European court of human rights rules obligatory vaccination may be necessary(dw.com)
dw.com
European court of human rights rules obligatory vaccination may be necessary
https://www.dw.com/en/echr-rules-obligatory-vaccination-may-be-necessary/a-57128443
122 comments
Because you can still catch COVID and give it to someone else. This is especially true of variants such as the SA B1.351, which appear to escape previous "natural" immunity even in recently recovered patients (3 months). You would be knowingly exposing other people to possibly deadly harm for personal uncertainty in now a fairly well demonstrated (multi-million person trial) safe procedure. The stabilized spike protein vaccines (not AZ or the original Sputnik) have shown significantly better effectiveness against those variants. It's not different from polio or measles as a school child.
So long as you're not a licensed professional or someone (in school) who is required to interact with the public, then I'd agree if you're willing to self-quarantine and mask and social distance whenever you go out, when you're free (morally) not to be vaccinated. If you want the privileges of regularly interacting in a society, however, you have to respect the rights of others in that society as well.
So long as you're not a licensed professional or someone (in school) who is required to interact with the public, then I'd agree if you're willing to self-quarantine and mask and social distance whenever you go out, when you're free (morally) not to be vaccinated. If you want the privileges of regularly interacting in a society, however, you have to respect the rights of others in that society as well.
So, other people has the right to demand what you inject in your veins.
Yes, for the same reason people have the right to prohibit you from consuming certain substances before driving: you don't have a right to put other people at substantial risk of harm.
As far as you want to interact with them, yes.
In the case of vaccines, yes, this is widely true.
If you are injecting a vaccine into the vein, you are purposely doing it wrong, with well known risks and health effects. That does not meet any standard of care. They are IM injections.
As long as you personally stay in your home and do not interact with anyone else non-socially distanced or without a mask on, and you're not a licensed to provide a service to the public, or attending a public institution, then I would say you should have the moral right not to be vaccinated for a highly contagious and moderately deadly virus.
BTW, if you catch Tuberculosis you will be forced into house arrest and the health agency will force you to zoom call for every pill you take once you are released after 3 months.
As long as you personally stay in your home and do not interact with anyone else non-socially distanced or without a mask on, and you're not a licensed to provide a service to the public, or attending a public institution, then I would say you should have the moral right not to be vaccinated for a highly contagious and moderately deadly virus.
BTW, if you catch Tuberculosis you will be forced into house arrest and the health agency will force you to zoom call for every pill you take once you are released after 3 months.
Then this someone else takes the vaccine and all is good. It's nonsense to enforce a vaccine on people that are largely unaffected.
There are people who can't get the vaccine for various reasons be it allergies, immune disorders or otherwise. This is a very selfish view and I'm sad to see it upvoted.
sto_hristo(1)
In a year or two (when enough vaccines have been produced), everyone who wants one should get it. If you feel unsafe, get it. Wouldn’t it then be unethical to force people to vaccinate to protect those who have already been vaccinated? and at any rate we’d have herd immunity by then
I plan to get it but am waiting for a single long-term (1 year or more) study to be published first
I plan to get it but am waiting for a single long-term (1 year or more) study to be published first
> Wouldn’t it then be unethical to force people to vaccinate to protect those who have already been vaccinated?
You are not vaccinating to protect the vaccinated, but those who _cannot_ be vaccinated, or who are not responding to vaccination.
For example, people with inmmunodeficiencies and autoimmune conditions, who are immunocompromised. Not sure, what the status on pregnant women is, but I would guess neither.
AFAIK, cancer treatments are affected, and some cannot be treated as they conventionally would.
So, it is weighing the rights of people who could get vaccinated to put up with a minor nuisance, but don't want to for personal reasons, against the rights of people who cannot get vaccinated and face potential critical health problems because either not being able to get the right treatment of their underlying disease, or simply directly being more and longer exposed to a potential deadly disease for them.
Additionally, by being unvaccinated, you are part of the pool of potential virus-carriers, and the larger the pool the larger the chance of mutations. That combined with a vaccinated population + evolution means more likely a mutation resistant against the vaccination.
You are not vaccinating to protect the vaccinated, but those who _cannot_ be vaccinated, or who are not responding to vaccination.
For example, people with inmmunodeficiencies and autoimmune conditions, who are immunocompromised. Not sure, what the status on pregnant women is, but I would guess neither.
AFAIK, cancer treatments are affected, and some cannot be treated as they conventionally would.
So, it is weighing the rights of people who could get vaccinated to put up with a minor nuisance, but don't want to for personal reasons, against the rights of people who cannot get vaccinated and face potential critical health problems because either not being able to get the right treatment of their underlying disease, or simply directly being more and longer exposed to a potential deadly disease for them.
Additionally, by being unvaccinated, you are part of the pool of potential virus-carriers, and the larger the pool the larger the chance of mutations. That combined with a vaccinated population + evolution means more likely a mutation resistant against the vaccination.
While I sympathize with immunocompromised, this argument fails to stick as COVID-19 is not as transmissible/contagious as many other pathogens.
Regarding pregnancy, We won’t know about the long term effects there for years
Regarding pregnancy, We won’t know about the long term effects there for years
It fails to stick with you. It doesn't fail to stick with the doctors which chose the treatments. I presume they know better the implications of COVID-19 over other diseases.
The risk group (boomers+) have had so many advantages that I'm not inclined to risk my health with forced AstraZeneca for them.
They are doing just fine with various rent seeking behaviors in my country. I don't need to rent them my body as well.
They are doing just fine with various rent seeking behaviors in my country. I don't need to rent them my body as well.
If the virus turned out to affect younger people more than older people, do you think we'd have a similar vaccination campaign? (Yes).
Just an added perspective from Canada. Right now the covid variants are causing more and more of the new cases and, in BC, the average age of someone testing positive for the variant is 30. To make matters worse, the variants could be more deadly.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-variants-canada-c...
Our vaccination progress is frustratingly slow and only the most elderly population (80+) have had their first shot in significant numbers. Even if you are only thinking about yourself, you should not be dismissing the risk from these new variants.
If the pandemic continues and voluntary uptake is not high enough, you better believe that vaccines will become mandatory. Being responsible sometimes means doing what we don't want to do.
Our vaccination progress is frustratingly slow and only the most elderly population (80+) have had their first shot in significant numbers. Even if you are only thinking about yourself, you should not be dismissing the risk from these new variants.
If the pandemic continues and voluntary uptake is not high enough, you better believe that vaccines will become mandatory. Being responsible sometimes means doing what we don't want to do.
If you survived the virus, you should easily survive the vaccine, particularly the mRNA ones. You already know that you tolerate virus mRNA and the S-protein being in your body just fine. The lipid nanoparticle poses incredibly little risk to you unless you happen to be allergic to PEG. You also have no idea of how well you're maintaining antibodies to the virus, or if you can contract and transmit a current or future variant.
Mandatory school vaccination is pretty common in most liberal democracies, no? Is this really a new idea?
The idea itself isn't new, though it does open two big questions in the context of the EU.
For individual countries and citizens, do we really want the EU making these kind of decisions as what appears almost out of the blue? The EU isn't exactly lacking in criticism.
Can we truly accept "higher forces" making this decision without running it through the people? A vaccine may be a minor thing, and obligatory vaccination was likely to be accepted anyway. But what if something much bigger and much more intrusive is going to be decided that the public just "has to deal with"?
As someone from the EU, I can't with full confidence say the EU has been transparent in their actions or reasoning. These are people with immense powers deciding the outcomes of lives. I do need transparency that in whatever period of time, with all the rather intrusive technology coming out, they won't pull any weird stunts. This doesn't help making their case.
For individual countries and citizens, do we really want the EU making these kind of decisions as what appears almost out of the blue? The EU isn't exactly lacking in criticism.
Can we truly accept "higher forces" making this decision without running it through the people? A vaccine may be a minor thing, and obligatory vaccination was likely to be accepted anyway. But what if something much bigger and much more intrusive is going to be decided that the public just "has to deal with"?
As someone from the EU, I can't with full confidence say the EU has been transparent in their actions or reasoning. These are people with immense powers deciding the outcomes of lives. I do need transparency that in whatever period of time, with all the rather intrusive technology coming out, they won't pull any weird stunts. This doesn't help making their case.
When the vaccines had been tested properly over a long period of time, like the polio one.
Or the Smallpox in 1905? https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-supreme-court
It is not. Almost all of them allow religious, conscience, and medical exemptions.
Only the most totalitarian regimes don't allow exemptions.
Only the most totalitarian regimes don't allow exemptions.
> It wasn't pleasant experience but I survived.
In that age bracket the main fear isn't outright dying, but "Long COVID", all kinds of problems affecting you for the rest of your life, or manifesting only later. Fatigue, lung problems etc.
