|
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. |
On November 20 2021 05:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 05:45 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:34 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:19 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 04:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 03:44 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 03:38 ggrrg wrote:On November 20 2021 03:35 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
There's a difference between a specific vaccine mandate and a general vaccine mandate. Am I making myself clear? No, you are not. Please elaborate on the difference as already requested a few posts above. A general vaccine mandate can mean, for example, that no one can run a business unless they and all their employees are vaccinated. Or that certain businesses can't be entered by any paying customers who are unvaccinated. That's how "general" differs from "specific", it's a one-size-fits-all approach with no exceptions. Any and all people breaking those rules will face fines or even jail time. Fines can amount to 1200€ and jail time can amount to 14 days. Any and all people will essentially be driven into potential bankruptcy (depending on how much they depend on their source of income) or worse, unless they're vaccinated. The ones on children are general by that definition. They can't attend public or private school or child care. Which is pretty much everything to children. And there was likely (almost certainly) rules on the adults when it first came out as well. Children are not the general population, and adults should not be treated like children. Such rules for adults did not exist before in Austria, not for medical procedures like vaccination. There were specific cases where some higher-risk businesses would be required to vaccinate their employees against smallpox, but it was never a general mandate for all people or all businesses. It just wasn't, and people need to understand this key difference. People really need to understand that this has never been done before. It appears they did. Mandatory vaccination is not unprecedented in Austria. In 1948 the postwar government made vaccination against smallpox compulsory by law. In 1980 the World Health Organization declared smallpox the first disease to have been defeated through vaccination. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/austria-plans-compulsory-covid-vaccination-for-all?fbclid=IwAR0G8vxPHYAKg7BCdxIK8m-ngdF1DZ3eHbg7ZZcGsLWZHU_Xkg5ncmb5Lic I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself: general vaccine mandates have never been done before in Austria. I've explained sufficiently what the difference is and why it matters. I'm very confused, what is the difference between making the vaccine compulsory by law, and it be a general mandate? Everyone had to have it then, now they will all have to have it? I don't understand what thread you are pulling on. "General" means that it applies to everyone, absolutely everyone. No exceptions for anyone. Adults should have full bodily autonomy. Making a medical procedure mandatory for the general population removes bodily autonomy from adults, not only from children, and not only in specific cases like high-risk businesses, but all people, i.e. all adults, all children, all businesses, in all cases with no exceptions. This is unprecedented. So you are saying the 1948 law was only for children and that is OK? (the way I read it, it was for everyone) Wouldn't most people think that their parent should choose what medical procedure happens to their child? If anything is not just making it for children more controversial? Here tons of people are fine with making all adults do it, but would be against making all kids do it.
This is not about children. The bodily autonomy of adults should not be questioned. Some things must always be held above every existing power, and this is one of those things. We can discuss issues surrounding children when it's about them specifically and not about the whole of the population.
A government that has the power to strip adults of their bodily autonomy is a government that has lost the will and therefore the right to deal with its people on an eye-to-eye level. This is a non-negotiable line, no person and no institution should ever have this much power over anyone other than themselves.
|
|
|
^ Yeah, I don't get it. You've needed vaccine records to do anything in public for decades. I got sent home from grade school in the early 1990s because my vaccine records got lost. It was a totally minor thing that no one was too worried about it -- no platforms to make a stink on, I guess. Got new copies of the records later that day and back to school the next day. You've always needed health records for specific jobs, especially when travelling internationally. The argument of 'my body' is so completely flawed when your body can be a danger to people around around you.
|
On November 20 2021 06:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 06:09 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:45 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:34 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:19 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 04:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 03:44 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
A general vaccine mandate can mean, for example, that no one can run a business unless they and all their employees are vaccinated. Or that certain businesses can't be entered by any paying customers who are unvaccinated. That's how "general" differs from "specific", it's a one-size-fits-all approach with no exceptions. Any and all people breaking those rules will face fines or even jail time. Fines can amount to 1200€ and jail time can amount to 14 days.
