once you've gotten to "you probably should get vaccinated", you still haven't actually touched the moral question. It looks kinda like you have, but this is still just description. What we need to look at is statements like, "If you're pretty sure you can help stop the pandemic, you should try to" and its close relatives. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I agree. But moral imperatives don't normally carry a means. "You should help the poor" doesn't include in it which charity to donate to. Even something seemingly specific like "you should not disturb your neighbours with load music" does not detail whether to turn the music down or soundproof your walls. I can't really think of a moral imperative which contains within it the means by which you must meet the ends being prescribed (or avoid those being proscribed).

So "you ought to take the vaccine" doesn't seem to be the sort of thing can stand as a moral imperative anyway. It's "you should not overburden your health services", "you should not put others at risk of illness",... where taking a vaccine is just a means to that end.

So here, we don't need 'probably' at all. These are categorical. The probability arises with regards to the means. For my loud music example - "Your windows are quite large, you'll probably need to turn the music down, soundproofing probably won't work" - the imperative itself is still absolute.

Taking just the first "you should not overburden your health services", if you're fit and healthy, you might have that one covered already, even in a pandemic. If not, you may need to take extra precautions like vaccination. It's not the moral ends which contains the uncertainty, it's the means.

Again, I'm not saying anything controversial here. We all think we should help those poorer than ourselves. We expect a rich man to give more than a poor one. We don't trouble ourselves with the excessively convoluted - "you should probably give £100 to the poor, but it depends how rich you are".

Here's Susan Pennings writing on the issue you raise in the Journal of Medical Ethics

Our intuition that it is reasonable to require people to pay taxes is at least partly based on the assumption that tax rates will not be so high as to cause a real risk of harm to the taxpayer and mostly, tax rates are progressive and people on very low incomes typically pay little or no tax. There would likely be different moral intuitions about taxation in a case where all people were required to pay 80% of their income in taxes regardless of wealth and that this put them at significant risk of harm.

Well the simple answer is I doubt it, but I'm afraid I've no idea why you would be asking me, nor what the question has to do with my insulting Prishon's lack of erudition.

The Australian government based on its medical advice advocates 80%. — Janus

Yes, there's some disagreement there to.

if supply is not adequate and the vaccine was shared equally across the world then perhaps no communities would reach an adequate level of vaccination fast enough. — Janus

Perhaps. But if that were the case, then vaccination (alone) wouldn't be a very good strategy would it? Like building a life raft whilst the boat's sinking.

Luckily, there's every indication that enough vaccine can be produced for those that need it eventually. It's just that we've put the operation in the hands of a enterprise which cares more about those who can pay and/or vote for them than about those those who are actually in need.

It's important to add here that there are many arguments working the other way too. At the recent All-Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus in the UK Professor Paul Hunter said it was

'absolutely inevitable' new variants that can escape the protection of the vaccine will emerge in the future.

And the group were told by Professor Andrew Pollard that

herd immunity is 'not a possibility' with the current Delta variant. He referred to the idea as 'mythical' and warned that a vaccine programme should not be built around the idea of achieving it. He predicted that the next thing may be 'a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations', adding that that was 'even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine programme around herd immunity'.

The Australian government based on its medical advice advocates 80% — Janus

Aren't they actually going to do 70%?

I think the ethics of Australian liberation from lockdown are perhaps new territory for us. They're making the kind of decision a general might have to in a war, but it's normal citizens who are going to die in the coming months, not soldiers.

@Wayfarer. How do you see the situation?

It's a very fluid situation. In June when this outbreak started, I think the government felt they could suppress it like we had in 2020. But then it became clear this 'delta variant' had moved the goal posts. There was one key event, a party in Sydney's western suburbs, June 16th I think it was. There were 45 people there, 39 got infected - everyone who was not vaccinated, I think I heard. And that was it, the cat was out of the bag.

Currently they're saying that we might have 80% of the NSW population vaccinated by about end November. But they're also admitting that it's not a sliver bullet. One scary piece I read said the whole 70-80% target safety model had been predicated on there being no community transmission when it was reached - like, if we had gotten to 80% without the Delta outbreak having happened and had a low or zero base-rate, then we would be effectively free of covid, but that obviously hasn't happened - as I tipped a week ago, we're now into the 1000 a day range..

But that was one opinion piece, and there's hundreds of them every day. I think all we can do is vaccinate like crazy, and that's happening - we're hitting around 150k shots per day. I think after the 70 - 80 rate is reached, there is no choice but to lift general lockdowns. I think, after there's a high vax rate, we're still going to have to observe quite a few measures, like limiting crowd sizes, maintaining distancing and mask-wearing.

Really the Australian population has been very compliant but there are limits. We've had a few mass protests, on the one hand, I think they're obviously irresponsible and will probably make it worse, but I really feel for those people, there's a lot of people doing it tough, people are loosing their businesses, llivelihoods, and relationships. I understand their fury and desperation. Personally I have been extremely fortunate this whole time, for various reasons, none of which I can take much credit for. But I'm really aware of a lot of people who are being hurt. All I can think is, no matter how tough they're doing it, it's probably not as tough as being intubated from COVID-19.

but I really feel for those peopke, there's a lot of people doing it tough, people are loosing their businesses, llivelihoods, and relationships — Wayfarer

I was taking care of a guy a while back who, while in the kind of mental haze COVID-19 can cause, said "I'm losing everything." He was talking about his business, but that line keeps coming back to me for some reason.

I hope the infection rate starts dropping in Australia.

Coronavirus-breathing dilemma.

1. Either you inhale or you exhale.

2. If you exhale, you infect.

3. If you inhale, you're infected.

4. You infect or you're infected. (1, 2, 3 CD)

I hope so too. Although I had in mind the many thousands who haven't had COVID or even know anyone who has, but who can't go to work - like, a builder's laborer, married to a hairdresser, two kids forced into home learning, mortgage to pay, car payments. No income, stuck at home for months. Sure, some government support - possibly more than some other countries - but still, not near enough. So, quite aside from feeling for those who've been struck down by this disease, I also feel for the millions of others who have been brought down by it.

So, quite aside from feeling for those who've been struck down by this disease, I also feel for the millions of others who have been brought down by it. — Wayfarer

Yep. Me too.

But moral imperatives don't normally carry a means. "You should help the poor" doesn't include in it which charity to donate to. Even something seemingly specific like "you should not disturb your neighbours with load music" does not detail whether to turn the music down or soundproof your walls. I can't really think of a moral imperative which contains within it the means by which you must meet the ends being prescribed (or avoid those being proscribed).

So "you ought to take the vaccine" doesn't seem to be the sort of thing can stand as a moral imperative. It's "you should not overburden your health services", "you should not put others at risk of illness",.. — Isaac

If you can only soundproof your walls to a certain level, because of technical or financial limitations, beyond that level turning down the music is your only option.

Getting vaccinated has effects that masking, social distancing, and so on, do not. The question is whether you are obligated to attempt to achieve something you can only achieve by getting vaccinated (or exposed to the virus, I suppose).

The discussion we had before was about your support for the goal of reaching herd immunity. Masking and social distancing do not increase the prevalence of the right antibodies in your community. If you support that goal, but think only other people need take steps to reach it, you are free-riding, as I said before. I don't even know what the counter-argument there could be.

Is herd immunity itself a "moral goal" -- meaning, a goal we are morally obligated to attempt to reach, like fighting hunger and suffering and so on? Is it a goal at all, or simply a means to an end, maybe something much more general like "limit unnecessary disease and death"?

Sure, but then we're back to whether there are certain goals for which achieving herd immunity is the only means we have. Maybe even determining that it is the best of the available means is enough.

Honestly, I don't think it's that hard to get there, but I'm not an epidemiologist (neither are you), and this is fundamentally a technical question. Epidemiologists seem to think herd immunity is pretty damn important and were kinda pissed to see measles outbreaks again, as I recall.

Missed this one --

So if we follow Sir Andrew Pollard and ditch herd immunity as a goal, then we'd want to know what he thinks the utility of vaccinations is, and whether there is anything about them he considers a unique benefit. If not, and other measures are just as good for achieving what he thinks is the right goal, then you'd be home free. Maybe.

"The problem with this virus is (it is) not measles. If 95% of people were vaccinated against measles, the virus cannot transmit in the population," Professor Pollard explained during the online evidence session.

"The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated. And that does mean that anyone who's still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus. We don't have anything that will stop transmission, so I think we are in a situation where herd immunity is not a possibility and I suspect the virus will throw up a new variant that is even better at infecting vaccinated individuals," he said.

This was echoed by Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia and an expert in infectious diseases, who also highlighted that the current vaccines being administered are very effective in preventing severe Covid infection and death but they cannot prevent infections entirely.

"The concept of herd immunity is unachievable because we know the infection will spread in unvaccinated populations and the latest data is suggesting that two doses is probably only 50 per cent protective against infection," said Mr Hunter. — link

So eventually everyone will be exposed to the virus -- this is the becoming-endemic outcome I understand is becoming the consensus now among folks that know, yes? -- so vaccination is not to prevent transmission but to reduce severity of illness for the vaccinated individual. Your being vaccinated does not reduce the severity of my illness.

So we're back to questions like burden on the healthcare system and such, but keeping in mind now that the experts here say you will get infected eventually.

(Didn't quote the stuff about not doing boosters and sending vaccine elsewhere instead, but I noticed it.)

So eventually everyone will be exposed to the viru — Srap Tasmaner

10 years from now everyone will either be vaccinated or have infection based immunity.

Every year people will be hospitalized and some will die from it due to continuing resistance to vaccination.

So we're back to questions like burden on the healthcare system and such, — Srap Tasmaner

Regarding the "and such" I was thinking about one of the little admonitions against suicide: "It doesn't make the pain go away; it just transfers it to someone else."

I know a guy who died from Covid and, while I don't really much care about the dead (after all, they're dead, right?), it's all the wailing and pain and horrendous grief of those who are left behind that makes the failure to get a shot seem selfish, disrespectful and inconsiderate. His kin are devastated.

Compound that with the fact he took up a bed for a month on his slow, agonizing way out, and there is, or could be even more pain inflicted on yet other people. That's the real issue with the burden on the health care system. The system itself will survive. It's the people in it, or who want to use it, that suffer.

So if those who are vaccinated suffer less, are unlikely to be hospitalized or die, then getting the shot seems like the moral thing to do. I mean, if we are talking morals and all. I'm not inclined to dive into arguments about bats and labs and leaks and some of the nuanced arguments of the experts. That just takes the oxygen out of the room. Covid is like that, I guess.

If you can only soundproof your walls to a certain level, because of technical or financial limitations, beyond that level turning down the music is your only option. — Srap Tasmaner

Absolutely. If you are obese, with heart disease and diabetes, the vaccine may be your only way of reducing your burden on the healthcare system, the 'being healthy' ship has definitely sailed. But for others...

Masking and social distancing do not increase the prevalence of the right antibodies in your community. — Srap Tasmaner

They do though because they're not perfect, they just flatten the curve. It's back to a healthcare burden issue again.

So we're back to questions like burden on the healthcare system and such, but keeping in mind now that the experts here say you will get infected eventually. — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed, the key aspect if this (since transmission is an uncertain element, both in terms of vaccine-based reduction, and as a goal).

But this is no out if reach technical matter, the figures are easily accessed and fairly undisputed. If I don't have any of the associated comorbidities, my chances of needing hospital care are tiny.

And even the moral case is uncomplicated because the numbers are so large. We only need look at the levels of burden on healthcare services we already find acceptable - smoking, eating red meat, being overweight, not exercising... the data on these are no less well established than the data on covid and they dwarf the covid risks. So the risk of a healthy person choosing to opt for chancing natural immunity seem already well within the normal range of risks we consider acceptable.

You may know all of this already, but it correlates with what you said about lifestyle issues:

If I don't have any of the associated comorbidities, my chances of needing hospital care are tiny. — Isaac

As is the burden on you of just getting the jab or the good you might do Africa by not getting the jab. If I understand you correctly, there is almost no reason for you to get vaccinated, so almost anything on the other side is enough reason not to.

But what if you're wrong about your chances of getting very sick, or what if you're right but it happens anyway? Chances aren't guarantees. I suspect if you had the chance to explain to Prof Pollard how you had been following his work and had yourself not gotten vaccinated, he would say, "Don't be a damned fool. Get the shot."

I don't know if there's a moral issue there -- that was your question so I've gone along -- but I'll say this: the cost to you barely registers; the potential benefit to you is considerable; from a rational point of view, this isn't even a close call.

That's the real issue with the burden on the health care system. The system itself will survive. It's the people in it, or who want to use it, that suffer. — James Riley

There were 500,000 cumulative covid-related hospitalisations in the UK as of 23 Aug.

There were about 600,000 obesity related admissions for the same period.

Or, if you like, there were about 100 beds permanently lost from the healthcare system due to cutbacks in services (averaged for the period, of course).

No one gave a shit about the last two when they were news.

there is almost no reason for you to get vaccinated — Srap Tasmaner

We've been through the reasons, no? It's a risk I don't want to take (I prefer risks from external elements to risks from things I did to myself), I don't want to support the pharmaceutical industry, I don't like prophylactic medicine in general.

The point is not whether there's competing benefits, the point is that it's no one's business but mine so long as I make those choices within the thresholds we find acceptable (ie, my choices don't burden the health services more than other choices we already find acceptable).

Oops. Read it wrong. Ignore the above. I read a 'not' where there was none. Sorry.

Should have said... yes, that's about right.

what if you're wrong about your chances of getting very sick — Srap Tasmaner

That's accommodated in the concept of risk though. If I have a 30% risk, but I'm not sure I'm right about that, then it's either true or not 50/50, so my risk is 0.3*0.5+0.3*0.5, still ends up 30%. You could even bias those odds substantially in favour of me being wrong, my resultant risk of needing hospital treatment would still be dwarfed by that of other lifestyle choices already deemed acceptable.

I suspect if you had the chance to explain to Prof Pollard how you had been following his work and had yourself not gotten vaccinated, he would say, "Don't be a damned fool. Get the shot." — Srap Tasmaner

Well, if I get a chance I'll ask him! We'll have to agree to disagree on that. The experts I've spoken to (albeit two) have both understood the position I take. There's a difference between public policy and individual policy.

the cost to you barely registers; the potential benefit to you is considerable; from a rational point of view, this isn't even a close call. — Srap Tasmaner

You're calculating the cost/benefit as if the only factors were the chances of getting ill. Generally we're not so single minded.

Interesting, thanks.

The point is not whether there's competing benefits, the point is that it's no one's business but mine so long as I make those choices within the thresholds we find acceptable (ie, my choices don't burden the health services more than other choices we already find acceptable). — Isaac

Do you find the burdens placed on the healthcare system by obesity, smoking, etc. -- do you find them acceptable? I know that "we" do? What about you?

Why would you engage in a decision making process relying on a standard of risk it is evident you consider lax and ill-informed? That seems kinda crazy, and I don't think you actually did that. I think you made your decision without any consideration of those thresholds at all:

It's a risk I don't want to take (I prefer risks from external elements to risks from things I did to myself), I don't want to support the pharmaceutical industry, I don't like prophylactic medicine in general. — Isaac

Having now compared your decisions to other decisions you don't approve of, but which "we" the public at large are evidently fine with, you want everyone to be fine with your decision too, and it's a bit galling that so many people evidently aren't.

Near as I can tell, your participation here has never really been about justifying your decision to us or to anyone -- you're completely qualm-free; it's been about demanding justification from those who disapprove.

Am I totally misreading the situation?

Do you find the burdens placed on the healthcare system by obesity, smoking, etc. -- do you find them acceptable? — Srap Tasmaner

I don't, no. But remember the scale is whole orders of magnitude different. The average risk of needing hospitalisation from obesity is over 50 times greater than the risk of a healthy (in terms of known comorbidities), young adult needing hospitalisation from covid. I don't see anything at all odd, or suspicious about my personal appropriate thresholds lying somewhere between the two. In fact, given the enormous range between them, I think it'd be odd if it didn't. I had to have either an extremely lax or an extremely strict stance on the matter for my feeling not to lie somewhere between those two poles.

Why would you engage in a decision making process relying on a standard of risk it is evident you consider lax and ill-informed? — Srap Tasmaner

I haven't, I've used my own standard of risk. I chose obesity as an example deliberately because it was the highest publicly acceptable threshold I could think of. My own standard of risk is much closer to the odd slice of carrot cake if I'm out for afternoon tea.

Notwithstanding my own risk thresholds, this discussion is entirely about the justification others have for making moral judgements, so it's their thresholds that matter.

I think you made your decision without any consideration of those thresholds at all: — Srap Tasmaner

That's your prerogative, but it does make discussion a little difficult if you're going to replace what I say with what you think I think. Makes it kinda hard to formulate an aposite response.

Having now compared your decisions to other decisions you don't approve of, but which "we" the public at large are evidently fine with, you want everyone to be fine with your decision too — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. You said that as if it was wrong. I expect to be judged by consistent standards. Is that something you don't think I've any cause to expect?

Near as I can tell, your participation here has never really been about justifying your decision to us or to anyone -- you're completely qualm-free; it's been about demanding justification from those who disapprove. — Srap Tasmaner

That's right, yes. My overriding interest here (this forum in general, in fact, but certainly this thread), is in how people justify their beliefs, especially when pushed outside their comfort zone (the narrative space in which those beliefs are embedded).

No one gave a shit about the last two when they were news. — Isaac

You are grasping at straws. Here's the problem: You are sitting on the camel's back as you grasp at them. The health care system, or the individual, can be the camel. Doesn't matter. Covid, being fat, whatever comorbidity you can think of. It does the camel no good with you sitting on there. Another way to look at it is taking oxygen out of the room.

If you really cared about anyone but yourself, you'd take a seat, or go engage the experts on the merits of all these irrelevant straws.

P.S. Some fat people want to eat shit that makes them fat. They even pay good money for it. Covid, not so much. Nobody wants it. There is no market for it.

I know this is about race and other issues, but it reminds me of you for some reason:

https://chrismaleyblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/devils-advocate-white-guy-3.jpg

And the group were told by Professor Andrew Pollard that... 'a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations' — Isaac

Some consensus widely reported down here last week was that the virus would more likely take advantage of the unvaccinated, mutating so as to infect the easier target.

But the thing about mutations is that they are unpredictable.

Some consensus widely reported down here last week was that the virus would more likely take advantage of the unvaccinated, mutating so as to infect the easier target. — Banno

Yes, I think that's true too. I interpreted Professor Pollard as saying that it would get to the vaccinated eventually, rather than that a variant would target them over and above the unvaccinated. It's more just the inevitability of the virus evolving to outpace vaccine production, such that it could never be eliminated.

As professor Pollard said at the outset "this virus is not measles".

Unfortunately, the last big public narrative around vaccines was the Wakefield/MMR story where the bad woo-merchants ('booo!') tried to take the life-saving vaccine ('yeah!') away from children, so what do the public reach for when presented a new vaccine issue which they don't understand the intricacies of...? The narrative gets framed as some woo-merchants trying to take the vaccine way from children. But unlike the MMR (where the narrative was formed from the events, and so had it about right - Wakefield was a woo-merchant and the MMR is life saving), this time round, the narrative has been picked of the shelf, it doesn't quite fit.

I found the article, which was circulated in other publications. This is what caught my eye:

If vaccines are not 100% effective in blocking transmission, we can expect a shift in the trade-off towards higher virulence. In other words, a side-effect of the virus being able to transmit from vaccinated people is, over time, the theory predicts it will become more harmful to unvaccinated people.

Yes, that's my understanding of what the experts are saying too, but note

Versions of the virus that make their host very sick (are highly virulent) are generally selected against. This is because people would be more likely to die or be isolated, lowering the chance of the virus transmitting to others.

SAGE thinks this process is unlikely to cause the virus to become less virulent in the short term, but this is a realistic possibility in the long-term.

Hence Professor Pollard's notion that it still all comes down to flattening the curve to reduce the burden on health services - even with variants - it's a matter of surviving long enough to get to the point where the virus has settled down. Until then...

we can expect an arms race between vaccine developers and the virus, with vaccines trying to play catch up with viral evolution. This is why we’re likely to see us having regular booster shots, designed to overcome these new variants, just like we see with flu booster shots.

...But this raises a new potential problem. Flu shots were never given to the healthy. For this very reason.

First things first:

I think you made your decision without any consideration of those thresholds ((i.e., the lax and ill-informed public's)) at all: — Srap Tasmaner

That's your prerogative, but it does make discussion a little difficult if you're going to replace what I say with what you think I think. — Isaac

But I'm clearly right and you said exactly that:

Why would you engage in a decision making process relying on a standard of risk it is evident you consider lax and ill-informed? — Srap Tasmaner

I haven't, I've used my own standard of risk. — Isaac

That is, without reference to the standard you don't approve of, exactly as I said.

Normally, I don't like to get into this pointless back-and-forth about who said what, but it's oddly on point here.

I expect to be judged by consistent standards. Is that something you don't think I've any cause to expect? — Isaac

So what would that be in this case?

To keep it simple, there is the Isaac standard of risk (I) and (your interpretation of) the public standard of risk (P), the one that has no problem with smoking, eating bacon, and going skiing. You have examined your decision not to be vaccinated and concluded it meets the requirements both (I) and (P).

Now what is it you want from your interlocutors here? You want them to apply (P) and find you blameless. Why should they do that? Is (P) the standard of risk of everyone you've interacted with here? Or might they have their own standards, as you have yours?

When someone balks at having words put in their mouth, you call that inconsistent.

Now to this matter of consistency. I submit that a better starting point would be to assume, for the sake of investigation, that if someone's views appear inconsistent, perhaps it is because you don't fully understand their views. (I could say very much more about this, and I am very far from suggesting that everyone's views will turn out, upon examination, to be perfectly consistent. I have my own reasons for thinking this is not so.) This is a point @Hanover used to make forcefully about liberals and conservatives in the United States, and I think he was absolutely right: liberals often see conservatives as almost bone-headedly inconsistent because they just don't understand them.

For instance, you stated some unchallenged and undefended preferences:

I prefer risks from external elements to risks from things I did to myself), I don't want to support the pharmaceutical industry, I don't like prophylactic medicine in general. — Isaac

Reverse some of those and see if an inclination to get vaccinated, simply as a matter of preference, appears, notwithstanding any of someone's other views about risk.

My overriding interest here (this forum in general, in fact, but certainly this thread), is in how people justify their beliefs — Isaac

And I just don't see that this is the course you've followed. What do you actually know about the views of anyone participating in this thread? Could you make up a short list of preferences like yours above for anyone you've argued with here? For comparison, if you had not spelled them out, would it be perfectly clear to everyone here that you held the preferences you listed above?

I'm seeing some accusations of hypocrisy here, while at the same time committing a two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy.

The PhD hesitancy rate is curious — Hanover

Yeah, most reports show that more education and vaccine acceptance (less education and vaccine hesitance) correlate.
The delimiters are typically high school and college, and far from all are done with detailed rigor and checks.
(Seems biased to dismiss those reports.)
Granted, you can find some that show differently than that, though they're a minority.

People having changed their minds almost always go from hesitance to acceptance.
Some reports suggest a "hard core" that never change their minds.
(In different areas, incorrigibility seems correlated with radical/extreme views.)

One report found that fear of side effects was the most common reason for hesitance.

But I'm clearly right and you said exactly that: — Srap Tasmaner

My misunderstanding again. I thought you were referring to thresholds of risk in general (those thresholds, as in the one's to to with risk).

Normally, I don't like to get into this pointless back-and-forth about who said what, but it's oddly on point here. — Srap Tasmaner

I understand, good call.

You want them to apply (P) and find you blameless. Why should they do that? Is (P) the standard of risk of everyone you've interacted with here? — Srap Tasmaner

I couldn't say for sure, no. But remember the enormous gap in risk between (healthy) covid risk and average society risk. I can't be sure that my interlocutors are at (P), nor even (I), but for a moral judgement about non-vaccination to hold for my case, and be consistent they'd have to hold risk threshold (C - covid risk), which is very strict indeed. I already know you don't (you smoke), Hanover eats meat,... these people are not unknown to me, I've been here a good few years and read several hundred of their posts. I'm making assumptions, I'll grant, but I'm not plucking them from thin air, and no-one's declared I'm wrong about them. So the fact that I could be seems irrelevant.

I submit that a better starting point would be to assume, for the sake of investigation, that if someone's views appear inconsistent, perhaps it is because you don't fully understand their views. — Srap Tasmaner

Cuts both ways though. I disagree with the judgement I perceive on the grounds of inconsistency. Others vehemently oppose my even holding the opinion I do. If it's a lack of charitable interpretation that's bothering you, there's a list of posts ahead of mine need addressing. Your concern here seems a bit post hoc.

Reverse some of those and see if an inclination to get vaccinated, simply as a matter of preference, appears, notwithstanding any of someone's other views about risk. — Srap Tasmaner

I'm afraid I can't make sense of this paragraph.

And I just don't see that this is the course you've followed. What do you actually know about the views of anyone participating in this thread? — Srap Tasmaner

Seems an odd question. The thread's over 200 pages long. I think I know quite a lot. I didn't start this thread, I never start threads. I've responded to the views of others as they present them. What more could I do?

Could you make up a short list of preferences like yours above for anyone you've argued with here? — Srap Tasmaner

No. But I'm not questioning their choices, they're questioning mine.

For comparison, if you had not spelled them out, would it be perfectly clear to everyone here that you held the preferences you listed above? — Srap Tasmaner

No, I doubt it. Would it matter? I don't suppose anyone here is looking to get to know me better. All that matters for my argument is that I have preferences (against which to set any moral duties). Their content doesn't matter.