In that age bracket the main fear isn't outright dying, but "Long COVID", all kinds of problems affecting you for the rest of your life, or manifesting only later. Fatigue, lung problems etc.
I've heard of this, but I am curious if:
A) Is there any substantial evidence that supports it
B) If A, then how many individuals are affected?
If you have any material on this, I would gladly read it.
Personally, my mental health is horrible. Being in isolation away from friends/family (among all the other measures we have taken during this pandemic) have slowly deteriorated my mental & physical health.
A) Is there any substantial evidence that supports it
B) If A, then how many individuals are affected?
If you have any material on this, I would gladly read it.
Personally, my mental health is horrible. Being in isolation away from friends/family (among all the other measures we have taken during this pandemic) have slowly deteriorated my mental & physical health.
A) Yes, lots.
B) 10%.
https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/themedreview/living-with-covid19 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n132.long
Get the population vaccinated so things can go back to normal and people can go back to work and play without fear of long term illness or death.
"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration." - Bene Gesserit saying
https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/themedreview/living-with-covid19 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n132.long
Get the population vaccinated so things can go back to normal and people can go back to work and play without fear of long term illness or death.
"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration." - Bene Gesserit saying
As far as I know there is no good data on "long covid" that substantially controls for confounders like obesity and age. Obese people are likely to have seemingly "long-term" effects from any respiratory problems that actually disappear if they lose weight (see for example obese asthma sufferers who often have what appears like chronic bronchitis). If you are aware of anything that provides evidence that accounts for confounders I'd be very happy to change my mind.
If you live isolated on an island I could understand, but if you want to use the public spaces like school, hospitals etc then we need to calculate the risks. If technically we could prove who spread a virus then we could give you the option to not vaccinate but if you cause someone else to get infected you pay , then you will actually have to calculate the external risks as it should, people would use the masks if they knew there is a small chance they could be accused and proven guilty of murder.
> but to simply force it amongst all age groups is beyond me.
That's how vaccines work.
> This seems very dangerous, and I don't why democracies are even flirting with the idea.
You say you're not an anti-vaxxer, which I believe, but you ARE using their utterly wrong but elegantly misleading talking point. A society being "democratic" does not equal "every member of society can do what ever the hell they want".
And democracies have not been flirting with this idea, they have been implementing it, successfully, for over a century.
> I'd consider taking one with more time/data
And just to drive the point home, no you would not.
Neither of us is able to rationally assess the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines (I'm assuming you are not a professional in the field from the arguments that you are using) so more data/time is useless to people like us. Either we trust the professional and institutions, or we don't. Not having faith in institutions/professionals isn't a problem - hell I even understand it and feel a non-trivial amount of it. But let's not pretend this has anything to do with vaccines themselves.
That's how vaccines work.
> This seems very dangerous, and I don't why democracies are even flirting with the idea.
You say you're not an anti-vaxxer, which I believe, but you ARE using their utterly wrong but elegantly misleading talking point. A society being "democratic" does not equal "every member of society can do what ever the hell they want".
And democracies have not been flirting with this idea, they have been implementing it, successfully, for over a century.
> I'd consider taking one with more time/data
And just to drive the point home, no you would not.
Neither of us is able to rationally assess the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines (I'm assuming you are not a professional in the field from the arguments that you are using) so more data/time is useless to people like us. Either we trust the professional and institutions, or we don't. Not having faith in institutions/professionals isn't a problem - hell I even understand it and feel a non-trivial amount of it. But let's not pretend this has anything to do with vaccines themselves.
"That's how vaccines work."
Um, not really. Not all vaccines are given to all groups. For example, covid vaccines are not approved for those under 16, and Shingrix is only for people over 55.
"Neither of us is able to rationally assess the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines (I'm assuming you are not a professional in the field from the arguments that you are using) so more data/time is useless to people like us."
But more time and data can benefit the researchers. There are plenty of examples of authorities changing their recommendations based on more data.
Um, not really. Not all vaccines are given to all groups. For example, covid vaccines are not approved for those under 16, and Shingrix is only for people over 55.
"Neither of us is able to rationally assess the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines (I'm assuming you are not a professional in the field from the arguments that you are using) so more data/time is useless to people like us."
But more time and data can benefit the researchers. There are plenty of examples of authorities changing their recommendations based on more data.
> Not all vaccines are given to all groups.
"Not all" does not counter the general case made.
The whole point of vaccination campaigns is to get the whole population vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease.
That's how we managed to eradicate Smallpox, and in a lot of countries Polio, Measles, Rubella,...
Guess, why we managed only to eradicate the first, and what stops us from doing so with the others.
> But more time and data can benefit the researchers.
More time can benefit the virus to try more different mutations. I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here.
"Not all" does not counter the general case made.
The whole point of vaccination campaigns is to get the whole population vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease.
That's how we managed to eradicate Smallpox, and in a lot of countries Polio, Measles, Rubella,...
Guess, why we managed only to eradicate the first, and what stops us from doing so with the others.
> But more time and data can benefit the researchers.
More time can benefit the virus to try more different mutations. I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here.
"The whole point of vaccination campaigns is to get the whole population vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease."
That's not entirely true either. You seem to have a habit of telling half-truths to further your own belief. You don't need the entire population to be vaccinated. Many vaccines do rely on herd immunity, but that number isn't 100%. Many fall around 85%, give or take 10%. There are also vaccines given to only very specific people - rabies for animal handlers, post exposure vaccination for rabies, smallpox for the military, etc. Many vaccines aren't able to eradicate illnesses because they are endemic in other hosts of the environment (rabies, lyme, etc).
"Guess, why we managed only to eradicate the first, and what stops us from doing so with the others."
It's specific to each one. Again, many of these illnesses have endemic sources other than people. It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.
"More time can benefit the virus to try more different mutations."
Sure, pathogens mutate. There are going to be new pathogens in the future too. At this point covid is now endemic throughout the world. It isn't going anywhere, even if we vaccinate everyone. I might add that vaccinating everyone isn't even possible due to age and medical condition guidelines.
"I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here."
Just an unsubstantiated claim now? Even the researchers have stated that there is still a lot to learn and more studies will take place over the years. If people find out that one of the vaccines shows a correlation with a rare blood disorder (as is currently developing), don't you think people should be informed about that so they can choose which vaccine to get?
That's not entirely true either. You seem to have a habit of telling half-truths to further your own belief. You don't need the entire population to be vaccinated. Many vaccines do rely on herd immunity, but that number isn't 100%. Many fall around 85%, give or take 10%. There are also vaccines given to only very specific people - rabies for animal handlers, post exposure vaccination for rabies, smallpox for the military, etc. Many vaccines aren't able to eradicate illnesses because they are endemic in other hosts of the environment (rabies, lyme, etc).
"Guess, why we managed only to eradicate the first, and what stops us from doing so with the others."
It's specific to each one. Again, many of these illnesses have endemic sources other than people. It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.
"More time can benefit the virus to try more different mutations."
Sure, pathogens mutate. There are going to be new pathogens in the future too. At this point covid is now endemic throughout the world. It isn't going anywhere, even if we vaccinate everyone. I might add that vaccinating everyone isn't even possible due to age and medical condition guidelines.
"I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here."
Just an unsubstantiated claim now? Even the researchers have stated that there is still a lot to learn and more studies will take place over the years. If people find out that one of the vaccines shows a correlation with a rare blood disorder (as is currently developing), don't you think people should be informed about that so they can choose which vaccine to get?
> You seem to have a habit of telling half-truths to further your own belief
Thanks for the personal attack. It is a simplification, I grant you that. Simplifications are not lies if they do not distort the underlying truth, they are in fact explanatory. In contrast, bringing up complications which are unrelated to the matter at hand are rhetorical diversions.
> That's not entirely true either.
> Many vaccines do rely on herd immunity, but that number isn't 100%. Many fall around 85%, give or take 10%. There are also vaccines given to only very specific people - rabies for animal handlers, post exposure vaccination for rabies, smallpox for the military, etc. Many vaccines aren't able to eradicate illnesses because they are endemic in other hosts of the environment (rabies, lyme, etc).
All true, but all that is not at all the cases we are talking about. Neither the diseases discussed in the court ruling, nor the covid pandemic.
> It's specific to each one. Again, many of these illnesses have endemic sources other than people. It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.
Again, thanks for diverting from the actual point with a personal attack. How does any of it relate to the topic (the diseases discussed) at hand in at best a hypothetical manner?
> Sure, pathogens mutate. There are going to be new pathogens in the future too.
> At this point covid is now endemic throughout the world. It isn't going anywhere, even if we vaccinate everyone.
