Post A5HND0u2fOJIl9DYDA by ffeth@mastodon.gougere.fr
(DIR) More posts by ffeth@mastodon.gougere.fr
(DIR) Post #A5FTqsfAvqoCCEjlsu by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-15T21:47:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
1. If you force someone to get a vaccine against their will, then they die of complications, is it your fault ?2. If someone refuses a vaccine and then gets sick, infects others, and others die - is it their fault ?
(DIR) Post #A5FTqtBmyatdpNzoie by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-15T22:01:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Question 3:If you answered "no" on 1, but during drug trials there was evidence that this complication might occur and it was "brushed aside" because of the urgency to get the vaccine to market, how bad would it have to be for you to change your mind ?
(DIR) Post #A5FTqtVHo6Uanr7O6q by maop@mstdn.mx
2021-03-15T22:30:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd what vaccine are we talking about here?
(DIR) Post #A5FTqtnihZEnj1k6qG by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-15T22:40:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@maop Any vaccine, but lets take as example the COVID vaccine.
(DIR) Post #A5FTqu6VZiGafIX77w by maop@mstdn.mx
2021-03-15T22:58:31Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd this vaccine has not "urgency to get it to the market"But to just get it, because you know, the whole world being in lockdown.Also there is not one covid vaccine, multiple were developed by multiple people with multiple methods.So, what vaccine are we talking here?If it's just a moralist exercise: 1) no, 2) no, 3) it depends on the (benefits * urgency)/risks
(DIR) Post #A5HJg7ldp8wKd9uiUS by kingannoy@octodon.social
2021-03-15T22:32:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd If you force someone to wear a seatbelt and then they get into one of the very rare crashes where they would have been better off not wearing a seatbelt, is that then your fault? Or did you simply force them into making the clearly better choice?Or inverted. If you tell someone not to waste their money on a lottery ticket, and that turns out to be the winning ticket, was that then bad advice?
(DIR) Post #A5HJg86CahO1evX8XQ by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-15T22:40:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kingannoy Seatbelt --> Answer is no because they have a long history (100+yrs) proving efficacy.Lottery ticket -> Also no, this time because known probability. If it was a business investment then that's more delicate.
(DIR) Post #A5HJg8Q3OtGYeUozTs by kingannoy@octodon.social
2021-03-16T09:50:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd Seatbelts were introduced in 1950, so they are not 100 years old yet. Vaccines however have been around since 1800 (and it's precursor, variolation, since around 1000).How do you prove the efficacy of seatbelts? How is that procedure different from the way you prove the efficacy of vaccines?
(DIR) Post #A5HJg8kGBlQffAH7ya by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-16T20:05:00Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kingannoy Seatbelts and vaccines occupy different complexity classes. I'll grant you that seatbelts were not widely used until the 1950s, but obviously harnesses and safety belts of some sort have existed since antiquity.Point is we have enough experience w/ them to know they don't have surprises. Medical interventions, drugs & vaccines do.
(DIR) Post #A5HLWcVSsj6MyjwXMe by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-16T20:27:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Since we're just about done, I'll give my answers:1. YES, bodily integrity is a fundamental human right. If someone dies because you violated their human rights, that's your fault. Even if you didn't think they would die, you violated their human rights and now they're dead.2. If they followed EVERY safety precaution other than the vaccine, the answer is a reluctant no, because yes violates bodily integrity.However, masks, social distancing, etc. are NOT bodily integrity. Can be required.
(DIR) Post #A5HLWcw3HsMwJCNlo0 by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2021-03-16T20:35:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd Answering "yes" to 2 doesn't mean you are requiring people to get vaccinated. It means you require them to not infect others.It's like this:- you must not infect me- I propose one way to not infect me that I'm convinced is effective. If you do that and still infect me, then I was wrong, my fault- If you find another way to infect me that's fine, but if your way doesn't work then that's your fault.
(DIR) Post #A5HLgiKo4GXBwxlrf6 by lain@lain.com
2021-03-16T20:37:40.011210Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd i agree but 2. also depends on safety precautions being reasonable in view of the expected risk. it's not reasonable to never eat a snickers bar because you might sit next to someone who as a peanut allergy.
(DIR) Post #A5HM2kDbkCQgACuP5c by cereal@shitposter.club
2021-03-16T20:41:40.314097Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lain @cjd it's reasonable to never eat snickers because there's no reason to eat snickers.
(DIR) Post #A5HMGDVCBBdkkYYjvk by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-16T20:44:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl This is close to the interpretation used to justify the Vaccine Passport. "If you don't get vaccinated then you are considered too risky to be allowed on $my_land which includes most public spaces".You can see that while it does create a measure of coercion, it is being done within the context of bodily integrity.
(DIR) Post #A5HND063fEKOG7pdIm by ffeth@mastodon.gougere.fr
2021-03-16T20:30:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd so you are a libertarian, ok
(DIR) Post #A5HND0WI5hJNZU6aBs by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-16T20:38:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ffeth Bodily integrity is an internationally recognized human right. Try harder.
(DIR) Post #A5HND0u2fOJIl9DYDA by ffeth@mastodon.gougere.fr
2021-03-16T20:42:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd Virus doesn't care about international treaties, nor about nations, or even "your" and "my".
(DIR) Post #A5HND1H5Hik3ubzx7w by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-16T20:52:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ffeth And this is neither the first time, nor the last time, that we will have to choose between upholding the fundamental principles of our society, and a swift decisive solution to the problem of the day.
