How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19
undark.org
undark.org
- Economists who have bought into the crowding out theory. Are they consistent and still oppose government spending? [1]
- People/corporations who have lobbied for and taken advantage of all kinds of loopholes in taxation as to avoid paying taxes and who think taxation is theft, and are now expecting government to pay them out from this mess. [2]
- The ones that vouch for strong IP and patent protection. Do they propose to not share any information between research groups and give them even longer patents to incentivize better innovation?
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp [2] I cite no examples. I am astonished if there is none, though.
Given that in some countries in the northern hemisphere we are seeing a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities deaths from this, the aspect that vitamin D or lack of, does seem to be a factor and certainly one in which such advice would do more good than any harm I can think of beyond stock pilers effect. Though lack of vitamin D is not something that is the prevail of any pigment, just more likely and given the data, I'm supprised that such advice is not more vocalised. Though for many it will be basic health knowledge akin to basic first aid, that many is not all.
For reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1211435 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-review-to-be-launched...
This is, at best, a correlation (in fact, I'm not even sure the data does go that far) and implies no causal mechanism.
Sure, if vitamin D is healthy, which it probably is, do go outside and get some more (though do beware of sunburns). As it stands right now, I haven't heard of any claims linking this to Coronavirus yet, though.
What's more problematic is the claim that you should "get vitamin D to boost your immune system". Even if that worked (I don't believe it does), you don't want to necessarily boost it because that might lead to bad consequences. [1] In fact, people have died from covid19 in part due to the immune system overreacting. [2]
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-d...
A Doctor who has been doing a fair and most excellent overview with a critical mind upon this whole COVID-19 from early on and focused upon evidence. He covers things in a way that may hold more gravitas to that aspect.
One of the many useful reference links from that video that I think covers all this fair and square.
The abstract concludes that " randomized controlled trials and large population studies should be conducted to evaluate these recommendations". This seems to indicate that the finding is still quite preliminary (the study is rather new), so in that light it doesn't surprise me that it isn't a general recommendation yet.
I think you capture the fundamental issue: who cares what they think? Objectively, we should care less about what they think about covid-19 than any other group because of their track record of scientific illiteracy on the precise subject under discussion.
Aside from anthropological and related disease mitigation strategies, what anti-vax people think about this is not worth a second of attention. The odds favor that objectively ignorant people will continue to make poor assessments based on facts.
edit: thankfully it is flagged.
Freeloading
The anti-vaxxers are freeloading on the herd immunity created and maintained by the smart people.
That herd immunity prevents the regular epidemics & pandemics common before vaccines, when families often had 10 children to see a few survive to adulthood.
There is plenty deliberate ignorance of history, Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and confirmation bias in their 'arguments', but the root seems to be a (likely) unconscious willingness to freeload on the benefits provided by others.
This is unfortunately coupled with a deliberate ignorance of and/or willingness to deliberately endanger the small subset of people with bona-fide medical conditions that contraindicate vaccination, and so genuinely rely on the herd immunity to survive.
It is far past time to coddle this deliberate ignorance and freeloading. If anti-vaxxers want to stay that way, fine, but they need to choose and not be permitted poison the well - vaccination needs to be required for alk access to public buildings, schools, transport, etc.
Like Scarlet fever?
Scarlet Fever is bacterial, not viral, and are fought by different parts of the body's immune system.
Few if any attempts at creating vaccines against bacteria are successful, whereas vaccines against viruses are typically more successful, although viruses such as Influenza can evolve new versions frequently, requiring new vaccine versions.
That said, mixing profit with essential medical technology is a recipe for failure.
The first way to make something more profitable is to cut costs.
What corners do these corps cut to up their margins? And how does that decrease health outcomes for some percent of the population?
The bottom-line is that no for-profit corp can be trusted with your health.
Vaccines must be developed and distributed by the government for the benefit of all human beings. Sure, we need to minimize cost but not to enrich the select few wealthy enough to be investors in the first place. If there is a surplus (profit), that money gets invested right back into R&D. No pharma-bros needed or wanted.
I am pro-vaccine and anti-for-profit-corps.
