Is a vaccine mandate a racist policy?

[none]

 

[KeepTalking]

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?

I clearly indicated I was joking.

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.

With a mandate we don't need to wait for "soon" to make sure that children are as protected from the virus as is reasonably possible while continuing to provide for their education.

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.

I agree that there are people like that, I do not agree that there are enough that sincerely hold those beliefs for there to be a psychological cost that outweighs the medical benefit for all. Bringing things back to the actual topic, it seems to me that this would likewise cut across racial divides, making it not a racist policy/mandate.

Same for the young adults--the vaccine is not a net benefit to them, or they would have taken it already.

Young adults tend to be a very apathetic age group. They simply think the are invincible, but for the group of young adults a mentioned it is not going to effect them psychologically if they are forced to get the vaccine or not. They just don't care enough to get it unless the vaccine is mandated.

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.

I don't know, you are the one claiming it is such an obvious harm, certainly that should make it easy for you to quantify.

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.

Certainly there is some measure that can be taken to show some policy has caused widespread psychological harm, otherwise you wouldn't be so certain that it is what will happen.

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.

This isn't a lockdown. Vaccine mandates are the thing that will keep us from having to endure further lockdowns. So by opposing mandates, you are essentially advocating for lockdowns and the psychological harm we both agree they cause.

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.

I have quantified it upthread by providing a link showing how vaccine mandates increase vaccinated populations by quite a large amount.

 

[KeepTalking]

*Snipped idiotic meme*

What a valuable contribution to the thread.

 

[none]

Pfft " the vast majority of people deal with psychological pain without ever visiting a psychologist or psychiatrist "
Oops a flaw... way to go Methaphor, way to go...

 

[Metaphor]

I agree that there are people like that, I do not agree that there are enough that sincerely hold those beliefs for there to be a psychological cost that outweighs the medical benefit for all.

You've never quantified that medical benefit. In the absence of a mandate, how many additional people would get very sick and/or die from COVID? You are implying that it is a number greater than zero (and I agree), but what's the number, and how have you decided that that number is worth the cost of the mandate?

Bringing things back to the actual topic, it seems to me that this would likewise cut across racial divides, making it not a racist policy/mandate.

I do not think those attitudes would be evenly distributed by race.

Young adults tend to be a very apathetic age group. They simply think the are invincible, but for the group of young adults a mentioned it is not going to effect them psychologically if they are forced to get the vaccine or not. They just don't care enough to get it unless the vaccine is mandated.

Well, of course there is still a cost to them, though the cost of 'overcoming apathy' versus the cost of somebody with sincerely held-objections is different.

I don't know, you are the one claiming it is such an obvious harm, certainly that should make it easy for you to quantify.

The harm is obvious but that does not make it easy to quantify, or indeed whether there is a relevant and agreed metric at all. What is the loss when somebody loses a spouse? Can you measure it in dollars?

Certainly there is some measure that can be taken to show some policy has caused widespread psychological harm, otherwise you wouldn't be so certain that it is what will happen.

Well, in one sense, it is too late to quantify it--unless a random sample of unvaxxed people has already been selected for study and there mental, physical, social, and economic health is measured before and after the mandate.

This isn't a lockdown. Vaccine mandates are the thing that will keep us from having to endure further lockdowns. So by opposing mandates, you are essentially advocating for lockdowns and the psychological harm we both agree they cause.

No, I am not advocating for lockdowns, in 'essence' or otherwise. Melbourne is the most locked-down city in the world, and Victoria is currently the worst place in Australia for new COVID infections. Lockdowns also were policy on the run, and the total cost of them - mentally, physically, socially, and economically, has not been quantified.

I have quantified it upthread by providing a link showing how vaccine mandates increase vaccinated populations by quite a large amount.

That is not a quantification of value, let alone a value we can compare against losses in a different metric.

 

[KeepTalking]

You've never quantified that medical benefit.

Allow me to rectify that situation:
Vaccines Cut Odds for Death From COVID Delta Variant by 90%

In the absence of a mandate, how many additional people would get very sick and/or die from COVID?

Entirely too many:
Covid-19: Unvaccinated face 11 times risk of death from delta variant, CDC data show

You are implying that it is a number greater than zero (and I agree), but what's the number, and how have you decided that that number is worth the cost of the mandate?

In my opinion, and in the face of a total lack of data from you supporting the contention that anyone will face a psychological cost as a result of the mandate, any number larger than zero is worth the cost of the mandate.

I do not think those attitudes would be evenly distributed by race.

Then prove it.

Young adults tend to be a very apathetic age group. They simply think the are invincible, but for the group of young adults a mentioned it is not going to effect them psychologically if they are forced to get the vaccine or not. They just don't care enough to get it unless the vaccine is mandated.

