EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 480
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4334 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On September 26 2021 18:09 BlackJack wrote: You still just called the FDA "criminally incompetent" though? Even if the FDA isn't who you had in mind in making healthcare decisions for your children, how can you be sure whatever bureaucracy is in charge isn't also criminally incompetent? You'd still rather have them make healthcare decisions for your children than yourself? Edit: I guess I should also add a disclaimer similar to what RKC said above. There are many cases that rise to the level of neglect/child abuse where the state should step in. COVID vaccination isn't one of them. As it pertains to booster rollout, yeah, I called the fda criminally incompetent. Luckily they got overruled so it’s no big deal. Any large organization whether private or public has instances of extreme incompetence, especially in times of uncertainty. I still trust the FDA in many ways though clearly it is deficient in others. I consider the FDA a net positive. In general, yes, children would likely benefit from having a standard level of healthcare that does not involve parent decision making. The average education, expertise etc of a parent in the US is very low and it is common for parents to either not understand or not have bandwidth to sufficiently care for their children. The government having an established regimen of care where basic necessities are provided per the recommendation of the child’s pediatrician rather than on the whim of a parent would improve the average health of children in the US. My cousin has chosen to not vaccinate her kids for covid. Basically nothing the kids can do about it. She generally doesn’t believe in vaccines and so they’re just kind of out of luck. In this instance, her kids are missing out on vaccines because no one else has authority in the situation. If my cousin says no to vaccines that’s just kind of the end of it. In my eyes, our society is failing her children by leaving the decision in her hands. She shouldn’t have the authority to not vaccinate her kids. Parents should have authority and influence in many parts of their kids lives, but basic health necessities shouldn’t be one of those things | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25474 Posts
On September 26 2021 17:46 RKC wrote: The family unit is the most basic form of organisation, which in turn underpins most of our cultural norms and institutions. Aside from the exceptions of protecting against child abuse and providing basic healthcare (including vaccination), the general default rule should be that parents are primarily responsible for children. Perhaps modern society should carve out more exceptions from this rule. But the basic unit remains. More governmental intervention? That's even scarier than more personal autonomy... (Ideally, the role of the government should be to dictate who should be responsible for what. The 'who' should be independent experts and institutions rather than itself, as much as possible. So it's fine for the government to let doctors or judges decide on health decisions of children, but not to set blanket rules.) The state already determines child custody in cases where there’s dispute, and not always well to be rather understating it. Although I don’t think that’s some rigged process, simply a lack of resources to properly assess the components of family units and individual circumstance. There’s only so many social workers etc to go around. In this case we’re discussing, while vaccines are an important factor, the main component to me anyway for this child’s well-being is them wanting to see their terminally ill grandmother. Getting a vaccine facilitates that option and was being denied. It could potentially have been something else. If this child had just wanted vaccinated for the sake of being vaccinated, or had anxiety over Covid I’m not sure this ruling would override the father’s objections, but it passes into territory of familial access and relations. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44376 Posts
On September 26 2021 21:10 WombaT wrote: The state already determines child custody in cases where there’s dispute, and not always well to be rather understating it. Although I don’t think that’s some rigged process, simply a lack of resources to properly assess the components of family units and individual circumstance. There’s only so many social workers etc to go around. In this case we’re discussing, while vaccines are an important factor, the main component to me anyway for this child’s well-being is them wanting to see their terminally ill grandmother. Getting a vaccine facilitates that option and was being denied. It could potentially have been something else. If this child had just wanted vaccinated for the sake of being vaccinated, or had anxiety over Covid I’m not sure this ruling would override the father’s objections, but it passes into territory of familial access and relations. Also, the mother was totally fine with her son being vaccinated; the father was the only anti-vax person. The parental opinion on vaccination was split. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the mother + son (+ science), instead of the father (who made no convincing arguments). | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44376 Posts
