Is a vaccine mandate a racist policy?

[Metaphor]

Your analogy is not apt, as it fails in the case where the mandate applies to everyone, and not only to a certain set of people. A better analogy would be one in which the federal government mandates that everyone is given $100, which would not create a gap between the sexes.

Huh? My example was not a mandate but a policy, and the policy applies to everyone 18 or older.

And? Are you trying to convince me that the mandate is anti-racist? Because you are doing a good job of it.

No. I am telling you what Kendi ought call it, according to his own formulation.

If you cared to research that question you might just find his answer, much like his answer to this thread topic was there for someone who just cared enough to go looking for it.

I cannot find the answer.

You still have not educated yourself on the Biden mandate. It did not go into effect immediately, therefor your above supposition that it is already the case that the policy is racist is unfounded.

This does not change the calculus. If it goes into effect in the future, it will force more black people to have a medical procedure that they did not want in order to obtain a certain benefit (access to federal business).

I am not asking you to explain it, I already understand your explanation. I am asking you to demonstrate that your explanation is valid. You have failed to demonstrate that.

The conclusion follows ineluctably from the premises.

Yes, you have. So perhaps you can explain to me how something which is a net benefit to a race can be said to be increasing racial inequity with regard to that race.

Huh? If there was a federal policy that was: white people will get $100 tax free from the government, that would be a net benefit to white people and it would increase inequity between white people and others (or possibly reduce it versus Asian people).

Are you not asking me to accept that what you have decided Kendi meant is what Kendi actually meant, even in the face of his own statement to the contrary?

I am asking you to try to understand that Kendi's evaluation of the vaccine mandate conflicts with his definition of what constitutes a racist policy.

I never said he did. I think it stands to reason that something that is a 'net benefit' to a race is not something that can be said to be a racist policy with regard to that race.

I don't understand what you mean with the qualifier 'with regard to that race'. And I'm not asking you to evaluate whether it is a racist policy, based on your definition of a racist policy. I'm asking you to consider that there is a conflict between Kendi's definition of a racist policy, and his evaluation of the vaccine mandate as not racist.

 

[KeepTalking]

Huh? My example was not a mandate but a policy, and the policy applies to everyone 18 or older.

Are you saying a mandate is not a policy? You might want to be careful with your answer there.

No. I am telling you what Kendi ought call it, according to his own formulation.

He has said that it is not racist, so he very well might call it anti-racist. I am not sure what you point is here.

If you cared to research that question you might just find his answer, much like his answer to this thread topic was there for someone who just cared enough to go looking for it.

I cannot find the answer.

That's a shame. I'm not Kendi, so I certainly cannot answer the question for you, and neither am I going to do your research for you to find out if he has indeed answered the question already.

You still have not educated yourself on the Biden mandate. It did not go into effect immediately, therefor your above supposition that it is already the case that the policy is racist is unfounded.

This does not change the calculus. If it goes into effect in the future, it will force more black people to have a medical procedure that they did not want in order to obtain a certain benefit (access to federal business).

So? That doesn't make it racist, as it will also force more white people to do the same. Also, you are being rather dramatic about what it means to get a vaccine.

I am not asking you to explain it, I already understand your explanation. I am asking you to demonstrate that your explanation is valid. You have failed to demonstrate that.

The conclusion follows ineluctably from the premises.

At least one of your premises is faulty.

Yes, you have. So perhaps you can explain to me how something which is a net benefit to a race can be said to be increasing racial inequity with regard to that race.

Huh? If there was a federal policy that was: white people will get $100 tax free from the government, that would be a net benefit to white people and it would increase inequity between white people and others (or possibly reduce it versus Asian people).

It would not be racist with regard to white people. Now make the analogy one that comports with reality, and give the $100 to all races (just as the vaccine mandate applies to all races), and now it is a net benefit to all races, and cannot be said to to be increasing racial inequity at all.

Are you not asking me to accept that what you have decided Kendi meant is what Kendi actually meant, even in the face of his own statement to the contrary?