Well, of course there is still a cost to them, though the cost of 'overcoming apathy' versus the cost of somebody with sincerely held-objections is different.

I would classify 'overcoming apathy' as a benefit, not a cost.

I don't know, you are the one claiming it is such an obvious harm, certainly that should make it easy for you to quantify.

The harm is obvious but that does not make it easy to quantify, or indeed whether there is a relevant and agreed metric at all.

I do agree that there are harms that are obvious but not easy to quantify. I think that is one big problem you are going to have with convincing anyone that the psychological harms resulting form a mandate outweigh the quantifiable health benefits of a vaccine mandate.

What is the loss when somebody loses a spouse? Can you measure it in dollars?

That depends on whether they had life insurance or not.

Certainly there is some measure that can be taken to show some policy has caused widespread psychological harm, otherwise you wouldn't be so certain that it is what will happen.

Well, in one sense, it is too late to quantify it--unless a random sample of unvaxxed people has already been selected for study and there mental, physical, social, and economic health is measured before and after the mandate.

Once again, this in no way makes your argument a convincing one.

This isn't a lockdown. Vaccine mandates are the thing that will keep us from having to endure further lockdowns. So by opposing mandates, you are essentially advocating for lockdowns and the psychological harm we both agree they cause.

No, I am not advocating for lockdowns, in 'essence' or otherwise. Melbourne is the most locked-down city in the world, and Victoria is currently the worst place in Australia for new COVID infections. Lockdowns also were policy on the run, and the total cost of them - mentally, physically, socially, and economically, has not been quantified.

I agree with everything you say about the cost of lockdowns. Unfortunately, if something is not done about the spread of COVID, there will be more lockdowns in everyone's near future. Vaccine mandates are highly effective at reducing the spread of COVID, and would therefor reduce the likelihood of future lockdowns.

 

[Metaphor]

Allow me to rectify that situation:
Vaccines Cut Odds for Death From COVID Delta Variant by 90%

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...odds-for-death-from-covid-delta-variant-by-90

That does not answer the question. The benefit from the vaccine mandate is not the same as the benefit from the vaccine.

Entirely too many:
Covid-19: Unvaccinated face 11 times risk of death from delta variant, CDC data show

"Entirely too many" is, of course, subjective, but it also doesn't answer the question. How many extra people would die with the mandate versus without it?

In my opinion, and in the face of a total lack of data from you supporting the contention that anyone will face a psychological cost as a result of the mandate, any number larger than zero is worth the cost of the mandate.

You agreed that there is a psychological cost, didn't you? A number greater than zero?

Then prove it.

Vaccine hesitancy is higher among non-whites.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783615

I would classify 'overcoming apathy' as a benefit, not a cost.

I would not. I do not like being forced to do things that I do not believe worth my effort to do, and I count being forced to do it as a cost.

I do agree that there are harms that are obvious but not easy to quantify. I think that is one big problem you are going to have with convincing anyone that the psychological harms resulting form a mandate outweigh the quantifiable health benefits of a vaccine mandate.

I will certainly have a time convincing anybody who has dehumanised the unvaccinated to the point where psychological harm to them counts for nothing at all.

That depends on whether they had life insurance or not.

We could measure how much we would need to pay a vaccine-hesitant person to volunteer themselves for vaccination, I suppose.

Once again, this in no way makes your argument a convincing one.

It isn't convincing to somebody who has already discounted the costs that the vaccine reluctant would pay.

I agree with everything you say about the cost of lockdowns. Unfortunately, if something is not done about the spread of COVID, there will be more lockdowns in everyone's near future. Vaccine mandates are highly effective at reducing the spread of COVID, and would therefor reduce the likelihood of future lockdowns.

Vaccine mandates are effective at forcing some people who otherwise would not have done so, to get vaccinated. The total effect on COVID reduction has yet to be measured, and would depend on how many people had already been vaccinated before the mandate.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is this some sort of weird performance art or something?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No. The problem here is that the actual cost is not the same as the perceived cost. It's a decision based on faulty data. The refusers are being scammed and you're supporting the scammers.

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.

You need to show those costs. The risks of the vaccine are far below the risks of the virus other than those very few highly sensitive to ingredients in all the vaccines. The risk of the vaccine must be compared to the alternative, nothing is not a choice on the table.

 

[Metaphor]

No. The problem here is that the actual cost is not the same as the perceived cost.

I suppose you believe in the labour theory of value too.

It's a decision based on faulty data. The refusers are being scammed and you're supporting the scammers.

It's a decision based on subjective preferences.

