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

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? 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?

Beyond actual statistics and probability, I don't know how. I'm open to ideas.

People are being suspended or fired from their jobs for not being vaccinated. As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal.
— baker

This is completely wrong. Ask United Airlines, who did exactly that.
— Xtrix

What is wrong?

Did you see the actual notice of termination, the actual wording? — baker

What is wrong? The statement that "suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal." That's wrong. It's being done right now, and has already been done. If there are court challenges, they will lose. Just as the "freedom of speech" cases lost in court over banning Trump from Twitter and Facebook. These companies can do what they want to do and, as I mentioned, I don't like this -- but unfortunately, it isn't illegal.

As far as "seeing the actual notice of termination, the actual wording": no, I haven't. I don't work for these companies. But it's been reported pretty widely that some employees (though fairly few) have been terminated for not complying with vaccination policy. I don't see this as any different than what's been happening for years at many companies that require hepatitis or TB/tests and shots.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational yet "on the fence"?

I struggle with this.
— Xtrix

42 pages later, any nearer to the answer? — Down The Rabbit Hole

You got me there. I think the second to last line is my justification for continuing.

The Right has generally supported the right of proprietors of businesses to hire and fire, for whatever reasons they like, as they see fit. And now it is mostly the Right that is squealing about it and calling it an infringement of individual rights. — Janus

This is a point I try to keep reminding people of over and over -- and NOT to stick it to Republicans or conservatives, but to encourage them to change their minds about this one thing, at least.

Listening to you and other vocal pro-vaccers here at the forum is like listening to some of the high politicians in the country where I live, and in some other EU countries as well. The same cynical attitude, the same threats, the same simplificationism, the same not listening, the same diversions. — baker

Well what can I say? I can't help how you perceive me, really, but being as objective as I can be, I don't think all of that is fair. I never claimed to be a nice guy -- but I feel I'm almost always giving evidence to support arguments I make. I'm not simply launching insults. And I don't feel any sense of self-righteousness or cynicism and, despite your claim, listening happens to be my specialty. (That last part is a joke.)

But you have no right to infect others
— Xtrix

There you go, making wild accusations that I am going around infecting people with covid. Where is your hard evidence that I am doing that? — Merkwurdichliebe

I never once said that.

People are being suspended or fired from their jobs for not being vaccinated. As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal. — baker

This is completely wrong. Ask United Airlines, who did exactly that.

I'm very leery of the amount of power corporations have. They employ millions of people, and control when they eat, what they wear, what they can say to customers, etc. -- I don't like it. But, unfortunately, it's perfectly legal. Why? Because these are private tyrannies who can do what they want to do, basically.

In this specific instance, I agree with the policy. But that doesn't mean I like the fact that a handful of executives and boards of directors get to make all of these decisions without any worker input whatsoever.

As someone who’s taking the vaccine already, what exactly are you driving at here?
— Xtrix
That the enthusiasm of the vocal pro-vaccers is unfounded.
That the hatred and contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers show for everyone who doesn't share their enthusiasm is unjustified. — baker

"Enthusiasm"? I'd say more frustration. Hatred and contempt, maybe -- but that, to me, isn't entirely incomprehensible either when people are refusing the vaccine, prolonging a pandemic, and infecting and killing others for no rational reason whatsoever, despite many much more sober and factual attempts at educating them by medical experts.

143 strokes out of 10 million shots for the Pfizer vaccine, last I checked. Which is much better than the strokes caused by COVID infection — and still extremely rare any way you slice it.
— Xtrix

Part of the problem is insisting on looking at the matter from the perspective of large numbers, large populations, and then expecting that individual people will be convinced and soothed by this.

If you are the one who gets the stroke after the vaccine, it does not matter to you if so many millions didn't get one. It's still you who is now paralyzed. — baker

Yes, I do insist on looking at this by the numbers and by probability -- the same way we look at anything we do when we're concerned or afraid. The same way we weigh the risk of flying in an airplane or taking Tylenol. 143 strokes out of 10 million should be persuasive to anyone who's rational that this is not a highly risky action.