(DIR) Post #A5HND1e7u3Ap44mM2i by lain@lain.com
2021-03-16T20:54:36.309364Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @ffeth this crisis has shown us that we have no choice, we really need to get rid of governments, they are just too dangerous.
(DIR) Post #A5HNRkBJ7RbrF5JjNY by ffeth@mastodon.gougere.fr
2021-03-16T20:56:48Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lain You had the answer before the problem arised ;-)What's ironic : I'm convinced my govmt is pathetic, I'm always in favor of anarchy, and yet I have to defend the concept of commons.@cjd
(DIR) Post #A5HNZ9ah2te64jizAm by cereal@shitposter.club
2021-03-16T20:58:44.131117Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @ffeth or, crazy idea, to abuse the situation to gain power and wealth while not solving shit. As they tend to do.
(DIR) Post #A5HNpxmQDAAKMrE47U by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-16T21:01:24Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lain @ffeth Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.But for those of us who are old enough to have been politically aware during 9/11, patriot act, torture and all, the calls to up-end everything we stand for in order to supposedly protect it are nothing new.All I have to say is thank heaven for old cranky judges, they're probably the only thing that's kept society together the past hundred years.
(DIR) Post #A5HUELq30th9etvym8 by kristof@pleroma.marussy.com
2021-03-16T21:40:12.356654Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @wolf480pl But vaccine passports (or, in general, applying violence by removing them from the country against someone not vaccinating) is pre-hoc thing, while this "it's their fault" in your question is very much post-hoc. It's consistent to hold the belief that if one refusing to vaccinate infects a person that subsequently dies, one is responsible for the death, while also holding the belief that it's bad to prevent prevent the movement of people refusing to vaccinate in general.It'd be interesting to distinguish the cases where the person B being infected1. is aware that they are meeting a person A that refused the vaccine,2. thinks that the person A they are meeting is vaccinated,3. A infected B in public, with none of them aware of their meeting.For me, in 1., A is not responsible death, but neither would B violate A's bodily autonomy if the refused the meeting due to A's non-vaccinating status (in fact, their own bodily autonomy would be very much violated, to the point of death in this hypothetical, if they were forced to attend the meeting).In 2., the responsibility of A is much more clear cut. One could maybe even make a case for manslaughter or worse if A used deception to meet B in person.This of course becomes significantly more difficult, since, instead of dying, B could infect C who then dies, and C wouldn't have died if B didn't go through their voluntary and informed (as in 1.) meeting with A. But I'd say that even then, B is only responsible for C's death if B infected C under 2. circumstances.This leaves 3. as the thorniest, but most likely applicable to the real world case. My problem here would be that the post-hoc "it's A's fault" language isn't really applicable: if A and B are unaware they met, how can we be aware of it to make a moral judgement? We could evaluate any pre-hoc intervention at least empirically (in places were a Vaccine Passport is put in place, deaths decrease by x%). On the other hand, we have a much stronger case that A's bodily autonomy is being violated by the effectively forced vaccination (it's realistic for A to avoid meeting B, it's unrealistic to avoid going into public for any reason at all).
(DIR) Post #A5HUEMGzOjFJ0SXUlk by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2021-03-16T22:13:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kristof @cjd I don't see a problem making a moral judgement about an udetectable situation. We just can't make policy about it.But then, we have many policies which are explicitly designed to permit some morally wrong behaviours because preventing them would require also preventing other, not-morally-wrong behaviours, or otherwise would be worse than the behaviours it tries to prevent.
(DIR) Post #A5HUV7VnX5Rm9GSUbI by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2021-03-16T22:16:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kristof @cjd For example, we don't allow illegally obtained evidence in court, not because the person is not guilty, but because letting a criminal go free is less bad than incentivizing the police to violate citizens' rights in hopes to obtain evidence.
(DIR) Post #A5HVYHERww4F7NPgS8 by ScumbagDog@social.linux.pizza
2021-03-16T20:49:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjdIf someone infects others because they refused a vaccine, then of course they are (at least partially) responsible for that death, regardless of what other safety measures they took.Sure, they have the right to not get a vaccine, but refusing doesn't magically absolve them of the consequences of doing so.
(DIR) Post #A5HVYHcCWd4AJ2WeTQ by hicks@mstdn.io
2021-03-16T22:18:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ScumbagDog "If someone infects others because they refused a vaccine, "Don't you see how it's insidious? But look, I don't take the vaccine, right? But what about the one who "would" die if I ever infected her?She was supposed to have been vaccinated, wasn't she? If yes and die: vaccine's not working. This blackmailing's just a diversion. I don't see more investment in healthcare, unpatend vaccine.I see more rich, more poor, more bankruptcies, more control, less freedom.@cjd
(DIR) Post #A5HVYHzx6K45UhdcUi by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-16T22:25:36Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@hicks @ScumbagDog You do make a point here. If the vaccine makers say "this will prevent you catching the virus" and then later they say "this will prevent you catching the virus, but only after EVERYONE takes it", they're moving the goalposts and they need to explain what is the actual effectiveness of the vaccine.
(DIR) Post #A5HVYIMdjyDGd4FjrE by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-03-16T22:27:53Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@hicks @ScumbagDog Put another way: If the vaccine is such trash that you need a Vaccine Passport for it to be effective, then why not skip the vaccine entirely and just have an My Covid Test Is Negative Passport.
(DIR) Post #A5HXQjQ7SjOq8MOx1s by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2021-03-16T22:49:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kristof @cjd s/we/you/(Apparently this is not the case in my country)