I’m not one for the supernatural either. And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. It’s a simple moral decision. — NOS4A2

But this doesn't really answer @Michael's question. You're position is based upon a strict fidelity to the principle that the government lacks the legitimate power to dictate what individuals may do. That is anarchism. I'm sympathetic to the view that government power should be limited, but those limitations are going to necessarily be ad hoc and based upon societal needs and some exceptions will be difficult to justify on purely principled grounds.

Right, there are things we can't do and things we must do. And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. There is nothing unfeasible about it.

I don’t see how it is reasonable to discriminate against the unvaccinated, especially when natural immunity can offer better protection than some vaccines, and the vaccinated are not immune from spreading the disease. It seems more reasonable and justifiable to discriminate against those infected with the virus, the only people capable of spreading the disease.

nowhere does it state that we have to — NOS4A2

Sure. But it's not about "have to"; your claim was that the State has no right, no authority to do such a thing. (Sorry, but the curiosity is killing me: what is this "it" that keeps not stating things somewhere?)

I don’t see how it is reasonable to discriminate against the unvaccinated, especially when natural immunity can offer better protection than some vaccines, and the vaccinated are not immune from spreading the disease. It seems more reasonable and justifiable to discriminate against those infected with the virus, the only people capable of spreading the disease. — NOS4A2

And you may be right about all of this. Then why not just say this instead of suggesting (?) that government is always and only some group of people illegitimately imposing its will on others? Right here, you acknowledge that it's at least more reasonable -- but maybe still not reasonable enough for your tastes -- for the government to deprive the infected of their liberty.

Are you in fact okay with house arrest for the infected?

Society’s interest is its own continuation — NOS4A2

. And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. — NOS4A2

Society has chosen. It tried to be nice. But:

It’s a simple moral decision. — NOS4A2

some individuals are trying to impose their will on other individuals, which is closer to the spirit of war than any defense of fundamental rights. — NOS4A2

True. We (society) have decided we want to continue. That is in our interest. We tried to ask nice. While it nowhere states we have to mandate people take the vaccine, we have made a simple moral decision to do so. We don't want war, but you are asking for it. You keep freeloading off of us like a welfare queen and you don't want to do your part. You have a peaceful option: pack your bags and leave. Quit availing yourself of society's benefits. It's a simple moral decision.

@NOS4A2

Are you in fact okay with house arrest for the infected? — Srap Tasmaner

And if so, how is the State to determine who is infected? Does your right to bodily autonomy, ahem, immunize you against being tested by an agent of the State? Or must I turn over my blood to the authorities upon demand?

especially when natural immunity can offer better protection than some vaccines, — NOS4A2

If true, then I suppose we could offer a choice between vaccination and just injecting with Covid. Those who choose the latter could then quarantine for two weeks or whatever the time frame is to gain their natural immunity. The only problem there is, I think studies have shown that the antibodies don't last that long after natural infection.

You do know that it was never written anywhere that you could not drive drunk. Until it was written. And it was only written because some people thought it was their God-given right to drive drunk.

Right, there are things we can't do and things we must do. And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. There is nothing unfeasible about it. — NOS4A2

I'm not saying that it's "stated somewhere" (I don't know what you mean by this or why you keep bringing it up) that vaccine mandates are things we must do. I'm saying that for society to function there are things we can't do and things we must do, and so that for society to function we cannot have unrestricted self-autonomy. Unrestricted self-autonomy leads to anarchy. Are you an anarchist?

especially when natural immunity can offer better protection than some vaccines, — NOS4A2

If true, then I suppose we could offer a choice between vaccination and just injecting with Covid. Those who choose the latter could then quarantine for two weeks or whatever the time frame is to gain their natural immunity. The only problem there is, I think studies have shown that the antibodies don't last that long after natural infection. — James Riley

It really is a curious argument.

Let's say that natural immunity grants a 90% protection and vaccines grant an 80% protection. Is that extra 10% protection worth having COVID in the first place? Obviously not if it kills you. And if it is worth it, then why? Because you're less likely to have COVID again? If having COVID is inevitable then I'd rather have it after being vaccinated than without being vaccinated — both because the symptoms will be less severe and because natural immunity plus vaccine immunity is surely better than natural immunity alone. But all-in-all I'd rather not ever have COVID, which is far more likely if I'm vaccinated.

I just don't see the sense in not being vaccinated.