You need to show those costs. The risks of the vaccine are far below the risks of the virus other than those very few highly sensitive to ingredients in all the vaccines. The risk of the vaccine must be compared to the alternative, nothing is not a choice on the table.

I have explained those costs a dozen times over.

 

[KeepTalking]

That does not answer the question. The benefit from the vaccine mandate is not the same as the benefit from the vaccine.

The Forbes article I linked earlier provides the data from vaccine mandates, showing that vaccination rates improved remarkably. You did not think that was sufficient because it did not show the medical benefit. The new data provided does that, so you can now combine the results and see the medical benefit from the vaccine mandate.

"Entirely too many" is, of course, subjective, but it also doesn't answer the question.

No more subjective than your claims of psychological cost.

How many extra people would die with the mandate versus without it?

None.

In my opinion, and in the face of a total lack of data from you supporting the contention that anyone will face a psychological cost as a result of the mandate, any number larger than zero is worth the cost of the mandate.

You agreed that there is a psychological cost, didn't you? A number greater than zero?

Yes. And there is also a psychological cost associated with each death resulting from the virus. Until you show me that I should be more concerned about the psychological cost associated with the mandate, over both the deadly and psychological costs associated with not enacting the mandate, I will continue to believe that fewer deaths resulting is the moral high ground.

Then prove it.

Vaccine hesitancy is higher among non-whites.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2783615

Awesome. Then it seems that vaccine mandate just might improve outcomes from blacks, thereby reducing racial inequity. You have once again shown how the vaccine mandate is not racist.

I would classify 'overcoming apathy' as a benefit, not a cost.

I would not. I do not like being forced to do things that I do not believe worth my effort to do, and I count being forced to do it as a cost.

Spoken like every 12 year old I have ever met.

"You can't make me, you're not the boss of me!", psychological breakdown ensues.

I do agree that there are harms that are obvious but not easy to quantify. I think that is one big problem you are going to have with convincing anyone that the psychological harms resulting form a mandate outweigh the quantifiable health benefits of a vaccine mandate.

I will certainly have a time convincing anybody who has dehumanised the unvaccinated to the point where psychological harm to them counts for nothing at all.

I will take that over being apathetic to the unnecessary death toll and resulting psychological harm that will happen in the absence of a mandate.

Once again, this in no way makes your argument a convincing one.

It isn't convincing to somebody who has already discounted the costs that the vaccine reluctant would pay.

Or someone who values life more, and realizes that there is a psychological cost associated with every unnecessary death resulting from the lack of a mandate.

I agree with everything you say about the cost of lockdowns. Unfortunately, if something is not done about the spread of COVID, there will be more lockdowns in everyone's near future. Vaccine mandates are highly effective at reducing the spread of COVID, and would therefor reduce the likelihood of future lockdowns.

Vaccine mandates are effective at forcing some people who otherwise would not have done so, to get vaccinated. The total effect on COVID reduction has yet to be measured, and would depend on how many people had already been vaccinated before the mandate.

The data has been presented in this thread. Vaccine mandates are highly effective at increasing vaccinated populations, and we are currently in a situation where the spread of COVID is going on unchecked in far too many communities. There is no doubt that additional and more broad vaccine mandates will reduce the death and suffering we are currently seeing due to this pandemic.

 

[KeepTalking]

Is this some sort of weird performance art or something?

Yes, and I am pretty sure it is one I have seen quite a few times before.

I think the title is "Twisting in the Wind to Avoid Ever Admitting One is Wrong".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is this some sort of weird performance art or something?

Yes, and I am pretty sure it is one I have seen quite a few times before.

I think the title is "Twisting in the Wind to Avoid Ever Admitting One is Wrong".

I'd like to have seen Robin Williams perform that.
What would that be, "Death of a Notion Ballet"? Or "Growing Realization on Thin Ice Boogaloo"?

 

[Metaphor]

The Forbes article I linked earlier provides the data from vaccine mandates, showing that vaccination rates improved remarkably. You did not think that was sufficient because it did not show the medical benefit. The new data provided does that, so you can now combine the results and see the medical benefit from the vaccine mandate.

No. You badgered me repeatedly to 'quantify' the psychological harm of the mandate. Saying that a mandate increases vaccination rates and that increased vaccination rates reduces COVID is indeed what I'd expect, but it is not a quantification of the vaccine mandate.

None.

I mistyped. If Biden did not have a vaccine mandate, how many extra people will die from COVID?

And, if you do have that number quantified, can you divide it into:
* How many extra voluntary unvaxxed die
* How many extra 'medically unwise to vax' die (immunocompromised etc)
* How many vaxxed people die

Yes. And there is also a psychological cost associated with each death resulting from the virus. Until you show me that I should be more concerned about the psychological cost associated with the mandate, over both the deadly and psychological costs associated with not enacting the mandate, I will continue to believe that fewer deaths resulting is the moral high ground.

