I see no danger from colds.
Vaccines are unnecessary against potential colds. — Ambrosia

Yes, because colds aren't very dangerous. I don't know if anyone has ever died of a common cold. Lots of people have died from measles and COVID, though. Are you saying that there is no danger from measles and COVID?

They do not work.

Not against colds as far as I'm aware, but they work against measles and COVID.

I don't believe in germ theory.

Why not?

I'm a better rational judge of my health than you — Ambrosia

Then why do you oppose the vaccine? I assume it's because you believe one of these:

1. The vaccine offers no additional protection and so is unnecessary
2. The vaccine is dangerous
3. The additional protection from the vaccine is marginal and so not worth my time getting

Which is it? Or is there another reason I'm not seeing?

I'm concerned about both. But when you balance the health risks of not being vaccinated (sickness, long term problems, even death) and the costs of getting vaccinated (a couple of hours of your time, maybe a bus ticket or petrol) then the rational decision is to get vaccinated.

You're free to drink bleach, but I'd strongly recommend against it.

No I don't see doctors or take their antibiotics.
When I'm sick,which is very rare,or have a sports injury I healy myself with nutrition,exercise and will power. — Ambrosia

That's unwise.

If need be I use some over the counter or underground medicine. Only sources I trust.

What do you look for in a source for it to earn your trust?

Medical science being wrong in the past isn't reason to dismiss medical science today. Presumably you see a doctor when you're sick and take prescribed antibiotics if you're diagnosed with a bacterial infection? Your natural immune system isn't always enough. That's why medicines — including vaccines — are a thing and make a huge difference.

See this for example.

Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. During 2000– 2018, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 23.2 million deaths. Global measles deaths have decreased by 73% from an estimated 536 000 in 2000* to 142,000 in 2018.

Thus, as I see it widely shared intuitions about Thomson's violinist and abortion cases imply that enforced lockdowns are unjust. They violate our rights. They greatly restrict our freedom and impose costs and burdens on us for the sake of preventing innocents from dying. — Bartricks

It's a matter of degree. One has more of a right to the sole use of one's kidneys than to go to a restaurant or nightclub, and the burden of sharing one's kidneys with another is far higher than not being able to eat out or dance in a crowded room. Both ethical and practical considerations require something of a cost-benefit analysis. It's a false equivalency to treat all cases of one's right to freedom being restricted as the same.

None of that matters to me. I don’t care if the vaccine cures every disease in human history. If someone doesn’t want to put it in their body they shouldn’t be forced to do so, and for the same reasons that they shouldn’t be refused a vaccine—they are responsible for their own medical decisions. — NOS4A2

The government can be responsible for the medical treatment of people if the health of others are at risk, which they are in this case. That's why they're doing this. There's a history of vaccine requirements for healthcare workers and schoolchildren. It's a reasonable policy. Extending this policy in the face of a serious pandemic is justified.

So-called "virus" is 100% political scam. "Sarscov2" was never isolated; only extrapolated from earlier RNA and modelled via lab equipment. PCR testing is useless as the CDC admitted recently. Of course, all "cases" labelled "covid" still stand. Anyone who thinks this is real is uninformed period. — protonoia

All alternative medications proven to be effective are minimized and reduced to "fake science" or whatever they can come up. — protonoia

So there are effective alternative medications to a virus that doesn’t exist? Arguing for two conflicting conspiracies at the same time is a bold choice.

Medical science also recommended the Tuskegee experiments, experimentation on Jews, slaves, deliberately infecting Guatemalans with syphillis, transplanting the testicles of young men into older ones, or radiated prisoners to see the effects of radiation, and on and on. I’m not sure the fact that some policy is recommended by medical science is a good enough reason to enact them, especially given that the the area of expertise for medical scientists is medical science, not ethics or political science.