I do not see how that should make anything better. To expand on that topic: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/two-thirds-epidemiologist...
> I might add that vaccinating everyone isn't even possible due to age and medical condition guidelines.
True, vaccinating the whole population is not possible. That doesn't stop it from being a goal. Where it isn't possible, it isn't possible. The research on vaccinating children is already being done. Yes, we do not _need_ x-nines for getting herd immunity. But herd immunity and the percentage are an oversimplification themselves of what, as you correctly put it, is a complicated topic.
> > I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here.
> Just an unsubstantiated claim now? Even the researchers have stated that there is still a lot to learn and more studies will take place over the years.
I was expressing here a personal opinion, not stating a fact. But let's get more to the factual point:
I do not see how researchers "gain time" by us doing nothing. Time simply passes. All _I_ hear from researchers is expressing the urgency in taking measures: Quarantines, lock-downs, vaccination programs, discontent about stopping the use of AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine, against vaccine nationalism, etc... Arguing against the vaccination program, I only heard from a single guy from the Netherlands.
I think, I have substantiated my claim with the prior link with the epidemiologists urging speed. Can you do the same with your claim, and find me an association/group of virologists, immunologists, or epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions?
> If people find out that one of the vaccines shows a correlation with a rare blood disorder (as is currently developing), don't you think people should be informed about that so they can choose which vaccine to get?
I totally agree, they should be informed. I think, it would be much better, when they can choose, which vaccine they get. (I would get the AstraZeneca/Oxford without a heart-beat, if that means I could get it now. And no, I do not fear to get the disease myself).
I think, the key to get vaccination rates up is to make vaccination as attractive as possible. Not being transparent about the risks is causing distrust, which does the contrary.
I am undecided about mandatory vaccinations.
When I hear that 30% of the population in the US prefers not to, I start to doubt about the liberty of having that decision. If 30% of the population doesn't want to get vaccinated, then it means that either my freedom to go to a restaurant, cinema, etc... will have to stay restricted, or people with the bad luck of poor health or genetics will suffer from the whole situation even more.
Hopefully, working more on improving the carrot rather than the stick will change things.
Thanks for the personal attack. It is a simplification, I grant you that. Simplifications are not lies if they do not distort the underlying truth, they are in fact explanatory. In contrast, bringing up complications which are unrelated to the matter at hand are rhetorical diversions.
> That's not entirely true either.
> Many vaccines do rely on herd immunity, but that number isn't 100%. Many fall around 85%, give or take 10%. There are also vaccines given to only very specific people - rabies for animal handlers, post exposure vaccination for rabies, smallpox for the military, etc. Many vaccines aren't able to eradicate illnesses because they are endemic in other hosts of the environment (rabies, lyme, etc).
All true, but all that is not at all the cases we are talking about. Neither the diseases discussed in the court ruling, nor the covid pandemic.
> It's specific to each one. Again, many of these illnesses have endemic sources other than people. It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.
Again, thanks for diverting from the actual point with a personal attack. How does any of it relate to the topic (the diseases discussed) at hand in at best a hypothetical manner?
> Sure, pathogens mutate. There are going to be new pathogens in the future too.
> At this point covid is now endemic throughout the world. It isn't going anywhere, even if we vaccinate everyone.
I do not see how that should make anything better. To expand on that topic: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/two-thirds-epidemiologist...
> I might add that vaccinating everyone isn't even possible due to age and medical condition guidelines.
True, vaccinating the whole population is not possible. That doesn't stop it from being a goal. Where it isn't possible, it isn't possible. The research on vaccinating children is already being done. Yes, we do not _need_ x-nines for getting herd immunity. But herd immunity and the percentage are an oversimplification themselves of what, as you correctly put it, is a complicated topic.
> > I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here.
> Just an unsubstantiated claim now? Even the researchers have stated that there is still a lot to learn and more studies will take place over the years.
I was expressing here a personal opinion, not stating a fact. But let's get more to the factual point:
I do not see how researchers "gain time" by us doing nothing. Time simply passes. All _I_ hear from researchers is expressing the urgency in taking measures: Quarantines, lock-downs, vaccination programs, discontent about stopping the use of AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine, against vaccine nationalism, etc... Arguing against the vaccination program, I only heard from a single guy from the Netherlands.
I think, I have substantiated my claim with the prior link with the epidemiologists urging speed. Can you do the same with your claim, and find me an association/group of virologists, immunologists, or epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions?
> If people find out that one of the vaccines shows a correlation with a rare blood disorder (as is currently developing), don't you think people should be informed about that so they can choose which vaccine to get?
I totally agree, they should be informed. I think, it would be much better, when they can choose, which vaccine they get. (I would get the AstraZeneca/Oxford without a heart-beat, if that means I could get it now. And no, I do not fear to get the disease myself).
I think, the key to get vaccination rates up is to make vaccination as attractive as possible. Not being transparent about the risks is causing distrust, which does the contrary.
I am undecided about mandatory vaccinations.
When I hear that 30% of the population in the US prefers not to, I start to doubt about the liberty of having that decision. If 30% of the population doesn't want to get vaccinated, then it means that either my freedom to go to a restaurant, cinema, etc... will have to stay restricted, or people with the bad luck of poor health or genetics will suffer from the whole situation even more.
Hopefully, working more on improving the carrot rather than the stick will change things.
"epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions?"
Sweden. And even your article implies that 1/3 of all epidemiologist do not agree with immediate total vaccination.
"When I hear that 30% of the population in the US prefers not to, I start to doubt about the liberty of having that decision."
Why? According to the science the covid vaccine only really protects the vaccinated since you can still be a carrier and still have a chance to infect other people. That's why they tell you to continue wearing a mask and socially distancing. The vaccine effectiveness is only measured in preventing serious symptoms, not preventing infection. Not to mention, this isn't a highly deadly disease. People in my age group are twice as likely to be murdered as they are to die from covid.
"Thanks for the personal attack."
You started it.
"All true, but all that is not at all the cases we are talking about. Neither the diseases discussed in the court ruling, nor the covid pandemic."
Tdap is part of the ones in the article and fits this paradigm. It's also the case for covid as there are non-human vectors of infection.
Sweden. And even your article implies that 1/3 of all epidemiologist do not agree with immediate total vaccination.
"When I hear that 30% of the population in the US prefers not to, I start to doubt about the liberty of having that decision."
Why? According to the science the covid vaccine only really protects the vaccinated since you can still be a carrier and still have a chance to infect other people. That's why they tell you to continue wearing a mask and socially distancing. The vaccine effectiveness is only measured in preventing serious symptoms, not preventing infection. Not to mention, this isn't a highly deadly disease. People in my age group are twice as likely to be murdered as they are to die from covid.
"Thanks for the personal attack."
You started it.
"All true, but all that is not at all the cases we are talking about. Neither the diseases discussed in the court ruling, nor the covid pandemic."
Tdap is part of the ones in the article and fits this paradigm. It's also the case for covid as there are non-human vectors of infection.
> > epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions?
> Sweden.
Care to provide a link or anything? Or be more specific? Are you talking about a Swedish professional association?
> And even your article implies that 1/3 of all epidemiologist do not agree with immediate total vaccination
No, it doesn't. Here another line, same article: "The overwhelming majority - 88 per cent - said that persistent low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely for vaccine resistant mutations to appear."
I think, I am still owed a reference to a statement of the effect of being in favour of a slower vaccination program.
> Why? According to the science the covid vaccine only really protects the vaccinated since you can still be a carrier and still have a chance to infect other people. That's why they tell you to continue wearing a mask and socially distancing. The vaccine effectiveness is only measured in preventing serious symptoms, not preventing infection.
I would say, that is oversimplified. True, we only know with reasonable certainty the effect of the vaccine on the vaccinated from the initial studies. Recent data from Israel however can make us hope, that it also reduces the transmission: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va... Before we risk the lives of people, we want to be more sure. That takes time, but is actually still an argument for more vaccination (more data).
> Not to mention, this isn't a highly deadly disease. People in my age group are twice as likely to be murdered as they are to die from covid.
I think we are turning here in circles. The whole shit-show is not to protect you (or me). It is to protect our parents, or potentially grand-parents. Or other people around us, we may come into contact. Maybe we have a friend who has cancer, or who knows what.
>> "Thanks for the personal attack."
> You started it.
How? I fear you are taking things a bit personal. I do not see, or at least intended anything disparaging in my remarks. I disagree with you and think you are mistaken, but that should be tolerable.
> Tdap is part of the ones in the article and fits this paradigm. It's also the case for covid as there are non-human vectors of infection.