I am asking you to try to understand that Kendi's evaluation of the vaccine mandate conflicts with his definition of what constitutes a racist policy.

And I am asking you to try to understand that Kendi's evaluation of the vaccine mandate does not conflict with his definition of what constitutes a racist policy. I think my understanding is a good one, because it takes into account subsequent statements he has made about this exact topic.

I never said he did. I think it stands to reason that something that is a 'net benefit' to a race is not something that can be said to be a racist policy with regard to that race.

I don't understand what you mean with the qualifier 'with regard to that race'.

I mean that if something is a 'net benefit' to black people, it is not something that can be said to be racist toward black people. You claim that the vaccine mandate is racist towards black people. If it turns out that the vaccine mandate is a net benefit to black people then it can hardly be said to be racist towards black people.

And I'm not asking you to evaluate whether it is a racist policy, based on your definition of a racist policy. I'm asking you to consider that there is a conflict between Kendi's definition of a racist policy, and his evaluation of the vaccine mandate as not racist.

I do not see any conflict between what I have said above and Kendi's definition of a racist policy. Something that is a net benefit to black people would not increase inequity for black people, and therefor would not be a racist policy against black people according to Kendi's definition.

 

[Metaphor]

Are you saying a mandate is not a policy? You might want to be careful with your answer there.

No, I'm saying my example was a policy but not a mandate.

He has said that it is not racist, so he very well might call it anti-racist. I am not sure what you point is here.

I'm saying by the rules of his own formulation, he should say the mandate is racist.

That's a shame. I'm not Kendi, so I certainly cannot answer the question for you, and neither am I going to do your research for you to find out if he has indeed answered the question already.

I did not ask you to answer on Kendi's behalf. I am asking you, given Kendi's definition of a 'racist policy', how a vaccine mandate could not be racist.

So? That doesn't make it racist, as it will also force more white people to do the same. Also, you are being rather dramatic about what it means to get a vaccine.

No, it will not force more white people proportionally to do the same.

At least one of your premises is faulty.

Which premise?

It would not be racist with regard to white people.

I do not understand your usage of that language. For something to be racist, at least two or more races must be somehow involved.

Now make the analogy one that comports with reality, and give the $100 to all races (just as the vaccine mandate applies to all races), and now it is a net benefit to all races, and cannot be said to to be increasing racial inequity at all.

The vaccine mandate applies to all races, but not all races were equal in terms of vaccination status before the mandate.

And I am asking you to try to understand that Kendi's evaluation of the vaccine mandate does not conflict with his definition of what constitutes a racist policy. I think my understanding is a good one, because it takes into account subsequent statements he has made about this exact topic.

If Kendi has disavowed his earlier definition of a racist policy, I would like to hear it.

I mean that if something is a 'net benefit' to black people, it is not something that can be said to be racist toward black people. You claim that the vaccine mandate is racist towards black people. If it turns out that the vaccine mandate is a net benefit to black people then it can hardly be said to be racist towards black people.

I didn't say 'racist towards black people'. I said 'racist'.

I do not see any conflict between what I have said above and Kendi's definition of a racist policy. Something that is a net benefit to black people would not increase inequity for black people, and therefor would not be a racist policy against black people according to Kendi's definition.

This is even more confusing. Racial inequity cannot be measured by reference to only one race, nor does a net benefit to one race mean another race cannot have an even higher net benefit from the policy, thus increasing inequity, not descreasing it.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, I'm saying my example was a policy but not a mandate.

Which also makes the analogy not apt, as we are talking about a mandate.

I'm saying by the rules of his own formulation, he should say the mandate is racist.

This person disagrees with you:

If it reduced racial inequity, Kendi would call it antiracist.

You should take it up with them.

That's a shame. I'm not Kendi, so I certainly cannot answer the question for you, and neither am I going to do your research for you to find out if he has indeed answered the question already.

