But, Tim, this only pertains if you lack confidence in the vaccine. — Michael Zwingli

My confidence, or another's lack, is independent of the efficacy itself of the vaccine - which I understand is not a perfect fix but just a better than pretty good one, and the only one there is.

And an underlying confusion in the thinking of many, imo. Confusing the certain with the contingent, the types of reasoning for each being very different.

Article L. 1111-4 of the French Public Health Code, which stipulates: “that no medical act and no treatment can be practiced without the free and informed consent of the person and this consent may be withdrawn at any moment.” I trust a similar article must exist in Italian law because they always ask you to sign consent forms. — Olivier5

So children in France and you trust in Italy receive no medical care? Because I'm pretty sure children cannot consent.

I can materially stop anyone from entering my home. Unless the guy comes with loads of guns, he is not crashing my barbeque. — Olivier5

And he isn't, until he does, and then it's too late. Unless you gun him down on the sidewalk - but then you'll have other problems. The invitation here is to think reasonably and realistically. Try it.

To be pro-vax has no upfront cost. To be antivax has a huge upfront cost. It comes with ostracization and belittlement. After paying that, there is nowhere to go except further in the rabbit hole. — khaled

I see, yes that is a good point.

, I can respect that; we have a fair difference of opinion.

Their parents can consent.

I can respect that; we have a fair difference of opinion. — Michael Zwingli

I invite you, for pedantic purpose, to consider your sentence. Were my position that 2+2=5, you would not respect that, nor think it a fair difference of opinion, or should not anyway. And if I were trying to deprive you of something of yours by means of my "opinion," then you might not be so calm.

Or were the discussion whether German soccer - football - players are better than their Brazilian counterparts, we might have a topic that could generate mutual respect of differing opinions. But to be sure the discussion would in part be an attempt to discover the certainty of the thing, if and where existing.

So the contingent/indeterminate v. the apodictic. 2+2=4 and that's an end of it, and somtimes the Germans are better and sometimes the Brazilians. The question here being if there is anything apodictic about Covid vaccination. And I think there is. And thus anti-vaxxing is a taking from me for no good reason something that is mine. And that leaves no room for respect, nor is fair.

Obviously, but equally obvious is that is not what it says, yes?

The invitation here is to think reasonably and realistically. Try it. — tim wood

Reasonably and realistically, I will probably get COVID at some point, and I hope that being vaccinated will reduce the impact. And I'm not going to get all angry because somebody didn't get vaccinated. But that's just me. You do your thing.

So the contingent/indeterminate v. the apodictic. 2+2=4 and that's an end of it, and somtimes the Germans are better and sometimes the Brazilians. The question here being if there is anything apodictic about Covid vaccination. And I think there is. — tim wood

Then find me the fully qualified mathematician employed as a professor in mathematics at a bone fide university who claims that 2+2 does not equal four. If you can do that, you can establish that there can be apodictic claims which are nonetheless opposed by such experts in their field. Otherwise, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that despite this quite relevant and substantial difference, the issue of Covid vaccination is nonetheless apodictic.

Reasonably and realistically, I will probably get COVID at some point, and I hope that being vaccinated will reduce the impact. And I'm not going to get all angry because somebody didn't get vaccinated. But that's just me. You do your thing. — Olivier5

A reasonable hope. But there are people out there pushing the odds against you and yours for no decent, good, or reasonable reason. I'm not at all sure anger should be the animating spirit of response, though it be often a clue, but perhaps a more reasoned attention that at some point, as required, directs and insists and imposes.

Being (probably) a good citizen, you probably forget and even have little interest in cataloguing all the impositions good citizens both endure and embrace to create a good community. An imposition of a Covid vaccine, shown to save lives and reduce both incidence and severity of an otherwise incurable and contagious sickness seems reasonable.

I didn't quote the whole article. It's rather long and detailed. The section on minors says the following:

The consent of the minor or adult under guardianship must be systematically sought if he or she is capable of expressing his or her wishes and participating in the decision. In case the refusal of treatment by the person with parental authority or by the guardian could have serious consequences for the health of the minor or the adult under guardianship, the physician will provide the necessary care.

In short: the parents give consent for their kids, in consultation with the kids, but the doctor must overide the parents if they refuse a treatment that would in the doctor's judgment be life-saving.