Any and all people will essentially be driven into potential bankruptcy (depending on how much they depend on their source of income) or worse, unless they're vaccinated. The ones on children are general by that definition. They can't attend public or private school or child care. Which is pretty much everything to children. And there was likely (almost certainly) rules on the adults when it first came out as well. Children are not the general population, and adults should not be treated like children. Such rules for adults did not exist before in Austria, not for medical procedures like vaccination. There were specific cases where some higher-risk businesses would be required to vaccinate their employees against smallpox, but it was never a general mandate for all people or all businesses. It just wasn't, and people need to understand this key difference. People really need to understand that this has never been done before. It appears they did. Mandatory vaccination is not unprecedented in Austria. In 1948 the postwar government made vaccination against smallpox compulsory by law. In 1980 the World Health Organization declared smallpox the first disease to have been defeated through vaccination. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/austria-plans-compulsory-covid-vaccination-for-all?fbclid=IwAR0G8vxPHYAKg7BCdxIK8m-ngdF1DZ3eHbg7ZZcGsLWZHU_Xkg5ncmb5Lic I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself: general vaccine mandates have never been done before in Austria. I've explained sufficiently what the difference is and why it matters. I'm very confused, what is the difference between making the vaccine compulsory by law, and it be a general mandate? Everyone had to have it then, now they will all have to have it? I don't understand what thread you are pulling on. "General" means that it applies to everyone, absolutely everyone. No exceptions for anyone. Adults should have full bodily autonomy. Making a medical procedure mandatory for the general population removes bodily autonomy from adults, not only from children, and not only in specific cases like high-risk businesses, but all people, i.e. all adults, all children, all businesses, in all cases with no exceptions. This is unprecedented. So you are saying the 1948 law was only for children and that is OK? (the way I read it, it was for everyone) Wouldn't most people think that their parent should choose what medical procedure happens to their child? If anything is not just making it for children more controversial? Here tons of people are fine with making all adults do it, but would be against making all kids do it. This is not about children. The bodily autonomy of adults should not be questioned. Some things must always be held above every existing power, and this is one of those things. We can discuss issues surrounding children when it's about them specifically and not about the whole of the population. A government that has the power to strip adults of their bodily autonomy is a government that has lost the will and therefore the right to deal with its people on an eye-to-eye level. This is a non-negotiable line, no person and no institution should ever have this much power over anyone other than themselves. If it is not about children then vaccine mandates have existed in Austria and basically every developed country. It is a strange line to draw, if you want to be a part of the society and get all the benefits it has you have to follow certain rules to protect your fellow person. If you don't you are welcome to go live "off the grid".
It's very clear that you're unwilling to see the difference, so this is a pointless discussion.
|
|
|
On November 20 2021 06:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:16 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:09 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:45 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:34 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:19 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Children are not the general population, and adults should not be treated like children.
Such rules for adults did not exist before in Austria, not for medical procedures like vaccination. There were specific cases where some higher-risk businesses would be required to vaccinate their employees against smallpox, but it was never a general mandate for all people or all businesses. It just wasn't, and people need to understand this key difference.