It’s also practical to weld people into their homes or round up the infected and put them into concentration camps. It would be much easier and cost effective to round up the infected and gun them down where they stand. But to me, the practicality or success rate of any given policy isn’t a good enough reason to enforce it. — NOS4A2

If there are compelling ethical (or practical reasons) not to enact a medical policy then I agree that there is justification not to. Requiring vaccination doesn't seem to have such conflicts. Being vaccinated isn't like being infected with syphilis or being placed into concentration camps. Being vaccinated is good for the person being vaccinated, not just for the wider community, which is where it differs from the examples above which actively harm the subject. We've already established that the right to self-autonomy isn't unrestricted, so what about requiring vaccination is so bad that protecting the public health isn't worth the cost?

Anyways, if you are vaccinated, what is there to fear from the unvaccinated?

There is a lesser chance of me being infected if both you and I are vaccinated than if just I am vaccinated. I'm probably butchering statistics here, but if the vaccine is 90% effective and if I'm the only vaccinated person then there is a 10% chance of me catching COVID, but if everyone is vaccinated then there's a 1% chance (my numbers might be wrong, but I believe that the principle that I'm better protected if others are also vaccinated holds).

And there are people who for medical reasons should not be vaccinated. Me being vaccinated protects them, and as the cost of me being vaccinated is effectively nil, it would be unfair for me to put them at risk or for them to have to seclude themselves from society just so that I can refuse to be vaccinated as some matter of principle over self-autonomy.

This is what I based my statement on:

CDC COVID-19 Study Shows mRNA Vaccines Reduce Risk of Infection by 91 Percent for Fully Vaccinated People

In the new analysis, 3,975 participants completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 17 consecutive weeks (from December 13, 2020 to April 10, 2021) in eight U.S. locations. Participants self-collected nasal swabs that were laboratory tested for SARS-CoV-2, which is the virus that causes COVID-19. If the tests came back positive, the specimens were further tested to determine the amount of detectable virus in the nose (i.e., viral load) and the number of days that participants tested positive (i.e., viral shedding). Participants were followed over time and the data were analyzed according to vaccination status. To evaluate vaccine benefits, the study investigators accounted for the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 viruses in the area and how consistently participants used personal protective equipment (PPE) at work and in the community. Once fully vaccinated, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 91 percent. After partial vaccination, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 81 percent. These estimates included symptomatic and asymptomatic infections.

...

Other study findings suggest that fully or partially vaccinated people who got COVID-19 might be less likely to spread the virus to others. For example, fully or partially vaccinated study participants had 40 percent less detectable virus in their nose (i.e., a lower viral load), and the virus was detected for six fewer days (i.e., viral shedding) compared to those who were unvaccinated when infected. In addition, people who were partially or fully vaccinated were 66 percent less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection for more than one week compared to those who were unvaccinated. While these indicators are not a direct measure of a person’s ability to spread the virus, they have been correlated with reduced spread of other viruses, such as varicella and influenza.

The infected can spread the disease. Absent voluntary quarantine and isolation, I think more forceful measure would have to be taken and is justified. — NOS4A2

And that is why governments are requiring people to be vaccinated; because vaccination reduces the risk of infection. We're not in a position where we can immediately know if someone is infected, and it is perhaps impractical and too burdensome to require that everyone take daily tests and show proof that the results are negative (and I believe that lateral flow tests have a quite high false negative rate). Requiring vaccinations is the most practical way to reduce the number of infected people spreading the disease.

Governments aren't doing this because they have a hard-on for telling people what to do. They're doing this because that's what the medical science recommends.

So you accept that in principle the government (and private individuals?) can demand certain things from you if you are to benefit from some goods or service or employment they provide, if such demands are justified? You said before that you see a greater justification in restricting the sick than in restricting the unvaccinated, so I assume you accept the principle at least?

If so then it’s not sufficient to argue that one has a fundamental right to self-autonomy as a defence against restrictions against the unvaccinated as you accept that self-autonomy ought be restricted to some extent (whether for moral or for practical reasons). You need to argue that restrictions against the unvaccinated are a step too far. Why is it acceptable to restrict the sick (assuming you are against allowing people with Ebola for example to freely mingle with the public) but not the unvaccinated?