Yes, my kids are vaxed for measles and a few others, but, no, I did not go in for the entire schedule, which is frankly insane. Just compare our vax schedule in America to what they do in Europe. It's maybe 2x. And, yes, we will all get a Covid vax as soon as it is available.
But, remember, selling three of something (ETA: instead of two) that has a little margin gives you a 50% increase in profit. B-School types don't care that that third dose might be too much; besides, they can find/fund researchers to goal-seek safety for that extra 50%.
And, yes, vax is big business, just not as big as other meds.
And, yes, anti-vaxxers piss me off, too, the fucking anti-science morons. But people who trust for-profit corps with their health are stupid marks.
Anyone with any knowledge of human physiology knows injecting any form of mercury into the blood of newborns and the pregnant is insane. There is no more toxic element than mercury.
And hand-picked and funded goal-seeking researchers are not hard to find, if you've been following the "reproducibility problem" these past few years.
They don't care so long as you can't prove the tort.
You've reached this so-called "bottom line" very quickly without providing actual evidence to support your statement.
Or, perhaps "cancer-causing agents in prescription drugs" (caused by not testing their processes for unwanted by-products making their way into the medicines).
Or, that airbag manufacturer or the car manufacturers who don't provide a safety feature because the bean counters declare that so long as there are less than ten successful lawsuits, the profit will be more if they leave it out, no matter how many people die in the process. Google "Goodyear RV tires".
Or the disaster in Bhopal India.
What about these piles of mercury-laden coal ash piled next to our river because of the coal-burning plant next to it?
And you think the pesticide producers are not cherry-picking their researchers to goal-seek?
Now, do your research.
First you establish your order of trust as:
1. Government
2. For-profit-corporations
Then you acknowledge that your actual practisting order of trust is:
1. Your gut (why is "the entire schedule frankly insane"?)
2. European Governments
3. Your American Government
The later ranking is not justified at all by your early statements.
If you trust governments better than corporations as a matter of choice, fine. It may actually be a sensible choice in this bullshit world. If you trust your gut more than governments fine, it may also be a sensible choice, even.
However, be consistent, and realize your biases.
Yes, I am biased against for-profit corps. Which one, especially among the pharmas, do you trust?
No, this is not my gut, this is my experience with for-profit corps and my knowing their past and recent history.
And you say there is something wrong with my message, but you did not state one single fact to argue. You are the one arguing from your gut and your belief that our govt and for-profit corps give a shit about anything other than your money. They only care that you can't prove the tort.
And who said I trust governments? You did. I didn't say that shit. I said our government should run these programs, but what I didn't say was that we need governments made up of actual "public servants", not the corrupt, self-dealing lying pieces of shit that take a boatload of money from corps of all kinds, the bigger the cozier.
Your thinking you are so smart is getting in the way of your education.
Why is varicella in the schedule? The plague upon our house that is chicken pox will hopefully be annihilated one day, only to reappear in a much more painful form later in life as shingles because you need a constant re-up of the varicella vaccine to keep it at bay. What the actual fuck is going on here and who controls the schedule?
These are all essentials too, that are far less regulated than drug production, and with equal chance for harm or death.
And there are plenty of "farmer-bro" libertarians out there, including in your local organic farmers market, out there just to seek profit and ask you to get rid of the minimal regulations on them and to go back to a system of just trusting your farmer and the transaction (back in the 2000s Michael Pollan's book profiled one guy of that sort).
The people who are producing vaccines don't typically make tons of profit on them. Most are cheap, ubiquitous, except for some new ones that took a long time to develop. They are not huge money makers, and neither are organic beets, but they are business none the less so people make them.
> But people who trust for-profit corps with their health are stupid marks.
Are you a stupid mark for trusting Whole Foods. A huge for-profit company, for not making them sick?
Are you a stupid mark for trusting the regulatory system that ensures safety?
There's so much basic wrongness going on here that shows that you have just bought anti-vaxxer nonsense, hook like and sinker. How much good and how much harm has happened because you, as a "stupid mark," trusted for-profit healthcare companies with MMR? Why that one and not others? Too mcubprofit in other vaccines? Too much "risk"?
You say that you are not an anti-vaxxer yet you perpetuate exactly the same flawed lies that they tell themselves in order to justify endangering their own children and others' health. It's a weird contradiction.