People really need to understand that this has never been done before. It appears they did. Mandatory vaccination is not unprecedented in Austria. In 1948 the postwar government made vaccination against smallpox compulsory by law. In 1980 the World Health Organization declared smallpox the first disease to have been defeated through vaccination. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/austria-plans-compulsory-covid-vaccination-for-all?fbclid=IwAR0G8vxPHYAKg7BCdxIK8m-ngdF1DZ3eHbg7ZZcGsLWZHU_Xkg5ncmb5Lic I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself: general vaccine mandates have never been done before in Austria. I've explained sufficiently what the difference is and why it matters. I'm very confused, what is the difference between making the vaccine compulsory by law, and it be a general mandate? Everyone had to have it then, now they will all have to have it? I don't understand what thread you are pulling on. "General" means that it applies to everyone, absolutely everyone. No exceptions for anyone. Adults should have full bodily autonomy. Making a medical procedure mandatory for the general population removes bodily autonomy from adults, not only from children, and not only in specific cases like high-risk businesses, but all people, i.e. all adults, all children, all businesses, in all cases with no exceptions. This is unprecedented. So you are saying the 1948 law was only for children and that is OK? (the way I read it, it was for everyone) Wouldn't most people think that their parent should choose what medical procedure happens to their child? If anything is not just making it for children more controversial? Here tons of people are fine with making all adults do it, but would be against making all kids do it. This is not about children. The bodily autonomy of adults should not be questioned. Some things must always be held above every existing power, and this is one of those things. We can discuss issues surrounding children when it's about them specifically and not about the whole of the population. A government that has the power to strip adults of their bodily autonomy is a government that has lost the will and therefore the right to deal with its people on an eye-to-eye level. This is a non-negotiable line, no person and no institution should ever have this much power over anyone other than themselves. If it is not about children then vaccine mandates have existed in Austria and basically every developed country. It is a strange line to draw, if you want to be a part of the society and get all the benefits it has you have to follow certain rules to protect your fellow person. If you don't you are welcome to go live "off the grid". It's very clear that you're unwilling to see the difference, so this is a pointless discussion. To me it is distinction without difference. I can't understand why forcing children would be fine, but adults is wrong. It is not my prefered way of doing it, I'd rather go the singapore route. But I know the democratic government can, has, and will again make rules to protect society that I may or may not agree with.
You don't see the difference, that doesn't mean it's not there. Children have never, at no point in recorded history, had as much bodily autonomy as adults did. It's a complete non-argument.
If you can't make a distinction in your head between adults and children, then it's not a surprise that you can't see things from my perspective.
|
|
|
On November 20 2021 07:04 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 06:53 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:16 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:09 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:45 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:42 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:34 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself: general vaccine mandates have never been done before in Austria. I've explained sufficiently what the difference is and why it matters. I'm very confused, what is the difference between making the vaccine compulsory by law, and it be a general mandate? Everyone had to have it then, now they will all have to have it? I don't understand what thread you are pulling on. "General" means that it applies to everyone, absolutely everyone. No exceptions for anyone. Adults should have full bodily autonomy. Making a medical procedure mandatory for the general population removes bodily autonomy from adults, not only from children, and not only in specific cases like high-risk businesses, but all people, i.e. all adults, all children, all businesses, in all cases with no exceptions. This is unprecedented. So you are saying the 1948 law was only for children and that is OK? (the way I read it, it was for everyone) Wouldn't most people think that their parent should choose what medical procedure happens to their child? If anything is not just making it for children more controversial? Here tons of people are fine with making all adults do it, but would be against making all kids do it. This is not about children. The bodily autonomy of adults should not be questioned. Some things must always be held above every existing power, and this is one of those things. We can discuss issues surrounding children when it's about them specifically and not about the whole of the population. A government that has the power to strip adults of their bodily autonomy is a government that has lost the will and therefore the right to deal with its people on an eye-to-eye level. This is a non-negotiable line, no person and no institution should ever have this much power over anyone other than themselves. If it is not about children then vaccine mandates have existed in Austria and basically every developed country. It is a strange line to draw, if you want to be a part of the society and get all the benefits it has you have to follow certain rules to protect your fellow person. If you don't you are welcome to go live "off the grid". It's very clear that you're unwilling to see the difference, so this is a pointless discussion. To me it is distinction without difference. I can't understand why forcing children would be fine, but adults is wrong. It is not my prefered way of doing it, I'd rather go the singapore route. But I know the democratic government can, has, and will again make rules to protect society that I may or may not agree with. You don't see the difference, that doesn't mean it's not there. Children have never, at no point in recorded history, had as much bodily autonomy as adults did. It's a complete non-argument. If you can't make a distinction in your head between adults and children, then it's not a surprise that you can't see things from my perspective. Are you a parent MP? Have you ever been a place where other people try to tell parents what they should do to their children? Let alone something bodily? It is not that I don't know the difference between adults and children it is that I know that most people would sacrifice them for their children not the other way around.
Dude, this is not about sacrifice. It's about how much power the governing body should be allowed to have. Adults have power over children insofar that they can decide in their place over decisions of health, so it's only a stone's throw away for a government to also have that same power over children, or at least close to the same power.
