Covid-19 (Coronavirus) - Please stay safe, y'all

[PowerGod]

It's always the same infinite discussion of:
A: "I don't want to use vaccine, because it's my body !!"
B: "But if you don't use it, you can indirectly kill someone else that was unable to get it !!"

 

[Djoga'Ro]

Vaccination is about fighting a pathogen, not about forcing people into obedience. It's a tool, that has already successfully been used to wipe out diseases. It doesn't work, when too many are left untreated. Do you leave it to a toddler or a pet, if they want to get vaccinated? Some are just not mature enough in this regard - be it out of angst or whatever else skews their perception.
Now, someone please tell me, how ordered vaccination comes anywhere close to something like that social credit system China is doing? Typical case of "Get some perspective!"

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

if we ignore the fact it'll have been extensively tested and validated first.

Yes, because lobbying and corruption only happens in other countries like China. The government of [insert your country's name here] can be completely and blindly trusted with our body and health now and in the future—and in fact that trust should be enforced under gunpoint. That's the hallmark of a free country: it forces people to trust their body and health to their government's judgement under threat of violence.

It's always the same infinite discussion of:
A: "I don't want to use vaccine, because it's my body !!"
B: "But if you don't use it, you can indirectly kill someone else that was unable to get it !!"

Wrong. It's:
A. I do not want to use vaccinations, because I think it's not safe or not needed.
B. I want to force you to use vaccinations, because I think that I need you to use it.

No one refuses a vaccination just because it's "their body". That's merely a reason why refusing it should be allowed, not why it's done. In the end both sides want to protect their own health, but one side wants to infringe upon humans rights of others to do so and the other side does not.

Do you leave it to a toddler or a pet, if they want to get vaccinated?

Good comparison. Should we also have the government force us to eat our fruit? Because I would not leave it to a toddler what to eat either.

Now, someone please tell me, how ordered vaccination comes anywhere close to something like that social credit system China is doing? Typical case of "Get some perspective!"

A surveillance state like China helps the government catch pedophiles and terrorists. Do you want children to be abused? Besides, they say they only use the data for good things. So stop being selfish and give up your right to privacy!
A mandatory vaccination state helps the government stop viruses. Do you want people who cannot get a vaccination to die due to the Corona virus? Besides, they say that they only give safe vaccins. So stop being selfish and give up your right to autonomy over your body and health!
It's comparable. You just need to get some perspective to see it.

 

[levi]

Lobbying of our health service by big pharma has been and still is a big concern here. We have to be sceptical when these vaccines come out of the same companies that have been guilty of lobbying for bad medicine already. But thankfully in my country at least, those that make the decision have been largely immune to big pharma pushing opioids and the likes, certainly more than they used to be in the 1970s and 80s when everyone seemed to know someone older addicted to valium. I certainly will be paying attention to the tests these drugs are going to go through.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

So you"re saying, adding XP to your immune system without your willingness is at least as bad if not worse than reconditioning your mental state and those of everyone around you? What mental state are you in right now?

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

I certainly will be paying attention to the tests these drugs are going to go through.

Checking evidence would be completely pointless if vaccines were mandatory. What's the point of checking evidence if you have to take the vaccins anyway regardless of what your findings are?

So you"re saying, adding XP to your immune system without your willingness is at least as bad if not worse than reconditioning your mental state and those of everyone around you? What mental state are you in right now?

"So you're saying 'Keeping people safe by keeping a close watch on criminals and enforcing proper order is just as bad as forcing people to have whatever stuff you want injected into them?'"

You are assuming that one side is honest and the other side is not. What gives you the right to make that call for other people to the extent that your judgement would overrule their human rights?

 

[PowerGod]

Wrong. It's:
A. I do not want to use vaccinations, because I think it's not safe or not needed.
B. I want to force you to use vaccinations, because I think that I need you to use it.

As I said, "the infinite discussion".

 

[Djoga'Ro]

When a global consensus is found to erradicate a certain pathogen, both the production of a vaccine and the distribution each can easily be done by a multitude of institutions/organizations instead of a single party, with which there would be a much higher probability of a hidden agenda - if that's what you're fearing.
And a passive vaccine is nothing but the disabled pathogen for the immune system to learn to recognize.

The means to behavioral control in the hands of one massive (and in the example seemingly suppressive) government is a thing on an entirely different scale.

If you didn't notice, what I take issue in are these words:

it cannot get more totalitarian than forced vaccines

Mind you, you said vaccines, not arbitrary injections. So something with very low potential to do harm, if done right, and high potential to do a ton of good. Of course the potential gain depends on the pathogen. It wouldn't be high with the annually changing flu - not if it's about trying to wipe it out that is.
Of course the pressure to suppress a certain disease should be high to consider enforced vaccination. But it isn't - by far - the worst you could do to someone, and it shouldn't be ruled out.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

When a global consensus is found to erradicate a certain pathogen, both the production of a vaccine and the distribution each can easily be done by a multitude of institutions/organizations instead of a single party, with which there would be a much higher probability of a hidden agenda - if that's what you're fearing.

