What do you have to say to that? — baker

Thank you for your service.

Then why isn't it mandatory? What are there no laws stating that people must accept the covid vaccine, or else face dire legal and penal consequences?
— baker

Mandatory where? Mandated by whom? — Fooloso4

By law, the laws made by the government of a country.

If the vaccine is truly so very safe and effective and if it is truly the best practice to accept the vaccine, then why isn't this regulated by law?

Then why isn't it mandatory? What are there no laws stating that people must accept the covid vaccine, or else face dire legal and penal consequences? — baker

I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S. it's like herding cats: a waste of time. You can try to appeal to their sense of community but that only goes so far when people are conditioned to hate each other. As usual, all the heavy lifting gets done by those who lift.

My body, my choice. Their body, their choice.
Much like death, everyone handles it in their own way. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Wrong. Infectuous diseases (esp. those with potentially fatal outcomes) are a matter of public health, and therefore, cannot be left to the individual to decide about. They should be regulated at least by laws, but preferrably, by the constitution.

The focus on personal choice is nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility on the individual person, releasing doctors, science, and the government from responsibility, all under the guise of "respecting the individual's right to choice".

In medicine, a person can give no informed consent if they don't have a medical degree. It all comes down to trusting one's doctors. — baker

It is not clear whether you are denying the practice of informed consent or questioning the concept. The former is well documented. The latter is more problematic. Even people with medical degrees may not have the specialized expertise needed to be fully informed about a particular procedure. An internist does not have the knowledge or experience of a neurosurgeon.

Trusting you doctor can mean different things, but where there are viable options most will not make decisions for you.

The answer to that has more to do with politics than vaccine safety and efficacy.

It wasn't for those who had to be hospitalized afterwards or even died.

What do you have to say to that?
— baker

I have nothing to say to that without specific details and statistics. — Fooloso4

You should have something to say to that. You should have something to say for those for whom the vaccine wasn't safe and effective. And there is a number of those for whom it wasn't.

If it would be in the nature of the vaccine to be "safe and effective", it would be so for everyone. But it clearly isn't. So something else is going on, such as that the vaccine is safe and effective, provided the person meets requirements x, y, z.


(My neighbor's relative ended up on the ventilator after receiving the vaccine. If she survives, I wonder what she'll say and whether she'll still trust the medical system.)

It is not clear whether you are denying the practice of informed consent or questioning the concept. The former is well documented. The latter is more problematic. Even people with medical degrees may not have the specialized expertise needed to be fully informed about a particular procedure. An internist does not have the knowledge or experience of a neurosurgeon. — Fooloso4

Exactly. Still, medical lays are being fooled by the medical system there is such a thing as "informed consent".
I'm questioning the concept.

The answer to that has more to do with politics than vaccine safety and efficacy. — Fooloso4

No, that's evasion.
If it's up to politicans to decide whether and where to build a nuclear power plant, whether to privatize sources of water, or whether it's okay to kill someone by an injection of potassium chloride, then why
not have them decide about medications, including experimental ones?

You should have something to say for those for whom the vaccine wasn't safe and effective. And there is a number of those for whom it wasn't. — baker

I cannot evaluate this without specifics. Were there underlying medical conditions? What was the cause of death? "a number" is statistically meaningless.

If it would be in the nature of the vaccine to be "safe and effective", it would be so for everyone. — baker

That is not the way medicine works.

It's very simple: If the vaccine is indeed so safe and effective (that accepting it should be a no-brainer), then why isn't it mandatory by law?

I cannot evaluate this without specifics. Were there underlying medical conditions? What was the cause of death? "a number" is statistically meaningless. — Fooloso4

A person is not a statistic.

For the person who ends up with bad side effects, it does not matter if they are in the statistical minority.

If it would be in the nature of the vaccine to be "safe and effective", it would be so for everyone.
— baker

That is not the way medicine works.

Then why talk about it this way, as if it does work that way?

Why not say, "the vaccine is safe and effective, provided the person meets requirements x, y, z"?
Why the absolutist slogan, "the vaccine is safe and effective"?

I notice that I use the same rational approach to come to my position as others do theirs, albeit different positions, and I seem to catch hell for having a different stance. Seems weird; I am not bitching at anyone for getting the shot. — Book273

Likewise. There is a real pro-vaccination hysteria going on. Which just goes to show how much importance faith has in applied medicine.

I took the vaccine, not for me, but for others — James Riley

How so?? Vaccination doesn't stop you from being a spreader.

(In a twist of sad irony, it's a modern, egotistical vaccine that reduces morbidity and mortality, but not spread.)

Still, medical lays are being fooled by the medical system there is such a thing as "informed consent". — baker

Informed consent is not all or nothing.

then why not have them decide about medications, including experimental ones? — baker

This is all regulated by agencies such as the FDA.