(And for the record, I'm anti-libertarian, but I will still buy from the farmers market, not because I accept their ideology, or because I want to give them profits, but because I trust the rest of the system. I can transact with someone without adopting their ideology.)
You have not done your research.
>> Are you a stupid mark for trusting the regulatory system that ensures safety?
Why do you assume I trust them? I damn sure didn't say it.
In theory gov't would regulate pharma corps. How's that working out for the opioids?
You should read Dunning & Kruger, you're not in the group you think you are, and I know which group you're in.
Then you should read my post again, this time for comprehension.
Looks pretty similar to me: https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5966/infographic
What does this mean? It doesn't make sense in English, so could you please elaborate?
> someone should die without vaccine
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of why anti-vaxxers are a problem.
They don't just kill themselves. They break herd immunity and put other people at risk. They have already caused outbreaks that have killed adults and children who did get their vaccines.
herd immunity is a big deal for many different reasons
- it stops the spread
- it protects the immunocompromised
- it protects newborns and those too young/old to get vaccinations
If the ppl are vaccinated, those ppl should be safe, and in theory those unvaccinated masses dying off from X illness increases the overall fitness of the population.
However, it's not at all about that. This is about forcing those who may not think or believe the same to not only acquiesce, but to actively proclaim they are science deniers and that another group is infallible and correct.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer per-se, i think vaccines for things such as polio, mmr are important. But i don't think others such as flu and possibly hpv are worth the risk.
I don't support forced vaccination however, and the more those who loudly tout forced vaccinations the more it leads me to believe that there may be credibility issues with the vaccine efficacy and the vaccination's research.
We are not on the Lewis & Clark expedition, we live in a highly complex society, which requires serious maintenance.
How safe do you find those opioids now? What were they saying in front of the congressional committee? What were their sales reps saying? What were their privately-funded goal-seeking researchers saying?
Medical science and profit should not be mixed. I mean, look at this mess here in America.
It is called not throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Smart people make finer distinctions.
Please show me where I said, "All of medicine is therefore bad." No, you said that.
Now, will you apologize? I doubt it.
Will you do better at reading and understanding in the future? I sincerely hope so.
The sentence very clearly implies all, and nowhere in the post is an indication that you mean any restriction to part (vs all) of the med/pharm profession
In fact, you go out of your way to point out the malfeasance pushing opioids and imply that it also applies to vaccines, when it is entirely different industry segments, companies, etc.
I'll not only not apolgize, I'll point out that you are specifically arguing in bad faith, disingenuously arguing by implication, and when called out on it, histrionically backtracking and accusing others of falsehoods.
Grow up. learn science, stop trying to disingenuously undermine the good work of generations of researchers and physicians that keeps you healthy.
Sheesh
It's also well investigated, in the sense that caveats to the usual responses to antivaxxers are included.
I personally felt like I came away with a better understanding of what the conspiracy theorists are actually thinking/claiming. I learned some interesting facts about various vaccination campaigns, and overall felt like I came away with more information than I came to the article with.
I'm interested to see where this style of journalism leads.
1) Establish a false dichotomy ("All vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad")
2) Come up with a pithy slur for the other side ("Antivaxx")
3) Emphasize the looniest people on the other side, ignore and hide the reasonable people on the other side.
4) Use this slur to browbeat moderates, the skeptical, the unsure and the open minded into silence.
It's very effective.
It takes intelligence to entertain both sides of an argument, grasp and appreciate the nuance of the situation and then come to a sensible conclusion, which is often "I don't know, I'll need to learn more to decide."
And it takes intellectual honesty to admit when our preconceptions need to be tossed and upgraded to a more expansive, more accurate worldview, which is the essense of intelligence.
That's why Dunning & Kruger's work is so damned important: It showed that the least capable are the most confident.
Realistically, you can entertain both sides of an argument and come to the conclusion that one side is wrong.
1) Most Americans don't have the lived experience to properly weigh the value of world-changing vaccines like Polio, MMR, etc.
2) There is a strong profit motive for pharmaceutical companies to get more globally-recommended vaccines approved.
Polarizing the debate and then picking a winning side will lead to the wrong outcome. Details matter.
For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician.
Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling?
That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?