On September 27 2021 18:56 BlackJack wrote: I'm kind of surprised the vaccine mandate/passport laws that are popping up are not being challenged over the fact that they would disproportionately affect/harm Black Americans. City data shows that only 28 percent of Black New Yorkers ages 18 to 44 years are fully vaccinated, compared with 48 percent of Latino residents and 52 percent of white residents in that age group. It's the same story here in San Francisco where you need to show your vaccine status to get into many establishments and Black San Franciscans have the lowest rate of vaccination. I wonder why this isn't talked about more. Do you think conservatives might try to draw a parallel between that phenomenon and voter ID registration - that the left is being hypocritical by complaining that voter IDs are racist, yet they give a pass to equally-racist vaccine passport laws? What would be a good explanation to counter that (besides "well, aren't you being equally hypocritical in the opposite direction - that now you suddenly care about disparate outcomes, when you didn't beforehand)? To justify being against one law that disproportionately disenfranchises a specific demographic, but being for another law that disproportionately disenfranchises the same demographic? I'd imagine there would need to be an appeal to what the laws are referring to - voting vs. public health - and the fact that the premise of voter ID laws was based on lies (that there's a problem with widespread voter fraud, and that this solution is necessary) while the premise of mandatory vaccinations is based on scientific and medical facts about how infections spread and that there's actually a public health crisis that isn't being fabricated? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21705 Posts
On September 27 2021 19:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Democrats are not against Voter ID's. They are against Voter ID's implemented shortly before elections and coinciding with closing of locations where you can get an ID in certain racial neighbourhoods.Do you think conservatives might try to draw a parallel between that phenomenon and voter ID registration - that the left is being hypocritical by complaining that voter IDs are racist, yet they give a pass to equally-racist vaccine passport laws? What would be a good explanation to counter that (besides "well, aren't you being equally hypocritical in the opposite direction - that now you suddenly care about disparate outcomes, when you didn't beforehand)? To justify being against one law that disproportionately disenfranchises a specific demographic, but being for another law that disproportionately disenfranchises the same demographic? I'd imagine there would need to be an appeal to what the laws are referring to - voting vs. public health - and the fact that the premise of voter ID laws was based on lies (that there's a problem with widespread voter fraud, and that this solution is necessary) while the premise of mandatory vaccinations is based on scientific and medical facts about how infections spread and that there's actually a public health crisis that isn't being fabricated? If Republicans want to introduce vaccine passports and make it impossible for certain groups to get such a passport then I would be against that aswell. I have no problem with certain racial groups being more impacted by vaccine passports so long as those groups are not prevented from getting vaccinated but have every opportunity to do so and chose not to. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On September 27 2021 19:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Do you think conservatives might try to draw a parallel between that phenomenon and voter ID registration - that the left is being hypocritical by complaining that voter IDs are racist, yet they give a pass to equally-racist vaccine passport laws? What would be a good explanation to counter that (besides "well, aren't you being equally hypocritical in the opposite direction - that now you suddenly care about disparate outcomes, when you didn't beforehand)? To justify being against one law that disproportionately disenfranchises a specific demographic, but being for another law that disproportionately disenfranchises the same demographic? I'd imagine there would need to be an appeal to what the laws are referring to - voting vs. public health - and the fact that the premise of voter ID laws was based on lies (that there's a problem with widespread voter fraud, and that this solution is necessary) while the premise of mandatory vaccinations is based on scientific and medical facts about how infections spread and that there's actually a public health crisis that isn't being fabricated? Yeah, probably, if they haven't already. It's in the news now because a member of the NYC chapter of BLM spoke out against it recently which was covered by a lot of outlets | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44376 Posts
On September 27 2021 19:36 Gorsameth wrote: Democrats are not against Voter ID's. They are against Voter ID's implemented shortly before elections and coinciding with closing of locations where you can get an ID in certain racial neighbourhoods. If Republicans want to introduce vaccine passports and make it impossible for certain groups to get such a passport then I would be against that aswell. I have no problem with certain racial groups being more impacted by vaccine passports so long as those groups are not prevented from getting vaccinated but have every opportunity to do so and chose not to. That's a good point. Vaccines are free and accessible to everyone, which is the same logic as being fine with voter IDs as long as they're free and accessible to everyone. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21705 Posts
On September 28 2021 01:50 JimmiC wrote: Because they have been told to be worked up about this.It is so strange that people are so worked about this. I mean even in Florida there has been required Vaccinations for a long time. http://www.floridahealth.gov/programs-and-services/immunization/children-and-adolescents/school-immunization-requirements/index.html They haven't been told to be worked up about the previous required vaccinations. That's the 'wonderful' thing about fabricated outrage, it doesn't need logical consistency. | ||
|
Sapaio