I did not ask you to answer on Kendi's behalf. I am asking you, given Kendi's definition of a 'racist policy', how a vaccine mandate could not be racist.

By not increasing racial inequity, or by increasing racial equity.

So? That doesn't make it racist, as it will also force more white people to do the same. Also, you are being rather dramatic about what it means to get a vaccine.

No, it will not force more white people proportionally to do the same.

It will force more people of all races to get the vaccine. You can't possibly know what the proportionality will be.

At least one of your premises is faulty.

Which premise?

Enumerate them, and I will show you.

It would not be racist with regard to white people.

I do not understand your usage of that language.

A quick Google will return the following:

with regard to
phrase of regard
as concerns; with respect to.
"he made inquiries with regard to Beth"

For something to be racist, at least two or more races must be somehow involved.

Yes, but it is only racist towards one of those races.

Now make the analogy one that comports with reality, and give the $100 to all races (just as the vaccine mandate applies to all races), and now it is a net benefit to all races, and cannot be said to to be increasing racial inequity at all.

The vaccine mandate applies to all races, but not all races were equal in terms of vaccination status before the mandate.

So? If it makes all races more equal as a result of the mandate, then it is not racist.

And I am asking you to try to understand that Kendi's evaluation of the vaccine mandate does not conflict with his definition of what constitutes a racist policy. I think my understanding is a good one, because it takes into account subsequent statements he has made about this exact topic.

If Kendi has disavowed his earlier definition of a racist policy, I would like to hear it.

I never said he did. I am referring to his statements from the YouTube video linked earlier in which he said that the mandate was not racist.

I mean that if something is a 'net benefit' to black people, it is not something that can be said to be racist toward black people. You claim that the vaccine mandate is racist towards black people. If it turns out that the vaccine mandate is a net benefit to black people then it can hardly be said to be racist towards black people.

I didn't say 'racist towards black people'. I said 'racist'.

Are you seriously telling me that you have not been saying all along that the mandate is racist towards black people? If not, what the fuck are we arguing about?

I do not see any conflict between what I have said above and Kendi's definition of a racist policy. Something that is a net benefit to black people would not increase inequity for black people, and therefor would not be a racist policy against black people according to Kendi's definition.

This is even more confusing. Racial inequity cannot be measured by reference to only one race,

I never said it could. Only one race is less equal, however, and it is that race that is said to be suffering from racial inequity.

nor does a net benefit to one race mean another race cannot have an even higher net benefit from the policy, thus increasing inequity, not descreasing it.

If all races are benefitting from it, I really don't see how it can be called racist, but your statement is true. Now all you have to do is show how white people will see a higher net benefit from the mandate than black people, and you will have demonstrated your point.

Of course with your above tacit admission that the vaccine mandate might not increase inequity for black people, you have also now contradicted your previous statement that:

any policy that treats vaccinated and unvaccinated people differently must also create or sustain a racial inequity

 

[Metaphor]

Which also makes the analogy not apt, as we are talking about a mandate.

Oy gevalt. The government vaccine mandate is a policy.

You should take it up with them.

What I ought have written was: if Kendi applied his own rules for what an antiracist policy was, he'd call it anti-racist if the policy reduced racial inequity.

Kendi is very binary:

"The opposite of racist isn't 'not racist.' It is 'antiracist.' What's the difference? One endorses either the idea of racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an antiracist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.'" (p. 9)

By not increasing racial inequity, or by increasing racial equity.

A vaccine mandate which cuts off privileges for the unvaccinated increases racial inequity between black and white people.

It will force more people of all races to get the vaccine. You can't possibly know what the proportionality will be.

The most number of people within a race that can get vaccinated is 100%. If whites are at 85% 'voluntary' vaccination, and blacks are at 80% 'voluntary' vaccination, it means that up to 15% of white people will be forced into vaccination, but up to 20% of black people will.

Enumerate them, and I will show you.