Yes, for those rare cases where this happens, I feel for those people. I also feel for people who die in plane crashes, rollercoaster accidents, shark attacks, and liver disease from Tylenol.

If you're arguing this isn't persuasive, I don't know how else one can explain it. It's simply extremely unlikely that anything happens to you when you get vaccinated. That's mathematics.

Do you ever reflect on risk before crossing the road or eating seafood? I'm pretty sure you don't.
— baker

You don't have to reflect on risk when you get vaccinated either. — Janus

Then why are those who want people to get vaccinated feeding us that line???

Why are high government officials, epidemiologists, public advertisements, and so on telling us that the risk of something going wrong is low, and that therefore, we should get vaccinated? — baker

Because people are irrationally worried, and refusing the vaccine based on this irrational fear. At that point, these numbers can be very helpful. It can be very helpful to explain that the odds of dying or being harmed in some way by x is extremely low.

If people weren't afraid -- as they aren't usually afraid of driving or flying in an airplane or taking tylenol -- then you're right, there's no reason to discuss odds and that's not part of our daily lives. We don't walk around making calculations like this. But when we do stop and think, for whatever reason, then the proper thing to do in that moment is to understand the risk involved.

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?

Krugman’s argument is a stupid one. The fact that governments have in the past regulated this or that activity isn’t an argument that they should keep on doing so, that they should force companies to mandate vaccines, that they should violate someone’s bodily autonomy and their right to make one’s own medical decisions, and so on. — NOS4A2

Speaking of stupid arguments.

No one is forcing companies to mandate vaccines. Ask United Airlines and Tyson. Many of these companies had this policy in place before Biden's announcement. So that's your first straw man.

Second: no one is physically forcing vaccinations. You have a right to bodily autonomy, and have a right to reject the vaccine if you don't want it. You have a right to smoke and, in my view, should have the right to do drugs and commit suicide. Those all have ripple effects on the community as well, but in principle I take it as a given.

Vaccine mandates give you an ultimatum, just as smoking bans do: if you want to smoke, or be unvaccinated, that's fine -- just don't do it here. If you don't agree with that, you're "free" to work elsewhere -- which is, after all, what conservatives have been saying for years. If you don't like the amount of power that businesses have -- welcome to the club. Too bad you've worked so hard over the years destroying unions.

False analogies and appeals to tradition are the few arguments they have left. — NOS4A2

And straw men are all Trumpists like you have have left.

Absent any coherent argument they have state coercion, the last resort of the weak. — NOS4A2

Last I checked, United Airlines isn't the "state."

Of course many people will comply when the government threatens to end their livelihood. Cruelty and coercion may be successful, sure, but achieving success through these means only serves to illustrate how their other efforts until then were utter failures.

"Other efforts" being rationality and overwhelming medical recommendations. You're right -- when that fails, after months of attempts, there's little recourse but what these companies and now, far too late, the federal government is doing. Should have been done long ago.

How are they running the vaccination programme? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Shh…just let the crackpot scream his conspiracy theories. He’s the best thing for the vaccine program.

Fantastic. The technology is progressing all the time, and I’m hopeful about some of it. But whether it’ll be enough is a question.

Would have been great if we were in this situation 20 or 30 years ago. But now—?

A brilliant analysis of climate denial:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/01/if-you-cant-deny-it-downplay-it

But why have so many Republicans refused to take their shots? Some, of course, have bought into the wild claims about side effects and sinister conspiracies that circulate on social media. But they’re probably a small minority.
Almost surely, mainstream right-wing media outlets, especially Fox News, have played a much bigger role. These outlets generally steer away from clearly falsifiable assertions — they have to worry about lawsuits. But they nonetheless want to do all they can to undermine the Biden administration, so they have done their best to raise doubts about the vaccines’ safety and effectiveness.

The effect has been to encourage many Republicans to think of getting vaccinated as an imposition, a cost they’re being asked to bear rather than a benefit they’re being offered — and, of course, something they’re primed to oppose precisely because it’s something Democrats want to see happen. Medical experts may say that going unvaccinated greatly increases your risk of getting seriously ill or dying, but hey, what do they know?

— Krugman, NY TIMES

Nails it. So much for principle.