I don't know what the situation is in Italy.

An imposition of a Covid vaccine, shown to save lives and reduce both incidence and severity of an otherwise incurable and contagious sickness seems reasonable. — tim wood

I'm not even sure that would be constitutional in France.

I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that.... the issue of Covid vaccination is nonetheless apodictic. — Isaac

Indeed I hold it is. There is the issue of the greater good against a pandemic. No question about either - no reasonable question, at any rate. The pandemic is real, the benefits of the vaccine are demonstrated. And the validity of general vaccination as a strategy against disease well-established. The argument is over, and was over when it began. All that remains is the whining, and the news routinely reports that ceases when the whiner or his get sick or die.

Do you want the vaccine to be perfect? It isn't, and the point is that it does not have to be. Is a bulletproof vest perfect protection from a shooter? No. But does that mean you should not wear one? Certainly not!

But there are people out there pushing the odds against you and yours for no decent, good, or reasonable reason. I'm not at all sure anger should be the animating spirit of response, though it be often a clue, but perhaps a more reasoned attention that at some point, as required, directs and insists and imposes. — tim wood

Why yes, a more reasoned attention is precisely what I am trying to provide here, and in other discussions I may have in society. I often fail at it but I'm only human.

In case the refusal of treatment by the person with parental authority or by the guardian could have serious consequences for the health of the minor or the adult under guardianship, the physician will provide the necessary care. — Olivier5

The physician, as agent for the state acting in the interests of persons refusing care, the state will provide the care. Wow! Not knowing, I do not think the US has anywhere a law exactly like that.

I'm pretty sure that in the US, interested parties have to petition the court. Interesting stuff!

Indeed I hold it is. There is the issue of the greater good against a pandemic. No question about either - no reasonable question, at any rate. The pandemic is real, the benefits of the vaccine are demonstrated. And the validity of general vaccination as a strategy against disease well-established. The argument is over, and was over when it began. All that remains is the whining, and the news routinely reports that ceases when the whiner or his get sick or die. — tim wood

I wasn't asking you to confirm your opinion. I'm not conducting a poll. This is a discussion forum, I was asking you to support it, not repeat it.

Indeed I hold it is. There is the issue of the greater good against a pandemic. No question about either - no reasonable question, at any rate. The pandemic is real, the benefits of the vaccine are demonstrated. And the validity of general vaccination as a strategy against disease well-established. The argument is over, and was over when it began. All that remains is the whining, and the news routinely reports that ceases when the whiner or his get sick or die.

Do you want the vaccine to be perfect? It isn't, and the point is that it does not have to be. Is a bulletproof vest perfect protection from a shooter? No. But does that mean you should not wear one? Certainly not! — tim wood

“Indeed I hold it is. I am right. I am right - I am right. I am right. And I am right. I am right, and I am right. I am right.

Am I right? I am right. Am I right? Am I? I am right!”

So the contingent/indeterminate v. the apodictic. 2+2=4 and that's an end of it, and somtimes the Germans are better and sometimes the Brazilians. The question here being if there is anything apodictic about Covid vaccination. And I think there is. And thus anti-vaxxing is a taking from me for no good reason something that is mine. And that leaves no room for respect, nor is fair. — tim wood

We are in general agreement about this. I think that the only point of disagreement between us revolves around the issues of confidence in the efficacy of the current vaccines, and probably the danger posed by this virus in general. With respect to these, I think that no pretense of apodeicticity can be made. I may not be as conversant with the efficacy studies as yourself, but my confidence is derived from a general surety that the FDA would not allow vaccines onto the market which endangered people by severely lacking efficacy, in conjunction with an impression that the danger from this virus was somewhat overblown from the start. We're not exactly talking about the Bubonic Plague here; nobody is driving up the streets crying "Bring out your dead!". Sure, many died in 2020, but many people worldwide die of the flu in any given year. I myself think that everybody should just get the damned vaccine; I can't imagine why they don't just walk into a CVS or Walgreen's and do so, especially as many of those who are so deathly afraid of the vaccine have spent the last year sitting on the couch in front of the television set, collecting a fattened unemployment check and eating all kinds of fattening crap that is going to cause them to die prematurely of heart disease. Thus far, since the late fall of 2019, a period of nearly two years, 701,000 people have died of COVID in the U.S. Each year, an average of 660,000 people die of heart disease in the U.S. There is the matter of perspective.

