> You have to come up with a definition of “experimental” that suits you, and “emergency authorization” doesn’t sound like very well tested and understood.
I think you may have misread my comment. I agree that "emergency authorization" constitutes "experimental". My point is that there is now a vaccine that is no longer experimental, i.e. is as fully FDA approved as any other, and the mandates in place were put there after that approval.
To the rest of your comment, when dealing with a contagious disease which spreads throughout society, I think that the people participating in a society should be able to set prerequisites for participating in that society. One person's rights end where another's begin, and with contagious diseases, a given person's low risk of death does not prevent them from spreading it to someone with much higher risk.
> the people participating in a society should be able to set prerequisites for participating in that society
This is exactly what I’m saying with a different emphasis.
Some societies will want to lean more towards conformity and collective good, other societies will want to lean more on individual choice and individual good. In America there’s a tendency to split into 50:50 camps between each (and each camp seems to alternate between individual freedom and conformity depending on the topic)
Why is it that the way one camp thinks needs to dominate the other? How do you decide between individual choice and authoritarianism?
I.e. Abortions? Individual choice. Vaccines? Authoritarianism. (Reverse for opposite political allegiance)
There isn’t just one political philosophy for all societies and there seems to be pretty big disagreements (and self contradictions) all around. Most people though act like their opinions are the only possible opinions, and have no respect for different ideas and little concept of the actual issues at hand.
> I.e. Abortions? Individual choice. Vaccines? Authoritarianism. (Reverse for opposite political allegiance)
I think these examples are really interesting, because on both political sides, the exact same values are being applied, to a different set of definitions.
In both cases, the "authoritarian" option is supported by for the topic that a group believes impacts more than one person, and the "individual choice" option supported by the group that believes that topic affects only one person.
A person who believes that a society should protect its vulnerable from contagious disease, while also believing that lie begins at conception, is likely to support the "authoritarian" option for both topics.
People seem to not very commonly have consistent value for individual freedoms. There is a lot of desiring freedom to do things they support and authoritarianism to make others do things they want. All the while protesting and defending falsely their values on either individualism or the public good.
There is not a lot of “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” or in general supporting freedom to do things one doesn’t like.
the "full approval" happened much faster than any other vaccine or medication in recent memory. also the approval was based on the exact same dataset that was used for the EUA, to me that does not inspire confidence
It’s not about inspiring confidence, it’s about measuring uncertainty.
Presently the uncertainty margins are higher for this than other things in the past and other things available. Different standards of uncertainty seem to be used for this, and that’s not necessarily bad considering the scale of the problem being addressed. BUT the uncertainty is not being appropriately represented by the people acting as information authorities.
I think you may have misread my comment. I agree that "emergency authorization" constitutes "experimental". My point is that there is now a vaccine that is no longer experimental, i.e. is as fully FDA approved as any other, and the mandates in place were put there after that approval.
To the rest of your comment, when dealing with a contagious disease which spreads throughout society, I think that the people participating in a society should be able to set prerequisites for participating in that society. One person's rights end where another's begin, and with contagious diseases, a given person's low risk of death does not prevent them from spreading it to someone with much higher risk.