Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaythekey | Hacker News Reader

I'm not the parent but you have posed a funny question.

> in an alternate reality where the vaccine is super effective at reducing transmission of Omicron, and where Omicron is super deadly

If either of these were true then mandates would be far less required because people would be far more willing to take them voluntarily.

Instinctively though I do want to answer yes, I would support mandates more under higher risk scenarios. In an ideal world though I would probably prefer if communities could self select by risk tolerance i.e it's possible to live/work/party somewhere nearby with like minded people.

View on HN

>> in an alternate reality where the vaccine is super effective at reducing transmission of Omicron, and where Omicron is super deadly

> If either of these were true then mandates would be far less required because people would be far more willing to take them voluntarily.

I don't know whether that would necessarily be the case. We have seen how easily people are manipulated via misinformation campaigns.

> We have seen how easily people are manipulated via misinformation campaigns.

I'm also not against a small amount of natural selection. People choosing their own fates helps to keep everyone happy and some Darwinism is probably a good outcome for humanity in the long term.

Thanks for the answer! I posted a followup question to the sibling but I'm curious about your thoughts there too, ie if hypothetically, say, the virus had selective lethality based on eye colour or blood type, so most people with that trait feel safe without themselves getting a vaccine.

Self selected communities are another good answer although I imagine it's hard to totally bubble communities up along the axis of vaccine-opinionation without any overlap.

> if hypothetically, say, the virus had selective lethality

It might depend on how selective the lethality is! If a small population is vulnerable then I don't have a problem with them protecting themself to the best of their own abilities (no mandates). This is fairly common already with the immunocompromised etc.

If a large portion of the population is vulnerable then it becomes more grey. I'm pretty uncomfortable with there being a large amount of preventable suffering but intellectually my brain wants to take a long term view. The best possible society in the future seems like one where humans have stronger immune systems and take fewer vaccinations, not more. Is this something we can evolve towards? Is my poor knowledge of biology leading me astray? Who knows!

Given I know nothing I'm happy to fall back onto the distributed decision making apparatus (individual choice).

Fair enough, if that's your view!

For me, this hypothetical is more a situation where we're talking about one's freedom to make choices that endanger those around them, in addition themselves. When the principal danger is to oneself I think restrictions are rarely justified, but when the consequences are borne by others, I think it's more justified. For example, when operating cars, we don't allow you to drink and drive, run red lights, or drive on the sidewalk, primarily because it creates at least as much risk for your neighbours as it does for yourself.

> When the principal danger is to oneself I think restrictions are rarely justified, but when the consequences are borne by others, I think it's more justified.

I think this point makes broad sense but needs refinement. For example if we assume there is a vaccine available that:

- Reduces personal injury - Does not prevent transmission

Using the above logic would mean that after taking the vaccine restrictions are more justified because the burden of the disease has shifted. I don't think that's what you intended and probably means that there still needs to be reference to absolute harm and taking reasonable minimization measures.

I guess I meant that the restrictions are justified based on the harm prevention to your neighbours, rather than to yourself (I didn't mean to imply that it's based on some ratio).

In that sense, if a vaccine purely reduced transmission even without offering any other protection, mandating it could still be justified for certain activities, just like a driver's license is considered reasonable today.

I'm sure driver's licenses were considered very controversial restrictions on personal freedom back when they were first introduced.

> restrictions are justified based on the harm prevention to your neighbours

Taken to the extreme this kind of thought becomes pretty anti-human (thanos, global warming)

> mandating it could still be justified for certain activities

Yeah it could be justified for sure - I just don't think there's any way of ignoring that it's a judgement call/balance.

I definitely think both extremes become... extreme. The freedom to drink alcohol while driving your car down the sidewalk without a license as people dive out of your way is also pretty anti-human!

Of course, we could allow that freedom and then just penalize people in court when they happen to injure others with their car. But it might be even more dangerous to set a precedent where you can take someone to court for transmitting a virus to you, or get charged with murder for being part of a transmission chain that results in a death.

Anyway, so I agree with you that it's about balance, and I do agree that Canada's policies are not getting that right (and, in many instances, lacking common sense).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com