From what I have heard there are already people getting exemption certificates from doctors and a market in fake vaccine certificates. — Janus

Absolutely. You can get anything on the black market. And nothing can stop it. It's hard to argue against it, but it's equally hard to argue for it.

If an individual takes the choice to go the black market route, I support and respect their right to choose for themselves; equally, if an individual takes the choice to go the socially legitimate route, I support and respect their right to choose for themselves.

What we're seeing in this pandemic is that criticial thinking is being pushed out of all venues. Even at a philosophy forum, the one place in the world that should allow for some nuance and detail, we're now supposed to be all politically correct and superficial. — baker

Don't worry about the merk, I always stay nuanced with my strangelovin'

, here doctors on the news reported the rare exemption request. News also reported fake vaccination certificates in the wild; they're not formalized hereabouts, but may now be I guess. What might a valid exemption be anyway? In what circumstances (e.g. for a nursing home caretaker)?

What might a valid exemption be anyway? — jorndoe

How long until a person can identify as vaccinated and be considered a valid exemption?

To be fair to Baker, she has been vaccinated. — Janus

So what's her beef then?

So what's her beef then? — Olivier5

Just because you choose to be vaccinated doesn't necessitate that you should require everyone else to. For example, If one respects the right of the individual to choose for oneself.

I agree with that. I won't force anyone to take even an aspirin. But the idea that we should argue these issues with the same detachment than when talking about qualia or the meaning of the word 'fact' seems unrealistic to me. Qualia are not a matter of life and death. COVID is.

Qualia are not a matter of life and death. COVID is. — Olivier5

I'm not so sure about that. If covid is a matter of qualia, it is indeed a matter of life and death. And at this point, we are standing at the edge of a great philosophical debate.

Are you game?

Always for a good debate.

Have you ever gotten a new lease on life? Like you're renting it?

I support and respect their right to choose for themselves. — Merkwurdichliebe

Where we may disagree here is that choices are never just for the self.

What might a valid exemption be anyway? — jorndoe

Allergy to the vaccines I guess. I don't think conscientious objection will cut it. If someone who has a phobia about injecting anything at all into themselves, would that count as grounds for exemption? Would natural immunity from prior infection count? If someone is paranoid and has an overwhelming and insurmountable fear and distrust of the vaccine would that count? I don't know really.

What might a valid exemption be anyway? — jorndoe

There are contraindications for vaccination.

Here the list from a Slovenian hospital -- https://www.zd-ms.si/
I can't translate the whole list, but it includes:
people who are allergic to substances in the vaccines or who have had severe reactions to the first dose of a vaccine,
people with transplanted organs, including those waiting for a transplantation,
some people with cancer,
people on dialysis or stage 5 kidney disease,
people with severe lung diseases,
people with Down syndrome,
people who are HIV positive (there is a specification for the number of white cells etc.),
people with congential immunity diseases,
people receiving immunosuppresive therapy,
people with multiple chronic diseases who are deemed too vulnerable for vaccination by their doctor.

If someone who has a phobia about injecting anything at all into themselves, would that count as grounds for exemption? /.../ If someone is paranoid and has an overwhelming and insurmountable fear and distrust of the vaccine would that count? — Janus

I doubt that there's anyone who has that kind of phobia (or it's extremely rare).


But people generally do have an overwhelming and insurmountable fear and distrust of being abused and taken advantage of. They're just not always able to put it into exact words.

I support and respect their right to choose for themselves.
— Merkwurdichliebe

Where we may disagree here is that choices are never just for the self. — Janus

No, this is taking the discussion in the wrong direction.

There actually exist laws about issues of public health. The matter is largely settled, legally.

What is not legally settled are things specifically pertaining to covid, with its specifics. But many people act as if this was settled.

There are aspects in which covid is like other infectuous diseases endangering public health.
There are aspects in which covid is not like other infectuous diseases endangering public health.