Even if they provide no evidence, name-calling is the worst way to achieve any goal other than to embolden the support from their supporters.
Why, pray tell, are the US's vax schedules so heavy compared to Europe? Are all their doctors quacks are is our medical system bought-and-sold by B-schoolers?
I know the answer and I doubt you're willing to even entertain the truth much less accept it. But I'd love to be wrong about that.
My wife's son is a doctor. He said he wouldn't go to 80% of his fellow med school graduates for care. Being good at memorizing does not make one a good doctor, even though it's essential.
What are the differences in vaccination schedule that you're worried about? We need to be specific in these kinds of discussion. It may be true that there is no difference in vaccination schedules, but it may also be true that the countries you claim have different vaccination schedules are responding to local needs (vs. being worried about 'heavy' vaccination regimens).
> For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician.
It is not only "anti-liberal" to shout people down, but it is anti-science to ignore claims on findings and this is how I find the "anti-vaxxer" term to be used.
I can't find the article right now, but I strongly encourage people to be more cautious about throwing the stupid terms around as some people are rather more nuanced.
I am not defending the following claim, but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized. The claim is that the immunizations are no longer effective. Again, I am not trying to support the claim, but simply labeling "anti-vaxxer" is not the way to address such claims and will attract an audience who will have no way to counter such claims because all opposition is engaged in schoolyard name-calling activities.
EDIT:
It is astounding to me that the commenters of, at least this article, are unable to distinguish my claim from claims of people discussed in the article.
Source? Regardless, the large majority of aggregate cases of measles in the United States are among people who aren't vaccinated, which is a massive, massive over-representation and suggests that the measles vaccine is effective, regardless of specific anomalous cases.
I find this take of "being fair" to "nuanced" views quite common, but when I patiently let the whole anti-vax view be laid out, it is generally not particularly coherent nor well-sourced. I think stigma can be an effective way to change beliefs, because people can pretend they never held the belief in the first place. When you have someone lay out their whole argument, they often become more entrenched.
So that's another reason the herd immunity is so important: If enough people opt out of just getting a simple shot, then now everyone else has to go through the much larger burden of periodic retesting and re-vaccining for them to be safe.
One of the key aspects of science is presenting data and methodology to support a claim - this enables reproducibility.
If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essentially back in the realm of religion: believing statements without evidence.
> If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essentially back in the realm of religion: believing statements without evidence.
You have, for whatever reason, grabbed a single sentence and addressed it as if it has no relation to other paragraphs.
Why?
I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that contradict established scientific opinion without any strong evidence, otherwise there is no means to progressing as a society.
> I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that contradict established scientific opinion without any strong evidence, otherwise there is no means to progressing as a society.
There was nowhere in my arguments that I stated to accept anything from their arguments. I stated to disprove their arguments with science and to not engage in name-calling.
I did state that the people labeled as "anti-vaxxers" support their claims with scientific studies. I am not addressing their claims, so I am not providing the evidence they use to support their claims. I am stating how they make their claims.
Your claim that I am in line with the linked fallacy demonstrates that you do not understand what that fallacy is or where to apply it.
I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?).
> I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?).
With all due respect, you are demonstrating a reading comprehension level of a 10 year-old. You have not even one time responded to my claims.
That's nice. Now go present it to someone that is having a discussion about that. My discussion above is regarding calling people names instead of presenting evidence.
A better use of your time time might be to take a remedial reading comprehension course.
Keyword here being believe. Their opinion is based on purely belief without any proof. All it does is give the kids their immunity later giving the pathogen a window to get them sick and spread the pathogen further
You trust those B-schoolers and their hand-picked goal-seeking researchers to shade toward safety or profit?
I am pro-vax (within a sensible schedule) and anti-for-profit-corps, who NEVER EVER give a shit about your health, only that you can't prove that it was their product that harmed you.
I did, you should note, get told not to come back to a doctor's group -- after a single visit to establish a PCP -- for quote "asking too many questions".
My wife was with me and was confused because I was in no way belligerent. And, for sure, that doctor was a piece of work. She just wanted to go through her checklist and be done with it, and her attitude showed.
I don't think such treatment is productive.