I certainly don't know how to make you care about the psychological cost of the mandate if you don't already care.

Awesome. Then it seems that vaccine mandate just might improve outcomes from blacks, thereby reducing racial inequity. You have once again shown how the vaccine mandate is not racist.

Non. It shows that black people will pay a higher psychological, social, and economic cost with a vaccine mandate than white people. But I understand you value the psychological costs of anti-vaxxers at some value that is non-zero but small.

Spoken like every 12 year old I have ever met.

"You can't make me, you're not the boss of me!", psychological breakdown ensues.

You are indeed not the boss of me, and I am not the boss of you. I hardly think it's controversial to say so.

I will take that over being apathetic to the unnecessary death toll and resulting psychological harm that will happen in the absence of a mandate.

Who said I was apathetic?

Or someone who values life more, and realizes that there is a psychological cost associated with every unnecessary death resulting from the lack of a mandate.

Values life more than what? Can you quantify it? Would you think a mandate was justified if it saved only a single life in America?

The data has been presented in this thread. Vaccine mandates are highly effective at increasing vaccinated populations, and we are currently in a situation where the spread of COVID is going on unchecked in far too many communities. There is no doubt that additional and more broad vaccine mandates will reduce the death and suffering we are currently seeing due to this pandemic.

The data that vaccine mandates increase vaccinations has been presented. But what is the effect of a mandate versus the current level of voluntary vaccination? I mean: if right now, 95% of the population had been vaxxed, would a vaccine mandate be justified to get it up further, in your opinion?

 

[KeepTalking]

No. You badgered me repeatedly to 'quantify' the psychological harm of the mandate.

Yes, I have repeatedly asked you to back up your assertions with data. You have yet to do so.

Saying that a mandate increases vaccination rates and that increased vaccination rates reduces COVID is indeed what I'd expect, but it is not a quantification of the vaccine mandate.

Well, it's a good thing that is not all I provided. I provided links to the quantification you are asking for, but you don't seem to want to click on those links, so here you go:

New York City’s requirement that all public school educators be vaccinated compelled more than 15,000 teachers to get their first jab...

In California, managed care company Kaiser Permanente, which employs over 300,000 people, said its employee vaccination rate spiked from about 78% to 97% after the state declared healthcare workers needed to get vaccinated...

New York’s vaccination mandate for hospital and nursing home workers went into full effect last Monday and coincided with a roughly ten-percentage-point increase in the vaccination rate among those workers to 92% in the span of just a week...

When Tyson Foods announced a mandate August 3, less than 50% of its workforce had been vaccinated; the share has since climbed above 90%, with a month to go before the November 1 deadline...

There is more quantification of the benefits of the vaccine mandate at the link.

I mistyped. If Biden did not have a vaccine mandate, how many extra people will die from COVID?

Too many.

And, if you do have that number quantified, can you divide it into:

It may not be exactly what you are asking for, but I can put some numbers together for you, based on the data available. Be warned, I am not a statistician, not a mathematician, so mistakes are likely to ensue.

There are approximately 330 million people in the US.

According to this NPR link 57.2% of the US population has been vaccinated. So, about 188.76 million Americans, leaving approximately 141.24 million unvaxxed in the US.

From the Forbes article, a 20% increase in vaccinated rates resulting from mandates seems to be a very conservative estimate, so that is the one I will use. IF a mandate that all Americans get vaccinated, that would mean the vaccination rate would be expected to raise from 57% to about 77%, leading to about 254 million Americans being vaccinated. That would be about 65 million more Americans than are currently vaccinated.

* How many extra voluntary unvaxxed die

I have not been able to find out exactly how contagious COVID 19 is, but the Delta variant, which is currently the primary variant circulating in the US is apparently about 4 times more contagious that the original strain. I think I will be conservative again, and go with 20% of the unvaxxed coming down with COVID 19. So, of the 65 million who would otherwise not gotten vaxxed, then about 13 million of them will get COVID 19. The Delta variant is also more deadly than the original strain, but out of 45.3 million cases in the US 734 thousand have died from COVID overall, which makes it about 1.6% deadly. So, of the 13 million who get COVID because they did not get vaxxed because they were not mandated to get the vaccine, a conservative 208,000 more voluntary unvaxxed will die.

* How many extra 'medically unwise to vax' die (immunocompromised etc)
* How many vaxxed people die

I don't really have the time to dig up the numbers on the unvaxxed due to medical reasons, or make the calculation on the unvaxxed, however, if you really want to see those numbers, and don't want to do any work yourself, just let me know and I will work it out when I get the chance.

