Is it an infringement of human rights to require vaccination of children against childhood diseases before they can go to school? — T Clark
It may be an infringement. Either people have rights or they don't. If they do, then those rights can be infringed. — Apollodorus
I don't think it is just a matter of "making people feel better". — Apollodorus
And the data show that the risks are incredibly low, and that vaccines are safe. How else are we to talk to those who continue to refuse?
— Xtrix
As if they are human beings who are not convinced by mere gambles. — baker
Oh dear; you don't know what a straw-man is. — NOS4A2
I don't know if you are up on current events or not but maybe you're not aware of Biden's vaccine mandates for companies who employ over 100 people, even though it's in the first paragraph of Krugman's piece you quoted. If they do not enforce his vaccine mandates, to fire unvaccinated employees, they face massive fines. So much for corporate power. — NOS4A2
His mandate should begin very soon and will effect nearly 100 million workers, you know, those people you used to support. — NOS4A2
Oh look, the state. Does Biden represent United Airlines or Tyson? Nope. Did I mention United Airlines or Tyson? Nope. Did I say physically forcing? Nope. — NOS4A2
And now we're comparing vaccine mandates to smoking bans. Another false analogy, — NOS4A2
I appreciate that you are consistent with your views. If it is such an imposition, why is this becoming an issue now? — T Clark
I'm not making that argument, and it's not clear why people think I am.If one is making the argument that there are people having strokes and dying because of the vaccine, and that this is a reason for not taking the vaccine, then how is this not simply risk-aversion? — Xtrix
I wouldn't try to persuade them at all, it is not my place.It would be perfectly rational if the rates were higher -- but the chances are so low that to point to this as reason for rejecting it simply makes no sense, as we engage in activities all the time that have higher chances of death and disfigurement, like riding in cars and showering in a bathtub.
True, we don't usually have to "debate" those other activities. But we don't normally have to debate vaccines either -- not until very recently.
If someone decided suddenly to stop riding in cars, citing "accidents and death" as a reason not to, or in airplanes (like in the movie Rain Man), then besides listening, empathizing, and being compassionate to this person, how else would you try to persuade them that they're mistaken and that the activity they're unwilling to engage in is actually quite safe?
There are important limitations with our data, including the fact that
at or prior to May 1, 2020, many countries included in our dataset were
not yet in the “plateau” or downslope phase of their individual epidemiologic
curves, with border restrictions having been introduced only very
recently. In the context of COVID-19, it is thought that public health
interventions typically require from 2 to 3 weeks to affect outcomes,
hence the impact of widespread border restrictions may not have yet
been detected in our dataset. Additionally, the relative difference
in the number of cases in neighboring countries is likely to have a significant
impact on whether border closures are effective. Two countries
with similar epidemiologic curves and effective social distancing policies
may not see a major impact from border closures, whereas two countries
with very disparate epidemiologic curves may be more likely to
see a significant impact from travel restrictions. In the case of full lockdowns,
such a government policy may only be effective in those countries
where it can be easily implemented and enforced. For example, the
United States has had challenges enforcing lockdowns, with citizens in
several states publicly protesting public health measures to limit viral
transmission, and encouraging open revolt.
Lockdowns are an effective way of reducing the reproduction number of COVID-19 and controlling the spread of disease in local communities. However, there is no consensus on when governments should take this action. Here, we found that communities, which implemented the lockdown at or prior to the inflection point (defined as 7 days before the date on which at least 5 cumulative cases were first reported in the community) experienced a slower rise in COVID-19 rates over the first 50 days and a lower cumulative count consistently across all time points during follow-up compared with counties that implemented lockdowns after the inflection point (Fig. 1). In our models, the timing of the lockdown at the county level explained nearly 50% of the total in COVID-19 case counts across US counties, highlighting the importance of early lockdown implementation in controlling the pandemic at the county level.
Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended. Further tests also show that early interventions offered no additional benefits or effectiveness and even indicate that the lockdowns of the spring of 2020 were associated with significantly more deaths in the particular age group between 60 and 79 years.