A) It makes members of the group feel persecuted, which tends to not change anyone's mind
B) Also benefits the pro-side by giving them a demon to slay
However, neither A nor B will answer any real disagreements possessed by the targeted group, and will thus not eliminate those holding to the position on a rational basis. Instead, it'll just perpetuate A and B, leading to greater polarization. It may also grow the targeted group, since at least we Americans tend to have sympathy for the underdog position that appears unfairly persecuted.
I think a cornerstone of curious discussion should actually be understanding, rather than villainizing, viewpoints that lead a person to a cognitively dissonant state, but that is not what I observe, even among very well educated people.
I think it's concerning to have thought leaders like Bill Gates spouting lines like "it won’t be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world."[1] Clearly high-risk sections of the population (health care workers, elderly, sick) should be prioritized, but to rush a vaccine across the entire population invites a lot of risks. For some groups, prioritizing drug treatment and improved healthcare practices might be better. Or perhaps not! -- but we should be able to have these discussions without being dismissed as insane conspiracy theorists.
We all have confirmation bias, (perhaps I'd feel differently if I had experienced a COVID-19 infection) but I see articles like this as a preemptive dismissal of opposing viewpoints, an invocation of blind trust that potentially leads us to a dark place, particularly when combined with new mass surveillance vectors like app-based contact tracing.
[1]: https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/bill-gates-says-that-thin...
also, tangentially, I think that blanket distrust of authorities is just as irrational as blanket trust. it should really depend on the situation which is why it's by no means cognitive dissonance to trust authorities in some respects but not in others.
Cognitive dissonance comes from encountering something that goes against your confirmation bias, and runs the risk of knee jerk reactions.
Example of knee jerk reaction: the GP's example of the article (and possibly you) conflating a doctor who says "maybe we should slow down" with anti-vaxxers.
It doesn't really change the fact that both have no real evidence to provide for their claims and are promoting practices that, if not well-supported, are clearly dangerous.
But more importantly, Bob Sears's opinion on e.g. measles doesn't even matter because we're talking about covid19 right now and there is no vaccine yet, so there is no way to "slow down". By contrast, what he does offer in the context of this new disease are recommendations such as "boosting your immune system" which are patently laughable, see: https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-d...
edit: I'll have to correct myself, Bob Sears didn't say that (at least not in this context), his cohost did. I do assume we'd know if he disagreed though.
I mean, the govt could do it, if they weren't in the pockets of the corps.
What I'm saying is that if you're waiting for the pharma corps to provide the necessary studies to show their products ineffective or even dangerous, I'd call you a fool. Or do you have a few billion dollars lying around to fund such studies?
Of course, you also choose to ignore how many people don't die anymore from totally curable diseases that were a certain death sentence even just decades ago (e.g. take AIDS).
It's no different than forcing a man to join the Military if he doesn't want to join, or forcing the man NOT to join the Military, if he does want to join.
A future Constitution will explicitly support the right to be medicated/vaccinated if one wishes to be, while conversely supporting the right NOT to be medicated/vaccinated, if one does not.
Our current Constitution supports these rights, implicitly, via the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
(Although, in an increasingly legislative and legalistic society, those rights may have to be asserted, asserted repeatedly, asserted to multiple people who are not aware of them, and asserted hard...)
"Making somebody pay taxes, if they don't want..."
Dude, this has been discussed ad infinitum. You don't want to take a vaccine? Fine. But then, do I have the knowledge to know you haven't taken it, as refusing to be around you, etc etc etc because you refuse to do something that is proven to better the life of humanity as a whole (And you can't prove otherwise). I could argue a lot more, but english is not my mother tongue.
Second, I am a philosopher. After deep introspection, I have realized that even though, from my limited human perspective, it would be nice for large segments of the population to do certain things, and not do other things, it's not my place in the universe to force them to do or not do so, much less support any government or political system which forces them to do or not do so.
That is, force someone to do something against their will.
That is, I must grant freedom to all others, regardless of what they do or don't do, even though I might not like this, even though it might impact me and my life.
True freedom is not had through a Government -- but rather by granting everyone their own freedom, including (as paradoxical as it would seem) the freedom to create and participate in governments, including the ability to disagree with other people (e.g., your comments to me), and including the ability to use force on others.
Yes, I might not like any of those things... but if I want freedom for myself, true freedom -- I must grant everyone the right to do all of those things.