From adults and governments having this power over children it does not follow that therefore governments should also have that same power over adults. You're equating things in your head that aren't equal.
|
Children are assumed incapable of caring for themselves because they are biologically incapable of the level of thought necessary to live a healthy, safe life. Covid has been a great piece of evidence we overestimate adults. If we examine the logic used to justify forcing children to be safe, then we look at modern culture as it relates to vax skepticism, I am not seeing where the comparison breaks down.
|
|
|
On November 20 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 07:08 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 07:04 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:53 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:16 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:09 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 05:45 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
"General" means that it applies to everyone, absolutely everyone. No exceptions for anyone.
Adults should have full bodily autonomy. Making a medical procedure mandatory for the general population removes bodily autonomy from adults, not only from children, and not only in specific cases like high-risk businesses, but all people, i.e. all adults, all children, all businesses, in all cases with no exceptions. This is unprecedented. So you are saying the 1948 law was only for children and that is OK? (the way I read it, it was for everyone) Wouldn't most people think that their parent should choose what medical procedure happens to their child? If anything is not just making it for children more controversial? Here tons of people are fine with making all adults do it, but would be against making all kids do it. This is not about children. The bodily autonomy of adults should not be questioned. Some things must always be held above every existing power, and this is one of those things. We can discuss issues surrounding children when it's about them specifically and not about the whole of the population. A government that has the power to strip adults of their bodily autonomy is a government that has lost the will and therefore the right to deal with its people on an eye-to-eye level. This is a non-negotiable line, no person and no institution should ever have this much power over anyone other than themselves. If it is not about children then vaccine mandates have existed in Austria and basically every developed country. It is a strange line to draw, if you want to be a part of the society and get all the benefits it has you have to follow certain rules to protect your fellow person. If you don't you are welcome to go live "off the grid". It's very clear that you're unwilling to see the difference, so this is a pointless discussion. To me it is distinction without difference. I can't understand why forcing children would be fine, but adults is wrong. It is not my prefered way of doing it, I'd rather go the singapore route. But I know the democratic government can, has, and will again make rules to protect society that I may or may not agree with. You don't see the difference, that doesn't mean it's not there. Children have never, at no point in recorded history, had as much bodily autonomy as adults did. It's a complete non-argument. If you can't make a distinction in your head between adults and children, then it's not a surprise that you can't see things from my perspective. Are you a parent MP? Have you ever been a place where other people try to tell parents what they should do to their children? Let alone something bodily? It is not that I don't know the difference between adults and children it is that I know that most people would sacrifice them for their children not the other way around. Dude, this is not about sacrifice. It's about how much power the governing body should be allowed to have. Adults have power over children insofar that they can decide in their place over decisions of health, so it's only a stone's throw away for a government to also have that same power over children, or at least close to the same power. From adults and governments having this power over children it does not follow that therefore governments should also have that same power over adults. You're equating things in your head that aren't equal. Right, but we give that power to their guardian and most people take that more seriously than their own health. So allowing the government that power over their child is a greater sacrifice than over themselves. Because you know that Austria has long (as have every developed country's) mandated that children have to be vaccinated. The sacrifice is having something you don't want to happen to either your child or yourself. You really think if the government said All people under 18 must get vaccinated that would be OK, because no imaginary line has been crossed, but this is bad because it has been? This is no different, it is just the beginning instead of the middle. Once they have everyone vaccinated they can change the rules to just children and people who immigrate like it has always been. My TLDR: If you are going to let them do it to children then you should let them do it to adults because it is "scarier" to let anything happen to your children.
Refusing vaccination to children does not constitute abuse or neglect, neither does it fall under withholding medical care. You're trying to paint this as children being forced to get vaccinated, but that isn't the case. Parents are forced to provide education to them, but they can do that without public schooling. What this means is that if a parent is hell-bent on not providing vaccination to their children, they can do so without serious consequences.
