Do we Cancel Everything? You still Travelling??

[HiFlyer 9,358]

 

[Alan_A 1,650]

7 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I've learned a lot by reading the posts and contributing here.  I've even altered my position a bit in some cases thanks to well-informed arguments made by some here.

I can say the same.  This has been a very difficult discussion, and I'm sure many of us have misstepped and lost it at times (I know I have).  It takes an effort to stop and listen and see if maybe there's a shred of common ground in something I mostly disagree violently with.  But the effort has often been worth it and I've had some very nice side conversations, including with people on the "other side" where the relationship started out as an argument.

I keep trying to push back on content but not on people.  Don't know how well I'm doing but it's worth a shot.

 

[Alan_A 1,650]

5 hours ago, w6kd said:

Do you remember a guy named Martin Luther King?

The best possible example of how to protest (alongside Gandhi, his major influence).  Although... depending on the context, the analogy may or may not hold. If we're talking about the overall course of the civil rights movement, then it's worth noting that that wasn't only the result of individuals acting on matters of conscience.  It also took large-scale federal effort at several critical points. President Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, AK to enforce federal school desegregation orders against state and local authority.  Congress passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, both of which required federal enforcement against state and local governments and individuals.  So it's not just a matter of individuals on the one hand and authority on the other.

I think these discussions may be another example of my PR mentor's point - we seem to be debating issues but we're really debating values.  Those debates are hard to resolve.  We'll all cite examples to prove our case, but if we're driven by values we can wind up using them inconsistently.  Another example - those that are arguing for the valor and moral standing of previous generations don't seem to dwell on the fact that the Greatest Generation may have gone to war out of a sense of conviction and mission, but they also did it because they were drafted.  That is, they got a letter from the federal government that carried the force of law, and that compelled them to give up their civilian lives and report for service.  There was actually a lot of resentment about it - you can find it in the contemporary literature (have a look at James Jones' The Thin Red Line, for example).  People also enlisted, but that was often a way to avoid winding up in the infantry (my father enlisted in the Coast Guard the day before he would have been draft-eligible, and many people enlisted on similar timing). 

The point is - they were obeying state authority.  I'd be surprised if anyone arguing against mandatory covid testing or contact tracing or vaccination is also in favor of draft evasion.  But wouldn't that be a similar expression of personal freedom in opposition to the state? Seems to me those two positions would be logically consistent.

I'm not posting this in order to call any one member out or show anyone up.  I'm as guilty as the next person of this kind of inconsistency.  All I want to do is get it out in the open so we can be more aware of the hidden parts of the argument and - with luck and maybe also some skill - argue better.

[HighBypass 2,339]

21 hours ago, Alan_A said:

It needs to be.  Leaving a part of the population unvaccinated endangers everyone.  This is about public health.

If I may play devil's advocate here (and why not, as part of the ongoing debate?) So, what would happen to persons who chose not to have such a vaccine? Would they be serving jail time? Would they be prevented from ever working again? Would they be arrested and then be physically restrained in order that the vaccine is administered? Would societies establish a new style "leper colony"?

A vaccine may fall into the "prevention is better than cure" camp, but would it not be better to cure the virus by its complete eradication? Or is that not what is meant by cure?

[Luke 782]

3 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

 So, what would happen to persons who chose not to have such a vaccine? Would they be serving jail time? Would they be prevented from ever working again?

Refusing to be vaccinated does not make you a protected class. In many places, an employer could legitimately make proof of vaccination a condition of employment, doubly so if the existing employees felt strongly about it. Rights go both ways.

Vaccination, by the way, is how you eradicate a virus. How did we get rid of smallpox?

cheers

[Alan_A 1,650]

17 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

If I may play devil's advocate here (and why not, as part of the ongoing debate?) So, what would happen to persons who chose not to have such a vaccine?

You could, I suppose, argue that if a sufficient number of people are vaccinated, and if the disease becomes endemic (as suggested in the Scientific American article that @MartinRex007 linked to earlier), then you could, with reasonable safety, leave some part of the population unvaccinated - the idea being that most would have immunity, and newly developed antivirals could keep the virus in check in anyone that got it (or if not, mortality would be at a very low level).

That still leaves open the question, though, of how you'd get to that sufficient number.  Can you count on people to volunteer, or does there need to be some form of compulsion.  The military draft analogy may apply here - in a crisis, can you defend the country with volunteers, or do you need to raise so many troops that you have to draft people into military service?

I honestly don't know the answer, but that's how I'd start framing the question.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Alan_A

[HighBypass 2,339]

So what I think you're saying Luke (please correct me if not) is that a person who isn't vaccinated will become unemployable. They will not be eligible for any unemployment benefits (because not vaccinated) and therefore have no livelihood at all. That person then descends into vagrancy (where else does a person go when they cannot work nor receive a hand-out?), but would they still be classed as a threat and be hunted down & forcibly vaccinated? A bit like a modern day press-ganging or indeed the military draft analogy, Alan.