I think, we got a bit derailed here. I understood, you were talking about vaccinations which are deliberately given to subgroups. I wanted to point out, that the ruling was not about vaccinations limited to subgroups, but ones to maximise the vaccination rate. Hence the case, and the ruling. So talking about those diseases doesn't make sense to me (e.g., rabies, lyme, smallpox,...).
If you are saying you see a similarities between Tdap and covid-19 vaccines, I think, you have put yourself a bit in an argumentatively bad spot: We have there a court ruling in favour of a government mandated "whole" (within medical limits) population vaccination program, as it is based on the guidance of expert opinion in favour of it. So I would see the similarities are pointing in favour of doing the same.
Or what did you wanted to say by pointing out the similarities?
> Sweden.
Care to provide a link or anything? Or be more specific? Are you talking about a Swedish professional association?
> And even your article implies that 1/3 of all epidemiologist do not agree with immediate total vaccination
No, it doesn't. Here another line, same article: "The overwhelming majority - 88 per cent - said that persistent low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely for vaccine resistant mutations to appear."
I think, I am still owed a reference to a statement of the effect of being in favour of a slower vaccination program.
> Why? According to the science the covid vaccine only really protects the vaccinated since you can still be a carrier and still have a chance to infect other people. That's why they tell you to continue wearing a mask and socially distancing. The vaccine effectiveness is only measured in preventing serious symptoms, not preventing infection.
I would say, that is oversimplified. True, we only know with reasonable certainty the effect of the vaccine on the vaccinated from the initial studies. Recent data from Israel however can make us hope, that it also reduces the transmission: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va... Before we risk the lives of people, we want to be more sure. That takes time, but is actually still an argument for more vaccination (more data).
> Not to mention, this isn't a highly deadly disease. People in my age group are twice as likely to be murdered as they are to die from covid.
I think we are turning here in circles. The whole shit-show is not to protect you (or me). It is to protect our parents, or potentially grand-parents. Or other people around us, we may come into contact. Maybe we have a friend who has cancer, or who knows what.
>> "Thanks for the personal attack."
> You started it.
How? I fear you are taking things a bit personal. I do not see, or at least intended anything disparaging in my remarks. I disagree with you and think you are mistaken, but that should be tolerable.
> Tdap is part of the ones in the article and fits this paradigm. It's also the case for covid as there are non-human vectors of infection.
I think, we got a bit derailed here. I understood, you were talking about vaccinations which are deliberately given to subgroups. I wanted to point out, that the ruling was not about vaccinations limited to subgroups, but ones to maximise the vaccination rate. Hence the case, and the ruling. So talking about those diseases doesn't make sense to me (e.g., rabies, lyme, smallpox,...).
If you are saying you see a similarities between Tdap and covid-19 vaccines, I think, you have put yourself a bit in an argumentatively bad spot: We have there a court ruling in favour of a government mandated "whole" (within medical limits) population vaccination program, as it is based on the guidance of expert opinion in favour of it. So I would see the similarities are pointing in favour of doing the same.
Or what did you wanted to say by pointing out the similarities?
Would you look at that...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-recommends-pause-j-j-111853384...
"Or what did you wanted to say by pointing out the similarities?"
You completely missed the point about infection vectors endemic to the environment. You're saying that vaccination eliminates the disease, which is not at all true for these types of pathogens. Even with 100% vaccination the virus will mutate in other host animals.
If you don't remember the Swedish position, then have you been following the news at all. They did not lockdown and jump to conclusions like the rest of the world. The FDA also said they want to wait for more data before approving the vaccine for children.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/sweden-avoided-covid-19...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/covid-vaccine-fda-...
"We have there a court ruling in favour of a government mandated "whole" (within medical limits) population vaccination program, as it is based on the guidance of expert opinion in favour of it. So I would see the similarities are pointing in favour of doing the same."
So your argument is just an appeal to authority - 'look at what the experts say!'? If we do that, then we can see that the experts aren't recommending mandatory vaccinations for covid.
"It is to protect our parents, or potentially grand-parents."
This can be done through alternative methods such as masks and social distancing. The experts also say that asymptomatic transmission is unlikely and that transmission is still possible even after vaccination. Most of the vaccine effectiveness numbers have been focused on preventing severe symptoms, not on total immunity. It's hard to advocate for mandatory vaccinations for a vaccine that 1) won't eliminate the disease 2) isn't even approved for everyone because it still needs more safety data 3) may not be beneficial for some segments of the population to recieve - children are usually asymptomatic and they say that asymptomatic people have a low likelihood of transmission, yet you can recieve the vaccine and still have a possibility of infection and transmission, thus it might not be rational to expose those people to the risks of the vaccine if it poses little to no benefit to them and the community.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-recommends-pause-j-j-111853384...
"Or what did you wanted to say by pointing out the similarities?"
You completely missed the point about infection vectors endemic to the environment. You're saying that vaccination eliminates the disease, which is not at all true for these types of pathogens. Even with 100% vaccination the virus will mutate in other host animals.
If you don't remember the Swedish position, then have you been following the news at all. They did not lockdown and jump to conclusions like the rest of the world. The FDA also said they want to wait for more data before approving the vaccine for children.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/sweden-avoided-covid-19...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/covid-vaccine-fda-...
"We have there a court ruling in favour of a government mandated "whole" (within medical limits) population vaccination program, as it is based on the guidance of expert opinion in favour of it. So I would see the similarities are pointing in favour of doing the same."
So your argument is just an appeal to authority - 'look at what the experts say!'? If we do that, then we can see that the experts aren't recommending mandatory vaccinations for covid.
"It is to protect our parents, or potentially grand-parents."
This can be done through alternative methods such as masks and social distancing. The experts also say that asymptomatic transmission is unlikely and that transmission is still possible even after vaccination. Most of the vaccine effectiveness numbers have been focused on preventing severe symptoms, not on total immunity. It's hard to advocate for mandatory vaccinations for a vaccine that 1) won't eliminate the disease 2) isn't even approved for everyone because it still needs more safety data 3) may not be beneficial for some segments of the population to recieve - children are usually asymptomatic and they say that asymptomatic people have a low likelihood of transmission, yet you can recieve the vaccine and still have a possibility of infection and transmission, thus it might not be rational to expose those people to the risks of the vaccine if it poses little to no benefit to them and the community.
> Would you look at that...
So, from the article:
"When medical countermeasures injure people in the United States, “we don’t have a lot of tolerance for that, and that tends to undermine vaccine confidence,” Marks said. "So we simply have to do whatever we can to minimize or eliminate issues that might be considered friendly fire.”"
and
"“I would much rather take the risk with the vaccine — a much smaller risk — than to risk it with COVID,” he [Seth Shockley] said."
and "“We believe there’s enough vaccine in the system — Moderna and Pfizer — for all Americans who want to get vaccinated by May 31 to do so,”"
Summary, people are wary of the vaccines, so they rather stop that vaccine, even if the risk of complications is higher with the disease. But you don't even have to because there are enough other vaccines.
> You completely missed the point about infection vectors endemic to the environment. You're saying that vaccination eliminates the disease, which is not at all true for these types of pathogens.
I was saying "vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease.", which is not the same as eradicating the disease. It's a straw man you are fighting here. What I am hoping here is to get the prevalence down, maybe to the level of measles, whooping cough,... In other words, all the diseases we do vaccinate already.
> Even with 100% vaccination the virus will mutate in other host animals.
Couple of things. First, the number of mutations is (simplified) mutation-rate times the prevalence times the population size. Lower prevalence means less mutations. Second, mutations are more likely adapted to the host.
Lastly, we tend to be fairly ruthless about animal reservoirs and tend to cull them (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54818615)
So, yes. In cases there is a large animal reservoir, vaccination (of humans) wouldn't be the sole solution. But my point here is, I do think you are digressing, as none of those things are arguments against vaccination.
> If you don't remember the Swedish position, then have you been following the news at all.
I was confused, because I was asking for a group of experts actually saying they want to slow down vaccinating, as you claimed it was for their benefit. "Sweden" does not quite fit that group. I won't get into discussing the semi-related policy choices of Sweden.
> The FDA also said they want to wait for more data before approving the vaccine for children.
Sure, because that decision would be purely theoretical anyway, as the US still hasn't enough vaccines to vaccinate the whole adult population. Point here again, though, we won't stop vaccinating the adult population or people at risk, because vaccinating as many people as possible drives the prevalence of the virus down. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/04/vaccinati...
I guess you found the wrong article, if it is supposed to be in support that statement. It is from Oct. 22, 2020 and pre-dates the emergency approval of the current vaccines in use.
From the article: "Even as a vaccine is seen as crucial to ending the pandemic, opinion polls have shown that Americans are increasingly skeptical about the products and worry that the vetting process is being rushed."