Such context changes the whole argument, and it's why people need to inform themselves on the nuances of the law before they engage in a discussion about the law, and thus also the ethics of a completely new government policy like a general vaccine mandate.
|
On November 20 2021 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 07:08 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 07:04 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:53 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:16 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:09 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 05:54 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
So you are saying the 1948 law was only for children and that is OK? (the way I read it, it was for everyone)
Wouldn't most people think that their parent should choose what medical procedure happens to their child? If anything is not just making it for children more controversial? Here tons of people are fine with making all adults do it, but would be against making all kids do it. This is not about children. The bodily autonomy of adults should not be questioned. Some things must always be held above every existing power, and this is one of those things. We can discuss issues surrounding children when it's about them specifically and not about the whole of the population. A government that has the power to strip adults of their bodily autonomy is a government that has lost the will and therefore the right to deal with its people on an eye-to-eye level. This is a non-negotiable line, no person and no institution should ever have this much power over anyone other than themselves. If it is not about children then vaccine mandates have existed in Austria and basically every developed country. It is a strange line to draw, if you want to be a part of the society and get all the benefits it has you have to follow certain rules to protect your fellow person. If you don't you are welcome to go live "off the grid". It's very clear that you're unwilling to see the difference, so this is a pointless discussion. To me it is distinction without difference. I can't understand why forcing children would be fine, but adults is wrong. It is not my prefered way of doing it, I'd rather go the singapore route. But I know the democratic government can, has, and will again make rules to protect society that I may or may not agree with. You don't see the difference, that doesn't mean it's not there. Children have never, at no point in recorded history, had as much bodily autonomy as adults did. It's a complete non-argument. If you can't make a distinction in your head between adults and children, then it's not a surprise that you can't see things from my perspective. Are you a parent MP? Have you ever been a place where other people try to tell parents what they should do to their children? Let alone something bodily? It is not that I don't know the difference between adults and children it is that I know that most people would sacrifice them for their children not the other way around. Dude, this is not about sacrifice. It's about how much power the governing body should be allowed to have. Adults have power over children insofar that they can decide in their place over decisions of health, so it's only a stone's throw away for a government to also have that same power over children, or at least close to the same power. From adults and governments having this power over children it does not follow that therefore governments should also have that same power over adults. You're equating things in your head that aren't equal. Right, but we give that power to their guardian and most people take that more seriously than their own health. So allowing the government that power over their child is a greater sacrifice than over themselves. Because you know that Austria has long (as have every developed country's) mandated that children have to be vaccinated. The sacrifice is having something you don't want to happen to either your child or yourself. You really think if the government said All people under 18 must get vaccinated that would be OK, because no imaginary line has been crossed, but this is bad because it has been? This is no different, it is just the beginning instead of the middle. Once they have everyone vaccinated they can change the rules to just children and people who immigrate like it has always been. My TLDR: If you are going to let them do it to children then you should let them do it to adults because it is "scarier" to let anything happen to your children. Refusing vaccination to children does not constitute abuse or neglect, neither does it fall under withholding medical care.
This point will need to be argued. I think quite a few people here do not accept this as a given.
|
On November 20 2021 07:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 07:08 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 07:04 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:53 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:16 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:09 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
This is not about children. The bodily autonomy of adults should not be questioned. Some things must always be held above every existing power, and this is one of those things. We can discuss issues surrounding children when it's about them specifically and not about the whole of the population.