We have no argument... you are correct in what you believe.
I don't see things exactly the same way as you... but my own philosophy grants you the freedom to see things how you wish.
Now, if you wanted to free yourself, that is, free your mind, you would study everything you can about medicines, vaccines, health, nutrition, DNA, biochemistry, etc., as I have done in the past.
Ultimately, the study of all of that becomes an "argument to authority". That is, we're saying that things about medicine that we believe to be true are true, because doctors and other highly educated men say they are.
Now, in my own experience, generally speaking, that's true.
But the knowledge of those in medicine -- typically goes down to a certain level... Cells, DNA, etc.
And it stops there.
It doesn't go down to even deeper levels, atoms, sub-particles, quanta, string-theory, etc.
The medical doctors would have a lot to learn if they explored these areas, specifically the mind-body-biochemistry link, but unfortunately, in this day and age, they constrain their knowledge to statistics...
Statistically, yes, people are going to die from things.
Statistically, they're going to die from car accidents, from diseases, and even old age! They might even die (statistically) from too much or too little of something, like too much lead in the water, or not enough love by their parents, or too much (or not enough) money!
CoronaVirus is a statistical phenomena.
It's a glass-is-half-full-no-glass-is-half-empty perceptual filter on top of the statistical deaths caused by comorbidity, which is what happens when you take already unhealthy health conditions, and add another one on top of those.
Healthy people do not get diseases.
Human beings have been on this planet for millions of years, and our genome has adapted to all kinds of viruses, diseases and pathogens. CoronaVirus is no different, it will be adapted into our DNA, we'll be immune to it, no need for a vaccine (if we don't want one -- I'm not preventing you or anyone else from getting one), and then we can all move on with our lives...
First of all, "healthy people do not get diseases" is just flat out wrong, I don't know how you could support such a claim.
Second, do you accept the inevitability of death in all things, meaning you take zero precautions to protect your own life in any and all situations of your life? You never wear a seatbelt, never go to a doctor, wouldn't stay clear of a person if you knew they had a very contagious disease, ...? If yes, I would be very surprised about your stoicism; otherwise it seems inconsistent.
Lastly, do you really believe no person should ever be forced to do anything? So, for example, a mother should not be forced to feed her child, or people should not be prevented from murdering other people? If not, your argument that unlimited freedom is the most important value to preserve falls flat and we must start talking about the situations in which you would restrict someone's freedom.
(I won't even go into how I think this notion of "freedom" is very simplistic because it ignores how un-free we are fundamentally due to situations outside of our control, e.g. very poor people are de facto not very free.)
Yes there is; and it's the tip of the iceberg.
"First of all, "healthy people do not get diseases" is just flat out wrong, I don't know how you could support such a claim."
Fair enough! I concede that that was wrong, people do get diseases, and previously they might have been healthy, so as a statement standing by itself, evaluated as a truth or a claim by itself, it is definitely wrong.
Agreed.
Although, I would suggest that looking at it in context would provide a greater degree of what it was attempting to communicate, what I was trying to say.
But I agree that by itself, as a statement, claim and/or truth, it's wrong. Concur.
"Second, do you accept the inevitability of death in all things, meaning you take zero precautions to protect your own life in any and all situations of your life? You never wear a seatbelt, never go to a doctor, wouldn't stay clear of a person if you knew they had a very contagious disease, ...?"
Well, let's see. If I were driving, I would wear a seatbelt yes. And I have seen doctors in the past, that's true enough.
Would I stay clear of a person I knew had a contagious disease?
Well, I don't know.
Explain to me what you think a contagious disease is, if that contagious disease causes death or not (in other words, what am I risking), and what's the status of the person relative to my goals? In other words, am I getting to talk to Elon Musk? Might he give me a job? What's the risk and what are the rewards?
If I knew those things, then yes, I might be able to give you a hypothetical answer...
"If yes, I would be very surprised about your stoicism; otherwise it seems inconsistent."
I'm not as afraid of diseases as most people are. That is because I've done a ton of reading in many subjects (many many subjects!), and a ton of reading in medicine.
What scares most people in these areas -- doesn't have as much of an effect on me, because I know things that the average person does not.
