The vaccination question is simple:
Is the government allowed to dictate medical intervention?
@b6hydra there are already signs that the vaccines might be selecting for more virulent and transmissible strains of the virus.
value judgements on whether people should be allowed to harm themselves should be based on science, not political expediency.
particularly when the topic of conversation is violation of human rights
my body, my choice, no?
@skells Usually I'd agree with 'my body, my choice'. But this is a virus which affects other people too... Not sure if that's still 100% a 'my body, my choice' case.
Just something to ponder about philosophically. I know my government is not going to enforce vaccination, but a lot of people in my country are willing to vaccinate so it's thankfully not a terribly huge point of discussion here.
🇳🇱
The greater good would beserved equally well if everyone who wanted to worse hazmat suits actually. If you think about it it still offers 100% protection for everyone in the group, so the "greater good" of vaccination is still served. Plus it has the added benefit of allowing people personal freedom and opt out without disrupting the aforementioned positive effect... Therefore it would be an even greater good because you get personal freedom on top of preventing the virus.
Well what is the greater good of vaccination? Remember none of the current vaccines could reach herd immunity even with 100% adoption. Also recall that being vaccinated does not stop you from transmitting it.
People dont die is the only greater good here, people who want to be protected can be by taking the vaccine and then they wont die, thats really the only greater good.
Ergo, by not making vaccines mandatory you can still get all the safety of a vaccine by taking the vaccine, and people not taking the vaccine in no way disrupts the "good" you get out of it, but it adds another level of "good" which is personal freedom. So not requiring vaccines produces a greater good than requiring it.
@freemo Aha, that's a clearer explanation, thanks. In this case I'd be inclined to agree with you by the mere fact that the vaccins don't give full herd immunity. It does help, however, so it should still be highly encouraged. The infection % does get lower and the hospitals do get burdened less. So... in a way... it's not totally unreasonable to somewhat limit 'my body, my choice' there, I think. But as @b6hydra mentioned, having other rules in effect still (distancing, masks) can help with trying to keep said freedom.
@trinsec
I am all for fairly and honestly encouraging vaccination. Though I do think we need to be patient and not rush vaccines too. I think we skipped some important steps to get it out the door too quickly. But thats not enough of a reason to discourage them either. I just think some degree of caution or delay in this case makes some sense.
That said, I do agree in the case of herd immunity the argument shifts in your favor in terms of having some reason to argue your perspective logically and all. But even if that were the case I would say vaccination should be something you achieve through education, not force.
In fact the more I see it being forced on people in the USA (albeit indirectly for the moment) the more people resist it and the fewer people are willing to get it. So I'm not sure its a good tactic no matter how you dice it.
@b6hydra @skells