Wartime draft vs vaccine mandate

[zorq]

I know I shouldn't inject another analogy, but I can't help it.

Show

Pushing people off of cliffs shouldn't be illegal. I mean it doesn't really even hurt them at all. It's just a little nudge on their shoulder. Sure, that sudden stop at the bottom of the canyon might hurt them a little bit, but what if they land on a nice squishy balloon and everything is okay? I hear that the bottom of this canyon is 99% soft squishy balloons so we should legalize pushing people off of this cliff! Only punish people if their victim hits that 1% that's hard and dangerous. That's enough to keep everyone safe!

Here's the thing, you don't have to just prohibit bad behavior when it results in catastrophe. You can prohibit risky behavior before it leads to catastrophe too. That's what drunk driving laws are. That's what a vaccine mandate would be.

 

[Politesse]

What a strange sentence. My policy is 'do not place unvaccinated people under indefinite house arrest'. People leaving their house if they are not under house arrest are not willingly breaking that policy.



Ah, I can see you have now traded away any pretense of reason. My brother has killed nobody.

No, he merely demands the right to risk other people's lives for his vanity.

No, he has not made that demand.

You, however, appear to demand the right to place people under indefinite house arrest because they do not want to undergo a particular medical procedure. You certainly love the force of the US State when you deem it benefits you, even if you're in Chochenyo Territory.

I suspect you know that what you're saying only sounds reasonable when absurdly abstracted. I could do the same thing with drunk driving laws:

"I suppose you think people should be permanently grounded unless they let the State define their menu choices?"

No, neither Toni nor I or anyone else have so much as a suggested that the government should have total control over all of a person's medical decisions, only that during a pandemic it has the right and indeed responsiblity to insist on vaccination against the pandemic if a person wants to behave in such a way as to become a likely vector for the disease. There is no way to combat a pandemic disease without on some level infringing on individual rights in this way. Drunk driving laws also impinge on individual liberty, not because the government wants total control of dietary choices but because drunk driving, like refusal to vaccinate before congregating in public spaces, presents a signifcant threat to other people.

If the United States claims plenary rights over Chochenyo territory, then yes, it has a responsibilty to address epidemic outbreaks within that territory. Were it to recognize Chochenyo as an autonomous state, that responsibility would fall instead to a Tribal Council. There is no circumstance in which I would consider an epidemic outbreak to be no one's responsibility at all. Even if we could turn back time and return San Francisco Bay to their traditional, pre-governmental political arrangement of loose tribelets governed by family affiliation, I would still regard the various clan heads as responsible for the wellbeing of their families in times of mass illness. As indeed would they.

 

[Metaphor]

I know I shouldn't inject another analogy, but I can't help it.

Show

Pushing people off of cliffs shouldn't be illegal. I mean it doesn't really even hurt them at all. It's just a little nudge on their shoulder. Sure, that sudden stop at the bottom of the canyon might hurt them a little bit, but what if they land on a nice squishy balloon and everything is okay? I hear that the bottom of this canyon is 99% soft squishy balloons so we should legalize pushing people off of this cliff! Only punish people if their victim hits that 1% that's hard and dangerous. That's enough to keep everyone safe!

Here's the thing, you don't have to just prohibit bad behavior when it results in catastrophe. You can prohibit risky behavior before it leads to catastrophe too. That's what drunk driving laws are. That's what a vaccine mandate would be.

Look, the drunk driving analogy clearly has its problems (the main one being that people get drunk voluntarily and sometimes regularly and you are no longer drunk after 24 hours, which is nothing like the experience of getting COVID), but assault and battery is banned because it is assault and battery, not because it is 'risky'.

 

[zorq]

As always, posting to this board has enlightened me, but not in the way I expected.

I realised there was a pro-vaccine-mandate population out there. Little did I realise that this pro-vaccine-mandate population endorsed what I would previously have regarded as a parody straw man of a vaccine mandate: an extreme, indefinite house arrest version with no defined stop condition.

I'm a day older, wiser, and sadder.

It's not house arrest if you make the choice to get the safe and easy to acquire vaccine. It's a choice. Prohibiting drunk driving isn't coercing drunk people to sleep in the streets outside the bar. It isn't a forced taxation on drunk people to pay for Ubers and taxis home from the bar. It is a choice that people make. If you want to get drunk at the bar, fine. Face the consequences that you can't drive home. If you want to stay unvaxxed, fine. Face the consequences that you can't participate in society at large. Your choice to engage in risky behavior has consequences.

 

[Metaphor]

No, he has not made that demand.