The main problem at hand is therefore that the evidence presented here suggests that lockdowns have not significantly affected the development of mortality in Europe. They have nevertheless wreaked economic havoc in most societies and may lead to a substantial number of additional deaths for other reasons. A British government report from April for example assessed that a limited lockdown could cause 185,000 excess deaths over the next years, while UNICEF warns of an increase in child marriages, owing to the economic effects of Western lockdowns in developing countries (DHSC 2020; Philipose and Aika 2021). Evaluated as a whole, at a first glance, the lockdown policies of the Spring of 2020 therefore appear to be substantial long-run government failures.
If one is making the argument that there are people having strokes and dying because of the vaccine, and that this is a reason for not taking the vaccine, then how is this not simply risk-aversion?
— Xtrix
I'm not making that argument, and it's not clear why people think I am. — baker
If someone decided suddenly to stop riding in cars, citing "accidents and death" as a reason not to, or in airplanes (like in the movie Rain Man), then besides listening, empathizing, and being compassionate to this person, how else would you try to persuade them that they're mistaken and that the activity they're unwilling to engage in is actually quite safe?
I wouldn't try to persuade them at all, it is not my place. — baker
Getting vaccinated will not bring an added quality to one's life. — baker
Further, you fail to offer a meaningful consolation for the prospect of vaccine damage and vaccine failure. — baker
Either way, you've been given plenty of information by now, but oddly brush it off with a hand wave. Are you looking for something else altogether...? — jorndoe
Because if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it? — Isaac
Perhaps that’s something to discuss with your doctor. — Xtrix
The fact remains: vaccines are safe and effective. There are extremely rare cases when they’re not— just as there are extremely rare cases where places crash. — Xtrix
this isn’t solely about you. As I’ll repeatedly remind everyone. — Xtrix
Let's ignore any selfish aims for now. My relative risk of causing harm to others by getting a vaccine compared to not getting one. — Isaac
give me the numbers. If this fact is relevant to my decision then the numbers have to be relevant to me. — Isaac
If it's all about risk profiles, then help me make my choice. What are my numbers? — Isaac
Perhaps that’s something to discuss with your doctor.
— Xtrix
How would my doctor know about those risks? — Isaac
My relative risk of causing harm to others by getting a vaccine compared to not getting one. — Isaac
Because if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it? — Isaac
I don’t want to play Study Wars with you. Can you throw studies at me such that your view becomes definitively correct? Because in my view that’s what you need to do in order to justify bothering people to misery and death with oppressive mandates. — AJJ
The fact remains: vaccines are safe and effective. There are extremely rare cases when they’re not— just as there are extremely rare cases where places crash.
— Xtrix
OK, so give me the numbers then. If this fact is relevant to my decision then the numbers have to be relevant to me. — Isaac
I'm aware that they're on average safer than catching the virus (in terms of harm to others), but I'm not average, so the average relative risk is useless to me. — Isaac
I don’t want to play Study Wars with you. Can you throw studies at me such that your view becomes definitively correct? Because in my view that’s what you need to do in order to justify bothering people to misery and death with oppressive mandates.
— AJJ
You'd most likely lose out. ;)
How about taking a look at what actually takes place, then?
• Anatomy of our battle against COVID-19 (Jun 2, 2021)
And there are historical (textbook) case studies. Common sense is allowed, too, ya' know.
• lockdowns can save lives (+ needless suffering)
• lockdowns have socio-economic and psychological effects
• lockdowns and quarantines work in containment situations
• the more wide-spread the pathogen, the less effective the lockdown (planning needed)
• non-compliance with lockdowns + protocols (mask, distance, sanitize) have an effect
So, make lockdowns decisive, swift, not pro-longed (especially) in containment situations.
Doesn't have much to do with fear-mongering panic or evil tyrant authoritarian government feeding on your misery or conformism for conformism's sake or whatever bullshit; has to do with learning from evidence, common sense, doing the right thing, being socially responsible, not being a loose cannon, and history is a fine teacher. — jorndoe
“Haha! You are wrong because I am right!” — AJJ
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.