It's not normal to require people to take all action available to them to reduce any given risk. We normally only require that the rusk be reduced below an acceptable threshold. Do you think that in all your lifestyle choices I couldn't point to some action you could take to reduce the risks associated with them? — Isaac

You're ignoring the emergency status of the situation. In any case lifestyle choices are motivated by desires and aversions, pleasures and addictions; things which are of ongoing significance to one's life. Getting vaccinated, given that the vaccines are more than safe enough, is nothing more than a minor inconvenience. So, your analogy seems inapt.

I don't need a good reason why I shouldn't be vaccinated, it's not a default position. You need a good reason why I should, by which I mean some demonstration that it's unreasonable of me to hold a position that the risk I represent by my actions is below a normal acceptable threshold of risk. — Isaac

In an emergency situation it is incumbent upon everyone who can to do everything they can to maximize the best outcome for everyone. That you think you can shirk that duty on a mere whim "I just don't feel like, so why should I" shows that you lack what is generally accepted as a social virtue; the habit of holding the best interests of your community uppermost in your mind. It is simply an arbitrary and selfish choice not to be vaccinated if you have no good reason not to be vaccinated.

The talk about "a normal acceptable threshold of risk" is a red herring: you are more likely, however minimally, to infect another person, or become critically infected, and need ICU treatment and deny someone else that treatment or other emergency treatment if you don't get vaccinated.

That you would nonetheless refuse to get vaccinated, although you have no good reason for that decision, but just because you don't feel like it, shows an antisocial attitude. Would you be prepared to sign a waiver to the effect that you will refuse medical treatment if you catch covid even if your condition becomes critical? That would be at least a step towards common decency.

Would you be prepared to sign a waiver to the effect that you will refuse medical treatment if you catch covid even if your condition becomes critical? That would be at least a step towards common decency. — Janus

:100: :up:

not least of which is the fact that most of the vulnerable are already dead. — Isaac

According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ there have been a total of 231,809,797 cases of infection, which is about 3 percent of the current world population. So, how could most of the vulnerable be already dead?

I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry
— Isaac

Bit hasty there? Distrusting diabetics die. :death: — jorndoe

No no no, it's only to be distrusted when it's been POLITICIZED. Same with anything in medicine and science: if we're whipped into a frenzy, we know more than the experts and it's important to ask questions, be skeptical, etc.

Everything else: no questions, no skepticism, no thought. Insulin injections? Perfectly fine. But let's try to change that right now and hope it catches on: insulin is part of a Big Pharma plot to keep those with diabetes reliant on their medicine! It's a HOAX!

Imagine if social media existed during the polio vaccine rollout?

"Salk is a Nazi trying to experiment on us!"

Would you be prepared to sign a waiver to the effect that you will refuse medical treatment if you catch covid even if your condition becomes critical? — Janus

I think that is the best solution I've heard yet. Give the antivaxers a choice like this, and I think most would gladly sign up. Unfortunately, I don't think most provaxers would favor any solution beside everyone vaxxed. There is obviously irrational fear on both sides of the conflict, so I don't envision the two sides will find a middle ground anytime soon, to the detriment of us all. God save the earth people.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials. The vaccines met the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality needed to support approval or authorization of a vaccine. CDC

That's good enough for me.

That you would nonetheless refuse to get vaccinated, although you have no good reason for that decision, but just because you don't feel like it, shows an antisocial attitude. Would you be prepared to sign a waiver to the effect that you will refuse medical treatment if you catch covid even if your condition becomes critical? That would be at least a step towards common decency.

It’s a step backward from both common decency and human rights to suggest that some should refuse, or be refused, medical treatments because they are unvaccinated. It’s not only antisocial, but cruel.

A patient’s vaccination status in and of itself is not sufficient reason, ethically, to turn that individual away. AMA link

You're ignoring the emergency status of the situation. — Janus

Emergencies don't change the risk profile, that's derived from the state of affairs as they are so includes any state of affairs that might justify the classification as an emergency.

In any case lifestyle choices are motivated by desires and aversions, pleasures and addictions; things which are of ongoing significance to one's life. Getting vaccinated, given that the vaccines are more than safe enough, is nothing more than a minor inconvenience. — Janus

Not in your lifestyle, no. But other people (here's the shocker) have different opinions on the matter. For other people, it is a massive inconvenience. For other people it's a huge change to their lifestyle. Are we getting into judging whether certain lifestyles allow one to risk harm more than others now? Do you really want to go there?

the habit of holding the best interests of your community uppermost in your mind. — Janus

Which part of...