You, however, appear to demand the right to place people under indefinite house arrest because they do not want to undergo a particular medical procedure. You certainly love the force of the US State when you deem it benefits you, even if you're in Chochenyo Territory.

I suspect you know that what you're saying only sounds reasonable when absurdly abstracted. I could do the same thing with drunk driving laws:

"I suppose you think people should be permanently grounded unless they let the State define their menu choices?"

No, neither Toni nor I or anyone else have so much as a suggested that the government should have total control over all of a person's medical decisions, only that during a pandemic it has the right and indeed responsiblity to insist on vaccination against the pandemic if a person wants to behave in such a way as to become a likely vector for the disease. There is no way to combat a pandemic disease without on some level infringing on individual rights in this way. Drunk driving laws also impinge on individual liberty, not because the government wants total control of dietary choices but because drunk driving, like refusal to vaccinate before congregating in public spaces, presents a signifcant threat to other people.

Toni did not restrict her house arrest to not being able to 'congregate in public spaces'. No, she meant house arrest. You can't leave, even if it's to visit your unvaxxed neighbour refusenik next door.

Nor did Toni explain her stop condition. I know she thinks she explained it with the nebulous 'when the pandemic is over'. But Toni has a particular problem with answering questions. I still don't know why Toni does not think of Rachel Dolezal as black.

 

[laughing dog]

As always, posting to this board has enlightened me, but not in the way I expected.

I realised there was a pro-vaccine-mandate population out there. Little did I realise that this pro-vaccine-mandate population endorsed what I would previously have regarded as a parody straw man of a vaccine mandate: an extreme, indefinite house arrest version with no defined stop condition.

I'm a day older, wiser, and sadder.

You got 2 out 3 - you are no wiser. First, your characterization about extreme, indefinite house arrest with no defined stop condition is a straw man. When the pandemic is over" is a defined stop condition. It is a blatant falsehood to claim it is not.

Second, most of the posters responding to your posts are disagreeing with your straw men and falsehoods. One can be against such measures without resorting to pedantic, silly or stupid discussion. Personally, I don't think quaratining at the level necessary is feasible from a practical point of view. I'd prefer that employers choose to mandate vaccinations as a condition of employment, and that places that serve customers require proof of vaccination for entrance.

 

[Elixir]

One can be against such measures without resorting to pedantic, silly or stupid discussion.

... speaking for yourself, of course...

 

[Toni]

The reason is I want to know what Toni's stop condition is. I don't know how I can make it clearer. What is Toni's stop condition? She has been quite specific in the details of her house arrest. I want that level of detail for her stop condition. Is her stop condition a percentage of a population that is vaxxed? Is it the number of new cases being below a certain level for a certain time period? What is it?

Toni indicated when the pandemic was over. For some unstated reason, you feel the need for more specificity. Why?

Because I want to know what her stop condition is. Since Toni has put out a quite detailed list of house arrest conditions, it seems to me she must have some understanding of when it might stop. "When the pandemic is over" may indeed be her stop condition. But how does she define the pandemic being over?

Quite specific? Stay home/order in delivery services and mentioning government supports that were already in place? In other words, what many people in your country and mine have been doing for the past year and a half or longer is 'very specific?' 'K.

Here's a link that talks about ending the pandemic:

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/10/1014374383/covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic-when-its-over

When locally, the criteria set by the CDC is met and when there is no longer a public health emergency as determined by public health authorities, then people should be free to move about as they wish.

 

[Elixir]

Because I want to know what her stop condition is. Since Toni has put out a quite detailed list of house arrest conditions, it seems to me she must have some understanding of when it might stop. "When the pandemic is over" may indeed be her stop condition. But how does she define the pandemic being over?

Quite specific? Stay home/order in delivery services and mentioning government supports that were already in place? In other words, what many people in your country and mine have been doing for the past year and a half or longer is 'very specific?' 'K.

Here's a link that talks about ending the pandemic:

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/10/1014374383/covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic-when-its-over

When locally, the criteria set by the CDC is met and when there is no longer a public health emergency as determined by public health authorities, then people should be free to move about as they wish.

I’m thinking that you have a duty to society to get vaccinated, then get COVID and go around coughing on anti-Vaxers.
The pandemic will go away once they all die or produce enough antibodies to survive.

 

[Metaphor]

As always, posting to this board has enlightened me, but not in the way I expected.

I realised there was a pro-vaccine-mandate population out there. Little did I realise that this pro-vaccine-mandate population endorsed what I would previously have regarded as a parody straw man of a vaccine mandate: an extreme, indefinite house arrest version with no defined stop condition.

