once you've gotten to "you probably should get vaccinated", you still haven't actually touched the moral question. It looks kinda like you have, but this is still just description. What we need to look at is statements like, "If you're pretty sure you can help stop the pandemic, you should try to" and its close relatives. — Srap Tasmaner
Our intuition that it is reasonable to require people to pay taxes is at least partly based on the assumption that tax rates will not be so high as to cause a real risk of harm to the taxpayer and mostly, tax rates are progressive and people on very low incomes typically pay little or no tax. There would likely be different moral intuitions about taxation in a case where all people were required to pay 80% of their income in taxes regardless of wealth and that this put them at significant risk of harm.
The Australian government based on its medical advice advocates 80%. — Janus
Perhaps. But if that were the case, then vaccination (alone) wouldn't be a very good strategy would it? Like building a life raft whilst the boat's sinking.if supply is not adequate and the vaccine was shared equally across the world then perhaps no communities would reach an adequate level of vaccination fast enough. — Janus
'absolutely inevitable' new variants that can escape the protection of the vaccine will emerge in the future.
herd immunity is 'not a possibility' with the current Delta variant. He referred to the idea as 'mythical' and warned that a vaccine programme should not be built around the idea of achieving it. He predicted that the next thing may be 'a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations', adding that that was 'even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine programme around herd immunity'.
The Australian government based on its medical advice advocates 80% — Janus
but I really feel for those peopke, there's a lot of people doing it tough, people are loosing their businesses, llivelihoods, and relationships — Wayfarer
But moral imperatives don't normally carry a means. "You should help the poor" doesn't include in it which charity to donate to. Even something seemingly specific like "you should not disturb your neighbours with load music" does not detail whether to turn the music down or soundproof your walls. I can't really think of a moral imperative which contains within it the means by which you must meet the ends being prescribed (or avoid those being proscribed).
So "you ought to take the vaccine" doesn't seem to be the sort of thing can stand as a moral imperative. It's "you should not overburden your health services", "you should not put others at risk of illness",.. — Isaac
"The problem with this virus is (it is) not measles. If 95% of people were vaccinated against measles, the virus cannot transmit in the population," Professor Pollard explained during the online evidence session.
"The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated. And that does mean that anyone who's still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus. We don't have anything that will stop transmission, so I think we are in a situation where herd immunity is not a possibility and I suspect the virus will throw up a new variant that is even better at infecting vaccinated individuals," he said.
This was echoed by Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia and an expert in infectious diseases, who also highlighted that the current vaccines being administered are very effective in preventing severe Covid infection and death but they cannot prevent infections entirely.
"The concept of herd immunity is unachievable because we know the infection will spread in unvaccinated populations and the latest data is suggesting that two doses is probably only 50 per cent protective against infection," said Mr Hunter. — link
So eventually everyone will be exposed to the viru — Srap Tasmaner
So we're back to questions like burden on the healthcare system and such, — Srap Tasmaner
If you can only soundproof your walls to a certain level, because of technical or financial limitations, beyond that level turning down the music is your only option. — Srap Tasmaner
Masking and social distancing do not increase the prevalence of the right antibodies in your community. — Srap Tasmaner
So we're back to questions like burden on the healthcare system and such, but keeping in mind now that the experts here say you will get infected eventually. — Srap Tasmaner
If I don't have any of the associated comorbidities, my chances of needing hospital care are tiny. — Isaac
That's the real issue with the burden on the health care system. The system itself will survive. It's the people in it, or who want to use it, that suffer. — James Riley
there is almost no reason for you to get vaccinated — Srap Tasmaner
what if you're wrong about your chances of getting very sick — Srap Tasmaner
I suspect if you had the chance to explain to Prof Pollard how you had been following his work and had yourself not gotten vaccinated, he would say, "Don't be a damned fool. Get the shot." — Srap Tasmaner