I think that when someone's human rights depend on it should be up to every individual to decide for himself how high that risk is.

So something with very low potential to do harm, if done right, and high potential to do a ton of good.

For this I have the same question: who gets to decide how high the risk and reward is when someone's own body is on the line? Should scientists/governments have more authority over people's bodies than those people themselves have?

I'm not arguing that vaccines are harmful, but that it should be up to the people to place the final verdict when their own rights are involved. Should we also allow police to break into our houses and scan for child porn to protect children? Should we allow surveillance state in order to save lives by catching terrorists? Should we allow forced vaccinations to stop deadly viruses? Should we allow Chinese totalitarianism to stop crime and prevent mass shootings?
There is always a good-looking excuse for giving up any basic human rights.

Of course the pressure to suppress a certain disease should be high to consider enforced vaccination.

No, you would not get to decide that. If the government can make vaccins mandatory then the government gets to decide how high the pressure should be. You cannot have your cake and eat it too; the government cannot have the power to make vaccins mandatory but only if the people think the pressure is high enough. Because then any vaccin would be optional since people could say that it's not necessary to make it mandatory and then refuse it. If any vaccin can be made mandatory at all then all vaccins can be made mandatory no matter how dangerous they are. So either you give the government the power to make important safe vaccins mandatory along with the power to make dangerous vaccins mandatory or you do not give them the power to make any vaccin mandatory at all. There is no middle ground.

There are many cases where extra power for the government would grant the government the ability to better protect the people while at the same time granting it the ability to harm the people unchecked. Take China for example: the Chinese government can better catch criminals and keep order with their set-up; but they can also better catch whistle blowers and oppress people.

The government simply is not a solution to everything. To some extend the people will have to be trusted to be able to make their own calls and protect themselves. If the government wants to protect the people then they should educate the people in how to take care for themselves while respecting the people's rights.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

I'm not advocating a law that alows a government to shoot up our veines, whatever they deem neat. I merely say, our morals/ethics should leave room for exceptions, to overrule given law, when necessary.
Assume a highly infectious virus comes around, that kills 50% and leaves every survivor with lasting damage - let's say sth. causing shortness of breath. Then have them find, that passive vaccination gets 90% of the treated immune. Time to hone the needles, I'd say.
Also, what are dangerous vaccines? I'm aware, that a dose or batch or the instruments can be contaminated just like the food you buy can be poisonous.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

Assume a highly infectious virus comes around, that kills 50% and leaves every survivor with lasting damage - let's say sth. causing shortness of breath. Then have them find, that passive vaccination gets 90% of the treated immune. Time to hone the needles, I'd say.

Indeed, since most people would want their optional vaccine. Though the government would have to spent some time proving the importance of the vaccine to the people and educating the people. That's what you get in a system where the people are in power. You cannot treat them like babies and force them to blindly trust you. In theory this can be bad but in practice it works out much better than a government which can overrule human rights.

Also, what are dangerous vaccines?

Vaccines that can have an adverse effect. It does not even matter to me here if they exist, it's just a side-effect of a free country that the government has to convince and educate the people before they can touch their bodies, children, privacy, or property. A free country where the government can overrule human rights based on nothing but the government's own judgement is an oxymoron. If there existed a way to make the government only be able to mandate important safe vaccines then I would be all for it. I would also love for giving the government the power to spy on only criminals. But it just does not work like that. If the government can mandate any vaccine at all based on nothing but their own judgement, then they could mandate all of them. If they can spy on criminals, then they can spy on whistle blowers. It's a trade-off between security against the government and security by the government. I think this trade-off hits it's sweet spot when the government is only allowed to enforce things that virtually everyone agrees on (e.g. murder, theft, pedophilia, rape) and only through fair trials that respects people's rights. As soon as they can just decide to take away someone's rights with no justification but their word then that gets me worried.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

So individual spying can be decided by a judge, but mandatory vaccination cannot be decided by the medical academia?
Of course it's important, if there are dangerous vaccines or not. Or rather, if a vaccine in question bears danger.

I think this trade-off hits it's sweet spot when the government is only allowed to enforce things that virtually everyone agrees on

Your sweet spot eliminates any need to write laws, apply law or enforce law.

(e.g. murder, theft, pedophilia, rape)

Your examples suggest, that the sane - or rather humanitarian - majority may suppress those with an urge to kill, steal, or fuck children or unwilling sexual partners. In my book that's heavier encroachment than enforcing a vaccine shot, unless you constantly vaccinate everybody or disallow killing, stealing, raping whatever only very occationaly.