Kendi's written definition of a racist policy?
The black-white vaccination difference in America?
What?

with regard to
phrase of regard
as concerns; with respect to.
"he made inquiries with regard to Beth"

I understand what 'with regard to' means.

I do not understand what on earth it would mean for a racist policy to simultaneously not be racist.

Yes, but it is only racist towards one of those races.

Non. The policy is racist. If something is racist, it is racist. You mean: this racist policy benefits race group X or this racist policy hurts race group Y.

So? If it makes all races more equal as a result of the mandate, then it is not racist.

It could (but won't) make all races equal as a result of the mandate, but during the time that the policy began through to that end point, the less-vaccinated group will suffer disadvantages and many of those will widen racial inequities.

I never said he did. I am referring to his statements from the YouTube video linked earlier in which he said that the mandate was not racist.

We've been through this a number of times. I accept that Kendi said the vaccine mandate was not necessarily racist.

Are you seriously telling me that you have not been saying all along that the mandate is racist towards black people? If not, what the fuck are we arguing about?

I am saying your language is incoherent. A racist policy does not somehow become 'not racist' if there is a winning and losing racial group.

I never said it could. Only one race is less equal, however, and it is that race that is said to be suffering from racial inequity.

You keep saying it over and over. 'This racist policy is not racist against X'.

If all races are benefitting from it, I really don't see how it can be called racist, but your statement is true.

I am not asking to apply your definition of 'racist policy' but to read and apply Kendi's.

Now all you have to do is show how white people will see a higher net benefit from the mandate than black people, and you will have demonstrated your point.

It seems plainly obvious to me that any mandate that treats unvaxxed people less favourably, through a series of social and economic sanctions, is going to hurt those unvaxxed people. White people are less likely to have these social and economic sanctions applied to them, because they are already more likely to be vaccinated.

Of course with your above tacit admission that the vaccine mandate might not increase inequity for black people, you have also now contradicted your previous statement that:

No, this mandate in question cannot do that - unless you discount the social and economic sanctions against the unvaxxed, and you assume forcing somebody into vaccination because of the economic conditions you have forced on them is a net benefit to them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In Ibram X. Kendi's America, any policy that results in (increasing) race inequality is racist, and any policy that reduces race inequality is anti-racist.

In America, white people are 1.2 times more likely than black people to have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The gap could narrow but perhaps will never go away. So, if America institutes vaccine mandates that limit access to employment and public life for the unvaccinated, wouldn't that be a racist policy?

I'd ask Kendi directly but he isn't taking my calls.

I read somewhere that blacks in USA are more likely to be skeptical of vaccines. Which has to do with them being more skeptical about anything the government does. Given black US history, that makes perfect sense.

 

[KeepTalking]

I have snipped the rest of the conversation because you seem to be arguing with someone else for the most part. You continually put words in my mouth that I have not said. Fortunately, the below is all that really matters at this point. I am not sure I will continue this discussion after this, as I have grown quite sorry that I tried to engage you in a meaningful discussion. It does not seem to be something you actually want.

Now all you have to do is show how white people will see a higher net benefit from the mandate than black people, and you will have demonstrated your point.

It seems plainly obvious to me that any mandate that treats unvaxxed people less favourably, through a series of social and economic sanctions, is going to hurt those unvaxxed people.

There's your problem, it is not obvious. The unvaxxed people will see a far greater benefit by actually receiving the vaccine, improving outcomes for everyone.

White people are less likely to have these social and economic sanctions applied to them, because they are already more likely to be vaccinated.

So the mandate stands to benefit blacks more than whites because proportionally more blacks are likely to get the vaccine as a result of the mandate.

Of course with your above tacit admission that the vaccine mandate might not increase inequity for black people, you have also now contradicted your previous statement that:

No, this mandate in question cannot do that -

It absolutely can. You appear to engage in binary thinking far too often.

unless you discount the social and economic sanctions against the unvaxxed,

See, you don't even agree with your own uncompromising statement. You have allowed for one exception, think about it a bit longer and I bet you can come up with more. For example, one does not need to entirely discount the "social and economic sanctions", one only needs to realize that medical benefit of getting vaccinated outweighs the negatives stemming from those sanctions.

and you assume forcing somebody into vaccination because of the economic conditions you have forced on them is a net benefit to them.