Political considerations include such things as freedom and compliance.

A person is not a statistic. — baker

The safety of the vaccine though is.

For the person who ends up with bad side effects, it does not matter if they are in the statistical minority. — baker

All drugs potentially have bad side effects. It is a matter of risk/benefit analysis.

If it would be in the nature of the vaccine to be "safe and effective", it would be so for everyone.
— baker

That is not the way medicine works.
Then why talk about it this way, as if it does work that way? — baker

You have misunderstood what it means for a drug to be safe and effective.

How so?? Vaccination doesn't stop you from being a spreader. — baker

You probably wouldn't understand. Those who sign a blank check for an amount up to and including their lives don't always pretend to know better than those they are willing to follow. You can end up getting killed in a righteous war against Nazis, or you can end up getting killed in some BS war for the MIC or oil or whatever. The sacrifice and the honor is in the signing; not in the motives of those who send you. You don't get to decide policy. Once signed, you let people like Baker protest the war in the rear with the gear and say things like "war is dangerous."

I chose to follow the advice of people and institutions who I trust know more than "Baker" on the internet. After all, Baker hasn't devoted his life to the study of infectious diseases, vaccines, and this new product. Instead, he/she reads shit, tries to make him/herself informed, and ends up thinking he/she knows better.

People like Baker seem to think they are entitled to 100% safety guarantees in life. I imagine they spend a great deal of time hiding under the bed.

It's very simple: If the vaccine is indeed so safe and effective (that accepting it should be a no-brainer), then why isn't it mandatory by law? — baker

No, it's not simple. You are simple if you think that a no-brainer requires law enforcement. If it were a no-brainer, there would be no need for law enforcement. Besides, if a law is all it took, then we would have no crime. Doh! I don't know if you live in the U.S. or not, but a great number of people are armed to the teeth and you can't make them do shit if they don't want to. Many law enforcement officers won't enforce if they don't feel like it, and even if you tried "cutting off" access to goods and services, people will set up and support their own side. Finally, the federal government lacks the authority to tell states what they have to do (see Florida, where they are instituting a $5k fine to anyone who requires proof of vaccination). What are you going to do? Send in the Marines? Yeah, it's very simple. LOL!

Vaccination doesn't stop you from being a spreader. — baker

You state this as if it is a fact. It is not. How effective it is at preventing the spread of the virus is still under review. One thing is clear, where vaccination rates are high covid rates have decreased significantly.

Pretty bummed. I got the stupid shot and have not noticed any increase in my 5G signal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:D Sure the damn conspiracy theorists

I have no idea what that says.

If someone lives by themselves, isolated with limited to no interaction with other people, they can refuse and have freedom of choice to get or not to get the vaccine as it won't affect herd immunity.

If, however, someone is living in close proximity with other people, i.e in cities and more saturated communities, they cannot. By placing yourself in a crowded area, you will have a mandatory responsibility for other people's well-being. If you are a risk by just existing and taking part in social and other interactions within a society, you will have a demand on you to lower that risk. You cannot demand to be part of a large crowd of people if you are at risk of infecting them without knowing it. Therefore you have to take the vaccine, it's not a choice.

You already made the choice by settling in a crowded area.

However, the vaccine for COVID-19 is actually not preventing the spreading of the virus. It prevents you from getting seriously and mortally ill.

Face masks protect others.
Vaccine protects yourself.

So in this case it doesn't matter if you get the vaccine or not. Maybe a little as we've seen a slight lowering of the spread due to the vaccine. So there might be some effect, but it's generally for protecting yourself. This means that if you refuse the vaccine you are at risk of becoming seriously sick.

So, if you are at the risk of dying, refuse the vaccine, and become a strain on medical personal, then maybe we can see it as putting yourself at an unneeded risk, and as a consequence, you take the place of someone who actually needed that care.


However we twist and turn it, vaccines help fight the suffering and in some ways block the spread. It is immoral to refuse the vaccine if you live in crowded areas, but it's even more immoral to get the vaccine and then just live recklessly without regard of the risk of spreading anyway.

The moral action to do, if you live in a city especially, is to get the vaccine but still follow the precautions CDC and similar organizations around the world have put out.

Refusing will risk other people, but mostly yourself, but even if you get seriously sick or even die you will block other people who actually needed medical care but couldn't because you didn't get the vaccine and became ill.

The risks of the vaccine are statistically low and most people pushing the seriousness of these risks don't have the necessary knowledge to analyze statistics or follow biased opinions with little care for actual reality.