Denmark2037 Posts
On September 28 2021 02:08 Gorsameth wrote: Because they have been told to be worked up about this. They haven't been told to be worked up about the previous required vaccinations. That's the 'wonderful' thing about fabricated outrage, it doesn't need logical consistency. I kinda agree with you, but where I come from it's very serious to not give children education, even letting very disrupted kids have it as a right. So it feels extreme to me if parents aren't required the same to go to work. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44376 Posts
On September 28 2021 02:28 Sapaio wrote: I kinda agree with you, but where I come from it's very serious to not give children education, even letting very disrupted kids have it as a right. So it feels extreme to me if parents aren't required the same to go to work. In the United States, education for all children is compulsory. For public schools, vaccination is mandatory, so if families are anti-vax, they still have other options (e.g., homeschooling). Therefore, requiring vaccination does not mean children can't/won't become educated. Opting out of vaccinating your children just means that the parents are taking educating their children into their own hands. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On September 27 2021 18:56 BlackJack wrote: I'm kind of surprised the vaccine mandate/passport laws that are popping up are not being challenged over the fact that they would disproportionately affect/harm Black Americans. City data shows that only 28 percent of Black New Yorkers ages 18 to 44 years are fully vaccinated, compared with 48 percent of Latino residents and 52 percent of white residents in that age group. It's the same story here in San Francisco where you need to show your vaccine status to get into many establishments and Black San Franciscans have the lowest rate of vaccination. I wonder why this isn't talked about more. There needs to be some serious outreach to Black Americans regarding this whole ordeal. We can't just shrug our shoulders and say "yeah but slavery etc" and just let the issue slide. We owe it to them to help them understand why vaccination is important. We can't just pat them on the head and blame ourselves, we need to actually do something if we carry guilt. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On September 28 2021 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: In the United States, education for all children is compulsory. For public schools, vaccination is mandatory, so if families are anti-vax, they still have other options (e.g., homeschooling). Therefore, requiring vaccination does not mean children can't/won't become educated. Opting out of vaccinating your children just means that the parents are taking educating their children into their own hands. I still don't really see how "education is compulsory" and "homeschooling by the parents" are compatible things. If the children don't go to school and only get "educated" by their parents, i don't think we can in any way be sure that they get a reasonable education. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44376 Posts
On September 28 2021 03:49 Simberto wrote: I still don't really see how "education is compulsory" and "homeschooling by the parents" are compatible things. If the children don't go to school and only get "educated" by their parents, i don't think we can in any way be sure that they get a reasonable education. It's my understanding that different states have different mandatory criteria for homeschooling families, such as annual standardized tests to make sure that the homeschooled kids aren't falling too far behind from traditionally schooled children. That being said, I'm generally not a fan of homeschooling children, both for academic and social reasons, and I think that some of the reasons why parents keep their children home (e.g., religious beliefs) are bad reasons. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1921 Posts
On September 27 2021 18:56 BlackJack wrote: I'm kind of surprised the vaccine mandate/passport laws that are popping up are not being challenged over the fact that they would disproportionately affect/harm Black Americans. City data shows that only 28 percent of Black New Yorkers ages 18 to 44 years are fully vaccinated, compared with 48 percent of Latino residents and 52 percent of white residents in that age group. It's the same story here in San Francisco where you need to show your vaccine status to get into many establishments and Black San Franciscans have the lowest rate of vaccination. I wonder why this isn't talked about more. If prominent blacks make it a race issue, it will be, but I doubt they will. Prominent blacks should rather use their position make more take their vaccines. Idk if it has been a cocious tactic yet, but I know reaching out to leaders of certain groups has been used effectively at other points of the pandemic. If the leaders are worth anything, they care about protecting their crowd, no matter what they look like, where they live, where they come from and what they believe in. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
On September 28 2021 02:08 Gorsameth wrote: Because they have been told to be worked up about this. They haven't been told to be worked up about the previous required vaccinations. That's the 'wonderful' thing about fabricated outrage, it doesn't need logical consistency. It's still government encroachment. The government requiring vaccines for public schools is a degree removed from the government requiring vaccines to enter private businesses or be employed by them. Which is another degree removed from the government requiring a vaccine to use public roads or have a mortgage, or whatever else they want to do. I don't think it's logically inconsistent to object to government encroachment just because it's done gradually. | ||
| ||