You got it in one. Fortunately my assumption has the weight of data from what has happened as a result of previous vaccine mandates behind it. I linked to the Forbes article earlier showing that when confronted with a mandate, most unvaxxed choose to become vaxxed. This benefits both the vaxxed and the unvaxxed by reducing the amount of virus circulating in the community.

Show me your data on how vaccine mandates cause more harm to unvaxxed populations than good, and we might be on the way to meaningful discussion.

Continue to assert unproven assumptions over and over again, and I will leave you to it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have snipped the rest of the conversation because you seem to be arguing with someone else for the most part. You continually put words in my mouth that I have not said.

Is the problem one of framing, here?
You seem to be thinking that mandates will encourage vaccinations.

Metaphor seems, i think, to be assuming that the unvaxxed have good reasons to be unvaccinated, and will continue to be unvaccinated even in the face of increasing intolerance for their condition. Basically living the lockdowns we all went through, but extending their participation voluntarily while the rest of us try to get back to normal.
Which seems unlikely. These people couldn't go six months without a haircut when all the stores were closed, now long will they hold out when it's only rotbloods that are not welcome at the stores?

 

[KeepTalking]

I have snipped the rest of the conversation because you seem to be arguing with someone else for the most part. You continually put words in my mouth that I have not said.

Is the problem one of framing, here?

Possibly. It seems to me that Metaphor wants to substitute me for the target of his ire, Kendi. Kendi has already answered the portion of the OP directed toward him, but Metaphor refuses to accept it. Kendi is not here, and I am, but I will also not pretend to speak for Kendi, I can only speak for myself although I can certainly point to the words Kendi has already spoken on this topic.

You seem to be thinking that mandates will encourage vaccinations.

Metaphor seems, i think, to be assuming that the unvaxxed have good reasons to be unvaccinated, and will continue to be unvaccinated even in the face of increasing intolerance for their condition. Basically living the lockdowns we all went through, but extending their participation voluntarily while the rest of us try to get back to normal.
Which seems unlikely. These people couldn't go six months without a haircut when all the stores were closed, now long will they hold out when it's only rotbloods that are not welcome at the stores?

Not only does it seem unlikely, but data from previous and existing vaccine mandates all point to them encouraging more vaccinations. Metaphor is going to have to work harder than merely stating his assumptions in order to overcome that data.

 

[Metaphor]

There's your problem, it is not obvious. The unvaxxed people will see a far greater benefit by actually receiving the vaccine, improving outcomes for everyone.

Getting the vaccine is only a net benefit in the calculation for yourself. It is not a net benefit to people who are currently unvaxxed. These people have chosen not to be vaxxed for whatever reason, and the psychological cost of getting vaxxed to them is a higher price than whatever benefit they will gain from getting it, according to their own calculus.

So the mandate stands to benefit blacks more than whites because proportionally more blacks are likely to get the vaccine as a result of the mandate.

No: they pay a psychological cost that, in the absence of the mandate, they would not have paid. You believe that 'getting vaccinated' is costless and only a benefit, but if it were the unvaxxed would have done it already.

Of course with your above tacit admission that the vaccine mandate might not increase inequity for black people, you have also now contradicted your previous statement that:

No, this mandate in question cannot do that -

It absolutely can. You appear to engage in binary thinking far too often.

See, you don't even agree with your own uncompromising statement. You have allowed for one exception, think about it a bit longer and I bet you can come up with more. For example, one does not need to entirely discount the "social and economic sanctions", one only needs to realize that medical benefit of getting vaccinated outweighs the negatives stemming from those sanctions.