I don't agree that giving vaccines to healthy people who have little chance of contracting the severe disease is a good use of limited resources. — Isaac

...fails to hold the best interests of my community uppermost?

You disagree with my assessment of the situation. It's just unnecessarily antagonistic to assume I'm lying and then start casting aspersions about my motives.

The talk about "a normal acceptable threshold of risk" is a red herring: you are more likely, however minimally, to infect another person, or become critically infected, and need ICU treatment and deny someone else that treatment or other emergency treatment if you don't get vaccinated. — Janus

No, that's exactly the subject of the 'threshold of risk'. We are never required to take every effort, no matter how minimal an effect it has on the reduction of risk. Were that the case you'd not be allowed to drive.

Would you be prepared to sign a waiver to the effect that you will refuse medical treatment if you catch covid even if your condition becomes critical? That would be at least a step towards common decency. — Janus

Yes. Would you be prepared to sign a similar waiver for every Big Mac, every extra glass of wine, every day you don't bother going to the gym, every argument, every cigarette, every speed limit infraction, every skiing holiday, every ladder you don't have footed, every heavy item you don't lift with bended knees...

how could most of the vulnerable be already dead? — Janus

If the vulnerable constituted 3% of the population, of course. Is there something you're having trouble with in that equation?

I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry — Isaac


Bit hasty there? Distrusting diabetics die. — jorndoe

Do they. I though only diabetics who don't take their meds die. I didn't realise a mental sate was so deadly.

For other people, it is a massive inconvenience. — Isaac

Sissies.

That's good enough for me. — Wheatley

And, that, that is good enough for me.

Sissies. — Olivier5

Retards!!!! Right?

Cowards, to be precise.

They can't take a shot of RNA for their nation. If there's a war and they are asked to take shots of lead for the nation, what will they do?

If there's a war and they are asked to take shots of lead for the nation, what are they gona do? — Olivier5

Presumably they'd decide whether or not they thought it was the right thing to do and act accordingly. Or would you rather we just suspend all moral judgement in favour of doing whatever the government tells us? 'Cause that's always gone so well...

Presumably they'd decide whether or not they thought it was the right thing to do and act accordingly. — Isaac

Presumably they will run away from their social duty, as they do now.

what are you talking about, the nation? fuck the nation. Let us not be fascist now. Stick to the program:

I say "RETARDS"!!!

If there's a war and they are asked to take shots of lead for the nation, what will they do? — Olivier5

The war analogy isn’t in your favour. If you liken this to a war then the viruses are the bullets and you are far more scared of them than those you criticise are.

To be clear, I disagree with the war metaphor; to be as condescending as possible I’d describe it as adorable.

They can't take a shot of RNA for their nation. If there's a war and they are asked to take shots of lead for the nation, what will they do? — Olivier5

I was slow to appreciate that you’ve inadvertently likened the *vaccine* to a bullet here. Really good stuff.

, I disagree with the war metaphor; — AJJ

Oh yeah?

It’s a step backward from both common decency and human rights to suggest that some should refuse, or be refused, medical treatments because they are unvaccinated. It’s not only antisocial, but cruel. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Last year front line workers were heroes. It was all fake, of course. Now they’re replaceable.

Foreign workers could replace NY’s unvaccinated hospital, nursing home staffers: Hochul

Last year front line workers were heroes. It was all fake, of course. Now they’re replaceable. — NOS4A2

I sure hope you are listening to yourself. That is a line taken right out of the socialist playbook in opposition to employers who take advantage of employees. Maybe you are learning.

All you guys have are false analogies and never anything about the issue at hand. Chefs? :lol:

All you guys have are false analogies and never anything about the issue at hand. Chefs? :lol: — NOS4A2

An analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is no argument to point that out. Rather, it is incumbent upon those who seek to defeat it to draw a distinction with a relevant difference. That, you failed to do.

You’re copying and pasting other people’s arguments.

The workers might not require vaccines.

Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3

You’re copying and pasting other people’s arguments. — NOS4A2

That's the level of time I'm willing to devote to your nonsense.

The workers might not require vaccines. — NOS4A2

If their bosses say they are required, then they are required. See how that works?

The science says they aren’t required. What happened to listening to science?

The science says they aren’t required. What happened to listening to science? — NOS4A2

Do you even hear yourself? I was just going to say, fuck science, right? Now NOS is a champion of the working class and science. WTF is the world coming to?