So, if you are at the risk of dying, refuse the vaccine, and become a strain on medical personal, then maybe we can see it as putting yourself at an unneeded risk, and as a consequence, you take the place of someone who actually needed that care. — Christoffer

So through a personal choice, declining the vaccine, one could become a drain on the system, taking the place of someone who needed the care. Correct? Like the smokers that need respiratory therapy, or the cardiac patients that are obese and smoke, or the alcoholics that need to be stabilized from GI bleeds or rampant high sugar levels...Oh wait, 95% of those are also based on a personal decision, so I guess they are also taking the place of someone who needed the care. I couldn't agree more! No treatment for anything that resulted from a personal decision! No addictions therapy, no cardiac care (unless based on genetic problem), no treatment for smoking related complications, No orthopedic surgeries for anyone that is obese, etc. This could also solve the problem of healthcare costs! I love this approach. Also, I will likely have no job once it is in full swing, but hey, small price to pay.

Lastly, this approach will result in huge mortality rates eh. Just saying, a lot are gonna die.

Like the smokers that need respiratory therapy, or the cardiac patients that are obese and smoke, or the alcoholics that need to be stabilized from GI bleeds or rampant high sugar levels...Oh wait, 95% of those are also based on a personal decision, so I guess they are also taking the place of someone who needed the care. — Book273

Except the minor detail that Covid-19 has put a strain on the hospitals to be able to care for enough patients. You are comparing the treatment of people in times when there are beds available.

And you're also doing a black&white fallacy here. Not taking the vaccine will put a strain on communities with a lot of people in close proximity. Whatever the consequences of the vaccine, it helps fight the virus. So comparing that to people who only hurt themselves by their choice is not the same thing as something that potentially can be lethal to others based on the choice of the carrier.

The best way to fight the pandemic is to vaccinate and keep the restrictions until it's contained. And the core of the argument is really that if you want to reap the benefits of living in close proximity to others, i.e live in a city and being close to other people with living standards according to it, then you cannot say no to a vaccine because it affects others, not just you. If you live alone in the forest, you are not really part of the herd immunity equation, so you are free to do whatever.

The moral idea here is that if you want to be part of a community, to be part of a crowd, and live in close proximity to others, you also have a responsibility to not risk other people's health. It's the same reason why, in your example of smokers, we have stronger laws around smoking, so people don't get secondhand smoke that can put their health at risk.

A person who chooses to not get the vaccine but still wants to go out and party and be around other people is not only a selfish person, they are actually dangerous. A person who disregards restrictions, who carelessly doesn't care about preventing the spread of the virus by all means necessary, is in my book someone risking manslaughter. It's just that laws and logic surrounding pandemics are seriously underdeveloped.

I see no difference between a person pushing a giant boulder down a slope that "might" kill someone in the valley, and someone who disregards restrictions and attempts at fighting the spread of the virus. If a link can be drawn between the act of carelessness and someone dying, they are guilty of manslaughter. If the vaccine is indeed (not fully confirmed yet) blocking the spread compared to not having the vaccine, then deciding to not take the vaccine and keep living like there was no pandemic is reckless behavior that should be considered as serious as driving under heavy influence or playing around with giant boulders over the valley. Stupid behavior that only affects the stupid person should be considered their choice, even if it hurts them (as long as the behavior isn't done because of mental disabilities that need treatment). But behavior that affects other people, hurts them, kills them, regardless of causal proximity, should never be accepted and should be considered a crime.

But behavior that affects other people, hurts them, kills them, regardless of causal proximity, should never be accepted and should be considered a crime. — Christoffer

Like driving a car? What about having children?

Like driving a car? What about having children? — Tzeentch

How does that relate to this? You drive a car as a form of transportation, you have children for the continuation of our species. None of these are the same as denying vaccines but still benefitting from society. You do not drive around ignoring the dangers, we even have licenses that prevent people from driving without knowledge, and people who ignore this are committing a crime. And having children, how is that hurting others in the same fashion as these issues about people ignoring vaccines?

Analogies need to keep within the same kind of actions, not stretch things into a fallacy. Denying to take a vaccine is to ignore the dangers towards others if you exist in close proximity to them. It would be like driving with a blindfold, which is a crime. Driving with a license, following the traffic rules, having a child and caring for it to the best of your ability and raising that child to be a morally balanced person is in this case considered the same as following the restrictions and getting a vaccine.

Those behaviors affect other people, with a risk of hurting or even killing them.
Mitigating the risks does not change that. One could also claim to have attempted to mitigate the risks of them not being vaccinated.

To be clear, there is no necessity for driving a car or having children; those are merely products of our desires.

To be clear, there is no necessity for driving a car or having children; those are merely products of our desires. — Tzeentch

For the survival of humanity and for people to be able to expand and move around, they are a necessity. If people stopped driving we would have a hard time functioning as a society and if people stopped having children humanity would die out. Just because something isn't necessary when society is oversaturated does not equal an absolute unnecessary status of these things. It's a fallacy of the extreme.