So again, rather than purely looking at the risks vaccine vs no-vaccine, it is about building confidence.
The previous administration wanted to get it out of the door ASAP. The FDA wanted two months of safety data. They got emergency approval somewhere in December.
Apparently it didn't help easing your mind.
> So your argument is just an appeal to authority - 'look at what the experts say!'?
You said "It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.", I think an appeal to authority is appropriate answer here, as it is an attack on the same. Also you claimed experts would profit from time to wait, I think it is not an appeal to authority to hear the cited group. It is direct evidence.
> If we do that, then we can see that the experts aren't recommending mandatory vaccinations for covid.
That is oversimplifying the matter. True, there are experts against mandatory vaccination. I am also not in favour. But the opinion is divided on that matter, as exemplified by the court ruling and expert opinion cited.
Wether that applies to Covid greatly depends on how things evolve.
So, from the article:
"When medical countermeasures injure people in the United States, “we don’t have a lot of tolerance for that, and that tends to undermine vaccine confidence,” Marks said. "So we simply have to do whatever we can to minimize or eliminate issues that might be considered friendly fire.”"
and
"“I would much rather take the risk with the vaccine — a much smaller risk — than to risk it with COVID,” he [Seth Shockley] said."
and "“We believe there’s enough vaccine in the system — Moderna and Pfizer — for all Americans who want to get vaccinated by May 31 to do so,”"
Summary, people are wary of the vaccines, so they rather stop that vaccine, even if the risk of complications is higher with the disease. But you don't even have to because there are enough other vaccines.
> You completely missed the point about infection vectors endemic to the environment. You're saying that vaccination eliminates the disease, which is not at all true for these types of pathogens.
I was saying "vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease.", which is not the same as eradicating the disease. It's a straw man you are fighting here. What I am hoping here is to get the prevalence down, maybe to the level of measles, whooping cough,... In other words, all the diseases we do vaccinate already.
> Even with 100% vaccination the virus will mutate in other host animals.
Couple of things. First, the number of mutations is (simplified) mutation-rate times the prevalence times the population size. Lower prevalence means less mutations. Second, mutations are more likely adapted to the host.
Lastly, we tend to be fairly ruthless about animal reservoirs and tend to cull them (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54818615)
So, yes. In cases there is a large animal reservoir, vaccination (of humans) wouldn't be the sole solution. But my point here is, I do think you are digressing, as none of those things are arguments against vaccination.
> If you don't remember the Swedish position, then have you been following the news at all.
I was confused, because I was asking for a group of experts actually saying they want to slow down vaccinating, as you claimed it was for their benefit. "Sweden" does not quite fit that group. I won't get into discussing the semi-related policy choices of Sweden.
> The FDA also said they want to wait for more data before approving the vaccine for children.
Sure, because that decision would be purely theoretical anyway, as the US still hasn't enough vaccines to vaccinate the whole adult population. Point here again, though, we won't stop vaccinating the adult population or people at risk, because vaccinating as many people as possible drives the prevalence of the virus down. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/04/vaccinati...
I guess you found the wrong article, if it is supposed to be in support that statement. It is from Oct. 22, 2020 and pre-dates the emergency approval of the current vaccines in use.
From the article: "Even as a vaccine is seen as crucial to ending the pandemic, opinion polls have shown that Americans are increasingly skeptical about the products and worry that the vetting process is being rushed."
So again, rather than purely looking at the risks vaccine vs no-vaccine, it is about building confidence.
The previous administration wanted to get it out of the door ASAP. The FDA wanted two months of safety data. They got emergency approval somewhere in December.
Apparently it didn't help easing your mind.
> So your argument is just an appeal to authority - 'look at what the experts say!'?
You said "It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.", I think an appeal to authority is appropriate answer here, as it is an attack on the same. Also you claimed experts would profit from time to wait, I think it is not an appeal to authority to hear the cited group. It is direct evidence.
> If we do that, then we can see that the experts aren't recommending mandatory vaccinations for covid.
That is oversimplifying the matter. True, there are experts against mandatory vaccination. I am also not in favour. But the opinion is divided on that matter, as exemplified by the court ruling and expert opinion cited.
Wether that applies to Covid greatly depends on how things evolve.
Mass-vaccination is about reaching herd immunity, at which point even people who are unable to take a particular vaccine are effectively safe from the disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Protection_of_th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Protection_of_th...
The point of freedom is to be free to take decisions about your life, including injecting substances in your veins.
Would you agree with that?
Would you agree with that?
Except you’re not just making decisions about your own life. If you are a carrier, and give a disease to another person when you could have been vaccinated, how are you not culpable?
Nope. I believe in outcomes not freedoms. Wage a war on drugs and you get violence and overdoses. Ban abortions and you get them done in back alleys. Enforce vaccinations and you save thousands of lives. One of these things is not like the others.
What exactly is the point you're trying to make? Living in a community is about collectively accepting trade-offs on what you can, cannot, and must do. We then codify them into laws and constitutions.
you don't vaccinate for yourself, nobody gives a shit about reckless people
the reason we vaccinate people like you is because you are reckless and can potentially infect thousands people
the reason we vaccinate people like you is because you are reckless and can potentially infect thousands people
> For all those down voting, perhaps you can enlighten me?
It's not about covid. It's about for example measles, which is for children a very serious illness.
It's not about covid. It's about for example measles, which is for children a very serious illness.
> The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg ruled Thursday that compulsory vaccinations would not contravene human rights law and may be necessary in democratic societies.
> Although the ruling did not deal directly with COVID-19 vaccines, experts believe it could have implications for the vaccination drive against the virus, especially for those who have so far stated a refusal to accept the jab.
> By Czech law, children must be vaccinated against nine diseases including diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B and measles.
This makes sense against illnesses that are highly dangerous to children.
> Although the ruling did not deal directly with COVID-19 vaccines, experts believe it could have implications for the vaccination drive against the virus, especially for those who have so far stated a refusal to accept the jab.
> By Czech law, children must be vaccinated against nine diseases including diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B and measles.
This makes sense against illnesses that are highly dangerous to children.
Consider TB and bcg vaccine. This is very real problem and very good example.
In perfect society every person should decide for themselves whether to get bcg vaccine for oneself and their children like, every day of their lives.
Being responsible for their actions, they should argue, before broad society, that they knowingly and willingly, being fully informed about dangers of tuberculosis disease and full scientific consensus about this terrible disease and best current methods of containing, preventing and curing it:
1) endanger themselves by not using vaccinations
This seriously compromises their right to live, work, and have children
2) endanger to substantial amount every other person around them
This applies not only to vaccinations, but to regular checks, preventative measures, etc as well. Serious violation of rights of other people to live, be healthy, work, have children, ...
3) endanger children, especially from socially vulnerable groups
4) endanger their own children, in case they do not vaccinate them
So, in perfectly informed society where every contagious illness is traced to it's origin, this person should bear blame for every piece of suffering which them caused.
Freedom and rights do not mean freedom to and right to cause suffering.
So, the first step of retribution and correcting injustice will be, first, correct the source of error, meaning forcing person to use vaccine (and other measures). He still should have an option to take control of his own life and deny vaccination (we are talking about perfect society) and choose complete exile and isolation for rest of his life instead. Like, equivalent of his death to all other people.
One could argue that the very act of endangering other person, especially a child, is still criminal and probabilistic suffering should be punished too, if probability is high enough, and TB - bcg is good example, because vaccine is shown to be hugely beneficent. Even regular TB is nigh incurable, and cure for AB resistant TB does not exist, so current epidemic is arguably a problem.
Of course, real life differ from ideal picture. We just short-circuit all this logic and give bcg to every child born without asking questions. And while parent can say no, this means voluntary exile, no school, no university, no work, etc.
In perfect society every person should decide for themselves whether to get bcg vaccine for oneself and their children like, every day of their lives.
Being responsible for their actions, they should argue, before broad society, that they knowingly and willingly, being fully informed about dangers of tuberculosis disease and full scientific consensus about this terrible disease and best current methods of containing, preventing and curing it:
1) endanger themselves by not using vaccinations
This seriously compromises their right to live, work, and have children
2) endanger to substantial amount every other person around them
This applies not only to vaccinations, but to regular checks, preventative measures, etc as well. Serious violation of rights of other people to live, be healthy, work, have children, ...
3) endanger children, especially from socially vulnerable groups
4) endanger their own children, in case they do not vaccinate them
So, in perfectly informed society where every contagious illness is traced to it's origin, this person should bear blame for every piece of suffering which them caused.
Freedom and rights do not mean freedom to and right to cause suffering.