Yes. And there is also a psychological cost associated with each death resulting from the virus. Until you show me that I should be more concerned about the psychological cost associated with the mandate, over both the deadly and psychological costs associated with not enacting the mandate, I will continue to believe that fewer deaths resulting is the moral high ground.

I certainly don't know how to make you care about the psychological cost of the mandate if you don't already care.

I didn't say that I don't care. I have only said that I don't think that cost outweighs the cost in death of suffering that will result from not having a mandate.

Awesome. Then it seems that vaccine mandate just might improve outcomes from blacks, thereby reducing racial inequity. You have once again shown how the vaccine mandate is not racist.

Non. It shows that black people will pay a higher psychological, social, and economic cost with a vaccine mandate than white people.

And that they will reap a higher health and psychological benefit resulting from having to deal with less death from COVID in their families and communities. Th

But I understand you value the psychological costs of anti-vaxxers at some value that is non-zero but small.

Yes, non-zero, but smaller than the death toll among anti-vaxxers and psychological costs associated with that.

Spoken like every 12 year old I have ever met.

"You can't make me, you're not the boss of me!", psychological breakdown ensues.

You are indeed not the boss of me, and I am not the boss of you. I hardly think it's controversial to say so.

Well, I'm glad you are embracing your inner petulant child.

I will take that over being apathetic to the unnecessary death toll and resulting psychological harm that will happen in the absence of a mandate.

Who said I was apathetic?

You were certainly defending apathy a few posts ago. Why is it suddenly a bad thing? Beside, you have been leveling accusations against me for not caring about people, so I thought I would spread it around a little.

Or someone who values life more, and realizes that there is a psychological cost associated with every unnecessary death resulting from the lack of a mandate.

Values life more than what?

The fragile psyches of the unvaxxed, do please try to keep up.

Can you quantify it?

I have been making an effort to do so. When will you try to quantify the psychological costs you feel are paramount?

Would you think a mandate was justified if it saved only a single life in America?

Yes. Would you think a mandate was unjustified if shattered the fragile ego of only a single anti-vaxxer?

The data has been presented in this thread. Vaccine mandates are highly effective at increasing vaccinated populations, and we are currently in a situation where the spread of COVID is going on unchecked in far too many communities. There is no doubt that additional and more broad vaccine mandates will reduce the death and suffering we are currently seeing due to this pandemic.

The data that vaccine mandates increase vaccinations has been presented. But what is the effect of a mandate versus the current level of voluntary vaccination? I mean: if right now, 95% of the population had been vaxxed, would a vaccine mandate be justified to get it up further, in your opinion?

No, if 95% of the population were vaxxed, a mandate would not be justified, and we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

* How many extra 'medically unwise to vax' die (immunocompromised etc)

There are very, very few who actually can't be vaxxed. Immunocompromised means the vaccine doesn't work as well, it isn't a reason not to get the shot. The only medical reasons to not get it are serious sensitivity to some component--and note that the just because one shot is a bad idea doesn't mean the others are.

I certainly don't know how to make you care about the psychological cost of the mandate if you don't already care.

You haven't demonstrated any real psychological cost more than the psychological cost of complying with a lot of laws in society. If you're not willing to abide by the laws of civilization, leave. If you are willing, explain what is so much more onerous about this one?

 

[Keith&Co.]

IS there a non-batshit basis for psychological harm from getting the vaccine?

It's received full FDA approval.
MILLIONS of people have gotten one or another.
General distrust in vaccinations was sparked by a conman advancing his own monetary interests.
Specific distrust of Covid-19 and the vaccine, was sparked by a con man advancing his own political interests, abetted by political allies (who are all vaccinated).
It's goddamned free, unlike the $400-$500 fake cards.
It's a tiny needle. Compare to the size and operating position of a ventilator.
It's only in your body for about four days.
No one needs to jab you to track you, your phone is sufficient.
Listening to nutburger fearmongers (nano-bots, DNA rewritten, shedding deadly infectious RNA) IS batshit.
If you're afraid your soul will be tainted by a product that used stem cell research in development, that ship has almost certainly sailed already, if you use acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, preparation H, Pepto Bismal... and i have some bad news about ivermectin.

So, other that 'buying into batshit hype,' what psychological damage are you expdcting?

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, I have repeatedly asked you to back up your assertions with data. You have yet to do so.

And I've said that psychological harm of the kind I'm talking about exists but cannot be quantified, or if it can, the data does not exist. And if it can be quantified, it is not necessarily on the same metric as what it is being compared to.

Too many.

Right. How did you decide it was too many, if you don't know the number?

It may not be exactly what you are asking for, but I can put some numbers together for you, based on the data available. Be warned, I am not a statistician, not a mathematician, so mistakes are likely to ensue.

