does significantly reduce transmission, especially of the more deadly strains. That was already stipulated above, though you ignored it for some reason. Just because we can't keep all ten people from getting sick doesn't mean we can't protect seven people from getting sick. It is absolutely not a "majority" of cases that the vaccine is ineffective. If that were true, we would see equivalent positivity rates between vax and novax, or at least less than 2x.

[TheDeamon]

They could have said the exact same thing about polio. After all, most people who got polio recovered just fine. We only hear about long polio now. Both vaccines offer protection against permanent (or near permanent) damage caused by a disease that is otherwise mild.

 

Polio was positively deadly for adults more often than not, or crippling at best, as FDR could attest to when he got it as an adult.

It boasted something like a 1 in 5 mortality rate among adolescents, and "long polio" cases were the kids who spent the rest of their lives having to spend considerable time in things like the Iron Lung. Although doing a quick google search, it is interesting to see the reporting on complications from Polio infection surfacing decades later, but that the linkages for that are possibly comparatively more recent is hardly shocking. We have developed diagnostic tools since Y2K that doctors in the past could only dream of.

Such as, for example they've found certain genetic markers that have a tendency to damaged by the use of certain opioids and if you're in that group. You will probably never be able to stop taking opium products for the rest of your life or risk certain death. Luckily they've also found an opiate those people can safely use while significantly reducing the level of dose the patient needs to simply continue living.

[NobleHunter]

Whoops. But the point is that long COVID can be debilitating and  the best way to protect against it is either not getting COVID or getting vaccinated. The risks of COVID far outweigh the risks of the vaccine regardless of a person's lack of pre-existing conditions.

[TheDrake]

And many of those states have such provisions in their laws because they had people challenge the previous laws under 1st Amendment and other grounds in the past, so the exceptions exist to bring them in compliance with either court rulings(which may have been state level), or what their own interpretation of the constitution at the time dictated.

So yes, the vaccinations are required, but in most states, "there is a waiver for that."

Agreed. But those waivers require more than "ooh ooh religious exemption! I'll have one of those!"

You can't single out covid and say it violates your religion if you already accepted other vaccines or other medical treatments based on stem cell research, etc etc. Unless you converted to be a Christian Scientist somewhere inbetween. And there's absolutely nothing stopping an alternate requirement like daily testing or mask wearing.

And it isn't universal everywhere. Supreme Court just ignored a challenge to Maine's requirement for healthcare workers to be vaccinated based on religious grounds. In fact, they don't allow religious exemptions for healthcare workers for any vaccine, including influenza. It has been challenged in court, and via voter referendum (74%)

Experts said the consensus has generally been that religious exemptions to vaccine mandates are allowed but not constitutionally required. That precedent came from a 1990 ruling that upheld Oregon’s ban on peyote, even in Native American religious rituals. The Supreme Court said then that the state’s general ban did not violate the U.S. Constitution because it did not specifically target religion, and that concept has carried through the years since.

[edgmatt]

The risks of COVID far outweigh the risks of the vaccine regardless of a person's lack of pre-existing conditions.

Let's be absolutely clear that this is your opinion and not a fact.

[edgmatt]

@TheDrake - I can't make sense of your post, and that's partly my fault for setting you up to fail.  I think we have begun talking past each other at this point.

[LetterRip]

The risks of COVID far outweigh the risks of the vaccine regardless of a person's lack of pre-existing conditions.

Let's be absolutely clear that this is your opinion and not a fact.

No, it is absolutely clear it is well supported fact, not an opinion.

[edgmatt]

No.  The very use of the words in that sentence make it an opinion by simple definition.

The risks of COVID far outweigh the risks of the vaccine regardless of a person's lack of pre-existing conditions.

"Risk of X outweighs risk of Y" is a subjective phrase.  It "can't" be a fact.

You don't know how much weight anyone else puts on either risk.  It's not objective.

It's an OPINION shared by MANY that the risks of covid far outweigh the risks of the vaccine.  But there are also millions of people for whom that just isn't true.

[yossarian22c]

No.  The very use of the words in that sentence make it an opinion by simple definition.

The risks of COVID far outweigh the risks of the vaccine regardless of a person's lack of pre-existing conditions.

"Risk of X outweighs risk of Y" is a subjective phrase.  It "can't" be a fact.

You don't know how much weight anyone else puts on either risk.  It's not objective.

It's an OPINION shared by MANY that the risks of covid far outweigh the risks of the vaccine.  But there are also millions of people for whom that just isn't true.

No, the risks are quantifiable. Risks of COVID far outweigh the risks of the vaccine. The risk of hospitalization, death, sickness, long term heart, lung, kidney, cognitive, and blood clotting issues are all vastly higher from getting COVID than from getting the vaccine. And by vastly I mean thousands if not millions of times more likely in terms of risk.

