Coronavirus 4 - Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Pies4shaw]

When I was a kid, there was a compulsory TB screening program in Victoria. The Commonwealth had previously created a free screening program nationally (probably back in the early 1940s) but - before I was born - it was made compulsory in Victoria because they had the same problem we do now: there was a hard-core collection of cretins who wouldn't do the right thing by everybody else. The compulsory program continued, if my memory is accurate, for about a quarter of a century until about the mid 1970s.

Only adults were screened, partly because childhood vaccination was compulsory (that happened in late primary school, with a 2-stage program involving a screening test - called a Mantoux Test - because you couldn't have the vaccination if you had TB - and then BCG vaccine) and partly because the authorities were very concerned about the long-term impacts of multiple chest x-rays on children (a genuine risk of radiation-poisoning being foremost amongst those). I remember my adult relatives all having to submit themselves for a chest X-ray at certain intervals when the mobile van came around.

The compulsory program stopped when TB was effectively eradicated and there was no serious risk of spread. It didn't stop while the Health Department was reporting 10,000 new cases a week.

[stui magpie]

TB was eradicated, but the Spanish Flu that ravaged the world in 1918 is still with us. We just now refer to it as the H1N1 strain and your annual flu vaccine contains protection against it.

[pietillidie]

The personal irony in all this is that I would generally think of myself as a utilitarian, yet I recognise that I’m basically taking on a deontological position here! But I don’t think either of these are wrong or fundamentally flawed ways of approaching the ethical quandaries brought about by a pandemic. On the contrary, I think it’s likely that a mix of both approaches is probably the most sensible one: we shouldn’t get so locked up in abstract ethical concerns that we lose sight of real-life consequences; but we also shouldn’t throw fundamental human rights out of the window because they impede our ability to resolve a crisis with maximum efficiency.

We've dealt with this time and again, though. Don't we agree it's best to harness principles where we can because they make things simpler and intellectual symmetry is orderly and satisfying, which has its advantages, but we don't lose sleep if utility overrides them because in the end there is no god-given correspondence between intellectual symmetry and 'good', if indeed symmetry can be found at all? The fetishisation of intellectual symmetry is the very definition of fundamentalism (not to mention a symptom of certain disorders); there is no option but to have both dogs in the fight.

In any case, as TP says the anti-vax position faces competing rights/harms, so it's wrong to imply it's the deontological champion in this discussion. The greater good rule is called in to break what is a tie between rival harms here, and it resolves the problem clearly in favour of vaccination.

Most of us make that calculation in seconds. It takes a lot of motivated reasoning not to get there.

One of the most under-considered harms in the discussion is uncertainty. Just having a percentage of unvaccinated people implies a greater risk of harmful mutation, reinfection, spikes in cases, shutdowns and health system overload. And because of the variability of side effects and unknown implications of infection per case, each instance creates great uncertainty around it. Now multiply that uncertainty across a population and you see why statistical reductions matter a lot here for society and economy.

Of course, the usual crazies know this, which is why they're leveraging their apocalyptic disregard for life against the sane in the wrecker and spoiler role to which they're now addicted. They might not be able to invade a country, delay the green transition or vote for Brexit or Donald Trump, but they can still find a way to wreck shit.

[David]

[stui magpie]

I don't see a major difference between mandatory vaccination orders and the other restrictions, including lockdowns, that have been used during Covid.

Unpalatable as they are, they are blunt instruments to be wielded in the name of public safety but only to be used while absolutely necessary, then removed.

We now are getting over 1000 daily cases, yet for 95% of the population there are minimal restrictions. The justification for continued indefinite lockout of the unvaccinated doesn't exist.

NSW on the other hand will remove restrictions on unvaccinated people once they hit 95% or December 15, whichever comes first.

https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/easing- ... ing-in-dec

[roar]

Is it not true that a small - really small - percentage of people will have an adverse, and potentially deadly reaction to the vaccine? Can you then force someone to take that chance?

[stui magpie]

Is it not true that a small - really small - percentage of people will have an adverse, and potentially deadly reaction to the virus? Can you then force someone to take that chance?

Virus or vaccine? Much more than a small percentage of people will have an adverse reaction to the virus

[Pies4shaw]

Is it not true that a small - really small - percentage of people will have an adverse, and potentially deadly reaction to the virus? Can you then force someone to take that chance?