I wonder how the making of concrete and steel will be powered?

If renewables can be used, they should be. That’s not feasible for everything.

Three weeks ago President Biden announced plans to require Covid-19 vaccinations — or, in some cases, weekly testing as an alternative — for most U.S. workers. There were immediate predictions that the move would backfire, that it would only stiffen vaccine resistance. Indeed, some surveys suggested that as many as half of unvaccinated workers would quit their jobs rather than take their shots.

But such threats are proving mostly empty. Many state and local governments and a significant number of private employers have already imposed vaccine mandates — and these mandates have been very successful. Compliance has been high, and only a relative handful of workers have quit or had to be fired.

To understand why vaccine mandates seem to work so well, we need to think about the real nature of vaccine resistance. Most of the people refusing to take their shots don’t really believe that the vaccines contain tracking microchips or that they have severe side effects.

Instead, everything we’ve seen suggests that many vaccine resisters are like the people who in the past raged about seatbelt laws and bans on phosphates in detergents, or more recently refused to wear masks. That is, they’re people who balk at being asked to accept what they imagine to be a cost or inconvenience on behalf of the public good. (In reality, getting vaccinated is very much something you should do on purely selfish grounds, but as I’ll explain in a minute, that information may not be getting through.) And as I’ve noticed in the past, political rage about public health rules seems, if anything, to be inversely related to how onerous these rules really are.

- Paul Krugman

Read again Robert Kagan’s foreboding Washington Post essay on how close we are to a democratic disaster. He’s talking about a group of people so enraged by a lack of respect that they are willing to risk death by Covid if they get to stick a middle finger in the air against those who they think look down on them. They are willing to torch our institutions because they are so resentful against the people who run them.

The Democratic spending bills are economic packages that serve moral and cultural purposes. They should be measured by their cultural impact, not merely by some wonky analysis. In real, tangible ways, they would redistribute dignity back downward. They would support hundreds of thousands of jobs for home health care workers, child care workers, construction workers, metal workers, supply chain workers. They would ease the indignity millions of parents face having to raise their children in poverty.

In normal times I’d argue that many of the programs in these packages may be ineffective. I’m a lot more worried about debt than progressives seem to be. But we’re a nation enduring a national rupture, and the most violent parts of it may still be yet to come.

From David Brooks of The NY Times.

The idea that there has been a consensus of experts is a hallucination. — Bylaw

(1) There is a consensus of experts about vaccines, which is what was being discussed.

(2) They're safe, they're effective, and they slow the spread of the virus.

(3) There's consensus about this because the evidence is overwhelming.

True, anti-vaxxers disagree about the evidence. Creationists disagree about the evidence for evolution. Neither are motivated by a search for truth. No evidence will convince them otherwise, despite their claims. The hallucination (or delusion) belongs to them alone.

Are you aware of the "scientific method"? It does not dictate how individuals "should" behave. — Merkwurdichliebe

A nice pop-culture view of science, with a shallow nod to the fact/value dichotomy.

What if I reject the narrative of law making process the same way you reject the scientific narrative? — Caldwell

An excellent question.

They're related. You may "not believe" in "man-made" law, and you may "not believe" in natural laws (like gravity). But if you violate the former, you're arrested regardless; if you violate the former -- say by attempting to fly out the window -- you'll quickly find out that what you "believe" doesn't mean anything either.

It's good and proper to question the world, to question authority, to question prevalent dogma. Questions are important, and an essential component of philosophical thought. But it has to be motivated by a genuine search for truth, and an openness to learning.

The problem with anti-vaxxers, creationists, flat-earthers, climate deniers, etc., is that they are not motivated by a search for truth. They're motivated by other factors -- usually emotions. But why? Why is their identity tied to these false beliefs?

Ultimately it is an outgrowth of the education they've received, in my view; not only in schools but through the media as well (which is where most people are "educated" on these matters) -- social media now being the worst of it, as has been shown.

Back in the 90s we thought the Internet and the "information age" would give everyone access to knowledge and education. We see it in the online Brittanica, in Wikipedia, in things like the Kahn Academy and "Crash Course" series on YouTube, and so forth.

