Vaccine mandate ethical dilemma

[dneal]

RE: ivermectin. I asked if you ever used it in a mocking tone, not whether or not it was used in veterinarian medicine.

adhoc is a Slovenian. You called him a Trumpist. I'll cite the post if you like.

You keep bringing up my military service, disparagingly. If you don't want to talk about it, maybe you should quit talking about it. Do you want me to cite your "G.I. Joe" post?

Is there anything else you want to derail this topic with?

[dneal]

Back on topic, with ethernautrix's post:

Let's bring the discussion from the way-off-topic thread that Chip started on hactivism.

Quick recap: the question is about the ethics of a government mandating citizens take a certain risk of death, however minimal that risk might be.

In the case of pandemic, EOC is the only one who unequivocally stated that, in such circumstances, he supports government mandates for vaccination.

As far as I've been following the various threads (which I haven't done on a palatable daily basis but in near-weekly gulps which deplete my willingness to participate, but here I am, so), no one has disputed the number of deaths.

It's about 10:55 on Tuesday morning, and I'm in a hurry for an appointment, so I'm distracted, but I just checked worldometers.info for the latest figures:

Worldwide: 266,836,253 confirmed cases with 5,280,902 deaths resulting.
In the USA: 50,149,325 confirmed cases with 810,254 deaths resulting.

As I understand it, these statistics cover the time period since the beginning of the pandemic, which officially is (I'm not confirming, correct me if I'm wrong) December 2019 (thus COVID-19).

As I recall, fears abounded that COVID-19 was the new Spanish Flu of 1918, which lasted from February 1918 to April 1920 and resulted in 50,000,000 deaths.

I am not disparaging the deaths resulting from COVID-19 when I point out the huge disparity between 50,000,000 and 5,280,902 in roughly the same time period. I'm pointing out only that COVID-19 hasn't been the influenza we were perhaps panicking about back in early 2020.

810,254 deaths (or approximately .16 of confirmed cases) is terrible.

So I looked up the number one killer in the USA. It is heart disease, which (the latest figure from the CDC is from 2019) killed 659,041 in one year (2019), followed by cancer with 599,601 deaths.

The easy argument is that heart disease and cancer aren't infectious diseases. No, but to some extent they are preventable.

So, if we're arguing (and let me know if we are not) that government mandates in the interest of public health are desirable, why do we not mandate exercise, nutritional diets, and other habits that lower the risk for heart disease and cancer? Why do we not demand that, for instance, morbidly obese diabetics pay for their own health care or are barred from medical care since they (many of them, the type 2s (although not all type 2s)) behaved irresponsibly and thus caused their own dire health conditions?

Listen, I'm blurting this out in a hurry, cos it's 11:11 and I have to leave in a few minutes and I still have to change into outside clothes (where it is 0 degrees Celsius).

My other question quickly then is, why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

[Chuck Naill]

It is a horse wormer, @dneal. Are you aware that people are buying horse wormer and taking it themselves to combat COVID-19?

I can post foreign leaders who are Trumpian if you want. It's become common.

You can bring up your experiences all you want and use them as excuses all you want.

[dneal]

Chuck, the point (again) is whether or not you have used it mockingly, not what it is used for.

The point (again) is whether or not you called a non-American a "Trumpist", simply because he advocated concern over one formulation of vaccine that his wife reacted negatively to.

You can continue to dodge, and continue to disrupt; but those facts remain. You are in an echo-chamber. Well, one of the "Chuck's" is.

[dneal]

Now back on topic:

Let's bring the discussion from the way-off-topic thread that Chip started on hactivism.

Quick recap: the question is about the ethics of a government mandating citizens take a certain risk of death, however minimal that risk might be.

In the case of pandemic, EOC is the only one who unequivocally stated that, in such circumstances, he supports government mandates for vaccination.

As far as I've been following the various threads (which I haven't done on a palatable daily basis but in near-weekly gulps which deplete my willingness to participate, but here I am, so), no one has disputed the number of deaths.

It's about 10:55 on Tuesday morning, and I'm in a hurry for an appointment, so I'm distracted, but I just checked worldometers.info for the latest figures:

Worldwide: 266,836,253 confirmed cases with 5,280,902 deaths resulting.
In the USA: 50,149,325 confirmed cases with 810,254 deaths resulting.

As I understand it, these statistics cover the time period since the beginning of the pandemic, which officially is (I'm not confirming, correct me if I'm wrong) December 2019 (thus COVID-19).

As I recall, fears abounded that COVID-19 was the new Spanish Flu of 1918, which lasted from February 1918 to April 1920 and resulted in 50,000,000 deaths.

I am not disparaging the deaths resulting from COVID-19 when I point out the huge disparity between 50,000,000 and 5,280,902 in roughly the same time period. I'm pointing out only that COVID-19 hasn't been the influenza we were perhaps panicking about back in early 2020.

