“These tactics are necessary for protecting our communities and restoring our ways of life.” — Xtrix

Description. Saying that X is necessary for Y is not the same as saying "we ought to do X".

Yes, this is exactly what he’s doing. “In addition to mandates” makes that clear, along with prior things he’s written. You’ve simply misread it because you don’t want it to be the case, unfortunately. — Xtrix

No, I just know how to write and read carefully (not that I always do so, of course). At no point - no point in the article you linked to - does he defend mandates. I probably should have been a lawyer. He invites you to think he's in favour of them. But he doesn't explicitly defend them. He defends paying the true cost of your choices. And I agree - we should.

So he was absolutely opposed to interfering with people's freedom of choice 'for their own good'. Which is what this is all about.

If the vaccine works, then the unvaccinated pose no threat to the vaccinated. — Bartricks

This isn’t what it’s about. You continually get this exactly wrong.

I’ll repeat it a thousand times: it’s not only a matter of “vaccines work, so why should we care what unvaccinated people do?” That’s just a mistake, and a common one. Considering you’ve tried setting yourself up as some kind of expert, this is striking. Why?

Because breakthrough cases happen, as we’ve know all along, because those out there who aren’t eligible or can’t get vaccinated for other reasons are also vulnerable, because it’s impossible to get to herd immunity if 40% of the population refuses, because this allows the virus to mutate into more deadly variants, and because hospitalizations are overwhelming hospitals, leaving staff having to make extremely hard decisions.

Anyone who feels entitled to give lectures on “ethics” has the minimal responsibility to take these factors into account. Apparently you haven’t, and instead settled upon a simplistic version of things one might easily hear from the likes of your average rural Trump enthusiast.

Description. Saying that X is necessary for Y is not the same as saying "we ought to do X". — Bartricks

He’s in favor of vaccine mandates. Sorry you refuse to see this. He even gives you what you want: the “ought”.

More:

“Rather than restricting liberty, these strategies are necessary to achieving it. COVID-19 vaccine passports and mandates are past due. They are not too coercive. They will produce quick results and save lives. Ethics falls on the side of creating liberty through freedom from plague. Dawdling around using failed strategies just means more misery and less freedom.”

Sounds like you? Don’t think so.

I probably should have been a lawyer. — Bartricks

Given your level of reading comprehension, your made the right move.

But he doesn't explicitly defend them. — Bartricks

He does, both here and in other things he’s written. Again, I’m sorry this runs counter to what you want to believe. I can’t help that.

He says it’s what we ought to do, he calls it necessary, proper, necessary for achieving freedom, that they are not coercive, etc.

Yet he’s not in favor of them or defending them?

You’re just reducing yourself to a clown figure at this point.

Because breakthrough cases happen, as we’ve know all along, because those out there who aren’t eligible or can’t get vaccinated for other reasons are also vulnerable, because it’s impossible to get to herd immunity if 40% of the population refuses, because this allows the virus to mutate into more deadly variants, and because hospitalizations are overwhelming hospitals, leaving staff having to make extremely hard decisions. — Xtrix

You've just lumped a whole load of different issues in together. Why would you not get herd immunity if 40% do not vaccinate? Do you think the unvaccinated will not get the virus? I mean, they will! There will be immunity in that herd in no time!

But it's beside the point: this is about what's right. And what's right isn't always about achieving the best outcome, not unless consequentialism about ethics is correct (and it isn't). This is where you seem to have a difficulty. Non-ethicists are typically only concerned with consequences (for that is what their expertise gives them insight into). That's where non-ethicist experts are expert : they can tell us about the likely consequence of this or that (economists in terms of the economy; psychologists in terms of our psychology; medical experts in terms of medical outcomes and so on). But what's right is not solely determined by such considerations, as any ethicist worth their salt knows. You really need to listen to the right experts!

Let's say we could eradicate covid by torturing a child. Would it be right to torture that child? No, obviously not. Torturing the child would save millions of lives. But it'd be wrong to do it, yes?