Yet here we are, on an Internet philosophy website, where you would expect to attract people with a modicum of education and thoughtfulness, debating six or seven (essentially) anti-vaxxers.

It's pretty sad, and scary for the future. They of course cannot see this, and never will, but they're in the same boat as these other people. Why? Because they're making exactly the same psychological mistakes. They will also, along with creationists and flat-earthers, throw all of these descriptions back at us, and of science -- they'll go so far as to question the foundations of truth itself just to avoid admitting that they're radically wrong (who wants to look stupid?).

But I digress.

There is no force in the world that can convince you to accept some data that you want to reject. Try and talk to a holocaust denier or a 9/11 truther if you don't believe me. — Olivier5

:100:

No, I'm savagely honest. — Merkwurdichliebe

:rofl:

The data must convince me. — Merkwurdichliebe

No, it doesn’t. You’re nothing. And you’ll never be convinced anyway. The only reason you’re interested in any of this is because of misinformation. I’ll go with the overwhelming medical consensus.

So you are in favor of the individual's right to choose? What are we arguing about then? Do you mean that when you say:

This is why we should care that everyone is being vaccinated unless, of course, they want to isolate themselves from society, which is their choice.
— Xtrix

Are you not implying that there should be legislation that mandates vaccination and locks out of society all who decline? It clearly sounds like you are. — Merkwurdichliebe

I’m in favor of individual choice, yes. Same with smoking.

If people want to smoke, or reject the vaccine, that’s their choice. But you have no right to infect others — or blow smoke in their faces.

When I say isolate themselves from society, I really mean crowded places— obviously they have to eat, and so go to the supermarket and whatnot. But they should be decent enough to wear a mask and social distance, as any sane person would during a pandemic.

As far as the workplace goes, that’s their choice as well— take the vaccine or be laid off. This is the ultimatum United Airlines gave -- and less than 1% of their workforce had to be fired.

That’s the level of power these corporations have, which I've never liked, but which the Republican party, conservatives, libertarians, and neoliberals (but I repeat myself) have all helped to create. Interesting that they're now the ones crying about it. Not when it's something like massive campaigns to undermine unions, unlimited campaign contributions, endless lobbying, excluding workers from major company decisions and policies, and monopolization. No -- they take their stand over masks and vaccines. It's laughable.

Things are really heating up now.

The progressives seem to be standing their ground, which is a great thing to see. How long will it last?

Will the Democrats get the reconciliation bill passed? I'm not sure at this point. But one thing that has to be included, for climate change, is the CEPP provision. Mr. Coal, Manchin, will be lobbied to take this out -- so his corporate masters will probably get their way. But If that can get through somehow, that's a good start.

We all know about the inflated statistics — Merkwurdichliebe

Another standard tactic of those holding unfalsiable claims: simply dismiss the evidence and the data. Try to undermine the sources of the data, the data itself, etc.

If anything, it appears much more likely that 700k is an understatement.

Consensus is far more determined by the popularity of key starting assumptions than by the result of some mass error-checking exercise. — Isaac

That’s not how consensus is reached.

Overwhelming consensus, given the scientific process, is pretty rare. When it is reached, a layman can be far more confident of the results than not. This should be easy.

What’s happening in your case is that you’re taking the minority view and want to justify this as the correct choice— as a layman.

But it’s as ridiculous an argument as when climate change deniers go with Roy Spencer over the IPCC. They’ll argue until they’re blue in the face about how science is often wrong, consensus means nothing, it’s an establishment conspiracy, it’s groupthink, etc. I take them about as seriously as I take you.

Others should do likewise. This is a waste of time.

Yes, that the constitution supports the right of the individual to choose for himself whether or not to accept or decline the vaccine. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don’t think anyone, anywhere, is arguing in favor of forced vaccinations.

You have the right to smoke as well — no one is forcing that on you. But when what you do or don’t do has an effect on other people, things get complicated. We have all kinds of laws in place for these things— including smoking bans. If you go into most restaurants, if you want to smoke you’ll have a designated area outside. That’s an infringement on rights, but a legitimate one in my view — as it is in most people’s eyes, because we have all come to agree that the jury is in on second hand smoking and cancer.