810,254 deaths (or approximately .16 of confirmed cases) is terrible.

So I looked up the number one killer in the USA. It is heart disease, which (the latest figure from the CDC is from 2019) killed 659,041 in one year (2019), followed by cancer with 599,601 deaths.

The easy argument is that heart disease and cancer aren't infectious diseases. No, but to some extent they are preventable.

So, if we're arguing (and let me know if we are not) that government mandates in the interest of public health are desirable, why do we not mandate exercise, nutritional diets, and other habits that lower the risk for heart disease and cancer? Why do we not demand that, for instance, morbidly obese diabetics pay for their own health care or are barred from medical care since they (many of them, the type 2s (although not all type 2s)) behaved irresponsibly and thus caused their own dire health conditions?

Listen, I'm blurting this out in a hurry, cos it's 11:11 and I have to leave in a few minutes and I still have to change into outside clothes (where it is 0 degrees Celsius).

My other question quickly then is, why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

[welch]

dneal writes

Government forcing you to do something that could very well kill you.

This is misleading, which is why I disagreed with dneal's mis-reading of the study he originally posted as reason to leap into a discussion of utilitarianism. I have posted a CDC report from late November that says the vaccines are safe and effective. Go read it for a more precise notion of something "that could very well kill you".

- Some people have had allergic reactions to this vaccine, just as people have allergic reactions to other injections. These have been rare, and, nearly always, doctors have effectively treated the bad reactions.

- Two people might have died from receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. CDC doctors are searching for the a link, because that's what the CDC does.

- In general, a reaction AFTER a vaccination does NOT mean that the vaccination CAUSED the reaction. That is a mistake so simple and widespread that logicians call it a "fallacy" and have a name for it.

To say that a vaccine "could very well kill you" is to say "let's IMAGINE" that a vaccine kills people. In the same way, an essay might begin "Let's imagine a street car barreling toward ten people who have been tied to the tracks. There is a branch-off to which the conductor might switch, but one person is tied to the branch tracks. It is too late to stop, so what should the conductor do?"

dneal has posed an imaginary dilemma. That is fine, as long as everyone understands that this is imaginary.

In the real world, people face something like this:

Europe is experiencing a menacing fourth wave of the coronavirus, with soaring rates of infection. While Austria may be the first European country to respond with a nationwide lockdown, it may not be the last. That prospect, along with increasingly stringent vaccine mandates, is setting off a backlash here and elsewhere, with mass demonstrations in Vienna, Brussels and the Dutch city of Rotterdam over the weekend, sometimes punctuated with violent outbreaks.

But European leaders may feel they have little choice, despite the spread of vaccines that were seen a year ago as a fail-proof way out of the pandemic. Austria, where 66 percent of the population is fully vaccinated, reported more than 14,000 new cases of the virus within 24 hours on Sunday. Over the past week the Netherlands has been averaging more than 20,000, while Germany has seen roughly double that number.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/21/w...-mandates.html

The real-world poses a different question than the imaginary world.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, the point (again) is whether or not you have used it mockingly, not what it is used for.

The point (again) is whether or not you called a non-American a "Trumpist", simply because he advocated concern over one formulation of vaccine that his wife reacted negatively to.

You can continue to dodge, and continue to disrupt; but those facts remain. You are in an echo-chamber. Well, one of the "Chuck's" is.

Okay.

[dneal]

@welch

Not an imaginary dilemma, but a hypothetical for discussion about the limits of government power using covid-mandates as an example. ethernautrix gets it, perhaps ask yourself why you don't.

Now, what is the mortality rate of covid vaccination, per the article?

[welch]

@welch

Not an imaginary dilemma, but a hypothetical for discussion about the limits of government power using covid-mandates as an example. ethernautrix gets it, perhaps ask yourself why you don't.

Now, what is the mortality rate of covid vaccination, per the article?

Nonsense. I gave you an example of famous article in ethics. It's normally called "The Trolley Problem". That one. Go ahead. Argue it out, while admitting that you have posed an imaginary problem. Here is the real world, from CDC. Among the 16.4 million people who received the J&J vaccine, six people might have died from a bad reaction to it. That is one out of 2.7 million. One simple fix: avoid the J&J vaccine. Or apply that risk to Austria, because you based your original post on an article in the Wall Street Journal reporting on demonstrations against mandates and a lockdown there.

Given that Austria's population is a shade less than 9 million, how many might die if Austria vaccinates its entire population with J&J? Three? Maybe four?

Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 459 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through November 29, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 10,128 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. CDC clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records. A review of reports indicates a causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—that causes blood clots with low platelets—which has caused or directly contributed to six confirmed deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...se-events.html

It is the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, dneal.