Now don't go all "how is that the same!! Call yourself an expert!" on me - just acknowledge the point: that doing what's right is not all about securing the best outcome. You have to respect people's rights along the way. And what I want to know from you is whose rights those who freely decide not to take up a freely available vaccine are violating.

He does, both here and in other things he’s written. Again, I’m sorry this runs counter to what you want to believe. I can’t help that. — Xtrix

He may elsewhere, but he doesn't in that article or in the other quote you gave. He's just invited you to think he defends them - and maybe he does - but he hasn't explicitly defended mandates in that article.

I'm not exactly sure where the debate is now, but I think it is worth mentioning that it is somewhat disingenuous -- and, I would say falling for some propaganda -- to make all the beliefs equivalent.

For instance, "flat earth", was clearly started (or then fueled on the net when it became known about) as a joke, clearly engineers and physicists making up alternative explanations if the world is flat. Of course, any idea that "gets out there" some people are actually going to believe, but the quantity of such people is minuscule. The only reason the media took interest in this topic is to associate flat earth with other groups they don't like.

If we compare the amount of evidence the world is flat, to the amount of evidence confirming the US government, or elements thereof, enabled or even planned 9/11, or then the amount of evidence provided by that government of who's really to blame, it's simply comparable. Believe what you want to believe, but there are no simple backyard experiments and pretty direct logical consequence of many known facts, that Bin Laden did 9/11. There's no epistemic equivalence, not even remotely close between the "earth is spherical" and "Bin Laden orchestrated 9/11". It's certainly physically possible some project, by nature clandestine, was "really" orchestrated by some even more clandestine and shadowy group. Likewise, "vaccines do more harm then good" is far easier to support than "the world is flat".

So, there is simply no equivalence in terms of weight of evidence for the various claims listed.

However, there is also important differences in motivation. We know powerful oil interests funded climate denialism in bad faith, and, even it many then "really believe it", many are willful participants in the bold face lies know they are simply lying to favour different values (such their individual short term economic interest) than engaging in honest political belief. "9/11 Truthers" and "anti-vaxxers" and "creationists" (although certainly many bad faith actors profit off these) are not beliefs that were essentially astroturffed into existence, but are fueled by legitimate belief systems and concerns.

I myself am a "creationist", just not that the earth is 6000 years old, but created sometime at or before the Big Bang and in a way that makes logical sense (physical laws, evolution etc.). Whether athesist, agnositic or theist, I think we'd mostly agree on this forum these are legitimate belief systems that can be defended, and can all be made compatible with basic science.

But again, the perpetuation of this belief I would say is mostly bad faith actors in the US, to create a a schism between science and easily manipulated Christians. And again, the idea the earth is 6000 years old, and not billions of years old, is vast difference with the belief elements of the US intelligence service did 9/11 or vaccines do more harm than good.

Not that I am trying to resolve any of these issues (both what is "actually true" and the "true reasons" it is true), but I think it isn't intellectually honest to posit as equivalent beliefs with vastly different plausibility (believing there was some even more nefarious and clandestine scheme behind 9/11 does not require disbelieving / rewriting nearly the entirety of contemporary science as does believing the earth is flat or 6000 years old or evolution doesn't happen).

Likewise, the sociological drivers motivating and sustaining these beliefs and whether proponents are good faith or bad are also very different, and this is not a "belief group" characteristic but can only be evaluated on an individual / institutional basis. Bad faith actors can also be motivated for a variety of reasons -- from political or financial power, social validation in their "in group", or to just trolling on the internet for self-amusement.

For instance, someone who is bad faith, is always a mistake to engage with assuming they are good faith (it's simply a false assumption that can bring no good); engagement with someone who is bad faith is a political act (would be, for instance, for the purposes of exposing that party as a liar and discredit them, or otherwise frustrate their efforts, waste their time, or other tactical and strategic advantage extraneous to the intellectual debate), not a "truth seeking" act between, fundamentally, two good faith people trying to find and agree on the truth.

And what I want to know from you is whose rights those who freely decide not to take up a freely available vaccine are violating. — Bartricks

No one’s. Same with the solitary drinker or drug user or smoker.