These differences need to be taken into account. It is wrong to fearmonger by presenting covid as if it were as bad as smallpox. It is also wrong to try to instil a false sense of security by presenting covid as if it were no worse than a cold.

Covid has a wide range of potential symptoms, ranging from nothing to death and everything inbetween. This makes it a complex disease and our response to it should reflect that responsibly both on the part of individual citizens as well as on the part of the government.

Say, if my neighbor was an anti-vaxxer — jorndoe

Is he really an "anti-vaxxer", or is it just your projection that he is?

You yourself have implicitly accused another poster of being an "anti-vaxxer". I pointed this out to you. You quoted a post of his, and you omitted from your attention the sentence where he clearly said that he was vaccinated and that he wears a mask. That sentence of his post was just before the one you quoted. Yet you talked to him as if he was an anti-vaccer.


And this kind of thing just keeps happening. Vocal pro-vaccers often don't read what people are actually saying. They jump to conclusions. They project. They attack. As if all of that was justified, in the name of a "good cause".

When you mistreat people like that, don't be surprised if some actually do become anti-vaccers.

Dragging all unvaccinated off to a facility and inoculating them at gunpoint is a rather extraordinary measure beyond the above, one that you might expect would lead to violence (if the behavior we've seen from deniers thus far is an indication), might lead to secret cults hiding, who knows what. — jorndoe

The government has the power and the authority to subdue any and all opposition. That's why it is the government.

If the government believes that it has the truth about covid, then it can use any means necessary in order to enforce the acceptance of said truth, up to and including lethal force.

If the government believes that the covid crisis is so grave that it warrants mandatory covid vaccination, then it should pass the legislation needed for such, including restitution for those damaged by the covid vaccine (as is standard practice for mandatory vaccinations). If the government cannot of will not do this, then it should declare a state of emergency and enforce martial law.

When you mistreat people like that, don't be surprised if some actually do become anti-vaccers. — baker

People base their health care decision on how they get treated on an online forum? How stupid can some people get?

When you mistreat people like that, don't be surprised if some actually do become anti-vaccers.
— baker

People base their health care decision on how they get treated on an online forum? How stupid can some people get? — Olivier5

This reminds of the claims made about Trump voters. I think it’s mostly true that we should be polite to one another, but to make blatantly bad choices for yourself, your family, the community, the environment, etc., simply because you’ve been made to feel stupid, or condescended to, or feel dismissed, or perceived to be looked down upon— that’s as irrational as the person is who’s doing the condescension.

So I say to the “vaccine-hesitant” crowd the same as to “on the fence” voters: grow thicker skin, ignore those who are rude, and find someone to educate you or answer your questions and concerns who’s more friendly, polite, and compassionate.

You probably won’t find much of that online. But there are plenty of credible web sites that do explain these things. That’s where I get my information. It’s very easy. If you’re looking to be educated on a philosophy forum, I think that’s a mistake.

but to make blatantly bad choices for yourself, your family, the community, the environment, etc., simply because you’ve been made to feel stupid, or condescended to, or feel dismissed, or perceived to be looked down upon— that’s as irrational as the person is who’s doing the condescension. — Xtrix

Yes, not to mention how easily such people can be manipulated, and how condescendingly they also behave themselves.

martial law. — baker

This is not the big one. This is the rehearsal for the big one. Given the lessons drawn from the rehearsal, martial law may become necessary once a really nasty bug reaches pandemic proportions. For now, I think voluntary vaccinations should suffice, together with mandatory masks and other measures in some contexts.

Where we may disagree here is that choices are never just for the self. — Janus

Never? Ever?

Seems to me that every choice begins with the self. From there we can begin extending out choices to others when applicable. But, it is not necessary to extend a choice beyond the self, and if a choice stops at the self, then the choice is just for self.