Mitigating the risks does not change that. — Tzeentch

Getting the vaccine and following restrictions are the same as mitigating risks with the other examples.

Those behaviors affect other people, with a risk of hurting or even killing them. — Tzeentch

Not in the same manner as denying a vaccine and recklessly expose themselves to other people. It's the same as someone deciding to put on a blindfold and driving on a sidewalk that was assumed to be free of people. It's knowing about the risks of hurting others and still doing it. Driving normally and having children is not even in the same ballpark in terms of causality.

One could also claim to have attempted to mitigate the risks of them not being vaccinated. — Tzeentch

What do you mean by this? I have clearly stated that denying the vaccine but still going out into the public and taking part in society is an active choice of ignoring the dangers of hurting or killing others. There's no rational argument to be made that someone who doesn't take the vaccine then tries to mitigate the following dangers as existing unvaccinated in public is a risk. That would mean locking themselves in their apartment and never seeing anyone. They are a risk if they live in a place where interactions are unavoidable. And I also said that it's fine if people who won't get the vaccine live by themselves far away from other people as the risk of hurting or killing others is so low that it ends up being in the same statistical number as the ones who the vaccine doesn't have an effect on. As long as the people who don't take the vaccine don't use hazard suits while they are out they aren't mitigating anything.

If people stopped driving we would have a hard time functioning as a society — Christoffer

Societies have functioned without cars for millenia. They are not necessary at all.

and if people stopped having children humanity would die out. — Christoffer

Yes, and?

People don't have children in some sort of sacrifice to the human endeavor. They have children because they desire to have them.

Not in the same manner as denying a vaccine and recklessly expose themselves to other people. — Christoffer

All these things can be said for driving and having children. You're simply labeling one as reckless and the other as somehow acceptable because of a form of cosmic necessity, which I will argue is nothing other than a guise for desire; not much different from a desire not to be vaccinated.

I'll propose something radical: if one is afraid that being sneezed on will kill them, they're the one who should be isolating themselves.

Seeing one's own fear as a legitimate basis to dictate how others should exercise their right to bodily autonomy; now that is immoral; no less immoral than pressuring a woman into how she should or should not have an abortion.

Your fear is not my fear.

Societies have functioned without cars for millenia. They are not necessary at all. — Tzeentch

Yes, everything is solved by going back to the stone age. Include removing horses and all forms of transportation. This kind of argument in relation to vaccinations is a fallacy of the extreme. It has no relevance.

Yes, and?

People don't have children in some sort of sacrifice to the human endeavor. They have children because they desire to have them. — Tzeentch

So it's just ok to do fallacy to the extreme when you do it, but if I point out the same kind of extreme there are all of a sudden nuances? Ok...

All these things can be said for driving and having children. You're simply labeling one as reckless and the other as somehow acceptable because of a form of cosmic necessity, which I will argue is nothing other than a guise for desire; not much different from a desire not to be vaccinated. — Tzeentch

You are all over the place now. No you can't say that this is the same. Not taking the vaccine and going out in public is reckless. Driving normally is not, having children is not. Your argument is built upon making those things extreme. Not getting a vaccine and going out in public is already the extreme. The only way to make your examples extreme would be driving under the influence, driving with a blindfold, giving a child a loaded gun. They won't end up hurting or killing anyone 100% of the time, but the risk is reckless and dangerous. Driving normally and having children is nowhere close to actively dismiss the vaccine and then live socially as normal. It's only rational for those who don't understand how the spread works.

I'll propose something radical: if one is afraid that being sneezed on will kill them, they're the one who should be isolating themselves. — Tzeentch

How is this in any way rational for anyone other than stupid anti-vaccers? This kind of argument ignores all the science and all the dangers of the pandemic. Seriously.

Seeing one's own fear as a legitimate basis to dictate how others should exercise their right to bodily autonomy; now that is immoral; no less immoral than pressuring a woman into how she should or should not have an abortion.

Your fear is not my fear. — Tzeentch

This is not even remotely close to being a rational argument. Listen carefully to what the conclusion is: Those who actively decide not to get the vaccine and then socialize as normal are a reckless risk against the people they meet.
By ignoring a vaccine and then ignoring restrictions in society during a pandemic, you will risk other people's health. You do it against them. Abortion is about your own body, anything that is about your own body is not the same as risking other people. Bodily autonomy is irrelevant if you risk hurting or killing other people.

How in any rational form can you compare something like hurting yourself only with the risk of hurting others through reckless behavior?

I urge you to understand this difference before just throwing out examples like that.