"Lastly, do you really believe no person should ever be forced to do anything?"
Not by me. After a long time in meditation and deep introspection, I have realized that while there may be many people whose behaviors in various areas I don't like, don't appreciate -- that I'd rather work on my own toleration of them -- which is a quality which can be changed (acceptance or inacceptance of the behavior of what others do or don't do is a mental state -- it exists in your mind. If you can change your mind, you can rise above this... that is my goal for myself...)
"So, for example, a mother should not be forced to feed her child"
I am not prohibited from attempting to persuade, multiple times if need be, to this mother that feeding her child is a good idea, and socially beneficial.
Beyond persuasion, I will not use force. If it's my child, perhaps that's different, but if it's my child, why am I not feeding it (thus removing the obligation for the mother to be the sole party responsible). As I don't have children, I couldn't answer this question as applies to me, but all I can tell you is that polite repeated persuasion is permissible (to be used by me) -- but the use of force is not.
", or people should not be prevented from murdering other people? "
Again, same argument.
I can persuade, I can attempt to persuade them that what they are doing / have did (is/was) wrong, perhaps multiple times on muliple ocassions, maybe many times over, but I will not be the party using force against them.
"If not, your argument that unlimited freedom is the most important value to preserve falls flat and we must start talking about the situations in which you would restrict someone's freedom."
It's an important value to preserve for me. I should point out that the value does not exist as "unlimited", as that's an absolute, an extreme.
It's an ideal (for me), but it's an ideal that is not nor could ever be accomplished by a human living on the earth.
I am after all, human.
The philosophers of old used to think about things in "ideal" terms... for me, with respect to freedom, the challenge/goal I have set for myself... the "ideal" -- is to give all others theirs, even if it interferes with other others' freedom.
I can persuade (or attempt to persuade) other people that what they are doing might be wrong... but I can never coerce them, I can never use force.
"(I won't even go into how I think this notion of "freedom" is very simplistic because it ignores how un-free we are fundamentally due to situations outside of our control, e.g. very poor people are de facto not very free.)"
The more you try to control the universe... the more the universe will control you.
Simple example:
Find a wall.
Push on the wall.
Note that the wall pushes back at your hand with precisely the exact equal-and-opposite force that you apply to it. Precisely.
Now, take your hand away from the wall. Look at it. Is it exercising any control, any control over your hand? Is it pushing against your hand?
All objects/situations/people/places/things in the universe are like your hand with respect to the wall. If you do not attempt to control them -- you will not be controlled.
But if you do... expect and accept an equal-but-opposite force of control in precisely the same amount as you exert against the objects/situations/people/places/things that you are trying to control, by whatever means you are trying to control it.
My philosophy is that simple.
Newton's 3rd Law... applied to everything in the Universe that you or me or someone else would like to control...
First, please define what you mean by "state".
Are we talking Federal Government, or one or more of the 50 U.S. States?
Next, please explain to me why you think that entity has the power to do that...
Also, please explain to me your understanding of "Consent Of The Governed". What does that term mean, where does that originate from, how does that apply to to the U.S. Federal and State (and also local) governments?
Think of this as a test of your understanding of U.S. Law...
And the immuno-compromise put themselves at risk every time they go out without a mask.
Now, are you also going to require older people to top-up their vaccinations? You know they lose efficacy over time, right?
No it won't because the Constitution is not, nor should it ever be, a suicide pact.
But please clearly explain to me why you think the Constitution is in your words, a "suicide pact".
That's not what I said, and clearly not a reasonable conclusion one could reach from having read my comment with an awareness of the context in which it occurred. Which is odd, because I literally quoted the necessary context from your comment to make the meaning obvious.
I was referring to your mention of "a future constitution explicitly support(ing) the right to be medicated/vaccinated if one wishes to be, while conversely supporting the right NOT to be medicated/vaccinated, if one does not."
That Constitution would be a suicide pact, because it would render the purpose of the entire science of epidemiology and any efforts to maintain herd immunity and control the spread of pandemics through mandatory vaccination moot. The Constitution we currently have is not a suicide pact, at least in that regard (I have my doubts about it in regards to the Second Amendment but that's a whole other conversation) because it does not contain such a clause.
I hope that I have explained my position sufficiently.
