No they used "only" as in "not very long". The question is asking how can you say it's not very long when the covid vaccination lasts less than a year in comparison
What if I had prior infection of Covid before vaccines were available? Why would I need to be forced to be vaccinated? Given that my health care system actually registers this prior infection. While we don't have vaccines for everyone in the world.
Getting Covid should be treated as though you got a vaccine based on the data I have seen, which also means its immunity effects wanes over time and would need to be boosted periodically either by reinfection or vaccine, again the vaccine being the safer approach.
Whether or not you should be "forced" to take it should be based on risk to others in the situation that it is being forced, just like you are "forced" to not speed while driving on a public highway.
I am not sure what the current latest scientific data is but my understanding is that virus and vaccine both reduce the risk of a subsequent infection, spreading the virus if infected and getting severe outcomes requires hospitalization (which reduces hospital capacity). Since this protective effect fades in both circumstances a recent booster would need to be "forced" if not recently having been infected assuming there is no issue with vaccine supply.
> Whether or not you should be "forced" to take it should be based on risk to others in the situation that it is being forced, just like you are "forced" to not speed while driving on a public highway.
I really wish people would stop using this analogy. Driving is a privilege not a right, and you earn that privilege by following the rules.
Living without compulsory medical procedures is a right, not a privilege, so it's the complete opposite case. You need a better analogy.
In the US the mandates allow a choice to either vaccinate or get regular testing. No one is being made to take a vaccine against their will in the US at least, they must however take precautions to protect others from their risky behavior.
You have a right to bear arms here in the US that does not mean you can shoot them in a public place because that endangers others. Typically rights have limits when they impose on others rights.
Working is a privilege was well not a right, you have no right to a job at an employer (at least in the US). So the analogy fits as a privilege but it also works as a right since neither are absolute and are typically limited when they effect others around you negatively.
I agree rights have limits when they conflict with other rights. However the right to work is a right under the UN human rights code. That doesn't mean you have a right to work at any particular place, but it does mean if vaccines are a prerequisite for any kind of work, either by government fiat or by broad corporate consensus, that would be a violation of human rights. Using tests to balance vaccines is one way to address that, but some countries don't even take those considerations and want to blanket mandate vaccines.
If it where a prerequisite to vaccinate with no other choice to find work anywhere (even remote from home jobs) or even say a majority of places I might agree, but that is not even close to the case here in the US.
I think the UN humans rights could also be interpreted as I having the right to a safe work environment and conversely if I where forced to work in a common office space with unvaccinated / untested people that would also violate my rights.
As I said, the US is not the only place that's discussing or implementing mandates, and other places are less flexible in how they're applying them.
Secondly, the very notion that you can have an expectation of not getting infected from someone else is intrinsically untenable. Just try to define what characteristics a pathogen must have before vaccines are mandatory. Why set the bar at COVID's fatality rate, why not the flu? Why not the common cold? Is fatality rate really the right metric? What about number of post infection complications?
Furthermore, what if we say the COVID rate is the cutoff, what if you have comorbidities that increase your chances of death, does that increase the obligation of your workmates to get vaccinated or is that your problem? I think you know which way the rhetoric is going, but these answers are far from obvious.
So which places are you talking about so I know what I can agree or disagree with?
This whole thing seems like continuum fallacy [1]. Just like everything we must all agree on a cutoff because the real world doesn't have neat black and white thresholds, covid is different from the flu that much is obvious and reaches my threshold for requiring vaccination / testing mandates at least in its current form. Do agree that a disease can be deadly enough to require it? If so what is your threshold before the mandate should be allowed?
I am willing to discuss what metrics would help come to consensus as a society, buts its not like requiring vaccines or other preventative measures for certain activities is some foreign concept.
> This whole thing seems like continuum fallacy [1]. Just like everything we must all agree on a cutoff because the real world doesn't have neat black and white thresholds
No we don't. This assumes moral obligations are decided by an evaluation of their consequences, aka consequentialism. This is far from the only type of ethics, and permits problematic inferences (see the "Repugnant conclusion").
For instance, a Kantian would reject entirely the notion that such a cutoff is coherent. People who are trying to compel vaccines are merely using other people for their own ends (herd immunity to get back to normal), rather than treating them as ends in themselves. We should strongly encourage and persuade vaccination, but never compel them by coercive means under this ethics. Universalizing "no vaccination" does not result in a paradox, therefore it is not a moral duty under Kantianism.