:up:

I'm not sure which provides longer protection at this point either. I have heard natural immunity wears off sooner than vax, but I'm not sure. Then there is the issue of variants working around immunity. (variants that we might not have if everyone would have played ball.)

If having COVID is inevitable then I'd rather have it after being vaccinated than without being vaccinated — Michael

What do you say to this, @Isaac?

I looked, and when we were discussing Andrew Pollard's contention that "anyone who's still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus. We don't have anything that will stop transmission", you never indicated how you would respond to the simple argument @Michael gives here, and that Paul Hunter presented at the same meeting: you will get infected; being vaccinated when you get infected substantially lessens the severity and duration of the ensuing illness, and therefore substantially lessens the risk of a poor outcome.

This argument alone should carry the day. If it does not, it must be because you perceive the cost of getting vaccinated -- which you can be certain you will incur -- as higher than your expected benefit, the sum of the possible outcomes weighted by their likelihood.

An equivalent analysis would be to subtract the cost, a fixed value, from each possible benefit, and then weight the net benefits by likelihood, factoring in the vaccine's effectiveness here; doing it this way gives you a clearer sense of the range from worst case to best case, and you can compare them to a similar range of worst case to best case for the option of not getting vaccinated. It's not hard to see that by getting vaccinated you will miss out on the very best case -- incurring no cost and having a very mild illness, a cold. The entire range of possible outcomes is shifted ("downward") by the fixed cost of the vaccination. The very worst case is even worse now, because of this additional cost. But the likelihoods associated with each outcome are also shifted, raising the likelihood of the better outcomes and reducing the likelihood of worse ones. The very worst vaccinated case is substantially less likely than the unvaccinated worst case. If you flip your axes and check what outcome is associated with each likelihood for the vaccinated and unvaccinated cases, you will find a uniform improvement in outcome on the vaccinated side. (I'm not sure what happens at the very bottom of the likelihood scale -- whether vaccinated-worst is a lower probability than anything on the unvaccinated scale, for instance, or how it compares to unvaccinated-best. For that I'd have to have actual data and do actual math. This is just a math-like or math-ish or math-adjacent argument.)

Err, that's simply not true. Whether the future is fully predetermined has siltch to see with whether there exist "non-physical events" or not. — Olivier5

You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts. So-called "hard detreminism" is a physicalist view. Of course not all physicalists are hard determinists. For a hard determinist free will is an illusion, since all "mental" events including decisions, thoughts, beliefs and so on are really physical events, and if all events are wholly determined by antecendent events, then there is no room for any kind of causa sui actuality such as we intuitively understand reason and free will to be. By the way, I'm not saying I hold that view.

Sorry, now that I read back on it it isn’t clear. What I mean by it isn’t “stated somewhere” is that it isn’t a matter of what we “must” do. It’s a choice. Plenty of countries choose not have such mandates. It’s a matter of authoritarianism.

Plenty of countries choose not have such mandates. It’s a matter of authoritarianism. — NOS4A2

That sounds like a pretty loose definition of "authoritarianism." Any time authority is exercised when it does not have to be, that is an example of authoritarianism?

It's illegal to drive drunk. I suppose that is a matter of authoritarianism. Okay.

What's really authoritarian is that they removed the statue of Robert E Lee from Richmond. Protesters retaliated by refusing to be vaccinated.

:meh:

Sorry, now that I read back on it it isn’t clear. What I mean by it isn’t “stated somewhere” is that it isn’t a matter of what we “must” do. It’s a choice. Plenty of countries choose not have such mandates. It’s a matter of authoritarianism. — NOS4A2

I'm not talking specifically about vaccine mandates. I'm questioning this comment:

But no, I did not describe the proverbial war against all, or an eternal battle royal, only that some individuals are trying to impose their will on other individuals, which is closer to the spirit of war than any defense of fundamental rights. — NOS4A2

Any kind of government involves individuals imposing their will on other individuals. It's necessary for there to be a functioning society. Your apparent support of unrestricted self-autonomy leads to anarchy. Are you an anarchist? Or do you accept that — whether for moral reasons or for practical reasons — we must be forbidden from doing some things and required to do other things?

Whether or not vaccine mandates are one such requirement is a separate issue. Right now I just want to know the extent to which you will commit to this supposed "natural right" to self-autonomy.

Alright. Though I’m not the topic, I do not believe in “unrestricted self-autonomy” and am not a full-on anarchist. I would prefer to end someone’s autonomy the moment he attempts to end mine, for example.