I do not "realise" that. You think the benefit (of being vaxxed) outweighs the psychological cost and the social and economic sanctions. It almost certainly does, for the vast majority of people who got vaxxed voluntarily already. But the people who are already vaxxed are not the people who will pay any psychological or economic costs under this mandate.

You got it in one. Fortunately my assumption has the weight of data from what has happened as a result of previous vaccine mandates behind it. I linked to the Forbes article earlier showing that when confronted with a mandate, most unvaxxed choose to become vaxxed. This benefits both the vaxxed and the unvaxxed by reducing the amount of virus circulating in the community.

What do you value the psychological cost paid at?

Show me your data on how vaccine mandates cause more harm to unvaxxed populations than good, and we might be on the way to meaningful discussion.

I somehow doubt we could. You appear to have no interest in understanding the mandate in terms of the costs paid by people who get vaccinated only because of the mandate.

 

[KeepTalking]

Getting the vaccine is only a net benefit in the calculation for yourself. It is not a net benefit to people who are currently unvaxxed.

Getting the vaccine does benefit everyone, as it reduces the amount of virus circulating in the community. Whether or not that will be a net benefit for all unvaxxed is up for debate. It is definitely a net benefit for those who cannot get vaccinated due to medical issues, or age.

These people have chosen not to be vaxxed for whatever reason, and the psychological cost of getting vaxxed to them is a higher price than whatever benefit they will gain from getting it, according to their own calculus.

Not all of the unvaxxed are unvaxxed by choice, and since you are so concerned about the psychological cost to people, perhaps you should consider the psychological cost to those who cannot be vaccinated from there not being a mandate. The vast majority of those are children. Why do you hate the children? (Sorry, I couldn't resist, I don't know if you hate children or not, just having a bit of fun)

Further, I have seen many interviews with young adults who have not been vaccinated simply because they don't think they are likely to get the virus and die. There would be no psychological cost or benefit to that group of people from a mandate. It seems if we are going to go down this route of claiming psychological costs, we first need to determine who among the unvaccinated are likely to suffer psychologically from the mandate.

No: they pay a psychological cost that, in the absence of the mandate, they would not have paid. You believe that 'getting vaccinated' is costless and only a benefit, but if it were the unvaxxed would have done it already.

I think you would need to demonstrate that there is some great psychological cost, and that a majority of the unvaxxed will suffer from it. Perhaps you could quantify this by showing an increase in visits to psychologists by those who got a vaccine due to the mandate. A counter to that might be data showing whether or not visits to psychologists decreased for those who are unable to get vaxxed.

See, you don't even agree with your own uncompromising statement. You have allowed for one exception, think about it a bit longer and I bet you can come up with more. For example, one does not need to entirely discount the "social and economic sanctions", one only needs to realize that medical benefit of getting vaccinated outweighs the negatives stemming from those sanctions.

I do not "realise" that.

I did not say that you did, and I was not even referring specifically to you. In fact, I was explaining what one would need to realize in order to have the view I am espousing. Given that you do not share that view, it is fairly obvious that I was not saying it is something that you realize.

You think the benefit (of being vaxxed) outweighs the psychological cost and the social and economic sanctions.

Correct.

It almost certainly does, for the vast majority of people who got vaxxed voluntarily already. But the people who are already vaxxed are not the people who will pay any psychological or economic costs under this mandate.

Neither will all of the unvaxxed. Seems like it is time for you to quantify that psychological toll in some way.

You got it in one. Fortunately my assumption has the weight of data from what has happened as a result of previous vaccine mandates behind it. I linked to the Forbes article earlier showing that when confronted with a mandate, most unvaxxed choose to become vaxxed. This benefits both the vaxxed and the unvaxxed by reducing the amount of virus circulating in the community.

What do you value the psychological cost paid at?

50 cents on the shilling.

What do you value it at, and how does that measure against all of the benefits (including the psychological benefits) of the mandate?

Show me your data on how vaccine mandates cause more harm to unvaxxed populations than good, and we might be on the way to meaningful discussion.