There are equally compelling formulations of deontology and virtue ethics under which your sort of consequentialist argument also fails, so I'm just not convinced that it's some kind of inevitability.
>We should strongly encourage and persuade vaccination, but never compel them by coercive means under this ethics.
So you don't believe a person should be compelled to be vaccinated or otherwise stay away from other people unless tested for infection no matter how contagious and deadly the disease? That is, forced quarantine should never be allowed under any circumstance regardless of disease?
Why should a person be free to infect others through their unabridged freedom yet one should not have the freedom to drive while drunk? People compelling others to travel sober is also using them as a means to their own ends (not being killed by drunk driver) even though they can take their own precautions (seat belts, air bags, safer cars, avoiding certain areas, they themselves not being drunk). No one is forcing anyone to be sober (in the US) just not to drive on public roads. You are not free to do whatever you want in a society with others there are limits put on your personal freedom so as not to endanger others, there is always a valid debate about what those limits should be, no different here, but there have to be agreed limits or nothing works.
> So you don't believe a person should be compelled to be vaccinated or otherwise stay away from other people unless tested for infection no matter how contagious and deadly the disease?
What I believe is that the truth is far from obvious, and I'm describing how different ethics reach different conclusions for what is true. Thus, it's far from obvious that the choices you describe are the truth or "moral", so much as convenient and expedient. These are not the same thing.
> Why should a person be free to infect others through their unabridged freedom
Freedom is not unabridged, it simply has different limits under different ethics.
> yet one should not have the freedom to drive while drunk?
I already addressed this in my very first reply to you.
> they must however take precautions to protect others from their risky behavior
If the vaccine was so good at protecting others, why the hell do vaccinated people still need to wear a mask? How is it even ethical to force people to vaccinate in order to function in society and yet still require them to wear a mask? Seems kind of bullshit to me.
First, because the vaccines are 80-95% effective in any specific individual (if boosted, potentially much less if not) and that isn’t good enough for society as a whole until the vaccine uptake is higher.
Second, I’ve never really understood why people are all that upset about mask mandates. It’s just clothing. Heck, in winter they are a vast improvement over scarves even without any disease concerns.
(Curiously, last-but-one time I wrote something similar here, someone took so much offence they tried to anonymously wish harm upon me via comments on my blog).
> First, because the vaccines are 80-95% effective in any specific individual (if boosted, potentially much less if not) and that isn’t good enough for society as a whole until the vaccine uptake is higher.
That's a theoretical model. A hypothesis, most likely unattainable. Conveniently so, because it creates the whole lot of scapegoats.
> Second, I’ve never really understood why people are all that upset about mask mandates. It’s just clothing.
It is not. The net is full of accounts of people telling out precisely what is wrong with masks for them. On HN, on reddit, anywhere. If you wanted to understand, you have plenty of material to read. You, most likely, simply couldn't be bothered. That, or we're just different species.
> (Curiously, last-but-one time I wrote something similar here, someone took so much offence they tried to anonymously wish harm upon me via comments on my blog).
I'm sorry to hear that. They shouldn't have done it. However, this comment of yours is very dismissive to the concerns that some people perceive as fight-or-flight matter. Some choose to fight, event in such inappropriate and misdirected way.
> That's a theoretical model. A hypothesis, most likely unattainable.
“Theoretical model” is a tautology.
And it really should be attainable: We’ve successfully eradicated smallpox worldwide, we are close to doing that with polio, and many other illnesses have been eradicated from certain regions via vaccination programs. This is a thing we can do if we try.
> It is not. The net is full of accounts of people telling out precisely what is wrong with masks for them
What I see is always in one of the following categories:
• People asserting that other people (never themselves) with asthma or similar breathing issues can’t wear them, even though literally everyone I know who has asthma or who uses a CPAP machine is actually fine with masks, to the extent that in many cases they get angry with anti-maskers risking giving them covid. Occasionally I also see anti-maskers also asserting that masks make it difficult for children to learn facial expressions in school, which, while superficially plausible, still seems to fail to against reality.
• People claiming that wearing masks lower blog oxygen levels despite all the evidence from e.g. surgeons, furries (two groups I would not have expected to list together before actually doing so).