There are approximately 330 million people in the US.

According to this NPR link 57.2% of the US population has been vaccinated. So, about 188.76 million Americans, leaving approximately 141.24 million unvaxxed in the US.

From the Forbes article, a 20% increase in vaccinated rates resulting from mandates seems to be a very conservative estimate, so that is the one I will use. IF a mandate that all Americans get vaccinated, that would mean the vaccination rate would be expected to raise from 57% to about 77%, leading to about 254 million Americans being vaccinated. That would be about 65 million more Americans than are currently vaccinated.

So: the mandate forces about 65 million people to get vaccinated who otherwise would not have been vaccinated, and the remaining 23% of people do not get vaccinated, and are penalised forever, or until some defined event occurs?

I have not been able to find out exactly how contagious COVID 19 is, but the Delta variant, which is currently the primary variant circulating in the US is apparently about 4 times more contagious that the original strain. I think I will be conservative again, and go with 20% of the unvaxxed coming down with COVID 19. So, of the 65 million who would otherwise not gotten vaxxed, then about 13 million of them will get COVID 19. The Delta variant is also more deadly than the original strain, but out of 45.3 million cases in the US 734 thousand have died from COVID overall, which makes it about 1.6% deadly. So, of the 13 million who get COVID because they did not get vaxxed because they were not mandated to get the vaccine, a conservative 208,000 more voluntary unvaxxed will die.

Thank you, that is the sort of quantification I was looking for, although I disagree with one of your implied assumptions--that the chances of getting COVID are the same for the unvaxxed both before and after 57% of the population is vaxxed. This seems to me to be ignoring the 'free rider' effect that people accuse the unvaxxed of.

I don't really have the time to dig up the numbers on the unvaxxed due to medical reasons, or make the calculation on the unvaxxed, however, if you really want to see those numbers, and don't want to do any work yourself, just let me know and I will work it out when I get the chance.

I don't know the number for the unvaxxed due to medical conditions either, but I think we can both agree it must be very small: only tiny fractions of people are genuinely unable to be vaxxed due to underlying medical conditions.

Above, where you write "or make the calculation on the unvaxxed", I assume you men 'vaxxed' instead.

No, you don't need to make that calculation, but presumably, since the vaccine has a large protective effect from getting very sick and dying from COVID, the numbers will be very small, and nothing like the number for the unvaxxed, despite the fact that the vaxxed are a larger group overall.

I didn't say that I don't care. I have only said that I don't think that cost outweighs the cost in death of suffering that will result from not having a mandate.

In my calculus, I think I would weight more heavily than you the freedom of choice and bodily autonomy, including the intangible deleterious effect of the normalisation of the State in forcing medical procedures.

And that they will reap a higher health and psychological benefit resulting from having to deal with less death from COVID in their families and communities. Th

They will reap a benefit, but it is your calculation that it is higher overall than the cost.

Yes, non-zero, but smaller than the death toll among anti-vaxxers and psychological costs associated with that.

Okay - but can you imagine that your calculus and anyone else's, including mine, depends on how much you value different elements?

Well, I'm glad you are embracing your inner petulant child.

I am not a child nor am I petulant merely for valuing bodily autonomy.

You were certainly defending apathy a few posts ago. Why is it suddenly a bad thing? Beside, you have been leveling accusations against me for not caring about people, so I thought I would spread it around a little.

I 'defended' the right for people to be apathetic about particular subjects. That does not mean I am apathetic about suffering.

The fragile psyches of the unvaxxed, do please try to keep up.

I value their own calculus for their mind and body as more accurate for themselves than your calculus for them.

I have been making an effort to do so. When will you try to quantify the psychological costs you feel are paramount?

I've already said that psychological harm cannot be quantified, or if it can, the data does not exist in relation to this mandate, and would not exist on a metric that was the same as the 'number of deaths from COVID' count.

Yes. Would you think a mandate was unjustified if shattered the fragile ego of only a single anti-vaxxer?

It depends on the situation, but it seems to me that if only one 'fragile ego' was shattered by a vaccine mandate, then 99% or more of the population would be vaxxed already. And in that case, no, I do not believe that forcing the remaining 1% to get vaccinated would be justified.

No, if 95% of the population were vaxxed, a mandate would not be justified, and we would not be having this discussion.

I'm glad to hear there is indeed a tipping point in your calculus.

 

[Metaphor]

IS there a non-batshit basis for psychological harm from getting the vaccine?