I'm a day older, wiser, and sadder.

You got 2 out 3 - you are no wiser. First, your characterization about extreme, indefinite house arrest with no defined stop condition is a straw man. When the pandemic is over" is a defined stop condition. It is a blatant falsehood to claim it is not.

No. It is not defined. I have no idea what rules Toni has in mind that will define when the pandemic is over. I have already shared what some rules could be. I don't know if any of them are what Toni had in mind, because she won't say what she had in mind.

Second, most of the posters responding to your posts are disagreeing with your straw men and falsehoods. One can be against such measures without resorting to pedantic, silly or stupid discussion. Personally, I don't think quaratining at the level necessary is feasible from a practical point of view. I'd prefer that employers choose to mandate vaccinations as a condition of employment, and that places that serve customers require proof of vaccination for entrance.

I'm glad you do not agree with Toni's indefinite house arrest model.

 

[Metaphor]

Here's a link that talks about ending the pandemic:

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/10/1014374383/covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic-when-its-over

When locally, the criteria set by the CDC is met and when there is no longer a public health emergency as determined by public health authorities, then people should be free to move about as they wish.

Was that so hard? Though I'm worried by this sentence in your linked article:

It's not clear whether the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will issue any sort of all-clear. The CDC did not respond to NPR on the matter.

And as for WHO

The WHO convenes an international committee every three months to determine if an outbreak should still be considered such a global health emergency. When it's over, the WHO says it's over. That's what it did last summer regarding an Ebola outbreak in Africa.

So, we have some answers there. Indefinite house arrest will continue in three month chunks until WHO says there is no longer a global health emergency.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Holy shit, I missed this too. "Biological warfare". WMDs! Saints preserve us!

Sorry, but that's what the covidiots are engaging in. Deliberate attempts to infect as many as possible with a level 3 biological agent.

You have a strange circle of friends, Loren.

Covid is handled at biosafety level 3.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I do not believe that it is a proportionate or measured response to put my brother under indefinite house arrest, in a community that is over 80% vaccinated and will probably reach 90%. It is not proportionate. It is not measured. It is a sadistic vengeance game.

It is warranted. The problem is vaccines are always subject to the freeloader problem. If everyone else is vaccinated there's no need to do so personally--the best choice is not to get the shot. But if everyone makes that choice you're a lot worse off than if people behave.

Unfortunately, that means that state compulsion is a good idea. Vaccines for schools have long been accepted by almost everyone, why are people treating this differently?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, neither Toni nor I or anyone else have so much as a suggested that the government should have total control over all of a person's medical decisions, only that during a pandemic it has the right and indeed responsiblity to insist on vaccination against the pandemic if a person wants to behave in such a way as to become a likely vector for the disease. There is no way to combat a pandemic disease without on some level infringing on individual rights in this way. Drunk driving laws also impinge on individual liberty, not because the government wants total control of dietary choices but because drunk driving, like refusal to vaccinate before congregating in public spaces, presents a signifcant threat to other people.

It basically comes down to personal medical decisions vs medical decisions that can harm others.

It's only your health at stake, it's your choice. It's other's health at stake, the state gets a say.

 

[Metaphor]

And I do not believe that it is a proportionate or measured response to put my brother under indefinite house arrest, in a community that is over 80% vaccinated and will probably reach 90%. It is not proportionate. It is not measured. It is a sadistic vengeance game.

It is warranted. The problem is vaccines are always subject to the freeloader problem. If everyone else is vaccinated there's no need to do so personally--the best choice is not to get the shot. But if everyone makes that choice you're a lot worse off than if people behave.

Unfortunately, that means that state compulsion is a good idea. Vaccines for schools have long been accepted by almost everyone, why are people treating this differently?

I've already explained this in this thread.

We do not let children make medical decisions for themselves, because they are children. But even if you need a certain vaccine to attend a certain school, the government does not ban those children from going grocery shopping with their parents, or going on planes, or going to birthday parties if they don't have a particular vaccine.

We generally do let adults make decisions about their own bodies, especially medical decisions. But that alleged freedom does not actually exist if we make life for somebody wretched, by government force, if they choose one decision over another. Technically, every person tried as a witch in Europe first had to agree to be tried. Of course, if they did not agree to be tried, they could be tied to the ground by force and have stones piled on to their bodies until they knew no end of torment.

And, of course, government mandate violates freedom of association as well. It is not permissible for a store to say 'we are vaccine agnostic', and let people decide for themselves whether it's worth the risk to shop there. No, people are too fucking dumb and evil to make decisions for themselves.