The same goes for vaccines. You don’t want to take them? Fine— no problem. Your choice. You want to smoke? Fine— no problem. I may not do it myself, but I would never stop you from doing so using physical force.

You see where I’m going with this I think.

The issue then becomes “they’re essentially forcing people by threatening their jobs.” Yes. Many think this is illegitimate, I don’t. But either way, do employers have the legal right to do so?

Yes, they do. In most cases that’s unfortunate— like telling people what to wear and when to eat. I think corporations have too much power in general.

What’s strange, however, is that it has been mostly conservatives arguing in favor of employers’ rights over the decades. “If you don’t like it, go elsewhere,” is the common refrain given to employees. They’re also been deliberately destroying unions for decades. But now that they’re getting a taste of something they don’t like — suddenly they turn into Eugene Debbs.

It’s hypocrisy.

It’s not a matter of whether you agree with a policy or not — it’s whether we allow corporations to control us in this way, where the workers have no input over major decisions— not just vaccines, but also profit distribution, wages, automation, outsourcing, layoffs, etc. The whole system seems out of whack — especially without union representation or some other form of input from workers.

But that’s how it is, and it’s completely legal. This happens to be a policy I agree with— I think it is as legislate as banning smoking, but the underlying issue is still relevant: corporations have too much power and too little worker representation.

The same goes for censorship and free speech on social media platforms. Is it legal? Yes.

They’re private tyrannies, so they can do what they want — and the people crying the loudest right now helped them get there.

But not in the US, or UK. In the US, infections, hospitalizations and deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated
— Xtrix

Yeah, humans are different in the U.S. and Israel. Gullibility of the brainwashed. — MondoR

These are simple facts. You can look them up yourself. If we accept the Israeli data, as we should, we should accept the data of the rest of the world as well, including the US.

We find that the unvaccinated are being hospitalized and dying at much higher rates. I’m sorry if that doesn’t conform to what you’d like to believe.

Hospital admittance was and is real.
— Benkei

It certainly is. Do lockdowns help in this regard? You can’t say. — AJJ

We can say: they do.

In Israel, the most vaccinated country in the world, more vaccinated people became infected than vaccinated, — MondoR

But not in the US, or UK. In the US, infections, hospitalizations and deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated.

And breakthrough infections, when they do occur, are less severe than in those who are vaccinated.

So you can continue harping about the Israeli study, but even if we accept it all as true, it’s still an outlier and still does not recommend against vaccinations.

o you're just deliberately being provocative, right?
— Xtrix

As opposed to the infantile title of this thread? — MondoR

I wasn't deliberately being provocative with the title of this thread. I consider those mentioned completely wrong.

Nothing ever is better than natural immunity. The innate intelligence of life. — MondoR

Those who prefer to get infected and take their chances with natural immunity are welcome to do so -- provided they don't infect others in the meantime.

The choice is simple: take the vaccine, which is safe, effective, and helps slow the spread. Not just for yourself, but for the community at large -- so we can get out of this pandemic.

Or: don't take the vaccine, and have the decency to isolate yourself as much as possible so as not to potentially infect others. If you do this, I have no issue with you at all, despite believing that you're wrong (unless you have legitimate reason, like an allergy or something to that effect).

That's the choice, at this point. Rightfully so.

Maybe you could point me in the direction of links to statements by epidemiologists who recommend against policies advocating or requiring vaccination of young people. — Joshs

Or recommendations against vaccinations.

Remember, importantly, that despite all these citations about side effects, death, ineffectiveness (the Israel study being the one used over and over again), and lack of knowledge -- all of experts end up recommending vaccinations, stressing their importance. This should tell you something.

It should also tell you something that after 6 billion shots have been given, 170 million people in the United States alone, and 9 months having passed, full FDA approval, and numerous studies -- the vaccines have been shown to be safe, effective, and help slow the spread of the virus. This is something that's been tested for safety more than anything else in memory.

The "skeptics" persist. Fine -- we always need them too. But it's getting harder and harder to argue this position. It's getting absurd, quite frankly. Some of the claims, like by Mondo (If he's being serious), are just ludicrous and embarrassing.