So, the first step of retribution and correcting injustice will be, first, correct the source of error, meaning forcing person to use vaccine (and other measures). He still should have an option to take control of his own life and deny vaccination (we are talking about perfect society) and choose complete exile and isolation for rest of his life instead. Like, equivalent of his death to all other people.
One could argue that the very act of endangering other person, especially a child, is still criminal and probabilistic suffering should be punished too, if probability is high enough, and TB - bcg is good example, because vaccine is shown to be hugely beneficent. Even regular TB is nigh incurable, and cure for AB resistant TB does not exist, so current epidemic is arguably a problem.
Of course, real life differ from ideal picture. We just short-circuit all this logic and give bcg to every child born without asking questions. And while parent can say no, this means voluntary exile, no school, no university, no work, etc.
"probabilistic suffering should be punished too"
So we should punish people for driving cars?
So we should punish people for driving cars?
Yes, if they drive them negligently, in a way that is likely to cause harm to others, yes. Yes, if they fail to maintain them such that they're an accident waiting to happen.
The main issue here is negligence of taking reasonable precautions and endangering others' lives due to that negligence (even if no one was actually killed or injured.) People should still be punished for driving 50 mph over the speed limit.
The main issue here is negligence of taking reasonable precautions and endangering others' lives due to that negligence (even if no one was actually killed or injured.) People should still be punished for driving 50 mph over the speed limit.
Your statement didn't involve negligence, only probabilities. Not recieving a vaccine is not negligent. Even careful drivers with well maintained vehicles have accidents.
I would say yes, obligatory vaccination is a reduction of an individual's liberty. But, doesn't NOT getting vaccinated also diminish the liberty of all other individuals in society (i.e. The right to life), much like how the same principles of liberty are applied to outlawing murder? (The freedom to murder is diminished, but the right to be alive is increased)
Doesn't NOT donating 10% of your salary to Alzheimer foundation diminish the liberty of others to live a long and happy life?
Is anyone willing to come up with a proper version of a trolley problem for this case?
Is anyone willing to come up with a proper version of a trolley problem for this case?
Good point, I guess that’s a good argument to use taxes for supporting healthcare.
We don't have to consistently choose every intervention that benefits the group over some individuals, we can evaluate them one by one and pick and choose.
Even in a democracy, it’s rarely “we”, but more often “they” - an unelected bureaucracy. The democratic choices are several layers (and years) removed from direct impact.
It's all about getting that 51%.
This is why a democracy without a very strong republican and individual rights constraints is nothing but soft-core communism.
This is why a democracy without a very strong republican and individual rights constraints is nothing but soft-core communism.
Yup.
It's an ages old question of what happens if 11 boys of the class unanimously vote that all 10 girls should attend the lessons topless.
It's an ages old question of what happens if 11 boys of the class unanimously vote that all 10 girls should attend the lessons topless.
[deleted]
Here is a better link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has backed the Czech Republic in its requirement for mandatory pre-school vaccinations. The case was brought by families who were fined or whose children were refused entry to pre-schools because they had not been vaccinated. In a landmark ruling, the court found that while the Czech policy interfered with the right to a private life, there was a need to protect public health.
All the cases pre-date the pandemic.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has backed the Czech Republic in its requirement for mandatory pre-school vaccinations. The case was brought by families who were fined or whose children were refused entry to pre-schools because they had not been vaccinated. In a landmark ruling, the court found that while the Czech policy interfered with the right to a private life, there was a need to protect public health.
All the cases pre-date the pandemic.
Just so everyone knows, in the US a similar conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court more than a century ago:
> Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
> Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
Grim. Medical autonomy is a basic human right. Once medical autonomy is taken away it’s not even a question of a slippery slope to a dystopian future, because you’re already in it.
By that argument, the United States must have become dystopian in the early 1900s, when the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) upheld fining people who refused smallpox vaccination. Or in 1922, when in Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) upheld a Texas public school not allowing a student to attend without proof of vaccination.
There was an interesting piece on NPR this morning on "vaccine passports". It brought up the history of the eradication of smallpox in the US up through the middle of the 20th century and a large part of it was making vaccination mandatory for things like attending school and checking this. They didn't formally have vaccine passports because the smallpox vaccination left a distinctive mark so all someone had to do to check was ask you to roll up a sleeve and they could take a look.
They did bring up a risk of vaccine passports that would not have been a risk in the mid 20th century: privacy. With the propensity nowadays to exploit for tracking everything that can be tracked and to tie together all the different databases that contained anything about us, it is quite possible that a vaccine passport system could turn into something more--showing you vaccine passport to be allowed into a store for example might end up being equivalent to showing you full driver's license, credit report, and everything else.
Any vaccine passport system should be designed so that all it reveals is that the bearer had been vaccinated, not who the bearer is. I can't offhand think of a way to do that other than having vaccine passports be active electronic devices which might get expensive.
There was an interesting piece on NPR this morning on "vaccine passports". It brought up the history of the eradication of smallpox in the US up through the middle of the 20th century and a large part of it was making vaccination mandatory for things like attending school and checking this. They didn't formally have vaccine passports because the smallpox vaccination left a distinctive mark so all someone had to do to check was ask you to roll up a sleeve and they could take a look.
They did bring up a risk of vaccine passports that would not have been a risk in the mid 20th century: privacy. With the propensity nowadays to exploit for tracking everything that can be tracked and to tie together all the different databases that contained anything about us, it is quite possible that a vaccine passport system could turn into something more--showing you vaccine passport to be allowed into a store for example might end up being equivalent to showing you full driver's license, credit report, and everything else.
Any vaccine passport system should be designed so that all it reveals is that the bearer had been vaccinated, not who the bearer is. I can't offhand think of a way to do that other than having vaccine passports be active electronic devices which might get expensive.
The fear is a result like Buck v. Bell (1927).
It's always been the case that the right of your fist ends where my face begins.
You also can't implant a gun (an autonomous medical decision) and complain when it's still covered by gun laws.
You also can't implant a gun (an autonomous medical decision) and complain when it's still covered by gun laws.
Various vaccines have been mandatory for schoolchildren in the US for 100 years.
So if this is "grim", it's been grim since before you were born. Guess that slippery slope takes a while?
So if this is "grim", it's been grim since before you were born. Guess that slippery slope takes a while?
It's not totally mandatory. They allow for exceptions and there's the option of home schooling.
Some states have significantly cut back on exemptions that aren't for valid medical reasons and home schooling isn't really a viable option for many people.
In addition, although I don't know if the case would stand up today, the Supreme Court has held that states can require vaccinations generally. (A 1905 case involving Massachusetts and smallpox vaccination.)
In addition, although I don't know if the case would stand up today, the Supreme Court has held that states can require vaccinations generally. (A 1905 case involving Massachusetts and smallpox vaccination.)
Please omit swipes from your comments here. Your comment would be fine without the last bit.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Fair enough, but "slippery slope" is a particularly well-known logical fallacy and it seems worth pointing out when someone invokes it as the crux of their argument. Next time I'll use better words.
Changed from https://www.dw.com/en/echr-rules-obligatory-vaccination-may-..., which is broken. Thanks!
I don't think I noticed a url where the significant part was last before
https://www.dw.com/ANYTHING/HERE/./IT/DOES/NOT/MATTER/a-5712...
https://www.dw.com/ANYTHING/HERE/./IT/DOES/NOT/MATTER/a-5712...
So Star Wars was right, and this is how freedom dies: with an applause.
Please don't post generic ideological flamebait to HN. It leads to repetitive, boring, nasty threads, which are the opposite of what this site is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please, do expand. It seems like a pretty difficult and nuanced topic, to be reduced to an american pop-culture reference, as I'm sure you agree since we both read the article.
How is freedom dying? Who's applauding?
How is freedom dying? Who's applauding?
We live in a society
Please don't do generic ideological flamewar on HN. It leads to repetitive, boring, nasty threads, which are the opposite of what this site is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So we must surrender our rights?
Almost by definition society is the negotiation of our behavior toward each other because otherwise we would impinge on each others' freedom to act as we please in intolerable ways.
Perhaps you think that is a bad thing and to be honest i wouldn't blame you if you decided to ignore all laws and norms of society and behaved like a feral animal towards others. I just don't think you would get very far before you're put in a cage or gunned down.
Perhaps you think that is a bad thing and to be honest i wouldn't blame you if you decided to ignore all laws and norms of society and behaved like a feral animal towards others. I just don't think you would get very far before you're put in a cage or gunned down.
Do you have legal rights or restrictions outside of society? Living in society inherently means having a discussion of enforced boundaries and imposed burdens.
Where they conflict with others rights, something needs to give. Which one has to how much is the interesting question every time.
In case you did not realize it: yes, in times of crisis governments can take away your rights. If those governments are democratically chosen then that's society taking away your rights. If they are dictatorships then that's a different matter, but that does not seem to be the case here.