It's received full FDA approval.
MILLIONS of people have gotten one or another.
General distrust in vaccinations was sparked by a conman advancing his own monetary interests.
Specific distrust of Covid-19 and the vaccine, was sparked by a con man advancing his own political interests, abetted by political allies (who are all vaccinated).
It's goddamned free, unlike the $400-$500 fake cards.
It's a tiny needle. Compare to the size and operating position of a ventilator.
It's only in your body for about four days.
No one needs to jab you to track you, your phone is sufficient.
Listening to nutburger fearmongers (nano-bots, DNA rewritten, shedding deadly infectious RNA) IS batshit.
If you're afraid your soul will be tainted by a product that used stem cell research in development, that ship has almost certainly sailed already, if you use acetaminophen, albuterol, aspirin, ibuprofen, preparation H, Pepto Bismal... and i have some bad news about ivermectin.

So, other that 'buying into batshit hype,' what psychological damage are you expdcting?

I realise you don't actually want an honest answer, but I will provide one anyway: the rationality for the fear does not somehow lessen the psychological harm. A picture of a spider cannot harm you, but for severe arachnophobes, even looking at a picture is a highly distressing experience (hell, even seeing or hearing the word 'spider' can be distressing).

The mRNA delivery mechanism of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is also brand new, and there is no information on the long term effect of its use, because it has not been used before 2020 to deliver vaccines.

 

[KeepTalking]

And I've said that psychological harm of the kind I'm talking about exists but cannot be quantified, or if it can, the data does not exist. And if it can be quantified, it is not necessarily on the same metric as what it is being compared to.

Not imposing a vaccine mandate also has a component of psychological harm to it that cannot be quantified, both from those who cannot be vaccinated and thus rely on the rest of us to do so, and for those who care about the people who die from COVID because there was no mandate. There is no way to tell which one has a higher cost by your own admission, however, vaccine mandates have a benefit that can, and is being quantified. Why do you care about one set of unknown psychological costs over and above another, and in the face of known health benefits?

Right. How did you decide it was too many, if you don't know the number?

I am providing the numbers, they are in the range of hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. That is far too many.

It may not be exactly what you are asking for, but I can put some numbers together for you, based on the data available. Be warned, I am not a statistician, not a mathematician, so mistakes are likely to ensue.

There are approximately 330 million people in the US.

According to this NPR link 57.2% of the US population has been vaccinated. So, about 188.76 million Americans, leaving approximately 141.24 million unvaxxed in the US.

From the Forbes article, a 20% increase in vaccinated rates resulting from mandates seems to be a very conservative estimate, so that is the one I will use. IF a mandate that all Americans get vaccinated, that would mean the vaccination rate would be expected to raise from 57% to about 77%, leading to about 254 million Americans being vaccinated. That would be about 65 million more Americans than are currently vaccinated.

So: the mandate forces about 65 million people to get vaccinated who otherwise would not have been vaccinated, and the remaining 23% of people do not get vaccinated, and are penalised forever, or until some defined event occurs?

No. You continue to refuse to educate yourself regarding the topic we are discussing. The 20% number was from the first week of the vaccine mandates. Mandates which had been enacted for longer periods were seeing about a 40% uptake, driving numbers vaccination numbers for those mandated into the 90% range. That is herd immunity. That is a net benefit for everyone, vaxxed and unvaxxed.

I have not been able to find out exactly how contagious COVID 19 is, but the Delta variant, which is currently the primary variant circulating in the US is apparently about 4 times more contagious that the original strain. I think I will be conservative again, and go with 20% of the unvaxxed coming down with COVID 19. So, of the 65 million who would otherwise not gotten vaxxed, then about 13 million of them will get COVID 19. The Delta variant is also more deadly than the original strain, but out of 45.3 million cases in the US 734 thousand have died from COVID overall, which makes it about 1.6% deadly. So, of the 13 million who get COVID because they did not get vaxxed because they were not mandated to get the vaccine, a conservative 208,000 more voluntary unvaxxed will die.

Thank you, that is the sort of quantification I was looking for, although I disagree with one of your implied assumptions--that the chances of getting COVID are the same for the unvaxxed both before and after 57% of the population is vaxxed. This seems to me to be ignoring the 'free rider' effect that people accuse the unvaxxed of.

Not exactly. As noted, the Delta variant is about 4 times as deadly as the original strain and is also more communicable. The Delta variant has become the primary strain circulating in the US, but these numbers include the considerable amount of time before the Delta variant emerged, therefor the current death rate is higher than 1.6%. That will necessarily change that calculus, but I have no idea to what degree. In places where the virus is allowed to circulate unchecked, it becomes more and more likely that additional strains will emerge that are even more contagious and/or deadly. This is yet another reason to enact broad mandates now.

I don't really have the time to dig up the numbers on the unvaxxed due to medical reasons, or make the calculation on the unvaxxed, however, if you really want to see those numbers, and don't want to do any work yourself, just let me know and I will work it out when I get the chance.