Though I do speak of fundamental rights, I do not believe in natural rights. All rights are or ought to be afforded by human beings, not nature.

So you accept that in principle the government (and private individuals?) can demand certain things from you if you are to benefit from some goods or service or employment they provide, if such demands are justified? You said before that you see a greater justification in restricting the sick than in restricting the unvaccinated, so I assume you accept the principle at least?

If so then it’s not sufficient to argue that one has a fundamental right to self-autonomy as a defence against restrictions against the unvaccinated as you accept that self-autonomy ought be restricted to some extent (whether for moral or for practical reasons). You need to argue that restrictions against the unvaccinated are a step too far. Why is it acceptable to restrict the sick (assuming you are against allowing people with Ebola for example to freely mingle with the public) but not the unvaccinated?

I accept that in principle the government and private individuals can restrict me from denying the freedom and rights of others. The unvaccinated do not deny others their rights and freedoms by virtue of them being unvaccinated. Restrictions against them are a step too far in that sense, and not only that, but unnecessary given that the vaccinated are protected from them.

The infected can spread the disease. Absent voluntary quarantine and isolation, I think more forceful measure would have to be taken and is justified. It’s a tough question. Typhoid Mary is a good ethical case study.

Society is composed of individuals. The interests of the individual is the interest of society at large. — NOS4A2

So goes the old, tired, long refuted Thatcher bullshit.

The coronavirus is a good example of exactly how individual “interests” are often completely contrary to the interests of society.

Notice how this simply cannot be seen by those so indoctrinated by neoliberal propaganda. Quite sad.

Is society not composed of individuals?

I’d love to hear what you think the “interests of society” are.

And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. There is nothing unfeasible about it. — NOS4A2

No where does WHAT state? The constitution?

No where does “it” state that people must obey traffic lights. I view this as against my individual rights and autonomy, and I shouldn’t be denied access to society if I don’t follow them.

What a stupid, stupid argument.

The state imposes and laws all the time. The only question is whether it’s legitimate. Decisions about vaccines are based on science and recommendations from the overwhelming medical consensus. It’s as commonsensical as traffic lights and hand washing laws.

The issue is simply that you don’t think it as legitimate as these other cases, and the reason you don’t think it is is because you’re fundamentally anti-science and anti-medicine. Otherwise it’s simply a matter of logic, based on simple values and goals we all share.

Stop being an imbecile and prolonging this pandemic with your Ayn Rand, quasi-libertarian bullshit.

I’d love to hear what you think the “interests of society” are. — NOS4A2

The interest of the state is to protect the health and welfare of the citizens. Some times that means distance, mask, vax. Those "individuals" who don't want to play ball can stay home and off of society's streets and public places.

I am fully vaccinated and I listen to the advice of my doctor. How does that square with your little caricature?

Your obedience is to government officials, not “science”. Rather than working to falsify any theory, apply the scientific method, you merely work to perpetuate government edicts. It’s so servile and obsequious as to be laughable.

Is society not composed of individuals? — NOS4A2

No, society is composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons…etc.

There are different concepts and analyses brought into play when dealing with individuals, groups, and systems.

True, you can argue that understanding chess is really a matter of studying atoms— but no one would pay the slightest attention to you, because it’s idiotic.

I’d love to hear what you think the “interests of society” are. — NOS4A2

One such interest is the interest of health and safety. Which anyone sane, and willing to participate in society, accepts.

I am fully vaccinated and I listen to the advice of my doctor. — NOS4A2

Did you do that only after you worked to falsify any theory, and applied the scientific method to what your doctor said? Just curious.

Society is a collection of atoms? Wow.

Who says the interests of society is health and safety?

Those "individuals" who don't want to play ball can stay home and off of society's streets and public places. — James Riley

Right. Just like those who want to take a paintball into the supermarket and shoot everyone in there. Or those who want to smoke indoors.

Sorry—you’re welcome to smoke in your own space, not in mine.

Who says the interests of society is health and safety? — NOS4A2

Article 1, Section 8 and a metric shit-ton of common law and state constitutional and statutory law.

Your obedience is to government officials, not “science”. — NOS4A2

Lol. No, to the overwhelming medical consensus.

You listen to your doctor, but not doctor(s). Because you’re too blinded by anti-politics.

Repeat the prayer of your religion once again: government is the problem.

Once we accept that, the rest follows—and leads you this dangerous, contradictory nonsense.