This is way too absolute. "Democratically" picked representatives can just as well exert force not in alignment with what the society of said democracy would want when the question would be voiced directly rather than indirectly taken care of. Or are we really going to be so naïve to believe representatives will stand behind every single one of their words their entire term, and pretend they don't pull stunts to bait & switch potential voters for a win rather than a loss?
Democracy isn't perfect. But that we already know. It has nothing to do with the subject though, so as far as I'm concerned you're off topic, I tried very hard to show why a democracy may sometimes opt to limit the rights of its denizens, and one of the times when this is legitimate is during times of crisis or when the lives and or well-being of its citizens are at stake.
This may not be absolute enough for you but then you'd have to cast the laws in stone without the ability to ever change them and then it ceases to be a democracy.
This may not be absolute enough for you but then you'd have to cast the laws in stone without the ability to ever change them and then it ceases to be a democracy.
In a society you agree to rules. One of them might be that someone puts a vaccine shot in your arm. The concept of rights is given you by the society.
You have no rights outside of society.
If you disagree with me, go argue your right to life with a hungry grizzly bear.
If you disagree with me, go argue your right to life with a hungry grizzly bear.
Awful idea, and also wrong.
The only two true rights are freedom and property.
You are born with free will, and you can do whatever you want, unless someone actively prevents you from doing it.
You are born with your body, which is yours, your original property, and is the source of all other property you may gain through your life by using your body (including your brain) as a tool to obtain it.
Those two rights are yours by origin, you were born with them, society doesn't need to give them to you, all the other rights are just corollaries of those two, and whatever infringes these rights are not true rights.
The right to life is derived from the respect others should have for your will to live, and the fact that they shouldn't damage your body (property).
In your comment you are painfully confusing right with a warranty. There is no warranty for anything. Even in the midst of civilized society there is no warranty you'll live, what you do have is the warranty that society will do its best effort to punish those who killed you.
The only two true rights are freedom and property.
You are born with free will, and you can do whatever you want, unless someone actively prevents you from doing it.
You are born with your body, which is yours, your original property, and is the source of all other property you may gain through your life by using your body (including your brain) as a tool to obtain it.
Those two rights are yours by origin, you were born with them, society doesn't need to give them to you, all the other rights are just corollaries of those two, and whatever infringes these rights are not true rights.
The right to life is derived from the respect others should have for your will to live, and the fact that they shouldn't damage your body (property).
In your comment you are painfully confusing right with a warranty. There is no warranty for anything. Even in the midst of civilized society there is no warranty you'll live, what you do have is the warranty that society will do its best effort to punish those who killed you.
Some, yes.
We already do surrender some rights, like the right to eat your neighbors, which other animals have.
That's what makes us human I think.
It's called the social contract.
That's what makes us human I think.
It's called the social contract.
You never had a right to eat your neighbours. Neither Homo sapiens nor other animals.
Your human rights are yours because you are human, they don't derive from any social contract, they are not granted by society. Society can only respect them or violate them, not give them to you.
You might wonder what are your human rights then? The answer is easy, is what you were born with: Freedom and Property.
Freedom because you have a will, and you can do what you want if no-one hinders you. Property because you were born with your body, it's your to do with it as you please.
Any other so-called rights that violate these two fundamental rights are false rights. The "right to eat your neighbour" could never be a real right because it presupposes that you can eat them no matter what, you wouldn't need their consent in order for you to eat them and that would violate their freedom.
Actually, there is a bunch of other false rights that are in the same line as your "right to eat your neighbours": the right to food, the right to health-care, the right to housing, the right to anything that requires someone else's labor. Saying that such things are a right imply that someone else has to labor in order to grant said false rights to you. The "has to" part violates someone's freedom. We have a name for that: slavery.
Your human rights are yours because you are human, they don't derive from any social contract, they are not granted by society. Society can only respect them or violate them, not give them to you.
You might wonder what are your human rights then? The answer is easy, is what you were born with: Freedom and Property.
Freedom because you have a will, and you can do what you want if no-one hinders you. Property because you were born with your body, it's your to do with it as you please.
Any other so-called rights that violate these two fundamental rights are false rights. The "right to eat your neighbour" could never be a real right because it presupposes that you can eat them no matter what, you wouldn't need their consent in order for you to eat them and that would violate their freedom.
Actually, there is a bunch of other false rights that are in the same line as your "right to eat your neighbours": the right to food, the right to health-care, the right to housing, the right to anything that requires someone else's labor. Saying that such things are a right imply that someone else has to labor in order to grant said false rights to you. The "has to" part violates someone's freedom. We have a name for that: slavery.
I have trouble believing that you truly believe this, but in case you are not trolling:
You are not born with any rights. Rights are social constructs, always were, always will.
You decide that your right to roam the world is more important that the right of ants to live (you squash them when you walk). Some buddhist think otherwise and sweep in front of themselves before moving somewhere where ants might be.
Your distinction of “what requires other beings’ labor” will take you no where, almost all your actions will impact others. Do you think killing yourself is misusing your parents’ labor? No definitive answer exists, just social constructs.
Is is right to force selfish humans to vaccinate themselves to prevent doctors from working overtime in countries where health is socialized? I think so. Is it right to ask people to get vaccinated to prevent someone’s grandparents from dying 10 years too early? Well, yes, I believe that’s fair.
You have the right to disagree, but don’t trick yourself into believing there is any universal truth to be found here.
You are not born with any rights. Rights are social constructs, always were, always will.
You decide that your right to roam the world is more important that the right of ants to live (you squash them when you walk). Some buddhist think otherwise and sweep in front of themselves before moving somewhere where ants might be.
Your distinction of “what requires other beings’ labor” will take you no where, almost all your actions will impact others. Do you think killing yourself is misusing your parents’ labor? No definitive answer exists, just social constructs.
Is is right to force selfish humans to vaccinate themselves to prevent doctors from working overtime in countries where health is socialized? I think so. Is it right to ask people to get vaccinated to prevent someone’s grandparents from dying 10 years too early? Well, yes, I believe that’s fair.
You have the right to disagree, but don’t trick yourself into believing there is any universal truth to be found here.
In parent's defense, eating your neighbor is an explicit action. Banning certain actions is indeed inevitable in a society.
Not vaccinating though is an inaction. It's more akin to a right not giving blood every couple of months. Yes, someone may die because of it, but making blood donations mandatory would be a strange thing. Or would it not?
Not vaccinating though is an inaction. It's more akin to a right not giving blood every couple of months. Yes, someone may die because of it, but making blood donations mandatory would be a strange thing. Or would it not?
The case isn’t saying that you must be vaccinated.
The question in this case is — does the government have to let your kids attend school without being vaccinated? The explicit action is “attending school”. You can choose to not have your kids vaccinated. That’s your right. But then you have to live with the consequences of that action. In this case, that consequence is not being able to attend preschool in the Czech Republic.
The question in this case is — does the government have to let your kids attend school without being vaccinated? The explicit action is “attending school”. You can choose to not have your kids vaccinated. That’s your right. But then you have to live with the consequences of that action. In this case, that consequence is not being able to attend preschool in the Czech Republic.
Good point.
However for virtually every child there's no choice whether to go to school. I don't know if Czech laws say explicitly that school education is guaranteed to the citizens, but de facto skipping school is not an option.
However for virtually every child there's no choice whether to go to school. I don't know if Czech laws say explicitly that school education is guaranteed to the citizens, but de facto skipping school is not an option.
> Not vaccinating though is an inaction
Not clear at all to me that failure to vaccinate is inaction rather than action. Viruses push our understanding of moral culpability and causality, but the comparison to blood donation isn't apt. In the case of donation, we're talking about an abstract stranger, in the case of the virus, perhaps we're discussing a distant downstream effect, but we could also be talking about killing your neighbor or grandma.
Not clear at all to me that failure to vaccinate is inaction rather than action. Viruses push our understanding of moral culpability and causality, but the comparison to blood donation isn't apt. In the case of donation, we're talking about an abstract stranger, in the case of the virus, perhaps we're discussing a distant downstream effect, but we could also be talking about killing your neighbor or grandma.
Not vaccinating is inaction, but seeing other people while being contagious is not.
We could accuse you of homicide if someone dies from covid because you infected him and that could have been prevented by you not refusing the vaccine. Instead we make vaccination mandatory and consider infection to be an accident, which is the same idea, but more fair.
We could accuse you of homicide if someone dies from covid because you infected him and that could have been prevented by you not refusing the vaccine. Instead we make vaccination mandatory and consider infection to be an accident, which is the same idea, but more fair.
Paying taxes is a mandatory explicit action.