The country is now being completely run by the pharmaceuticals industry and they have the greatest marketing pitch ever devised: If you don't do as we command you will DIE! Totalitarianism in it's purest form, but instead of a gun they use psychological manipulation of the mind. — MondoR

So you're just deliberately being provocative, right? I thought for a minute that was the case, and this was satire -- but you've now gone on several posts with this kind of thing. Is this what you really believe?



Thank you for effort, and the references.

Now that one has been mentioned. But I see no mention in the article of the issues raised (at least by me)

The studies don't address transmission, as I mentioned above. They don't address viral loads in the nasal mucosa, they don't address viral load in asymptomatic cases, they don't address behavioural changes in vaccinated people, they don't address different responses in the full range of cohorts.
— Isaac — Isaac

Except me, right after it was posted. The fact that you ignore things you don't like doesn't mean they haven't been addressed.

To those continuing to fight against the vaccines:

Your questions and demands for evidence will always outweigh whatever can be given, and will shift once the answer or evidence has been given. It's like whack-a-mole. That's why I encourage others not to get into the weeds, but to always keep in mind the bigger picture. It's not driven by good-faith assessment of the data -- it's picking and choosing data. It's the same tactic that Creationists use: poke as many holes as you can, identify apparent contradictions, mis-quote, tell half-truths, etc. When all else fails, shift to an entirely different question.

What this all comes down to, ultimately, is the fact that this issue has been politicized. Like the issue of climate change, because it's been politicized there are all kinds of laymen, especially online, making claims about the sun, about natural variation, about climate scientists, etc. You see them on YouTube, on Facebook, on Twitter. But they're all repeating things they've heard from their sources, and their sources happen to be completely and demonstrably wrong, and their arguments don't hold any water when analyzed in detail.

The anti-vax crowd (forgive the label) are doing exactly the same thing. It's a mistake -- simple as that.

If you're afraid to take the shot and want to find reasons for not taking it, even after 9 months and 6 billion doses given, and after every major medical organization in the world recommends vaccination, then you'll certainly find reasons.

If you're already convinced the medical establishment is untrustworthy, and that overwhelming scientific and medical consensus and advice can be ignored, then you'll find reasons for believing that -- and no amount of debate will change your mind, especially on the Internet.

The question is: why so afraid of vaccines in the first place? And why so distrustful of medicine and science?

It seems to me it's a selective skepticism.

There's really no point looking up statistics or reports or articles or citing experts -- none of it will be good enough, none of it will matter. Once someone has taken it as part of their identity, arguing the matter is like arguing someone out of religion. It's a fool's errand, as tempting as it is (after all, most claims are pretty easy to refute).

What we should be discussing is why these people are showing up to begin with. It's the same question we should be asking about Trump voters, it's the same question we should be asking about climate deniers.

This doesn't come from nowhere. They don't realize it themselves, because they're stuck in the middle of it, but in my view it's simply being manipulated by misinformation, exacerbated by social media.

Now, I have to inject crap into my body because they Pharmaceuticals have found a money trove. — MondoR

:lol:

I never before voted Republican, — MondoR

Yeah, we’re all really convinced of that. :lol:

We have vaccines that are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus.

We also have a large number of people being fed misinformation by social media and the anti-vaxxer crowd who refuse to be vaccinated, willing to take their stand on this issue -- during a pandemic. Not huge income inequality, not the tax cuts for rich people, not the destruction of the environment, not the fact that corporations can buy our politicians, not the gutting of voting rights and abortion rights. No, they're willing to quit jobs and debate endlessly about getting a jab in their arm.

Just worth reflecting on this stupefying situation.

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.

Free market capitalism works. — T Clark

Point me to one country where they have free markets.

What do I mean when I say "capitalism works?" It creates a market that gets resources to the places they're needed in a more or less efficient manner. — T Clark

Capitalism does not create markets. You can have markets in any system. You had markets in ancient Greece, you have markets in communist China. China is also highly efficient at getting resources to places they're needed. Is that capitalism?