the cost to you barely registers; the potential benefit to you is considerable; from a rational point of view, this isn't even a close call. — Srap Tasmaner
The point is not whether there's competing benefits, the point is that it's no one's business but mine so long as I make those choices within the thresholds we find acceptable (ie, my choices don't burden the health services more than other choices we already find acceptable). — Isaac
It's a risk I don't want to take (I prefer risks from external elements to risks from things I did to myself), I don't want to support the pharmaceutical industry, I don't like prophylactic medicine in general. — Isaac
Do you find the burdens placed on the healthcare system by obesity, smoking, etc. -- do you find them acceptable? — Srap Tasmaner
Why would you engage in a decision making process relying on a standard of risk it is evident you consider lax and ill-informed? — Srap Tasmaner
I think you made your decision without any consideration of those thresholds at all: — Srap Tasmaner
Having now compared your decisions to other decisions you don't approve of, but which "we" the public at large are evidently fine with, you want everyone to be fine with your decision too — Srap Tasmaner
Near as I can tell, your participation here has never really been about justifying your decision to us or to anyone -- you're completely qualm-free; it's been about demanding justification from those who disapprove. — Srap Tasmaner
No one gave a shit about the last two when they were news. — Isaac
And the group were told by Professor Andrew Pollard that... 'a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations' — Isaac
Some consensus widely reported down here last week was that the virus would more likely take advantage of the unvaccinated, mutating so as to infect the easier target. — Banno
If vaccines are not 100% effective in blocking transmission, we can expect a shift in the trade-off towards higher virulence. In other words, a side-effect of the virus being able to transmit from vaccinated people is, over time, the theory predicts it will become more harmful to unvaccinated people.
Versions of the virus that make their host very sick (are highly virulent) are generally selected against. This is because people would be more likely to die or be isolated, lowering the chance of the virus transmitting to others.
SAGE thinks this process is unlikely to cause the virus to become less virulent in the short term, but this is a realistic possibility in the long-term.
we can expect an arms race between vaccine developers and the virus, with vaccines trying to play catch up with viral evolution. This is why we’re likely to see us having regular booster shots, designed to overcome these new variants, just like we see with flu booster shots.
I think you made your decision without any consideration of those thresholds ((i.e., the lax and ill-informed public's)) at all: — Srap Tasmaner
That's your prerogative, but it does make discussion a little difficult if you're going to replace what I say with what you think I think. — Isaac
Why would you engage in a decision making process relying on a standard of risk it is evident you consider lax and ill-informed? — Srap Tasmaner
I haven't, I've used my own standard of risk. — Isaac
I expect to be judged by consistent standards. Is that something you don't think I've any cause to expect? — Isaac
I prefer risks from external elements to risks from things I did to myself), I don't want to support the pharmaceutical industry, I don't like prophylactic medicine in general. — Isaac
My overriding interest here (this forum in general, in fact, but certainly this thread), is in how people justify their beliefs — Isaac
The PhD hesitancy rate is curious — Hanover
But I'm clearly right and you said exactly that: — Srap Tasmaner
Normally, I don't like to get into this pointless back-and-forth about who said what, but it's oddly on point here. — Srap Tasmaner
You want them to apply (P) and find you blameless. Why should they do that? Is (P) the standard of risk of everyone you've interacted with here? — Srap Tasmaner
I submit that a better starting point would be to assume, for the sake of investigation, that if someone's views appear inconsistent, perhaps it is because you don't fully understand their views. — Srap Tasmaner
Reverse some of those and see if an inclination to get vaccinated, simply as a matter of preference, appears, notwithstanding any of someone's other views about risk. — Srap Tasmaner
And I just don't see that this is the course you've followed. What do you actually know about the views of anyone participating in this thread? — Srap Tasmaner
Could you make up a short list of preferences like yours above for anyone you've argued with here? — Srap Tasmaner
For comparison, if you had not spelled them out, would it be perfectly clear to everyone here that you held the preferences you listed above? — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.