 

[Toni]

Was that so hard? Though I'm worried by this sentence in your linked article:



And as for WHO

The WHO convenes an international committee every three months to determine if an outbreak should still be considered such a global health emergency. When it's over, the WHO says it's over. That's what it did last summer regarding an Ebola outbreak in Africa.

So, we have some answers there. Indefinite house arrest will continue in three month chunks until WHO says there is no longer a global health emergency.

Not really— it would be foolish for India to have a lockdown if Covid were eliminated there but still prevalent in Australia, fir example. It would make sense to restrict travel to/from Australia until Covid were contained/eradicated there.

In the US, smallpox vaccinations are no longer required —-except for some service members who are deployed where smallpox may still exist. Those from such areas who travel to the US must undergo health screening, proof of vaccination, etc.

The only real difference is that people today have not gone through such pandemics before. They seem not to realize that the reason we no longer are dying from smallpox is because of vaccinations and quarantines.

 

[Jarhyn]

Was that so hard? Though I'm worried by this sentence in your linked article:



And as for WHO

The WHO convenes an international committee every three months to determine if an outbreak should still be considered such a global health emergency. When it's over, the WHO says it's over. That's what it did last summer regarding an Ebola outbreak in Africa.

So, we have some answers there. Indefinite house arrest will continue in three month chunks until WHO says there is no longer a global health emergency.

Not really— it would be foolish for India to have a lockdown if Covid were eliminated there but still prevalent in Australia, fir example. It would make sense to restrict travel to/from Australia until Covid were contained/eradicated there.

In the US, smallpox vaccinations are no longer required —-except for some service members who are deployed where smallpox may still exist. Those from such areas who travel to the US must undergo health screening, proof of vaccination, etc.

The only real difference is that people today have not gone through such pandemics before. They seem not to realize that the reason we no longer are dying from smallpox is because of vaccinations and quarantines.

Smallpox is eradicated. Servicemembers vaccinate against it because of biowarfare possibilities, and all except those with skin condition waivers get it, as of 2010. It's been 10 years, so that may have changed?

There are other immunizations, like TB and Hepatitis and such, they do offer for that reason though, so your point is still intact.

 

[laughing dog]

No. It is not defined.

You are incorrect - "when the pandemic is over" defines the end condition. Not understanding a definition does not disqualify it as a definition.

 

[Toni]

Not really— it would be foolish for India to have a lockdown if Covid were eliminated there but still prevalent in Australia, fir example. It would make sense to restrict travel to/from Australia until Covid were contained/eradicated there.

In the US, smallpox vaccinations are no longer required —-except for some service members who are deployed where smallpox may still exist. Those from such areas who travel to the US must undergo health screening, proof of vaccination, etc.

The only real difference is that people today have not gone through such pandemics before. They seem not to realize that the reason we no longer are dying from smallpox is because of vaccinations and quarantines.

Smallpox is eradicated. Servicemembers vaccinate against it because of biowarfare possibilities, and all except those with skin condition waivers get it, as of 2010. It's been 10 years, so that may have changed?

There are other immunizations, like TB and Hepatitis and such, they do offer for that reason though, so your point is still intact.

Perhaps you are correct. When my son was deployed to Afghanistan I believe that there was concern that small pockets might exist in some places. I could be wrong, though. He definitely was vaccinated fir it abd a host of other things. I am aware that the primary threat of smallpox outbreaks is through bio terrorism

 

[Jarhyn]

Not really— it would be foolish for India to have a lockdown if Covid were eliminated there but still prevalent in Australia, fir example. It would make sense to restrict travel to/from Australia until Covid were contained/eradicated there.

In the US, smallpox vaccinations are no longer required —-except for some service members who are deployed where smallpox may still exist. Those from such areas who travel to the US must undergo health screening, proof of vaccination, etc.

The only real difference is that people today have not gone through such pandemics before. They seem not to realize that the reason we no longer are dying from smallpox is because of vaccinations and quarantines.

Smallpox is eradicated. Servicemembers vaccinate against it because of biowarfare possibilities, and all except those with skin condition waivers get it, as of 2010. It's been 10 years, so that may have changed?

There are other immunizations, like TB and Hepatitis and such, they do offer for that reason though, so your point is still intact.

Perhaps you are correct. When my son was deployed to Afghanistan I believe that there was concern that small pockets might exist in some places. I could be wrong, though. He definitely was vaccinated fir it abd a host of other things. I am aware that the primary threat of smallpox outbreaks is through bio terrorism

As I said, never fear, your point is still intact!