[dneal]

I'm pretty sure I know what I posted and why. You can of course differ, but it's a distraction and doesn't further the discussion; much like debating a study I clearly stated was debatable. "For the sake of argument". You know, like ethernautrix clarified but you still seem unable to process.

post hoc ergo propter hoc also applies to mortality from COVID itself, using your pedantic standard of causality. It's all correlational. I'm ok with that, but apparently you aren't. I didn't make the argument of what the estimated mortality rate of vaccination was, by the way; I just shared a study that did as an example, for the sake of argument; that argument being an ethical dilemma (as noted in the title of the thread I started) and that ethical dilemma being one of utilitarian ethics (as noted in the original post).

I'm not going to argue new problems you introduce that are not relevant to the thread I started. Want to argue your trolley problem? Start a thread on it. I didn't bother to read it, by the way; because your argument is a straw man. It misrepresents the OP. It makes assertions that aren't present. I make my point, and you say that's not the point I made. I clarify my point, and you say that's not the point I made. Pointing that out to you just results in you reiterating or reformulating your straw man.

Here's a potentially false dichotomy for you. Either you do not possess the intelligence to get the point, or you choose not to address it. Either way, continued entertaining of your random assertions is pointless from my end. I've certainly given you plenty of chances.

p.s.: Speaking of plenty of chances, you still haven't answered what the mortality rate of covid vaccination is estimated by the study. I wonder why that is... (actually, I don't. I'm pretty sure why that is).

[TSherbs]

...why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

Mostly ignorance and fear and political tribalism.

[welch]

So dneal says he argued the Trolley Problem without knowing it, hugs the "post hoc" fallacy, avoids the evidence in any of the statements posted by the CDC about risk from different anti-Covid vaccines, and repeats that his post is all about Covid and vaccines but not really about data from Covid.

dneal still has not noticed that the one and only study he claims to have read based itself on VAERS data that ended on January 8, 2021. That is about a month after anyone began getting the vaccines.

To save dneal the bother of doing arithmetic, the CDC says that six (6) people might have died because of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, out of nearly 15 million who have received it. That looks like one death for every 2.7 million doses. That looks like a death rate of 0.0000004.

[dneal]

"So dneal says..."

No, you are saying what I says.

Make your own argument without straw-manning mine.

p.s.: What does the "one study" I cited in the OP estimate as the mortality rate of vaccination? The one you said I didn't read? Is it zero? Is it 6 people? Or is it 8.2 per million?

--edit for those that like the memes--

so-youre-saying-no-30399041.png

[Chuck Naill]

So dneal says he argued the Trolley Problem without knowing it, hugs the "post hoc" fallacy, avoids the evidence in any of the statements posted by the CDC about risk from different anti-Covid vaccines, and repeats that his post is all about Covid and vaccines but not really about data from Covid.

dneal still has not noticed that the one and only study he claims to have read based itself on VAERS data that ended on January 8, 2021. That is about a month after anyone began getting the vaccines.

To save dneal the bother of doing arithmetic, the CDC says that six (6) people might have died because of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, out of nearly 15 million who have received it. That looks like one death for every 2.7 million doses. That looks like a death rate of 0.0000004.

We discussed the chalanges using the US VAERS a few months ago. The study was posted by a member and was not aware of the self reporting nature of the system.

[Chuck Naill]

...why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

Mostly ignorance and fear and political tribalism.

And just to be clear, tribalism is not encouraging vaccines plus masks and distancing.

[TSherbs]

...why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

Mostly ignorance and fear and political tribalism.

This was in my AP News feed today: a worsening crisis in Poland, too.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavir...f39c8bf96955e8

[Chip]

This was in my AP News feed today: a worsening crisis in Poland, too.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavir...f39c8bf96955e8

The home of Truth and Justice. Maybe Freedom as well.

Good luck with that. . .

[Bold2013]

Here is my short take. It is not right to force vaccination for Covid.

Covid on the individual can be really bad but based on population statistics it doesn’t have the teeth too explain this authoritarian widespread mandate. Moreover the vaccine does a very very very good job at keeping people for getting seriously ill. So if your conscious requires you to vaccinate because you are convinced it’s for your neighbor, good do it. If you only care about your own health, fine do it. But please let others make their own informed decisions not to be vaccinated and be happy you live in a country where we still can.

[welch]

This was in my AP News feed today: a worsening crisis in Poland, too.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavir...f39c8bf96955e8

The home of Truth and Justice. Maybe Freedom as well.

Good luck with that. . .

"Law and Justice". Meaning dictatorship.

[dneal]

Funny how the same folks that chimp-screamed Trump being an authoritarian seem to turn a blind eye to the current authoritarian state of affairs. Covid camps in Australia, for example. You're lending credence to Alex Jones and other crack-pots. Congratulations.

And next up from the ministry of truth: Poland is a dictatorship. All that remains is to actually demonstrate it, rather than make wild accusations...