Our debate, if we have one, is not about the Constitution being a "suicide pact".
Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that the entire science of epidemiology -- is sufficient proof to warrant government intervention in the case of a pandemic.
The root understanding of government, at least the U.S. Government, is that it's there to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Or phrased another way, to protect property (which includes the lives) of the people that comprise the nation.
So from these two arguments, I agree.
The science of epidemiology -- is enough proof to warrant government intervention.
So we agree thus far.
But there's a small problem... Rather teensy-weensy, in fact...
It comes from your use of the word "mandatory".
If you had said everything you had said without this word, or perhaps used the word "volunatary" in its place -- then we would be agreed 100%.
(Note to self: It's amazing how one word, just one word, on a forum post can create disagreements)
Because you used the word "mandatory", I think it's time for a quick recap of the root purpose and function of the U.S. Government.
You see, our Government has what amounts to a huge problem on its hands.
That is, it is supposed to preserve and protect the rights and freedom, the liberty, of its citizens, all of its citizens. At the same time.
Well, how exactly do you do this, do you accomplish this marvelous feat, in a case where Citizen A has some right, which we'll call "Right X", and when Citizen A exercises Right X, it interferes with Citizen B exercising a different right, "Right Y"
So it's Citizen A's Right X Vs. Citizen B's Right Y.
That's problematic, hugely problematic!
If the Government enforces Citizen A's right, Right X, then it equal-and-oppositely destroys Citizen B's right, Right Y.
If the Government enforces Citizen B's right, Right Y, then it equal-and-oppositely destroys Citizen A's right, Right X.
It's quite the dilemma, let me tell you!
So how could Government ever enforce something, how could government ever enforce anything, if it destroyed the rights (the rights that it was created to protect!) of an individual?
Warning: Deep answer coming from years and years of studying U.S. Law:
It can't.
Now, there's a very nuanced understanding there, let me see if I can explain it here with limited space:
It can't -- but it can "order", "require", "mandate", "enact" (choose whatever language you want), that its people, en masse, either do or do not do something.
It can even tell you that "this is Law".
(Fun fact: We have a Supreme Court to tell us when the things that other people have told us are "Law" -- are actually not "Law", and never were(!)... but we could also use the right logic, and discover this for ourselves...)
The problem is that the word "mandate" conveys the idea to the general (not educated in Law) population that something is required for them to do.
But see, you can't require people to do anything -- if and when it conflicts with any of their other rights.
We have Courts to resolve these rights issues -- that is the great purpose of Courts -- to resolve issues where Citizen A's Right X interferes with Citizen B's Right, or when the Government, by action or inaction, interfere with any of its Citizen's Rights, either en masse, or even individually.
Any government, and especially the U.S. Government -- is like that old story of many blind men in a room with an elephant -- they're supposed to touch it, and tell the others what it is. But because they are perceptually blinded, they only touch part of it, and what they communicate to each other is a localized perception, and ultimately, not the big picture of what it is...
If you feel that any, and I mean any force of Government is sufficient to get me to unwillingly relinquish my rights, then all I can say is that you don't understand Government.
The U.S. Government is there to protect me, and my rights, and you and your rights -- from other people that would step on them -- up to and including people in the U.S. Government, up to and including factions of the U.S. Government, and even up to and including the entire U.S. Government itself.
The U.S. Government can request, but it can never demand (even though it can use fancy language to make it appear that it is demanding!), especially if one or more of those demands are in contradiction to one or more of the principles of its founding.
So... that approaches a more nuanced understanding...
Or, you could have simply removed the word "mandatory" (because we're talking to a group of people who are mostly uneducated in Law) and/or replaced it with "voluntary"...
You would have had 100% of my agreement, if you did...
This is a false analogy. From a health perspective, abortions only impact the mother and unborn fetus (and the impact on the fetus is debatable depending on where you land about when a human is “alive”). Not vaccinating affects those around you and can lead to extreme suffering and loss of life. They most definitely are very different.
We each get to choose what to do with our bodies so long as we are not intentionally causing harm to others.
Most people won't accept this, thus we shall both be downvoted to oblivion by the ignorant and oppressive.
Hence, it is reasonable to outlaw being unvaccinated and going out of the house.