It also seems that many complications can arise from choosing for others. Do we choose the others we choose for? Because that clearly seems like a choice for just the self. Or, do we choose for everybody by default? Then, what are we to make of disagreement and conflict? Do we choose to choose for some and not for others? But that takes us back to the problem of choosing who we choose for.

No, that all sounds too complicated and confusing, and I didn't even mention how personal responsibility and accountability factors in. So, personally, I will stick to choosing for just myself, and I will respect and support anyone who chooses for just oneself.

No, this is taking the discussion in the wrong direction. — baker

More like, in a different direction. And in certain democratic states which hold the protecting the right of the individual to be the primary concern of government, it is relevant.

Covid has a wide range of potential symptoms, ranging from nothing to death and everything inbetween. This makes it a complex disease and our response to it should reflect that responsibly both on the part of individual citizens as well as on the part of the government. — baker

Yes, it is very complicated. This means we need to be very careful how we proceed, or else the new world that we are creating right now will suck much more than pre-covid world.

An Israel study of 700,000 people confirmed that natural immunity is 27 times more effective than vaccination. Yes, the Totalitarian Hysterical Crazies want to force everyone to have crap injected into their bodies as part of a dangerous experiment that is only topped by Faucci's dangerous support of function gain research which has destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions of people.


Senate hearing exposes the arrogance and authoritarianism of Big Government.

https://youtu.be/DiYugWSc0cg

What Really Happened in Wuhan
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/sharri-markson/what-really-happened-in-wuhan/

Why aren't politicians telling people to stop eating junk food, since obese people are 3X more likely to develop severe symptoms?

An Israel study — MondoR

You mean THE Israel study -- the one you keep clinging to and pinning your hopes on, which has not been peer reviewed, and with which there are other studies that show quite the opposite. Incidentally, the Israeli study also emphasizes the importance of vaccination -- completely contradicting the point you're trying to make.

But you go with the Republican politician on youtube. I'll stick with the medical experts.

It is THE STUDY. 700,000 people studied. Nothing bigger. Nothing longer. Nothing more extensive. Nothing more real. The Totalitarian Regime's propaganda arm, just wanted to enforce its WILL, following the lead of the CCP. I guarantee that Biden will lose the next election, as Democratic Totalitarian Rule has become real. I never before voted Republican, but this has become too critical to free expression to ignore. I think Democratic Totalitarian Rule has seen its apogee.

I don't agree that any decisions should be made without considering others, without considering the community as a whole, because we all are dependent on the state in so many ways. Or if you prefer a less impersonal framing, we are all dependent on the community, and I think we owe it our allegiance to the utmost degree we can manage, especially in times of crisis, because those times are the times solidarity is most needed.

No, this is taking the discussion in the wrong direction.

There actually exist laws about issues of public health. The matter is largely settled, legally.

What is not legally settled are things specifically pertaining to covid, with its specifics. But many people act as if this was settled. — baker

We disagree right here. The public health advice being acted on now does not contravene the "largely settled" "laws about issues of public health".

Also, I think there is an ethical side to this as well, as I said in the post above.

The "specifics of covid" are a moving feast and to an ever-diminishing degree remain to be seen.

But people generally do have an overwhelming and insurmountable fear and distrust of being abused and taken advantage of. They're just not always able to put it into exact words. — baker

Sure, but I don't see how it would be reasonable to claim that anyone is being abused and taken advantage of in the current covid situation.

I can accept that we are dependent on community, in a symbiotic manner. But the community and the state are not the same thing. Any state that is a true democratic republic is set up to serve and protect the individual's rights. Where I live, the state no longer serves the individual, but rather corporations at large; perhaps this is why the opinion that the indivual is dependent upon the state and should give allegiance to it is fast gaining popularity in the so-called free world.

Unfortunately, with that attitude toward the state's purpose, it is only a matter of time before we to go to the grocery store and hear: "show me your papers". Luckily we will have an administration of corrective labor camps set up for undocumented citizens, so they will have a place to eat dinner and won't have to starve.