Hacker News Reader

Comment by efficax | Hacker News Reader

When your "matter of principle" is avoiding a vaccine you're rationalizing an irrational choice through the mask of a "principle". There's no principle involved (personal liberty? do you also refuse to pay taxes, drive without a license, etc. freedom is a complicated thing)

View on HN

One principle would be the belief that the US federal government has not been granted the power to mandate a vaccination. Many people opposed to vaccination in the US believe that states, municipalities, and private organizations can enforce such a mandate but that the federal government cannot. As for not taking the vaccine there is the principle of prudent decision making and informed consent: that each individual has the right to decide what is best for their health even if they are wrong. For example, you might choose to be a lifelong tobacco smoker. The current scientific narrative says that smoking tobacco is bad for your health - but at the end of the day it is a decision of personal conscience whether or not you choose to smoke.

The power was granted by Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/

> Harlan ruled that the vaccination law did not violate the 14th Amendment because the police power of the state may be allowed to constrain individual liberties through reasonable regulations when required to protect public safety. He reasoned that individual liberty does not allow people to take actions regardless of the harm that they could cause to others. Harlan felt that the plaintiff had failed to show that the vaccination law was arbitrary or oppressive, or not reasonably required for the safety of the public. He noted the increasing presence of smallpox, which prevented the plaintiff from convincingly asserting that the rule had no real or substantial relation to protecting public health and safety. Although the plaintiff presented evidence that some doctors believed that the smallpox vaccine was not effective and could cause further diseases, Harlan pointed out that the opposite view represents the common medical belief and is followed by more reputable doctors.

That decision revolved around a one-time $150 fine (in today's money) and was used to justify forced sterilizations. And it was overturned later. And it was for the authority of a state, not the Federal Government.

Not the same thing at all. And you also don't want to go down that road.

No it did not. First, that is a precedent, not a law. Second, that case would be interpreted as affirming the power of a state or municipality to implement and enforce a vaccination mandate, which is exactly what I said in my original comment. The federal government of the US has not been given that power through Jacobson v. Massachusetts and if it was so clear cut a precedent the supreme court wouldn't even bother hearing the case that is currently underway.

EDIT: Getting downvoted so here's the primary holding. Read it for yourself.

> A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.

"v. Massachusetts" and "v. United States Government" are two very, very different things. Are you aware of the differences?

A vaccine objector's personal freedom should end where bad choices (not to vax) undermine my own personal freedoms to live a healthy and free life.

Sometimes we buy that argument, and sometimes we don't.

Take drunk driving, for example. We don't give people the freedom to do that. On the other hand, we do allow people to smoke and to eat unhealthily, both of which impose costs on the rest of us. So there seems to be a balance - we allow some behavior that impacts our personal freedoms, but not egregious impacts.

So: If someone doesn't get vaccinated, how bad is the impact to you? Given that vaccinated (and boosted) people can still get infected and spread the infection, how bad is the impact to your personal freedom to live a healthy and free life if someone doesn't get vaccinated?

What makes you say that? What is your reasoning? Just because you say so does not make it so, nor does it make it logical, reasonable, or enforceable. We have a legal framework for making these kinds of decisions in the United States. While I understand your position and can see some of its merit it's not about how you feel things should be but about providing a system of rights and powers that prevent the government from spiraling out of control.

Relevant argument if these vaccines reduced transmission in a meaningful way.

The vaccines do reduce transmission, so it is a relevant argument? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597

Alpha and Delta lol.

Doesn’t apply to this virus since vaccines don’t prevent transmission

It does if his living a healthy life depends on hospitals not being 100% full of unvaccinated people being treated for a completely preventable illness.

Tortuous logic, to be sure.

Not sure how.

In what way is Covid a “preventable” illness?

"prevent", no. Reduce, yes. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597

That’s just not true. This is some weird misunderstanding. Or a failure of people to think in anything but black and white?

Vaccines reduce transmission. They do not eliminate transmission completely.

Mandating a medical treatment is in no way similar to mandating one have a drivers license.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com