Its your perception of the risk that is your opinion.

Would it convince you if I went and found the data for say blood clots as a result of COVID vs blood clots as a result of the vaccine? From COVID its probably measured in the 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 and the vaccine is in the range 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000,000 (if not less). One of those risks is higher than the other. That is a fact. 

[cherrypoptart]

If you've survived the risks of covid until now and you keep doing what you've been doing then the risks of covid may appear to be manageable. Of course for about two thousand dead Americans a day, mostly unvaccinated, they seriously miscalculated their risk assessment. I'd have to speculate that in one way or another most of those people bought into the bad idea that it was time to move on from the pandemic and let their guard down.

However, if even with delta and omicron you are still alive and you keep your guard up and keep doing what you've been doing, the risks of the vaccine could appear to be outweighed by the risks of covid. I'd agree though that there is a great overlap between people overestimating the risks of the vaccine while underestimating the risks of covid and those are the people that are dying right now by the thousands.

If we change perceived risk to demonstrated harm the vaccines win by a longshot, as in the demonstrated harm of covid is well documented to be thousands or millions of times worse than the demonstrated harm of the vaccines.

[edgmatt]

The risk of hospitalization, death, sickness, long term heart, lung, kidney, cognitive, and blood clotting issues are all vastly higher from getting COVID than from getting the vaccine

The risk of having those things happen is higher, and that's a fact, but you still have NO IDEA what value someone else places on any of those things, or the value they place on a host of other things you may know nothing about.

No, the risks are quantifiable

Yes, the RISKS are, but the VALUES of those risks vary from person to person.  You don't have the data to tell anyone else what their values are.

I get that you and many others disagree with this, but you can't change the definition of words because you disagree with someone else's value system.  Objective is objective and subjective is subjective.

And an opinion is an opinion, even if its massively supported or held by a majority.

You may not agree with this opinion: "I'd rather die from the virus than be afflicted by something from the vaccine that is forced on me".  But that doesn't make it a FACT that dying from the virus is worse.

[edgmatt]

"I'd rather be dead than a slave."
"I'd rather be a slave than dead."

Which one is a Fact?

[TheDrake]

@TheDrake - I can't make sense of your post, and that's partly my fault for setting you up to fail.  I think we have begun talking past each other at this point.

Possibly. I think it comes down to your stand on principle, and that I am pragmatic, but I could be wrong. You seem to view any step toward government control over individual freedom to be an existential threat, while I don't mind taking three steps toward the edge of the cliff while I still perceive plenty of safe margin.

Added: I appreciate you arguing in good faith.

[edgmatt]

ou seem to view any step toward government control over individual freedom to be an existential threat,

Not "any".  But maybe most.

"I'd rather be dead than a slave."
"I'd rather be a slave than dead."

Which one is a Fact?

I'm going to change this to:

"Its better to be dead than a slave."
"It's better be a slave than dead."

Which one is a Fact?

[yossarian22c]

The risk of hospitalization, death, sickness, long term heart, lung, kidney, cognitive, and blood clotting issues are all vastly higher from getting COVID than from getting the vaccine

The risk of having those things happen is higher, and that's a fact, but you still have NO IDEA what value someone else places on any of those things, or the value they place on a host of other things you may know nothing about.

No, the risks are quantifiable

Yes, the RISKS are, but the VALUES of those risks vary from person to person.  You don't have the data to tell anyone else what their values are.

I get that you and many others disagree with this, but you can't change the definition of words because you disagree with someone else's value system.  Objective is objective and subjective is subjective.

And an opinion is an opinion, even if its massively supported or held by a majority.

You may not agree with this opinion: "I'd rather die from the virus than be afflicted by something from the vaccine that is forced on me".  But that doesn't make it a FACT that dying from the virus is worse.

I'm satisfied you agree the risks of COVID vastly outweigh the risks of the vaccine. That is the fact. That's what I and others were asserting and you claimed was an opinion. Now if you want to argue that mandates are against your values then that is opinion and based on values. But the risk to yourself and others from getting the vaccine is lower than not getting the vaccine. I can't remember if you are one of the members who doesn't want the vaccine because you've already recovered from a COVID infection, in that case, shrug, you have some immunity anyway. Vaccination or proof of past case is really fine with me.

But if you want to argue the values then what you're saying is that I would rather pull a pin on a grenade and die than take a vaccine, sucks to be near me when the grenade goes off, sorry if I take you out with me. Because contagious diseases are contagious and if you refuse vaccination (without a previous infection) then you present a greater danger to yourself and everyone you interact with. You're asserting your right to endanger others at that point.

[TheDrake]

As for the natural immunity crowd, more people every day are being welcomed into the three-timers club. Some of them survive the first two and got their ticket punched on the third ride. Vaccinated people are also in the three timers club, its no guarantee, but it sure helps.