Sorry, now that I read back on it it isn’t clear. What I mean by it isn’t “stated somewhere” is that it isn’t a matter of what we “must” do. It’s a choice. Plenty of countries choose not have such mandates. It’s a matter of authoritarianism. — NOS4A2

I'm not talking specifically about vaccine mandates. I'm questioning this comment:

But no, I did not describe the proverbial war against all, or an eternal battle royal, only that some individuals are trying to impose their will on other individuals, which is closer to the spirit of war than any defense of fundamental rights. — NOS4A2

Any kind of government involves individuals imposing their will on other individuals. It's necessary for there to be a functioning society. Your apparent support of unrestricted self-autonomy leads to anarchy. Are you an anarchist? Or do you accept that — whether for moral reasons or for practical reasons — we must be forbidden from doing some things and required to do other things?

Whether or not vaccine mandates are one such requirement is a separate issue. Right now I just want to know the extent to which you will commit to this supposed "natural right" to self-autonomy.

especially when natural immunity can offer better protection than some vaccines, — NOS4A2

If true, then I suppose we could offer a choice between vaccination and just injecting with Covid. Those who choose the latter could then quarantine for two weeks or whatever the time frame is to gain their natural immunity. The only problem there is, I think studies have shown that the antibodies don't last that long after natural infection. — James Riley

It really is a curious argument.

Let's say that natural immunity grants a 90% protection and vaccines grant an 80% protection. Is that extra 10% protection worth having COVID in the first place? Obviously not if it kills you. And if it is worth it, then why? Because you're less likely to have COVID again? If having COVID is inevitable then I'd rather have it after being vaccinated than without being vaccinated — both because the symptoms will be less severe and because natural immunity plus vaccine immunity is surely better than natural immunity alone. But all-in-all I'd rather not ever have COVID, which is far more likely if I'm vaccinated.

I just don't see the sense in not being vaccinated.

Right, there are things we can't do and things we must do. And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. There is nothing unfeasible about it. — NOS4A2

I'm not saying that it's "stated somewhere" (I don't know what you mean by this or why you keep bringing it up) that vaccine mandates are things we must do. I'm saying that for society to function there are things we can't do and things we must do, and so that for society to function we cannot have unrestricted self-autonomy. Unrestricted self-autonomy leads to anarchy. Are you an anarchist?

And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. It’s a simple moral decision. — NOS4A2

Sure, and there are people who argue that the moral thing to do is to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of spreading a dangerous disease, and that requiring people to be vaccinated against said disease is one such reasonable step. The moral "imperative" to protect the population-at-large is considered to have a greater priority than the moral "right" to choose one's own medical treatment.

It's the same kind of argument that people make in favour of or against abortion; a woman is said to have a right to choose her own medical treatment, and an embryo/foetus/unborn baby is said to have a right to be born, and we must weigh which right has the greater priority.

But my main point is that a self-professed "absolute bodily autonomy" which you seemed to be arguing for seems infeasible in practice. For there to be a functioning society there are things we can't do and things we must do. And for some cases I think that the practical considerations override any moral considerations, e.g. it is immoral to sentence an innocent man to prison, but the reality of human fallibility is that innocent men are sentenced to prison, and that's a necessary evil.

only that some individuals are trying to impose their will on other individuals, which is closer to the spirit of war than any defense of fundamental rights. — NOS4A2

Are you an anarchist? Any form of government necessarily involves some group of people imposing their will on others (and each other).

I can't speak on anything like "natural rights" (as something of a physicalist, I'm skeptical of such supernatural notions), but this kind of complete self-autonomy you appear to be advocating seems unworkable in practice. A functioning society requires that there are some things we can't do and other things we have to do.

No I don't think that's the case. The defendant can't obtain reimbursement for the defendant's costs and fees if the defendant manages to prevail, though. — Ciceronianus

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/30/abortion-law-federal-court-decision-texas

In addition to a $10,000 penalty, SB8 would saddle violators of the law with their opponents’ attorneys fees. It provides no such relief for defendants, even if they win.

Even if the ad hom attacks were correct it would have no bearing on whether there were legitimate grounds to regulate abortion. — Hanover

This isn't what this law is though. This law allows random citizens to sue someone $10,000 for driving a woman to an abortion clinic, and doesn't reimburse defendants for their legal fees even if they win the case.

Some Democrat state should make an equivalent law regarding buying guns or registering as a Republican and see if the Supreme Court will make the same decision.

But, according to the HRO: "A court could not award costs or attorney's fees under the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure or any other rule adopted by the supreme court to a
defendant in a civil action." Also: "Any person, including an entity, attorney, or law
firm, who sought declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state from
enforcing certain laws that regulate or restrict abortion would be jointly
and severally liable to pay the costs and attorney's fees of the prevailing
party, as defined in the bill." — Ciceronianus

So if the defendant wins, he can't get his court costs paid by the person who brought the case, but if the defendant loses, he has to pay the court costs of the person who brought the case?

Nope, just a custom thing I figured out after reading your comment.

Although @SophitiCat's extension does still work (for some reason I thought it was removed), and that's more user-friendly.

If you're on Chrome install the Custom JavaScript for Websites 2 extension. Go to https://thephilosophyforum.com/ and click the CJS extension icon to open the extension. Ensure the host dropdown shows https://thephilosophyforum.com/ . Add the below line(s) (changing the names as required), then click Save.

If you're on Firefox install the javascript extension. Go to https://thephilosophyforum.com/ and click the JS extension icon to open the extension. Add the below line(s) (changing the names as required).


Chrome:


Firefox:

Why? This leads nowhere, nor does it prove anything. — jgill

Because it's comparable to passing every ${1\over{2^n}}m$ point between $0m$ and $1m$ in order. For the same reason that the count is impossible, so too is the movement. The impossibility has nothing to do with the length of time it would take and so isn't solved by referencing a convergent series of time intervals.

The paradox is easily resolved though by pointing to time intervals that get smaller if smaller space intervals are chosen in the formulation of the paradox. Like that there is no ground to make motion impossible. — Prishon

That doesn't resolve Zeno's paradox. There is more to Zeno's paradox than the oft stated claim that it would take an infinite amount of time to traverse an infinite number of points.

Consider the notion of counting every ${1}\over{2^n}$ between 0 and 1 in ascending order. Simply saying that if it takes $n$ seconds to count from $0$ to $0.5$, ${n}\over{2}$ seconds to count from $0$ to $0.25$, etc. and using the convergent series to show that the sum is finite doesn't show that it's possible to perform such a count.

There's the far more practical problem of where such a count starts. There is no first ${1}\over{2^n}$ to count after 0, and so you can't even start counting. There is no first ${1\over{2^n}}m$ point to move to, and so you can't even start moving.

A solution is that motion isn't continuous; it's discrete. There is some smallest unit of movement, e.g. the Planck length, and that such movement doesn't involve passing through some halfway point.

COVID-19 immunity: Natural infection compared to vaccination

It's likely that for most people vaccination against COVID-19 will induce more effective and longer lasting immunity than that induced by natural infection with the virus.

FYI this happens if you have a low number of posts and you post a discussion with links. Possibly same with replies.

Irrelevant. We are not, in any other walk of life obliged to reduce our risks until they are as low as it is possible to make them. In all other walks of life the obligation is only to reduce your risk to an acceptable level. My risk of needing hospital treatment from covid infection is below the level we already find acceptable for many other lifestyle choices. Stopping eating bacon is a lower risk than eating bacon (even though it might cause you some sadness), yet there's no moral obligation to do so simply because the risk is lower than the alternative. — Isaac

I'm not saying that you're morally obliged to get vaccinated because the risks from the vaccine are lower than the risks of COVID. I'm saying that it's irrational to not get vaccinated when the risks from the vaccine are lower than the risks of COVID (and when there are no positives to not being vaccinated, which is where eating bacon and skiing differ).

The moral obligation comes from the fact that a) it's irrational to not get vaccinated and b) not being vaccinated increases the risk of harm to others.

That others who ought to act in a chain of events aren't doing their bit does not remove a moral obligation to do my bit. I free up the supply. If others are too lazy, greedy or stupid to do with that what's needed, then that's not something I have any control over. Not doing my bit doesn't help, it just encourages the situation to persist. In lowering the demand in my country I'm opening the possibility for redistribution, that's all I can do. If I don't buy extra food it doesn't go to the starving either, it goes in the bin, so should we no longer care about food waste?

Regardless of what other people are doing, the fact of the matter is that either you take the vaccine or that vaccine goes to waste. Therefore "other people need the vaccine more" isn't a valid reason for refusing the vaccine, and so is an irrational reason.

As above, this alone isn't what establishes a moral obligation; the moral obligation comes in with the additional fact that not being vaccinated increases the risk of harm to others.

I didn't make any claim of fact, so it can't be false. I said I don't trust them. It's my preference.

I don't know how to interpret "I don't trust them" in this context as anything other than "I don't trust the safety or efficacy of the vaccine", which I don't know how to interpret as anything other than "I don't believe that the vaccine is safe and effective."

The vaccine is safe and effective; its risks are less than the risks of COVID and it reduces the chance of developing symptomatic COVID (and reduces the severity if symptoms develop).

So all-in-all, you have presented no rational reason to refuse the vaccine. It's irrational to refuse the vaccine and being unvaccinated puts others at risk. Therefore you ought be vilified.

In most cases I might not be able to tell if someone is in the midst of a psychotic break, but if they tell me that their foetus is the spawn of Satan and must be aborted I'm going to judge that their reason for having an abortion is irrational. But as someone who doesn't believe that foetuses are people, I would reject @Tzeentch's claim that abortion harms others and so wouldn't vilify her for getting an abortion despite the irrational reason, but whether or not foetuses are people is a matter for a different discussion.

Sure you are. And if the reasons for a woman to have an abortion are irrational by your standards, should she not be allowed to have? — Tzeentch

Possibly. If she is in the midst of a psychotic break and believes that the foetus is the spawn of Satan then I think there are reasons to prevent any rash decision that she may regret after treatment.

Didn't know you were the arbitrator of what is rational and what is not. — Tzeentch

I'm not the arbiter, but I am right.

Abortions affect others as well. — Tzeentch

And there are rational reasons to have an abortion, which is why it can be excused. Whereas there isn't a rational reason to not get vaccinated (except in those with health conditions that make vaccinations dangerous), and so can't be excused.

it's unnecessary for my age/health group the risk is lower than many other acceptable risks — Isaac

That risk is still greater than any risks from getting the vaccine, and so being vaccinated is better than being unvaccinated.

there is limited supply and my vaccine would be better off given to a diabetic slum dweller in India than to me

You not getting vaccinated doesn't mean that your vaccine gets to go to a diabetic slum dweller in India. It just means that your vaccine goes to waste.

Millions of Covid vaccines could go to waste as states stockpile them (USA)

Covid vaccines ‘thrown away as not enough people coming forward’ (UK)

I don't trust my health to a private profiteering corporation with more lobbying power than the arms industry.

So you're saying that you believe the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID? That's just flat-out false.

In what way are those less acceptable than - I like the taste.

In that your reasons are either false or irrational.

Yes, agreed. But the reasons we, as a society, currently find acceptable are not in question. I'm arguing about the data, no society's capricious preferences. — Isaac

The simple facts are that a) the risks of death and illness from the vaccine are less than the risks of death and illness from COVID (except for those who have health conditions that make vaccinations more dangerous), b) being unvaccinated against COVID increases the chances of placing a burden on the health care system (and possibly of transmitting the virus), even if young and healthy, and c) getting vaccinated is a minor inconvenience at best.

Therefore (except for those who have health conditions that make vaccinations more dangerous), there is no rational reason to not get vaccinated and so those who choose not to ought be vilified.

What people inject into their bodies is no business but their own. Whatever reasons they may have, no matter how illogical to outsiders, does not factor into whether they should have the right to make their own decision. To me, this discussion is as clear cut as abortion. — Tzeentch

If your decision affects others then reasons do matter. An irrational decision that harms others is one that ought be vilified. A rational decision that harms others is one that can be excused.

That's true. I don't see what that's got to do with the case I'm arguing. I'm not suggesting that society finds the risks from lack of vaccination to be acceptable, or the risks form eating bacon unacceptable. I'm quite clear on what society thinks of the matter. None of this changes the cold hard fact that the risks (for certain cohorts) are comparable. — Isaac

Assume that the effects on the health care system of people eating bacon is the same as the effects on the health care system of people not getting vaccinated against COVID. Given that the reason(s) for eating bacon are acceptable we don't vilify those who eat bacon, and given that the reason(s) for not getting vaccinated against COVID are unacceptable we vilify those who don't get vaccinated against COVID.

Way smaller than my chances of needing a hospital bed from a dozen other lifestyle choices not so vilified - like eating bacon, or drinking excess alcohol, or skiing, or... — Isaac

People who drink excess alcohol are vilified.

In cases like eating bacon or skiing they're not vilified (except by some vegetarians in the case of eating bacon) because we understand the reason(s) why people choose to do them, and deem them acceptable reasons. But this isn't the case for not getting a vaccine. Unless you have allergies or other underlying health conditions that make vaccinations more dangerous than COVID, there are no acceptable reasons to not have the vaccine. Even among those who have a low risk of death or serious illness from COVID, the risk of death or serious illness from the vaccine is even lower, so it's irrational to not get vaccinated, hence it being an unacceptable decision (given the effects having COVID may/can have on transmissibility and hospitalisation).

The vaccine reduces symptomatic Covid by reducing viral load. The question is whether it does so to a greater degree than a healthy immune system's own antibody production when taking the viral particles of the airway into account. We've only evidence that it does so on average (ignoring known cohort variation in immune response to SARs-cov-2 infection) — Isaac

I don't think there's any way of knowing if one's own natural immune system works better than or as well as the vaccine, so the studied average is the only evidence we can use to make the decision. Young and healthy people can, and have, caught COVID and been symptomatic, so one can't use one's age and lifestyle as evidence.

The scientific evidence is that getting the vaccine reduces the chances of illness and the severity of illness and of showing symptoms, and so if symptomatic COVID increases transmissibility then the vaccine reduces transmissibility.

Vaccines don't prevent you from being infected, nor from carrying the virus, they help you to clear the virus and so limit the chances of needing hospital care. The theorised reduction in transmission is because the viral load should be lower (on average) in the vaccinated because of this speedier clearance. Neither affect the viral load outside the bloodstream, in the nasal mucosa, for example, which, as I cited earlier, carries a significant proportion of the transmitted virus particles.

The point is, that as the current evidence stands there no reason to assume vaccination reduces viral load to any greater degree than a healthy immune system does (only the average immune system of the study's cohort), and there's no reason (no medical mechanism even) to assume it has any effect on the most transmissible viral load in the nasal mucosa. Hence the ambiguity about transmission. — Isaac

And it's not just about transmissibility. The increased hospitalisations of the unvaccinated increases the burden on the health care system, taking up ICU beds and doctors' time. That's part of the reason that those who refuse a vaccine are vilified. Getting a vaccine is hardly a burden, and doesn't require any lifestyle changes, and so refusing one is seen as a pointlessly selfish societal harm.

Vaccines don't prevent you from being infected, nor from carrying the virus, they help you to clear the virus and so limit the chances of needing hospital care. The theorised reduction in transmission is because the viral load should be lower (on average) in the vaccinated because of this speedier clearance. Neither affect the viral load outside the bloodstream, in the nasal mucosa, for example, which, as I cited earlier, carries a significant proportion of the transmitted virus particles.

The point is, that as the current evidence stands there no reason to assume vaccination reduces viral load to any greater degree than a healthy immune system does (only the average immune system of the study's cohort), and there's no reason (no medical mechanism even) to assume it has any effect on the most transmissible viral load in the nasal mucosa. Hence the ambiguity about transmission. — Isaac

One thing to consider is that the symptomatic are probably more likely to spread the disease than the asymptomatic simply because they cough a lot more, so if the vaccination reduces the chances of symptomatic COVID then the vaccination reduces transmissibility, irrespective of whether or not it reduces viral load.