It may be that all the above categories have totally overwhelmed real personal anecdotes of people who personally are unable to wear masks. I have no doubt, for example, that there is at least one person with no external nose or ear cartilage for a mask to hold against and who for whatever reason has not had plastic surgery. But this is not what I have ever seen. Always one of the above, on every occasion.
> We’ve successfully eradicated smallpox worldwide, we are close to doing that with polio, and many other illnesses have been eradicated from certain regions via vaccination programs. This is a thing we can do if we try.
Eradicating COVID is not possible because it's in animal reservoirs.
> People asserting that other people (never themselves) with asthma or similar breathing issues can’t wear them
I have had occasions when it became extremely uncomfortable and even triggered an allergic reaction. Universal, effective mask use is not as simple as it's been portrayed.
Furthermore, the evidence that such universal mandates actually work is not as compelling as you think.
> Occasionally I also see anti-maskers also asserting that masks make it difficult for children to learn facial expressions in school, which, while superficially plausible, still seems to fail to against reality.
I don't know what evidence you think proves this claim.
> everyone I know who has asthma or who uses a CPAP machine is actually fine with masks, to the extent that in many cases they get angry with anti-maskers risking giving them covid
Of course they get angry, they're at higher risk and they're scared. They are risking COVID just by going outside. I'm not sure how that translates into an obligation on others to lower their risk. Of course they want others to take those steps, but that doesn't mean those demands are justifiable. If they want to lower their risk, they can take steps to protect themselves, by getting vaccinated, limiting their contact, etc.
> People claiming that wearing masks lower blog oxygen levels despite all the evidence from e.g. surgeons, furries
A properly fitted mask that actually works against COVID absolutely does lower blood oxygen. The whole point is to restrict air flow to prevent aerosolized droplets from passing through. I've measured it myself using a blood oxygen meter while wearing an N95 mask.
Of course poorly fitted masks don't lower blood oxygen, but those also aren't that effective at reducing spread. The comparison to surgeons is disingenuous, they've had years of exposure and training to learn how to operate under such conditions.
> And it really should be attainable: We’ve successfully eradicated smallpox worldwide, we are close to doing that with polio, and many other illnesses have been eradicated from certain regions via vaccination programs. This is a thing we can do if we try.
It is a wonderful thing, a blessing, that we were so lucky with eradication of some terrible diseases. Eradication is really a side effect of a vaccination program hitting a sweet spot within vaccine-pathogen space:
- sufficiently strong vaccine, close to sterilizing
- slowly mutating pathogen
- sufficiently scary illness, to the point that high vax uptake is attainable without coercion
- some evolutionary luck
Of the above properties the current virus-vax duo possesses approximately none, so we could try all we wanted and still remain unsuccessful. Trying hard is a necessary, but by no means sufficient condition.
> What I see is always in one of the following categories
That's impressively selective vision on your part.
> People who have decided everything about this is a political meme and not real
They may be real to an extent AND a political meme at the same time. People make different judgements all the time.
> People claiming that wearing masks lower blog oxygen levels
This looks plausible, however I may agree that some people are merely claiming it. But what it all really is - and you'd figure it out if you were willing to see beyond preconceptions - for many it just a clumsy attempt to speak the "rational" language. Because mask-enthusiasts for some reason are not willing to entertain idea that mask wearing is a huge mental burden. I'll spare you of my personal experience, mainly because I don't want it to be dismissed again. I assure you, there are people who share and understand it, and mask-enthusiasts do not have a monopoly on value judgement.
My question is - what needs to happen for our problems to be recognized? People already are killing themselves, some are still hanging by a thread, but may not be for long. I suspect that the answer would be - it does not matter, our problems do not matter. This is fine, I'm learning to leave with it, learning to see the other side as completely different species, with all that follows. And what follows does not look good.
Mandates are being used in many different ways depending on the country. But even if it were limited to work, the right to work is also recognized as a human right so the analogy to driving still fails.
Given that the poster said norovirus immunity lasts from 6-24 months, having been infected before the vaccine wouldn't guarantee you're safe.
And while sure they could push back your vaccine requirement a few months, that'd require a fair amount of additional overhead and add an additional risk of having gotten a false diagnosis.