I somehow doubt we could. You appear to have no interest in understanding the mandate in terms of the costs paid by people who get vaccinated only because of the mandate.

Oh, I have an interest, you just don't seem ready to supply data that supports your point of view.

 

[TomC]

Getting the vaccine is only a net benefit in the calculation for yourself. It is not a net benefit to people who are currently unvaxxed.

This is demonstrably false. The science and statistical evidence is overwhelming. Everyone who gets vaccinated is contributing to herd immunity which benefits all of us.

This is the part that plague rats don't understand. Getting vaccinated isn't only a personal decision. It's a choice to improve the human situation. Refusing to get vaccinated is choosing to degrade the human situation.

It's not just a personal thing. It's fundamental morality. People who can get vaccinated, but choose not to do so, are immoral. They're choosing to degrade the human situation.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Getting the vaccine is only a net benefit in the calculation for yourself. It is not a net benefit to people who are currently unvaxxed.

This is demonstrably false. The science and statistical evidence is overwhelming. Everyone who gets vaccinated is contributing to herd immunity which benefits all of us.

This is the part that plague rats don't understand. Getting vaccinated isn't only a personal decision. It's a choice to improve the human situation. Refusing to get vaccinated is choosing to degrade the human situation.

It's not just a personal thing. It's fundamental morality. People who can get vaccinated, but choose not to do so, are immoral. They're choosing to degrade the human situation.
Tom

Herd immunity is a positive externality. The unvaxxed people are still individually paying the cost of getting vaxxed, and you appear not to understand that it is a cost.

 

[Metaphor]

Getting the vaccine does benefit everyone, as it reduces the amount of virus circulating in the community. Whether or not that will be a net benefit for all unvaxxed is up for debate. It is definitely a net benefit for those who cannot get vaccinated due to medical issues, or age.

Not all of the unvaxxed are unvaxxed by choice, and since you are so concerned about the psychological cost to people, perhaps you should consider the psychological cost to those who cannot be vaccinated from there not being a mandate. The vast majority of those are children. Why do you hate the children? (Sorry, I couldn't resist, I don't know if you hate children or not, just having a bit of fun)

Is the dialogue already this low that you are speculating on whether I hate children? Biden is already plannng to vaccinate 5-11 year olds, so soon they too will have their own protection--though of course their age is their biggest protector to begin with.

Further, I have seen many interviews with young adults who have not been vaccinated simply because they don't think they are likely to get the virus and die. There would be no psychological cost or benefit to that group of people from a mandate. It seems if we are going to go down this route of claiming psychological costs, we first need to determine who among the unvaccinated are likely to suffer psychologically from the mandate.

And I've seen people who sincerely believe they don't want to put 'chemicals' in their body, that God does not want them to vaccinate, that there are tracking devices in the vaccine, etc. These people are deeply distressed at the thought of not only getting the vaccine, but that their family members already have it. If they thought the vaccine was a net benefit, they'd have taken it. Same for the young adults--the vaccine is not a net benefit to them, or they would have taken it already.

I think you would need to demonstrate that there is some great psychological cost, and that a majority of the unvaxxed will suffer from it.

How do you demonstrate people's preferences except by their behaviour or asking them? Their behaviour certainly shows they would rather have no vaccine.

Perhaps you could quantify this by showing an increase in visits to psychologists by those who got a vaccine due to the mandate. A counter to that might be data showing whether or not visits to psychologists decreased for those who are unable to get vaxxed.

The vast majority of people deal with psychological pain without ever visiting a psychologist or psychiatrist. But the social confinement aspects of the mandate will certainly drive down the mental and physical health of the unvaccinated. We've seen what lockdowns do.

Neither will all of the unvaxxed. Seems like it is time for you to quantify that psychological toll in some way.

Imagine you did not hate the unvaccinated and decided you would count the cost of their suffering under the mandate. How would you do it?

I cannot quantify mental health and suffering versus some other benefit that you have not quantified either, but I do know that being forced out of your preferences triggers it.