Problem - often, usually? capitalism does what it does with no regard to it's employees, the surrounding communities, or the world at large. The involvement of large corporations can make things much worse. Solution - 1) govern regulation 2) labor unions and 3)...? — T Clark

Returning to the policies of the 1950s and 60s would be a start -- much higher taxes on the wealthy, a much better regulated financial sector, and an ideology of corporate governance that prioritized employees, innovation, and infrastructure along with shareholder dividends (as opposed to the "shareholder primacy" doctrine of Milton Friedman). You look at where the profits started shifting during the 1980s: buybacks and dividends, shrinking all the other investments to employees and infrastructure, and leading to stagnant wages, destruction of unions, precarious jobs, less corporations overall and, ultimately, less growth.

I'd like to offer two points.

First, it's true that the profit motive is a very basic aspect of capitalism. But making a profit, and markets generally, have been around for a long time.

What's different about capitalism is the relationship between employer and employee. That's the dynamic that separates capitalism from feudalism, slavery, and economic/political systems. This is a point the economist Richard Wolff makes repeatedly, and which I'm echoing here. I think it make sense.

Second, you're quite right about the assumption that businesses (especially corporations) exist to make a profit. But this idea, surprisingly, is relatively new. It can be partly traced back to a famous 1970 article by Milton Friedman, titled A Friedman doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.

This idea spread throughout the universities and business schools. Around the same time, you had the mobilization of the business community, partly in reaction to the 1960s movements and the writings of Ralph Nader. They felt under threat. The call to arms is the now-famous Powell Memorandum, written to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which outlines a number of actions that should be taken by businesses.

Currently, there is a big shift away from the Friedman Doctrine (also called "shareholder primacy") and towards "Stakeholder Capitalism," as stated in the Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable mission statements. You hear guys like Larry Fink of BlackRock and Mark Benioff of Salesforce talking this up a lot now.

So some of the ideology is beginning to shift. On the left, there's been a greater push towards New Deal-era policies, including the "regimented capitalism" which was predominant in the 50s and 60s. A large chunk of the Democratic establishment are still neoliberal. The right, however, are becoming even more corporatist and authoritarian -- what's often called more "libertarian." This is embodied in Mitch McConnell.

So no, it's not a fair system. But if we recognize what's going on, we can change it for the better. I think stronger unions is a fine start, but also voting for more progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders and AOC is helpful as well. The government should be working to regulate these industries, workers should be given the option to run the factories themselves, there should be workers on the board of directors, there should be a strong safety net put in place given that we're the wealthiest country on earth, taxes should be changed, etc.

What I am not fine with is antisocial behavior, i.e. behavior that will risk the lives of many for no good reason. If you don't care that your neighbors might die because of you, if you are going to systematically ignore the needs of others with whom you share a society, then you are not fit to live in that society.
— Olivier5

That just doesn't make any sense. — Isaac

It makes perfect sense. The fact that you struggle with truisms doesn’t mean they don’t make sense.

They don't believe these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives.

They don't believe it because their governments have told them it and their governments routinely lie. — Isaac

Yes, we all know this has been politicized. We also know that the anti-vax movement and social media misinformation contributes to all this.

But denying reality doesn’t give you special rights to harm others, nor does it exempt you from the reality of increased risk (which is why the unvaccinated are overwhelmingly the ones getting hospitalized and dying— despite what they “believed,” oddly).

Suppose I “don’t believe” in smoking bans and drunk driving laws. Do law enforcement and courts take that “reason” seriously?

Suppose I believe I have the right to infect others with my infection. Is that a good enough reason to do so?

What people believe and why they believe it is an interesting question. But when lives are on the line, there’s incomplete information, and time is of the essence— there’s simply no room for delay. Besides, the questions will always outnumber the answers, and there’s no reason to believe that any amount of evidence will change minds.

Thus, vaccine mandates are a necessity. For those who don’t want to participate, they should have the decency to quit their jobs and remove themselves from crowded places.

This is a legitimate use of state power, backed by medical expertise.

People disagree— fine. People disagree about the election, claiming it was “rigged” — those people lose over and over again in court, and for good reason: they’re wrong. The evidence, and reality, are simply not on their side.

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.