u If
you oppose vaccine mandates for COVID, would you have sided with vaccine
opponents in dealing with previous diseases? Would you, for example, have
opposed the vaccine mandate for smallpox in the early 20th century?
If you would have supported vaccination then, why oppose it now?
11 comments:
Smallpox had around a 30 percent chance to kill you, ten times more likely than COVID. Those who caught it and survived typically had other severe issues like scarring, blindness, etc, whereas for most people COVID was like a bad cold, if that. And in general, smallpox was hard on children, while COVID was worst among the elderly and people with pre-existing health issues. Smallpox was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, whereas COVIDs death count is a tiny speck in comparison, and many counted COVID deaths are "with COVID" rather than from COVID.
Smallpox is far, far worse. Comparing the two is like comparing a grenade to a nuke. It is not inconsistent to judge one to be a big enough threat to justify a vaccine mandate and the other not. Particularly since the smallpox vaccine would almost certainly prevent infection, and the COVID vaccine does not.
That said, I got the vaccine.
Well, it's 972,000 deaths in America over a two year period. That doesn't strike me as a tiny speck.
I live with people with pre-existing health conditions, and take some pretty severe measures to keep from infecting them. Are their lives less valuable than the lives of others?
That doesn't strike me as a tiny speck.
I said in comparison. The smallpox vaccine came around after hundreds of millions of deaths. Hitler and Stalin and Trump combined couldn't compete with smallpox for death count.
The COVID vaccine came around after a death count that is barely visible sitting next to the smallpox death count. The disease is nowhere near as lethal to the general population and the vaccine nowhere near as effective at preventing infection. And for the average person, getting COVID wasn't a frightening prospect, whereas no one in their right mind would want to risk smallpox. Two different situations.
I live with people with pre-existing health conditions, and take some pretty severe measures to keep from infecting them. Are their lives less valuable than the lives of others?
My best friend is such a person and I too go to great lengths to keep from harming her. But it is a simple fact of human nature, at least at the societal level, that the death of a child is more impactful - as in, deemed a greater tragedy - than the death of a 58 year old woman. Smallpox targeted the former, COVID the latter. If COVID was primarily killing children, who can't take measures to protect themselves like the vast majority of adults can, the landscape would be different.
I'm not telling my own opinion of COVID. I've simply seen and heard the opinions of COVID and the perceived risks involved, particularly from those who got it and shrugged it off and went on their way. Whether or not it would have gone differently had different decision been made, there were a number of factors contributing to opposition to COVID vaccine mandates.
As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of people were not in any real danger from COVID.
Fauci's message kept changing. That may not be a fair point of attack because our understanding kept changing, but the right saw that at best as the government making mandates when they didn't know what they were talking about. Can't trust the message when the message changes.
The facts were muddied as to how high the death rate was, particularly since the authorities admitted at one point they were counting deaths of infected people as COVID deaths, even if COVID wasn't what killed them. Breach of trust from the authorities does not help gain cooperation from those already skeptical of those authorities.
Speaking of that, the government mandating anything is going to be automatically met with skepticism without good justification. The government turned to threats and force - lockdowns, loss of employment if you don't have the vaccine. The right saw what was happening in Australia - it is absolutely the belief that such things would also occur in the US if Democrats had their way. You can argue if lockdowns and threats to livelihood are effective, but they were absolutely counterproductive for gaining any goodwill. Though at this point that may be impossible anyway.
And finally, in our partisan nation, Democrats advocating basically anything is a guarantee that the right will oppose it. If Democrats were smart they would mandate gun ownership.
Having survived COVID myself last year, I can assure you that it is no joke! I was laid up for the better part of a month, sleeping 16 hours per day and completely wiped out the other 8. I couldn't catch a decent breath and perpetually felt like I was drowning. I finally "recovered" but after almost 6 months, I'm still gasping for breath. And I recently learned after some tests that my lungs are PERMANENTLY damaged - they will never recover. I have at most 80% of my former lung capacity. Walking 100 yards totally wipes me out. But the worst is the inability to concentrate. I used to be able to read 100 pages at a clip, but now I have to stop after maybe 5 or so. It's just too tasking on the brain to continue.
So there are more things to consider than just the death rate. The consequences of just surviving this disease are considerable, and none of them good.
Kevin,
Smallpox is far, far worse.
I agree, it's not a great comparison. How about measles? Do you oppose vaccine mandates for measles?
Covid provided us with a remarkable sociological experiment.
Vaccines were killshots if Trump OK'ed them until Biden took over and then anyone who questioned whether they worked or if they were safe wanted to kill us all.
Seems we need to be whipped into a constant state of hysteria for some reason.
Do you oppose vaccine mandates for measles?
Nope. Nor do I necessarily oppose a COVID vaccine mandate.
bmiller,
Vaccines were killshots if Trump OK'ed them ...
I almost admire the smoothness with which you spread these lies.
Smallpox vaccination was controversial. Mandatory vaccination varied from state to state. The Supreme Court defended the Massachusets mandate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]
Safety and individual rights seem to often be at odds.
I equate vaccine mandates to laws requiring us to drive on the right side of the road.
Just as I am not allowed to endanger others by "exercising my freedom "to drive wherever I wish, I ought not to be allowed to endanger others by refusing to be vaccinated. (same reasoning applies to mask mandates)
Thanks for the link oozzielionel.
It's been cited as a precedent in the following cases:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Jacobson in Zucht v. King (1922), which held that a school system could refuse admission to a student who failed to receive a required vaccination.[13] Jacobson has been invoked in numerous other Supreme Court cases as an example of a baseline exercise of the police power, with cases relying on it including Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities), Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (limitations on parents having children distribute pamphlets in the street), and Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (allowing random drug testing of students).
Sterilization?
Post a Comment