50 cents on the shilling.

What do you value it at, and how does that measure against all of the benefits (including the psychological benefits) of the mandate?

I would say the cost to the unvaccinated individuals subject to the mandate is high, since they either must go against their preference or have their social and economic options curtailed. And, in a non-mandate situation, they would not have had to pay those costs.

 

[none]

Getting the vaccine is only a net benefit in the calculation for yourself. It is not a net benefit to people who are currently unvaxxed.

This is demonstrably false. The science and statistical evidence is overwhelming. Everyone who gets vaccinated is contributing to herd immunity which benefits all of us.

This is the part that plague rats don't understand. Getting vaccinated isn't only a personal decision. It's a choice to improve the human situation. Refusing to get vaccinated is choosing to degrade the human situation.

It's not just a personal thing. It's fundamental morality. People who can get vaccinated, but choose not to do so, are immoral. They're choosing to degrade the human situation.
Tom

Herd immunity is a positive externality. The unvaxxed people are still individually paying the cost of getting vaxxed, and you appear not to understand that it is a cost.

Your complaint is stupid people are going to become even more disaffected by becoming more stupid?
Wait until the variants become more neurological, yes look that up.

 

[TomC]

Getting the vaccine is only a net benefit in the calculation for yourself. It is not a net benefit to people who are currently unvaxxed.

This is demonstrably false. The science and statistical evidence is overwhelming. Everyone who gets vaccinated is contributing to herd immunity which benefits all of us.

This is the part that plague rats don't understand. Getting vaccinated isn't only a personal decision. It's a choice to improve the human situation. Refusing to get vaccinated is choosing to degrade the human situation.

It's not just a personal thing. It's fundamental morality. People who can get vaccinated, but choose not to do so, are immoral. They're choosing to degrade the human situation.
Tom

Herd immunity is a positive externality. The unvaxxed people are still individually paying the cost of getting vaxxed, and you appear not to understand that it is a cost.

And I also understand that the rest of us are paying the costs of the plague rats.

You might be surprised to find how many people expect to both refuse vaccination and also expect hospital care.

Irrational and immoral IMHO, but there you have it.

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Herd immunity is a positive externality. The unvaxxed people are still individually paying the cost of getting vaxxed, and you appear not to understand that it is a cost.

And I also understand that the rest of us are paying the costs of the plague rats.

You might be surprised to find how many people expect to both refuse vaccination and also expect hospital care.

Irrational and immoral IMHO, but there you have it.

Tom

In Australia, we do not base hospital care on what beliefs you have or what medical procedures you have done or refused in the past.

 

[none]

Herd immunity is a positive externality. The unvaxxed people are still individually paying the cost of getting vaxxed, and you appear not to understand that it is a cost.

And I also understand that the rest of us are paying the costs of the plague rats.

You might be surprised to find how many people expect to both refuse vaccination and also expect hospital care.

Irrational and immoral IMHO, but there you have it.

Tom

In Australia, we do not base hospital care on what beliefs you have or what medical procedures you have done or refused in the past.

Pfft, maybe they should make exceptions... seriously.
I mean heck in Australia even idiots can't break the system...

 

[Trausti]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A vaccine mandate abstractly may be racist or not. This is also, of course, a false dichotomy because there is a mushy middle where outcomes may be different with no explicit intent of racism but due to racism in other areas of life, such as medical doctors, insurance etc, and the historical inertia of past racism, there may be something there. So basically yes--a little bit sort of--or no--are the options.

Now for any particular concrete vaccine mandate you have to look at the concrete details and data of both the execution of the mandate and the outcomes and reasons for different outcomes to say whether the specific mandate is racist or not (or in-between state).

So, for example, if you look at a place like Vermont that we've discussed over and over, but conservatives HATE, that is definitely in the NOT RACIST category. Remember though that conservatives in the forum were screaming about Vermont murdering white people.

Never forget!!!1111one!11!