A government that has the power to strip adults of their bodily autonomy is a government that has lost the will and therefore the right to deal with its people on an eye-to-eye level. This is a non-negotiable line, no person and no institution should ever have this much power over anyone other than themselves. If it is not about children then vaccine mandates have existed in Austria and basically every developed country. It is a strange line to draw, if you want to be a part of the society and get all the benefits it has you have to follow certain rules to protect your fellow person. If you don't you are welcome to go live "off the grid". It's very clear that you're unwilling to see the difference, so this is a pointless discussion. To me it is distinction without difference. I can't understand why forcing children would be fine, but adults is wrong. It is not my prefered way of doing it, I'd rather go the singapore route. But I know the democratic government can, has, and will again make rules to protect society that I may or may not agree with. You don't see the difference, that doesn't mean it's not there. Children have never, at no point in recorded history, had as much bodily autonomy as adults did. It's a complete non-argument. If you can't make a distinction in your head between adults and children, then it's not a surprise that you can't see things from my perspective. Are you a parent MP? Have you ever been a place where other people try to tell parents what they should do to their children? Let alone something bodily? It is not that I don't know the difference between adults and children it is that I know that most people would sacrifice them for their children not the other way around. Dude, this is not about sacrifice. It's about how much power the governing body should be allowed to have. Adults have power over children insofar that they can decide in their place over decisions of health, so it's only a stone's throw away for a government to also have that same power over children, or at least close to the same power. From adults and governments having this power over children it does not follow that therefore governments should also have that same power over adults. You're equating things in your head that aren't equal. Right, but we give that power to their guardian and most people take that more seriously than their own health. So allowing the government that power over their child is a greater sacrifice than over themselves. Because you know that Austria has long (as have every developed country's) mandated that children have to be vaccinated. The sacrifice is having something you don't want to happen to either your child or yourself. You really think if the government said All people under 18 must get vaccinated that would be OK, because no imaginary line has been crossed, but this is bad because it has been? This is no different, it is just the beginning instead of the middle. Once they have everyone vaccinated they can change the rules to just children and people who immigrate like it has always been. My TLDR: If you are going to let them do it to children then you should let them do it to adults because it is "scarier" to let anything happen to your children. Refusing vaccination to children does not constitute abuse or neglect, neither does it fall under withholding medical care. This point will need to be argued. I think quite a few people here do not accept this as a given.
It would need to be argued, perhaps, if the government was only mandating covid-19 vaccination just for children. I can see that being a point of discussion.
However, that doesn't say anything about the ethics of a general vaccine mandate. Stripping children of their bodily autonomy is not somehow worse than stripping both children and adults of their bodily autonomy.
And furthermore that isn't the situation anyway, so it's a non-argument in regards to the issue of a general vaccine mandate. Just because a different issue could hypothetically exist, that doesn't detract from the actually existing issue.
It's nothing more than a deflection of the core point, which is that the general population has a right to full bodily autonomy, and the government is currently infringing on that right. In regards to ethics, it's irrelevant to me how many people agree or disagree with a medical procedure being good or not. It's a medical procedure, that alone means all adults should have the right to refuse without facing serious consequences like no longer getting a job anywhere or being refused entry into shops (even when testing negative on a PCR test). I believe that these vaccines work just fine, but if the government doesn't leave its citizens with any real choice, then there's a problem.
The government is shifting responsibility away from itself towards the citizens, again. It's lazy and it doesn't even promise us any results. Meanwhile I could think of a number of things that the government could instead do - but those require actual effort on their part. Can't do that.
|
|
|
Sorry, no proper discussion is possible with someone who doesn't understand how this vaccine mandate differs from other historical ones, especially after having it explained a number of times.
|
On November 20 2021 09:09 Magic Powers wrote:
Sorry, no proper discussion is possible with someone who doesn't understand how this vaccine mandate differs from other historical ones, especially after having it explained a number of times.
I didn't see this outlined in your above post. Can you refer me to a post of yours where you explain why vaccines like Polio should be required for attending schools, but not covid?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
I don’t really understand how this is some new Rubicon that has been crossed.
There were far, far more stringent impositions on freedoms of all kinds in both World Wars, but these are seen through misty eyes as some high water mark of collective sacrifice and pushing in the same direction.
Which were ultimately completely repealed, come the cessation of said conflict. They weren’t some slippery slope into tyranny in perpetuity.
Especially by (many) of the same people who seem to have some instinctual political instinct against, relatively minor impingements on personal autonomy in the current pandemic scenario.
This isn’t to say legitimate objections aren’t a thing, I am aware and share some of them. And I thoroughly respect some of the measured objections contained within this thread.
But, for others, in the wider non-TL Corona thread sphere absolutely not. People wanking off over their Remembrance for veterans of the World Wars and the sacrifices they made, complaining about modern ‘snowflakes’, but for whom even wearing a mask is too much of a contemporary sacrifice, never mind getting a vaccine.