Since you yourself mention trade-offs, again, if a vaccine bears danger or not, is an important fact.

 

[PowerGod]

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

So individual spying can be decided by a judge, but mandatory vaccination cannot be decided by the medical academia?

So you want to equate a public court of law punishing people after it's been proven by a fair trial where they got to defend themselves that they've actually committed a crime to private academia deciding in closed chambers for everyone that they should be vaccinated just in case?

Your sweet spot eliminates any need to write laws, apply law or enforce law.

Many people commit crimes even though they know it's wrong. They act against their morality for the sake of some form of gain. Or do you think that a thief won't feel wronged if you steal something that he honestly worked for?

Your examples suggest, that the sane - or rather humanitarian - majority may suppress those with an urge to kill, steal, or fuck children or unwilling sexual partners. In my book that's heavier encroachment than enforcing a vaccine shot, unless you constantly vaccinate everybody or disallow killing, stealing, raping whatever only very occationaly.

We have to have some form of balance. We both are suggesting that the government should be able to decide some things but not other things. The difference is that your balance needs a government that's more powerful than the people because otherwise groups like anti-vaxxers would take the government down while my balance would need the people to be more powerful than the government because that's the only way to keep a government minimal.

 

[Djhg2000]

So if I take this newsbite: We Should Prepare For a US Outbreak of Coronavirus, Not Because We May Feel Personally at Risk, But So That We Can Help Lessen the Risk For Everyone.

And mix it with with your newsbite, then there is the moral obligation to invade help the country to lessen the outbreak risk for everyone all humanity!

/sarcasm

Well according to their now deceased infected health minister, everything is under control. The irony there is almost literally painful. For better or worse, the US approach of banning flights from Iran is probably the most effective course of action.

Meanwhile in Sweden we now have 16 confirmed cases. One originating from someone who came back Wuhan in January (this was our first case and as far as we know it was successfully contained), four five originated from visits to Iran, and the remaining 13 from holidays in Italy. Stockholm is now getting two specially equipped ambulances which will be on patrol 12 hours per day, visiting people with symptoms and administering the tests on the spot instead of having the patients go to a hospital. I wish they would be available in Göteborg as well where the majority of cases are, but it's a step in the right direction.

Edit: The fifth case from Iran was initially misreported by local news media; it was left out in the origin tracing list but the person in question is now confirmed to have recently returned after visiting Iran.

 

[levi]

Well according to their now deceased health minister, everything is under control. The irony there is almost literally painful.

The Iranian deputy health minister only got diagnosed on Tuesday; as far as I can find he's not actually died yet and may well not do given he's not that old and likely to receive the best healthcare the country can provide.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

So you want to equate a public court of law punishing people after it's been proven by a fair trial where they got to defend themselves that they've actually committed a crime to private academia deciding in closed chambers for everyone that they should be vaccinated just in case?

I'm not talking about trials. Isn't the police presenting a case to a judge to get permission to spy on a suspect in ways, that normally aren't allowed?

Many people commit crimes even though they know it's wrong.

What does that even mean? They know it isn't acceptable to the society they live in, they themself obviously make an exception.

Or do you think that a thief won't feel wronged if you steal something that he honestly worked for?

Most thieves also feel wronged, when you steal from them what they stole themselves. In their mind different individuals have different rights - I'm not saying, they made a conscious decision about it.

From your point of view, should taxes even be allowed?

 

[Djhg2000]

The Iranian deputy health minister only got diagnosed on Tuesday; as far as I can find he's not actually died yet and may well not do given he's not that old and likely to receive the best healthcare the country can provide.

Correct, I must have mixed him up with someone else. I fixed the post. My newsfeed is getting more than slightly chaotic.

Thanks for catching that.

 

[λ the β-Redex Reducer]

What does that even mean?

It means that it goes against their morals but they do it anyway for other reasons like e.g. monetary gain. Do you really think that thieves are motivated by ethical reasons instead of just monetary gain? What about people who steal random bikes? Or scammers who scam poor people?

From your point of view, should taxes even be allowed?

How do you imagine free government? Personally I think that is not even logistically possible. The best possible solution that might work is optional citizenship were taxes and all the advantages that come with it such as police protection are optional. Kind of like how old Roman citizenship was optional. Whether that would work or not, I'm pretty sure taxes are necessary.

 

[Djoga'Ro]

It means that it goes against their morals but they do it anyway for other reasons like e.g. monetary gain. Do you really think that thieves are motivated by ethical reasons instead of just monetary gain? What about people who steal random bikes? Or scammers who scam poor people?

Their morality allows for their stealing/scamming, that's all. Could be made into law. Consider Rocket's moral make-up:

I'm pretty sure taxes are necessary.

And I'm just saying, high density application of a certain vaccine might one day be necessary - even necessarier than a functioning government. If that need arises, it should be a moral possibility to execute even without consent.