The whole thing doesn't make sense:
> "The measures could be regarded as being 'necessary in a democratic society,'"
What does vaccination has to do with democracy?
Also, freedom is the most basic human right. It's a pre-condition to every other right as almost every single one is a corollary to freedom. The right to live is the right to respect your will to live.
So, how can you put "human right" and "compulsory" on the same sentence?
> "The measures could be regarded as being 'necessary in a democratic society,'"
What does vaccination has to do with democracy?
Also, freedom is the most basic human right. It's a pre-condition to every other right as almost every single one is a corollary to freedom. The right to live is the right to respect your will to live.
So, how can you put "human right" and "compulsory" on the same sentence?
The relevant standard is:
> There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of [the right to respect for private and family life] except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Therefore, the court must determine if the interference is necessary in a democratic society to determine if it is permissible under the ECHR or not. Per paragraph 273 of the decision[1]:
> An interference will be considered "necessary in a democratic society" for the achievement of a legitimate aim if it answers a "pressing social need" and, in particular, if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" and if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
> The Convention system has a fundamentally subsidiary role. The national authorities have direct democratic legitimation in so far as the protection of human rights is concerned and, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, they are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions.
[1] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-209039%...}
Edit: HN breaks the link - it needs a "}" at the end: hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-209039%22]}
> There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of [the right to respect for private and family life] except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Therefore, the court must determine if the interference is necessary in a democratic society to determine if it is permissible under the ECHR or not. Per paragraph 273 of the decision[1]:
> An interference will be considered "necessary in a democratic society" for the achievement of a legitimate aim if it answers a "pressing social need" and, in particular, if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" and if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
> The Convention system has a fundamentally subsidiary role. The national authorities have direct democratic legitimation in so far as the protection of human rights is concerned and, by reason of their direct and continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, they are in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions.
[1] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-209039%...}
Edit: HN breaks the link - it needs a "}" at the end: hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-209039%22]}
That would be fine if the Czech government returned said families the taxes they took from them to finance public education.
No service, no charge.
No service, no charge.
If Czechoslovakia is like most other countries where people pay taxes for public education regardless of whether or not they have school-age children, then your suggestion makes no sense.
Even in this not-so-good system, in which some people get taxed for a service they won't use, there is the assumption that if you have children than you have the right to be supplied with state-provided education.
Is the state decides not to grant you the service, for whatever reason, then it should give you the money it would otherwise have spent in order to provide you with said service. Else you are subject to discriminatory treatment by the state, based on your personal decisions.
The parents don't approve giving their child a vaccine they consider experimental/risky/unnecessary, they do this in full use of their reason and with the children best interest at heart. The State decides no to provide educational service to the child, but the child still needs an educational service. The right course of action would be for the State to give the parents the amount money it would hav spent, so the parent can contract the services of a private educational institution that would give the child the education the child needs.
Is the state decides not to grant you the service, for whatever reason, then it should give you the money it would otherwise have spent in order to provide you with said service. Else you are subject to discriminatory treatment by the state, based on your personal decisions.
The parents don't approve giving their child a vaccine they consider experimental/risky/unnecessary, they do this in full use of their reason and with the children best interest at heart. The State decides no to provide educational service to the child, but the child still needs an educational service. The right course of action would be for the State to give the parents the amount money it would hav spent, so the parent can contract the services of a private educational institution that would give the child the education the child needs.
> The parents don't approve giving their child a vaccine they consider experimental/risky/unnecessary, they do this in full use of their reason and with the children best interest at heart.
Sure, but some parents are unfit to take decisions for their children, and quite apparently the culture in the US seems to be religiously (pun intended) on the side of the parents.
In Europe, the fear of government in that regard is less expressed and the fear of parents mistreating their children by not giving the proper health-care or education overweighs that one in general.
If there is a criticism on that point, I hope it will not diverge into hypotheticals but rather concrete current examples, where you think that is misguided.
Sure, but some parents are unfit to take decisions for their children, and quite apparently the culture in the US seems to be religiously (pun intended) on the side of the parents.
In Europe, the fear of government in that regard is less expressed and the fear of parents mistreating their children by not giving the proper health-care or education overweighs that one in general.
If there is a criticism on that point, I hope it will not diverge into hypotheticals but rather concrete current examples, where you think that is misguided.
Also worth noting that these aren't experimental or risky vaccines. This is about vaccination for measles, tetanus, whooping cough, diphtheria, and others. They are all vaccines that have long been in very wide use around the world and are known to be safe and effective.
There's no "Czechoslovakia" for quite some time now.
That makes no sense.
Can I get my taxes back since I don't have children, and I've never been a child in this country?
And I've never driven on that road, can I have taxes back for the maintenance of that road?
Can I get my taxes back since I don't have children, and I've never been a child in this country?
And I've never driven on that road, can I have taxes back for the maintenance of that road?
It makes total sense. You shouldn't be taxed if you don't use a service.
We have an easy way to deal with roads: tolls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust
We have an easy way to deal with roads: tolls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust
We also have an easy way to deal with military: mercenaries. (/s)
You don't receive a service from taxes, because a government is not a company, and society is not a itemised order list for a reason: they are often interdependent to a degree, that you cannot have one without the other.
You definitely want everyone in your country to be as good educated as possible, especially in a democracy. You can't complain about a stupid government, if you have stupid electorate.
You don't receive a service from taxes, because a government is not a company, and society is not a itemised order list for a reason: they are often interdependent to a degree, that you cannot have one without the other.
You definitely want everyone in your country to be as good educated as possible, especially in a democracy. You can't complain about a stupid government, if you have stupid electorate.
>You can't complain about a stupid government, if you have stupid electorate.
The American electorate would like to have a few monosyllabic, badly spelled and probably racist words with you.
The American electorate would like to have a few monosyllabic, badly spelled and probably racist words with you.
And - while I do not know exactly for the czech republic - in most European countries school education is mandatory by law. It is not a choice situation whether you kid goes to school. In germany, ultimately a parent can go to prison for not sending their kids to school (rarely but it happened ... In case of a religious sect who tried their luck how far they can stretch the tolerance of the government).
Yes, that is a beautiful example of freedom...
It presupposes that some bureaucrat in Berlin should be entrusted with the educational decisions has the kids best interest at heart. The bureaucrat cares more about a child than the child's parents.
It presupposes that some bureaucrat in Berlin should be entrusted with the educational decisions has the kids best interest at heart. The bureaucrat cares more about a child than the child's parents.
He is definitely more qualified than most parents. Like are the teachers. And actually most likely this state (not country) level officer is a career teacher who is no longer teaching.
And yes, they are doing their share of stupid things. But that is the 1% everyone does wrong
And yes, they are doing their share of stupid things. But that is the 1% everyone does wrong
My question is who cares more, which you didn't answer.
Also, more qualified? What makes the bureaucrat more qualified? Does the bureaucrat know the child better? Is the bureaucrat better equipped to make decisions about the child future having limited to none information about the particular child? Doesn't the caring part have a huge impact on how carefully the decisions are made?
I see the rightful role of the bureaucrat only as one more source of information for the parent, to supplement any lack of knowledge the parents may have. But, the decisions, an ultimate responsibility, lies with the parents.
I sense a certain underestimation on your part towards non-college educated people, or maybe an overestimation of what college educated people can do. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, more qualified? What makes the bureaucrat more qualified? Does the bureaucrat know the child better? Is the bureaucrat better equipped to make decisions about the child future having limited to none information about the particular child? Doesn't the caring part have a huge impact on how carefully the decisions are made?
I see the rightful role of the bureaucrat only as one more source of information for the parent, to supplement any lack of knowledge the parents may have. But, the decisions, an ultimate responsibility, lies with the parents.
I sense a certain underestimation on your part towards non-college educated people, or maybe an overestimation of what college educated people can do. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, for individual kids the answer is yes and no. 2% of kids have terrible parents, 97% have parents agreeing and 1% of the parents think/are making better calls on kids education than the school. Numbers are made up. Sure is, the middle section is way bigger than 50%, the bad parents percentage number is higher than the better-decision-than-school parents. In summary, society is right when making the decision that everyone has to attend school and make the call what is schooled.
The school system has an evolution of hundreds if not thousands of years. No colleague or not educated Administrator of that will be able to ruin it that much :) ... That quickly :).
Kids belong in a (public) school.
The school system has an evolution of hundreds if not thousands of years. No colleague or not educated Administrator of that will be able to ruin it that much :) ... That quickly :).
Kids belong in a (public) school.
Now, I understand the need for elderly people and other certain groups to take this vaccine, but to simply force it amongst all age groups is beyond me. This seems very dangerous, and I don't why democracies are even flirting with the idea.
EDIT: For all those down voting, perhaps you can enlighten me?