No, just no. Fuck off with your nonsense, it’s utterly ridiculous. Fuck off and get with the program.
|
Alright then, time to unsubscribe from another thread where nuance and context don't matter anymore. I hope the remaining people enjoy playing ping pong with their oversimplified arguments.
|
On November 20 2021 08:07 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 07:49 Mohdoo wrote:On November 20 2021 07:36 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 07:23 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 07:08 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 07:04 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:53 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 06:32 Magic Powers wrote:On November 20 2021 06:16 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
If it is not about children then vaccine mandates have existed in Austria and basically every developed country.
It is a strange line to draw, if you want to be a part of the society and get all the benefits it has you have to follow certain rules to protect your fellow person. If you don't you are welcome to go live "off the grid". It's very clear that you're unwilling to see the difference, so this is a pointless discussion. To me it is distinction without difference. I can't understand why forcing children would be fine, but adults is wrong. It is not my prefered way of doing it, I'd rather go the singapore route. But I know the democratic government can, has, and will again make rules to protect society that I may or may not agree with. You don't see the difference, that doesn't mean it's not there. Children have never, at no point in recorded history, had as much bodily autonomy as adults did. It's a complete non-argument. If you can't make a distinction in your head between adults and children, then it's not a surprise that you can't see things from my perspective. Are you a parent MP? Have you ever been a place where other people try to tell parents what they should do to their children? Let alone something bodily? It is not that I don't know the difference between adults and children it is that I know that most people would sacrifice them for their children not the other way around. Dude, this is not about sacrifice. It's about how much power the governing body should be allowed to have. Adults have power over children insofar that they can decide in their place over decisions of health, so it's only a stone's throw away for a government to also have that same power over children, or at least close to the same power. From adults and governments having this power over children it does not follow that therefore governments should also have that same power over adults. You're equating things in your head that aren't equal. Right, but we give that power to their guardian and most people take that more seriously than their own health. So allowing the government that power over their child is a greater sacrifice than over themselves. Because you know that Austria has long (as have every developed country's) mandated that children have to be vaccinated. The sacrifice is having something you don't want to happen to either your child or yourself. You really think if the government said All people under 18 must get vaccinated that would be OK, because no imaginary line has been crossed, but this is bad because it has been? This is no different, it is just the beginning instead of the middle. Once they have everyone vaccinated they can change the rules to just children and people who immigrate like it has always been. My TLDR: If you are going to let them do it to children then you should let them do it to adults because it is "scarier" to let anything happen to your children. Refusing vaccination to children does not constitute abuse or neglect, neither does it fall under withholding medical care. This point will need to be argued. I think quite a few people here do not accept this as a given. It would need to be argued, perhaps, if the government was only mandating covid-19 vaccination just for children. I can see that being a point of discussion. However, that doesn't say anything about the ethics of a general vaccine mandate. Stripping children of their bodily autonomy is not somehow worse than stripping both children and adults of their bodily autonomy. And furthermore that isn't the situation anyway, so it's a non-argument in regards to the issue of a general vaccine mandate. Just because a different issue could hypothetically exist, that doesn't detract from the actually existing issue. It's nothing more than a deflection of the core point, which is that the general population has a right to full bodily autonomy, and the government is currently infringing on that right. In regards to ethics, it's irrelevant to me how many people agree or disagree with a medical procedure being good or not. It's a medical procedure, that alone means all adults should have the right to refuse without facing serious consequences like no longer getting a job anywhere or being refused entry into shops (even when testing negative on a PCR test). I believe that these vaccines work just fine, but if the government doesn't leave its citizens with any real choice, then there's a problem. The government is shifting responsibility away from itself towards the citizens, again. It's lazy and it doesn't even promise us any results. Meanwhile I could think of a number of things that the government could instead do - but those require actual effort on their part. Can't do that. I would love to hear your ideas about how the government could prevent healthcare from getting overwhelmed without mandating vaccinations or otherwise 'gently' forcing people to get vaccinated. Without unduly punishing those who do comply with vaccinations and other measures for the failure of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