To the vaccine, I think you mean? Yes, of course. In terms of exercise of power, it is no different from sending an army off to war knowing that some of your soliders will be killed (save, of course, that chances are that way more of your soldiers will be killed since the point of a war seems to be to apply opposing lethal forces).

Speaking statistically, of course, we know that the chances of a dangerous reaction to the vaccine are a tiny fragment of the chances of a dangerous outcome if they get COVID, so that risk is irrelevant.

[stui magpie]

We are only 4% off it!

Both NSW and Vic have 93% > 12 with 1 dose. You'd expect all of the ones who haven't yet to get the second. I'd call that close enough. Dan will fall in line with NSW in removing the Vaccination economy.

[stui magpie]

Is it not true that a small - really small - percentage of people will have an adverse, and potentially deadly reaction to the virus? Can you then force someone to take that chance?

To the vaccine, I think you mean? Yes, of course. In terms of exercise of power, it is no different from sending an army off to war knowing that some of your soliders will be killed (save, of course, that chances are that way more of your soldiers will be killed since the point of a war seems to be to apply opposing lethal forces).

Speaking statistically, of course, we know that the chances of a dangerous reaction to the vaccine are a tiny fragment of the chances of a dangerous outcome if they get COVID, so that risk is irrelevant.

Their risk may be irrelevant to you but it might not be to them.

I'd love to see you explaining to an early 20's pregnant female terrified of what the vaccine might do to her baby that her risk is irrelevant and she has a moral obligation to get vaccinated to help protect you,

Good luck with that.

[Dave The Man]

My Carer Tony Reckons once you get Covid you won't get it again.

Is that Even Close to being Right?

[Pies4shaw]

This is what the WHO says:

Yes, you can get vaccinated if you are pregnant. During pregnancy, you are at higher risk of serious illness caused by COVID-19. You are also at higher risk of delivering your baby prematurely if you contract COVID-19. While there is less data available on vaccination of pregnant people, evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy has been growing, and no safety concerns have been identified. Especially in countries with high transmission, or if you have an occupation where you are at more risk of being exposed to COVID-19, the benefits of getting the vaccine outweigh potential risks. There is no risk of getting COVID-19 from the vaccine. Talk to your healthcare provider to make an informed decision about vaccination.

There's just no accounting for people being imbeciles. In many cases, you can just let them be imbeciles because it doesn't affect others. That's not this case.

Your responses on this topic smack of the sort of idiocy that allowed passive smoking to ruin lives and kill people for many decades.

[Pies4shaw]

My Carer Tony Reckons once you get Covid you won't get it again.

Is that Even Close to being Right?

It's less likely to get it a second time, it appears - but people do get reinfected. Here's an example article that might be of interest: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02825-8

On the modeling discussed in that article,

... the average reinfection risk rises from about 5% four months after initial infection to 50% by 17 months. Overall, natural protection seems to last for less than half as long as it does for the three common-cold coronaviruses.

[stui magpie]

This is what the WHO says:

Yes, you can get vaccinated if you are pregnant. During pregnancy, you are at higher risk of serious illness caused by COVID-19. You are also at higher risk of delivering your baby prematurely if you contract COVID-19. While there is less data available on vaccination of pregnant people, evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy has been growing, and no safety concerns have been identified. Especially in countries with high transmission, or if you have an occupation where you are at more risk of being exposed to COVID-19, the benefits of getting the vaccine outweigh potential risks. There is no risk of getting COVID-19 from the vaccine. Talk to your healthcare provider to make an informed decision about vaccination.

There's just no accounting for people being imbeciles. In many cases, you can just let them be imbeciles because it doesn't affect others. That's not this case.

Your responses on this topic smack of the sort of idiocy that allowed passive smoking to ruin lives and kill people for many decades.

I know what the science says, I know how it's far worse to catch Covid while pregnant for the baby than the vaccine is. I've also had to deal with women in this predicament and while you can judge and call them imbeciles, that approach just won't fly. We're dealing with people here, imperfect beings with thoughts and emotions that aren't always logical. Something you clearly can't relate to. That you call my responses idiocy just proves that you have NFI.

[eddiesmith]

Is it not true that a small - really small - percentage of people will have an adverse, and potentially deadly reaction to the virus? Can you then force someone to take that chance?

Well the Chief Health Officer of QLD said the vaccine is deadlier than Covid to anyone under 40...