 Rights go both ways, but would that person instantly lose most of their human rights like a dangerous criminal? Granted, an infectious person can be likened to a gunman, not by breaking any current laws, or pulling a trigger on anyone, but by what they carry in their body?

[Alan_A 1,650]

8 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

They will not be eligible for any unemployment benefits (because not vaccinated) and therefore have no livelihood at all.

Those could be two separate questions.  An employer could, as a private matter, decide to fire someone.  But the government could, separately, decide that such a person qualifies for unemployment or some other kind of benefit.

I'm trying to think of whether there's a precedent.  There are plenty of examples of people losing their civil liberties for public health reasons - but generally, those are people who actually have a disease or can transmit it, like Typhoid Mary.  Many such people have been forced into quarantine. I'm not sure if there's an equivalent case where someone was quarantined for being unvaccinated, or otherwise having the potential to transmit without being infected. That's going to take some digging.

It's a really interesting problem.

EDIT: And in fact, there is a precedent: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/briannasacks/los-angeles-ucla-measles-quarantine-outbreak-vaccinations

Still not quite the same thing because there were two factors in play here - lack of vaccination records and potential exposure.  So that takes it a step closer to a traditional public health action where there's an active outbreak, not just a lack of documentation.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Alan_A

[HighBypass 2,339]

Just now, Alan_A said:

It's a really interesting problem.

This is why I wanted to bring it into the debate. Thank you 😎

[MartinRex007 390]

2 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

have a disease or can transmit it, like Typhoid Mary

Interesting side note regarding the laws we now have regarding HIV.

During the early years of the HIV epidemic, a number of states implemented HIV-specific criminal exposure laws. Some of these state laws criminalize behavior that cannot transmit HIV and apply regardless of actual transmission. As of 2019, 34 states had laws that criminalize HIV exposure.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

Martin

[Alan_A 1,650]

2 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

This is why I wanted to bring it into the debate.

Just updated my previous post with a precedent - at least a partial one.

[HighBypass 2,339]

Interesting! I know the UK and the USA differ somewhat in their laws, but given the precedent Alan linked to and the information linked by Martin, I would infer that a non-vaccinated person might well become subject to criminal proceedings, the severity of which may depend upon the difference in another person contracting COVID-19 as opposed to HIV, say. Both can be fatal, or at least life changing to some degree.

Pure speculation on my part. Thanks gents!

 

[dave2013 1,127]

I can live with forced quarantine, because it is necessary to protect public health, and because it is a temporary condition.

Forced vaccination on the other hand bothers me.  I'm conflicted a bit here because on the one hand I understand that it may be necessary for public health reasons, but it also violates a person's civil rights.  Does the govt. have the right to force us to put something in our bodies that we don't want, even if it is beneficial for us and is for the public good?

I think it will depend on a couple things:

1. Is Covid-19 severe enough and such a danger to public health that *everyone* must be vaccinated? 

2. Is the vaccine absolutely safe?

Number 2 is a real concern because vaccines, as beneficial as they are, do carry some risk.  I have read reports about people having awful side effects from vaccines, and Congress will likely pass legislation granting the vaccine developers immunity from lawsuits, so no recourse if something goes horribly wrong.  These Covid-19 vaccines are also being developed on an expedited schedule, and for good reason, but does rushing their development compromise their safety?

Personally, I try to avoid taking pharmaceuticals at all costs.  I eat a nutritious diet most of the time and take herbal remedies if I have a problem.  I have never taken the Influenza vaccine and haven't caught the Flu in over 11 years.  The only reason I caught it then is because I was on an international flight and started getting symptoms several days after arriving back home.

I hope I'm not forced to take a Covid-19 vaccine.

Dave

[HighBypass 2,339]

Dave, the reasons you have posted just now are why I brought up the subject for discussion.😎 Not because you personally posted them, but I too was thinking along similar lines, regarding civil rights etc.

[MartinRex007 390]

13 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I hope I'm not forced to take a Covid-19 vaccine

I would hesitate to favor a mandatory program but it looks like there is precedence?

"Is Mandatory Vaccination Legal in TIme of Epidemic"

Jacobson v Massachusetts 1905 Supreme Court decision.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/mandatory-vaccination-legal-time-epidemic/2006-04

Summary of the "Police Power" reference

"The doctrine of state “police power” was adopted in early colonial America from firmly established English common law principles mandating the limitation of private rights when needed for the preservation of the common good. It was one of the powers reserved by the states with the adoption of the federal Constitution."
 

Martin

Edited May 25, 2020 by MartinRex007