I don't know the number for the unvaxxed due to medical conditions either, but I think we can both agree it must be very small: only tiny fractions of people are genuinely unable to be vaxxed due to underlying medical conditions.

Yes, I agree that is the case.

Above, where you write "or make the calculation on the unvaxxed", I assume you men 'vaxxed' instead.

You are correct.

No, you don't need to make that calculation, but presumably, since the vaccine has a large protective effect from getting very sick and dying from COVID, the numbers will be very small, and nothing like the number for the unvaxxed, despite the fact that the vaxxed are a larger group overall.

I agree, and thank you. Making these calculations really is not my thing.

I didn't say that I don't care. I have only said that I don't think that cost outweighs the cost in death of suffering that will result from not having a mandate.

In my calculus, I think I would weight more heavily than you the freedom of choice and bodily autonomy, including the intangible deleterious effect of the normalisation of the State in forcing medical procedures.

It is not like this is the first think the state has mandated for the overall health of the population, including other vaccines. In my State, for example, the chickenpox vaccine is mandated, and chickenpox is several orders of magnitude less deadly than COVID 19. In other words, that "normalisation of the State in forcing medical procedures" ship has already sailed, so why is this your breaking point?

And that they will reap a higher health and psychological benefit resulting from having to deal with less death from COVID in their families and communities. Th

They will reap a benefit, but it is your calculation that it is higher overall than the cost.

Yes. And you have not presented me with any calculation showing that the cost of the mandate is anywhere near the cost of not having the mandate.

Yes, non-zero, but smaller than the death toll among anti-vaxxers and psychological costs associated with that.

Okay - but can you imagine that your calculus and anyone else's, including mine, depends on how much you value different elements?

I can't imagine that you would value the fragile egos of the unvaxxed over the deaths of hundreds of thousands, compounded by the psychological cost of millions more grieving those deaths as well, as those who suffer psychologically because they cannot get vaxxed and are more likely to get COVID 19 and die because of the possible hurt feelings of anti-vaxxed.

Well, I'm glad you are embracing your inner petulant child.

I am not a child nor am I petulant merely for valuing bodily autonomy.

You embraced the cry psychological breakdown of a petulant child, but your protest is noted, and I will avoid characterizing you as such in the future.

You were certainly defending apathy a few posts ago. Why is it suddenly a bad thing? Beside, you have been leveling accusations against me for not caring about people, so I thought I would spread it around a little.

I 'defended' the right for people to be apathetic about particular subjects. That does not mean I am apathetic about suffering.

You clearly stated that it is not a benefit to overcome apathy. That seems to be an endorsement of apathy as being beneficial. Perhaps you would like to clarify your position on that now. Don't worry, post clarification I will not hold you to your original statement, unlike your treatment of Kendi.

The fragile psyches of the unvaxxed, do please try to keep up.

I value their own calculus for their mind and body as more accurate for themselves than your calculus for them.

The problem is that their calculus only includes themselves, and is based on misinformation and flat out lies, while their decision based on the calculation effects everyone. Contrast this situation with seatbelt mandates, where seatbelts are only beneficial to those who use them.

I have been making an effort to do so. When will you try to quantify the psychological costs you feel are paramount?

I've already said that psychological harm cannot be quantified, or if it can, the data does not exist in relation to this mandate, and would not exist on a metric that was the same as the 'number of deaths from COVID' count.

There are unquantifiable psychological harms resulting from both having the mandate and not having the mandate. Mandates provide a clear and quantifiable health benefit as well. Why do you ignore that in your calculus? What makes your unknowns so much worse than the other unknowns, and how do you then calculate that unknown against he known? This really seems like you basing your position on feelings, not reason. Having read your threads before, I don't think this is a position you would normally take. What makes this topic different for you?

Yes. Would you think a mandate was unjustified if shattered the fragile ego of only a single anti-vaxxer?

It depends on the situation, but it seems to me that if only one 'fragile ego' was shattered by a vaccine mandate, then 99% or more of the population would be vaxxed already. And in that case, no, I do not believe that forcing the remaining 1% to get vaccinated would be justified.

And given that psychological harms are unquantifiable, what if you are incorrect, what if a far lower percentage of the population having been vaccinated, say about 60%, and only one anti-vaxxer stood to have their ego fractured, would the mandate still be unjustified? That is much more equivalent to the question I though I was being asked, so I would like for you to provide an honest answer without modifying the question, like I did.

No, if 95% of the population were vaxxed, a mandate would not be justified, and we would not be having this discussion.

I'm glad to hear there is indeed a tipping point in your calculus.

That calculus still does not take into account the fragile egos of the unvaxxed.