You question the reality of the pandemic? You question the efficacy of the vaccine(s)? You question the general hazard to the well-being of the community and its several members that unvaccinated people represent? What is it you're questioning?

“Indeed I hold it is. I am right. I am right - I am right. I am right. And I am right. I am right, and I am right. I am right.

Am I right? I am right. Am I right? Am I? I am right!” — AJJ

On a philosophy site, as this one so styles itself, coherence is both desirable and a virtue. You get to depart from that, if at all, when you have a few thousand posts, and that simply to improve the odds that readers may understand you anyway. Which in your case, I don't. Attempt standard forms of communication - if you have anything of value to say.

You question the reality of the pandemic? You question the efficacy of the vaccine(s)? You question the general hazard to the well-being of the community and its several members that unvaccinated people represent? — tim wood

No, yes and yes. But his has nothing to do with the line of argument. This is not "write some things we think about Covid", it's a supposed to be a discussion. You know... you say something, I say something in response, you say something in response to that...have you come across that type of thing before?

You claimed that the issues around the Covid vaccination were apodictic, like 2+2=4. I said that 2+2=4 benefits from every single mathematics professor in the world agreeing with it - a crucial part of what makes it apodictic.

Since this is not the case with issues around the Covid vaccine, you seem to have redefined 'apodictic' to mean 'things I think are true'. I'm enquiring about your grounds for that redefinition.

If you'd rather not bother actually supporting the claims you make, but just vent whatever happens to occur to you, then I suggest you try Twitter.

If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Prishon? I have missed you....

The physician, as agent for the state acting in the interests of persons refusing care, the state will provide the care — tim wood

Only in the case of children. And note also the the whole para starts with a mention of the kid's own consent, given legal status here right off the bat ("in case he or she can consent). The article is not meant to force rationally mature kids to take a medication they clearly reject by themselves. It is meant to protect unwitting kids from wako parents.

a general surety that the FDA would not allow vaccines onto the market which endangered people by severely lacking efficacy, — Michael Zwingli

On June 7, the FDA approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The drug received accelerated approval because it showed it could reduce the rate of amyloid plaque on scans. What remains uncertain is whether this reduction in plaque means Alzheimer's patients live longer or better lives -- and notably, the totality of the clinical trial data do not show that. Moreover, the drug has various side effects and a whopping price tag: $56,000 a year.
In response to the FDA's approval, three members of the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee who opposed approval of the drug, quit the panel in protest. Aaron Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, a Harvard professor called the drug "problematic," and argued that there was little evidence it would help patients. Writing in The Atlantic, Nicholas Bagley, JD, and Rachel Sacks, JD, MPH, estimate that if the drug is prescribed to just one-third of eligible patients, it would cost Medicare $112 billion a year -- a massive figure that dwarfs any other medication.

sure, but we are talking about a vaccine here, not a pharmacological therapeutic, a series of vaccines which have evinced a certain definite efficacy.

Last year the FDA said it was “committed to use an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorisation or licensure are transparent for the public.”1 But in a statement, the FDA told The BMJ that it did not believe a meeting was necessary ahead of the expected granting of full approval.
Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who serves as a consumer representative on the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee,4 said the decision removed an important mechanism for scrutinising the data.
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, who has also spoken at recent VRBPAC meetings, told The BMJ, “It’s obvious that the FDA has no intention of hearing anyone else’s opinion.

I think that no pretense of apodeicticity can be made. — Michael Zwingli

And this the interesting point. For example, there is nothing that says you will ever roll a seven with two fair dice, but at the same time it is certain that you will do so eventually. And this an ambiguity of apodicticity, that in different applications it can mean two different things.

We're not exactly talking about the Bubonic Plague here. — Michael Zwingli

I think it's 750,000 US dead, and arguably most deaths unnecessary. And that a bit of a gee-whiz number, but you can think of it this way: safer to be at war than to be alive in the time of Covid.

have spent the last year sitting on the couch in front of the television set, — Michael Zwingli

And this no joke, my own testimony here to the hazards of that. But you're correct in that we mainly agree. Shall we quit while we're ahead? .

:up: