Knowledge You Can Build On — Est. 1998
Vaccination is not a personal choice.
Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)
Mike, we all are aware that an individual can be asymptomatic and still pass on the virus. All those who are capable of doing so place the rest of the population, and the world, at risk by prolonging its viability. Vaccination is not a personal choice.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I disagree...
John in NM
As foolish as I think it is to refuse vaccination, I think it is even more foolish to lend legitimacy to the authoritarian streak that societies always show when there exists a broad fear due to a real or perceived emergency.
Far better to acknowledge the freedom to be foolish and appeal to the ability to reason that we all possess, even the skeptics. Bill's post above is a great example of that approach.
Doing so makes for a more healthy society, which one could argue is more important than the health of individuals within the society.
Re: I disagree...
Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)
John, I have been a rebel all my life and value the right for every person to speak their mind ... but this does not mean freedom to do as one pleases. There are rules and laws made for the greater good. I also recognise that this process is not without flaws.
Should we disregard traffic signals and speed limits within the city? There are a million other examples I could provide. Just one more ...
In Australia there has been gun control since 1996, which followed the Port Arthur massacre. New Zealand followed suite recently following a similar shooting. Yes, there were howls of protest from a small minority, but the fact is that we have not had a non-political shooting since. I am fully aware that this would not fly in the USA.
Closer to the topic, Covid has been either fully controlled (in Western Australia and a few other states) or being controlled (in New South Wales - recent cases linked to aircrew). The Premiers (= Governors) of the states, along with the Prime Minister of Australia, closed borders and instituted lockdowns .... and these worked because the public recognised the greater good.
Regards from Perth
Derek
There is no greater good...
John in NM
The only available good comes from trusting your fellows to eventually come around to the understanding that society's best interests and their own lie along the same path. Nothing else works, whether in our personal relationships, our work relationships, or our civil relationships.
Civil society only functions when I trust you to not murder or rob me, and you trust me to extend the same courtesy to you. This trust is what prompts most of us to obey traffic signals, not fear of retribution from the authorities. Not everyone participates in this trust, but enough of us do that the system functions. This is nothing more than the social contract.
To address your concept of the greater good, I will just point out an example of it's abuse that I recall clearly - the torture of individuals defined as enemies of the US in order to gain information. An horrific, indefensible policy justified by the fig leaf of that greater good - the promise that it was saving lives.
That was no more a greater good than yours is. Yours is working locally because it is in line with your locality's take on the social contract. It won't serve world wide however, and that is why I take issue with it in this case.
Hold the phone...
Jim Matthews
"To address your concept of the greater good, I will just point out an example of it's abuse that I recall clearly - the torture of individuals defined as enemies of the US in order to gain information. An horrific, indefensible policy justified by the fig leaf of that greater good - the promise that it was saving lives."
You just compared a public health regime to torture and renditions.
By that reasoning, Polio would still cripple and Measles would kill.
Freedom is a balance between solitude and solidarity.
Anti-vaxx proles need their own island.
Extreme examples illustrate concepts...
John in NM
Nothing more. The idea being illustrated is that the same logic has been used to justify the unjustifiable as is currently being used to justify the clearly justifiable. The extreme example is intended to make one consider the costs/benefit of simply overriding opposition using the "greater good" by pointing out a case where the costs are clear and obvious.
While I sympathize with your conclusion - excluding those with whom we disagree is not the solution, it simply rejects the idea of a social contract and further polarizes our society.
In a more subtle way, Derek is banishing the vaccine refusers to an island as well. I'm not arguing that they are right to refuse vaccination, I'm arguing that we would not be right to override that refusal and do it by force. Force is where the greater good line always ends.
Spare us...
Jim Matthews
Libertarian mythology is running the US into a ditch, again.
No successful, stable society operates this way.
Insistence on rights while abrogating responsibilities is for adolescents. It's called "Public Health" for a reason.
I foresee an open revolt from shopkeepers refusing service to the unvaccinated and similar restrictions in schools.
There's an extreme position alright, staked out by those that deny the existence of the obvious.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436519300507
Happy to... that bit is at the bottom of the post.
John in NM
Libertarian experimentation is what brought you the society you enjoy today, with all its perks and historically unprecedented prosperity. Public health is exactly what it says it is - it is the level of health of the public at large, a description rather than a policy.
When do I endorse abrogating responsibilities? I endorse the very adult concept of allowing people to make their own choices, trusting them to come to the right ones - those beneficial to themselves and their neighbors, endorse offering information to help them with those choices, and then allowing them to suffer the consequences of making the wrong choice. Much as I enjoy being called adolescent, I tend to find that shoe on your foot rather than my own.
Stores have every right to refuse service to people they view as unwelcome, and I have every right to take my business elsewhere if I find their refusal of service to follow unreasonable lines . It is simply part of the cause and effect feedback that used to keep the bulk of our society reasonable and accommodating of the views of others.
I will not engage in the political side of the discussion, because there is a long tradition here of politely agreeing to disagree on matters of politics. I feel that the subject of the pandemic skates awfully close to the thin ice, but we could still discuss it a bit, and we have likely come to the end of polite discussion now.
Now, since I envision this discussion to go further off the rails, without a doubt due to your enthusiastic help, the last word is yours. Use it well for a change.
[ADMIN] I think we've made our points
Ellis Walentine
Reasonable discussions are reasonable because they *don't* go off the rails, not because people don't disagree, so I'm not expecting this one to get out of control. I've been wrong before. What I am expecting, here on our messageboards at least, is that everyone acknowledge the others' rights to make their own decisions, and welcome the opportunity to communicate their views for the sake of greater understanding all around. Reasonable, far-reaching and convincing arguments have the capacity to enlighten, to overcome objection, and to instill a sense of the common good, which we have agreed is fundamental to the social contract that makes our society viable. We don't live in a utopian society where everyone has the same values. The trick is to find accommodation with others who don't share ours. One reason why politics and religion have always been off limits here is that they reduce reasonable discourse to mutually exclusive positions.
I'm not expecting any last words on this subject. We will have to live with the sum total of our individual decisions. Please listen to each other and to larger brains, and try to make the right ones. Think of society as a whole.
Ellis Walentine
WoodCentral
I will get it as soon as it's an option
David Weaver
...at the same time, I'd never support it being mandatory.
Re: Vaccination is not a personal choice.
frank morgan
Why is smoking then a personal choice? You mean, its ok for to kill himself? Even though his smoking costs you tax funding of research, survivor benefits, second hand smoke, etc. If society has decided smoking is ok, it is his personal choice. However, its your choice to avoid him and others like him too.
Re: Vaccination is not a personal choice.
Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)
Frank ...
Smoking in private is a personal choice - kill yourself. I don’t care. BUT smoking in public is increasingly not a personal choice in many areas - this is certainly the case in Australia - since passive smoking kills others. Again, the issue is for the greater good.
With regard Covid, the view from Oz is that overseas - and even internal - travel will not take place while Covid exists in other destinations. How does one prevent spreading or maintaining the Covid virus without eradicating it?
Regards from Perth
Derek
More false equivalences
Jim Matthews
"However, its your choice to avoid him and others like him too."
Presumably you can see (or smell) someone smoking.
Infectious viruses don't come with warning labels, flashing lights or proximity alarms.
Anyone who has set foot inside a hospital in the last six months knows this.
Re: Vaccination is not a personal choice.
al morgan
Well I don't understand, you admit that smoking is still a personal choice as you admit it currently exists in many countries all over the world, even if "increasingly" its being mitigated. So my example is still valid.
But, if I must, then what about drinking...surely drinking is a personal choice, yet it can have severe health outcomes too.
Anyway, I'm reminded by the Ben Franklin quote:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I realize covid is a serious threat, but so are loosing our right to live our lives to our lawful standards of conduct...not of the non legislative decrees of government and the "new" priests of science (ie scientific experts). However, I admit that wearing a mask helps to mitigate the spread and not wearing a mask may pose a risk to others - but the effectiveness of said mask wearing is still being debated.
And as far as the threat of covid, its skewed so much to those over 80 and with existing health problems that some argue the overall blanket lockdowns, shutdowns seems by many to be overreaction....a hammer solution when a nuanced one is the right choice. Secondly, shutdowns/lockdowns are having a cost in lives too...increased suicides, job losses, increased poverty, put off optional health care for other diseases,...the list goes on.
And in the US we spent over $2 Trillion on the first covid relief, yet we only spend $158 bill last year for cancer ...where over 600,000 people die each year. Right now we stand at 350,000 covid dead. Money doesn't compare for the 600k cancer dead and their survivors does it. It seems to me, this is the new crisis of the moment, and ignores the really greater crises. Public opinion is a fickle thing I guess.
So on the face of it, you are much more likely to die from cancer this year than covid. And much of those cancers come from "life style" choices. Its estimated up to 50% could have been prevented. But for covid we meekly accept mandatory lockdowns/shutdowns and mask/hand washing for the "greater good".
Doesn't seem a greater good to me.
Good luck.
Re: Vaccination is not a personal choice.
Jack Dover
A really thought provoking post, Al, and a quite articulated too.
Ben Franklin was undeniably right: liberties can't be given up. Would you please explain which essential liberties would be given up if we (i.e. citizens of the country) would follow "new priests of science" guidelines, specifically?
Also, while I'm sure you have numbers to support claims about this new virus is being skewed so much to those over 80 and with existing health problems, but I just wonder which source they came from and in which way is this source related to the "new priests of science"?
A really great point about costs of lockdowns. True indeed that everything in life comes with a price tag attached, a major and massive lockdown just can't be free. Surely there's a reviewed research proving that increased suicides, job losses and increased poverty, etc. aren't caused by a systematic crisis in the current political and economic system, isn't there? I mean it would be really nice to make sure there's actual spike caused by a lockdown, not just a mere correlation.
Also what drove it home for me personally is your comparison of $2 trillions of economic relief paid to large corporations and $158 billions of government cancer research funding in a country with a private healthcare system. This just can't be argued with.
Other than that it was a very strong message, Al! I just wish that more people could have structured thinking.
Re: I will get it as soon as it's an option
Jack Dover
It's not going to work though, if it's optional. There's a bunch of concerns on safety of this particular vaccine, but in general a vaccine is not a magic protection potion. Our vaccination policy has a group goal of immunity, it can't be achieved if a significant part of the population refuses for whatever reasons. Once it's achieved or vaccination levels are sufficient - it can be optional, but definitely not today. Today's exemptions are given because of herd immunity, but back in a day of epidemics vaccinations were enforced.
Re: Vaccination is not a personal choice.
Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)
Well I don't understand, you admit that smoking is still a personal choice as you admit it currently exists in many countries all over the world, even if "increasingly" its being mitigated. So my example is still valid.
Al, tolerance is desirable for anything ... as long as that activity does not impact negatively on another.
To consider that only one's views and interests are important, and to disregard those of others - an inflated sense of their own importance, in other words - is the very essence of narcissism.
But, if I must, then what about drinking...surely drinking is a personal choice, yet it can have severe health outcomes too.
Drinking has its problems, but unlike smoking, it does not have a direct impact on others. That is, by drinking (in moderation), you cannot make another drunk. Drinking becomes alcoholism when a line is crossed. Even at this level, unless it impacts on others, every person is entitled to kill themselves. The thing is that one does not just damage one's body in isolation - we interact with others all the time, as husbands or wives, parents, siblings, children, colleagues, friends ...
Anyway, I'm reminded by the Ben Franklin quote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This is waay out of context. These words appear in a letter widely presumed to be written by Franklin in 1755 on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor. The letter wasn’t about liberty but about taxes and the ability to “raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks".
I realize covid is a serious threat, but so are loosing our right to live our lives to our lawful standards of conduct...not of the non legislative decrees of government and the "new" priests of science (ie scientific experts). However, I admit that wearing a mask helps to mitigate the spread and not wearing a mask may pose a risk to others - but the effectiveness of said mask wearing is still being debated.
You are over-reaching, over-generalising to justify your views.
And as far as the threat of covid, its skewed so much to those over 80 and with existing health problems that some argue the overall blanket lockdowns, shutdowns seems by many to be overreaction....a hammer solution when a nuanced one is the right choice. Secondly, shutdowns/lockdowns are having a cost in lives too...increased suicides, job losses, increased poverty, put off optional health care for other diseases,...the list goes on. And in the US we spent over $2 Trillion on the first covid relief, yet we only spend $158 bill last year for cancer ...where over 600,000 people die each year. Right now we stand at 350,000 covid dead. Money doesn't compare for the 600k cancer dead and their survivors does it. It seems to me, this is the new crisis of the moment, and ignores the really greater crises. Public opinion is a fickle thing I guess. So on the face of it, you are much more likely to die from cancer this year than covid. And much of those cancers come from "life style" choices. Its estimated up to 50% could have been prevented. But for covid we meekly accept mandatory lockdowns/shutdowns and mask/hand washing for the "greater good"
Without meaning to minimise the terribleness of cancer, it is not contagious, and does not have the potential to spread and overwhelm the world. Covid has the power to shut everything down ... for a long, long time.
Doesn't seem a greater good to me.
Wake up and look around you. Open your eyes.
Good luck.
The only thing we agree on.
Regards from Perth
Derek
There's precedent, and memory is fleeting
Jim Matthews
The current debacle is because Public Health measures have been successful in living memory. Few in the US are old enough to remember Iron Lungs, let alone Polio.
The fact that Measles was once an inevitable scourge that disproportionately killed the very young has been largely shrugged off.
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline#EVT_100526
It's similar to building luxury condos next to a surprisingly uninhabited river.
People forget.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/29/140044467/vermont-floods-may-be-as-bad-as-monumental-1927-flood
your claims are flawed
Bill Tindall, E.Tn.
hospitalization and death rates from Covid by age
Anyone over 65 and people with a host of other problems are categorized as "at risk" by CDC and WHO. I suspect a large fraction of the people on this Forum fall in the at risk category.
Provide a reputable reference for your statement that 50% of cancer deaths are "preventable", not that he cancer argument has anything to do with vaccination.
The large amounts of money you quote were for mitigating economic damage to the economy. What this fact has to do with your stance on vaccination remains unclear.
Which brings me to a question at the start of this discussion that no one answered.....Why? Why would anyone not get a Covid vaccine? Fear?
Re: There's precedent, and memory is fleeting
Bill Tindall, E.Tn.
I remember lining up in the cafeteria with the line ending with a shot for polio. My mother would have made any sacrifice to keep me in that line. Mothers found the disease terrifying.
Again I ask why not get vaccinated?
No easy answer...
John in NM
I live in a rural county and know a great variety of people here. I know a fair number who do not intend to rush out and get vaccinated for various reasons.
Some have religious objections. I don't understand the rationale behind them, but then I am not a religious person so I make an effort not to judge.
The largest fraction just seem to think they don't need it. They have largely gone about their normal lives, making adjustments for reduced business hours and such, but have seen only minor effects of this virus on the whole. The two zip codes in which I know the most people have fewer than 70 confirmed cases between them, to give you an idea of the context here and why it may not be viewed as such a big deal as in the cities.
Incidentally, the preceding group is also the most open to being convinced to change their minds on the subject.
A few outliers have political objections, although personally I think those people and their corollaries on the opposite pole consume far too much monotone media to be objective on the subject, or really most subjects.
One I know from my former work is a rampant, and I personally think bat guano crazy, conspiracy theorist. I rapidly changed the subject whenever he started on anything that could lead to his enthusiastic recital of some dopey theory or another.
Everyone I know personally who has had it has not had a serious case, and I can only suppose that serious cases are too abstract for a lot of people to take seriously if they don't witness the effects personally or at a single remove. I can understand why they would view it as about as big a deal as a flu shot and miss the bigger picture. Its not like polio, which had constant reminders in the form of both neighbors and public figures suffering from its long term effects.
I've also noted for many years now how hostile people are to ideas that they do not hold themselves. Probably half the people I know who resist the notion of vaccination act this way, as well as a greater proportion of those who think that it should be mandatory.
My own view is that these vaccines are an amazing accomplishment, being developed with such speed and success. Understanding just the basics of how they work as opposed to traditional vaccines is enough to understand that there is zero chance of the vaccine infection sometimes seen with some traditional vaccination methods. From a point of view such as my own, it is irrational to refuse it, but then I see a lot of irrationality in everyone and can only suppose that others see it in my behavior as well. None of us are robots so it is only practical to make allowances for whatever our neighbor's personal crazy points are.
Re: There's precedent, and memory is fleeting
Dick Coers
My Mother was affected enough she kept my polio card from 1964. The card was in her jewelry box. Found it after her death.
Do you see any need to keep
Wiley Horne
Hospital ER’s and ICU’s from being overrun, in locales with high case rates?
Do you have any concern for the doctors and nurses caring for the sick? Or that they may decide to stop coming in every day? We tend to take these people for granted, is why I ask.
Wiley
death vs age data
Bill Tindall, E.Tn.
People should be making their vaccination decisions based on accurate data. Yesterday in Tennessee the following died:
20- 81 and over
17- 71 to 80
6 - 61 to 70
10- 51-60
2 - 41 to 50
It has been a consistent story from the start. Less than 40 symptoms are rarely life threatening. However, expose a 40 year old to their grandparent and the result could be fatal. I have a friend in the situation right now. Got it from daughter because they were not careful.
This is on the mark
Jim Matthews
My real worry is that we lose a generation of medical professionals.
It takes 15 years to train a doctor, more than 8 to field a competent nurse.
Those in the pipeline right now should be having second thoughts.
It's as if no one believes this is a real threat until they're gasping.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/26/los-angeles-coronavirus-surge-hospitals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