But, once again, this isn’t close to the issue because no one, least of all me, have said this. So it’s a strawman or irrelevant.

but he hasn't explicitly defended mandates in that article. — Bartricks

:lol:

“Rather than restricting liberty, these strategies are necessary to achieving it. COVID-19 vaccine passports and mandates are past due. They are not too coercive. They will produce quick results and save lives. Ethics falls on the side of creating liberty through freedom from plague. Dawdling around using failed strategies just means more misery and less freedom.” — Xtrix

Whatever you say bud.

but he hasn't explicitly defended mandates in that article.
— Bartricks

:lol: — Xtrix

No need to cry over it.

No one’s. Same with the solitary drinker or drug user or smoker. — Xtrix

Correct. Thus there is no case for intervention. Thus, those who do not wish to take a vaccine should not be made to do so - and that extends to the state using its powers to bully them into doing so or threatening their employers with bankruptcy.

If a private company wants to fire everyone who doesn't have a vaccine, that's their business. They should be allowed to do that if they so wish.

The point is that the state should not use its powers to 'make' companies do that (or, what amounts to the same thing, artificially arrange things so that they'll go bankrupt unless they do).

If you're not violating someone else's rights, then even if what you're doing is stupid - and not getting a vaccine is stupid - then no one is entitled to stop you doing what you're doing. Indeed, you need to butt out and let people live the lives they want to lead. Let them, to use Mill's term, engage in their own 'experiment in living'.

And as Mill pointed out, the human tendency to want to meddle and impose one's own conception of the good life on others (and then to congratulate oneself on helping others) is so deeply engrained that we need an absolutist ban on those in power doing so.

Hence the liberty principle.

More non-defense of vaccine mandates from Caplan:

“Liberty Inducers Are Effective and Ethical

So, the political opponents are making a philosophical mistake about the kind of liberty at stake here. What about the pragmatic opponents who are concerned that more stringent tactics won't work?

To them we say that liberty inducers 1) will work quickly enough, 2) will work broadly enough, and 3) will be ethically justified despite their having some negative consequences.

First, liberty inducers will work quickly enough. There is a solid evidence base supporting mandates, passports, and the like. That support is found in data about laws and policies related to seat belts, smoking, and school-mandated childhood vaccinations, all of which achieved significant public health outcomes. These data cannot be dismissed by noting that the efforts took years while COVID-19 vaccine uptake is much more urgently needed. These past successes reveal that we have already laid the groundwork to support passports and mandates.

Second, liberty inducers will work broadly enough. Polling shows that about 14% of Americans say they will "definitely not" get the vaccine and 3% will get it "only if required." These poll findings are misleading. The numbers would shift with different incentives and disincentives attached to vaccination status. Those stubbornly opposed to vaccination are viewing possibilities in the world as it is now. Liberty inducers alter that world. Intentions change with possibilities.

Finally, liberty inducers are ethically justified. True, they will have some negative effects. They won't move everyone, and for those unmoved there will be consequences. But the unmoved will move on, and their private, temporary setbacks are justified by our liberation from COVID-19.“

Yeah— he’s not “defending” anything. Nothing to see here.

Imagine proudly describing yourself as an “ethicist,” inflating your importance and relevance while demoting doctors, and yet coming out against vaccine mandates because “if you’re vaccinated, what do you care?”

Then deny that a much more respected (medical) ethicist isn’t really saying what he’s clearly saying because it undermines your uninformed, simplistic position.

This, again, is why philosophy gets a terrible, terrible reputation and why science and medicine are far more respected. Philosophy students just spend way too much time in academic problems, not the real world.

I don’t care what you label yourself, the answers here are clear (provided we know a little about vaccines). To get them exactly backwards isn’t surprising, actually.

Correct. Thus there is no case for intervention. — Bartricks

Wrong. The vaccine mandates are both ethical and effective — according to real medical ethicists.

If people don’t want to vaccines, fine— then isolate yourself. You have no right to spread the virus to others — to the vaccinated or the unvaccinated.

Bottom line.

If people don’t want to vaccines, fine— then isolate yourself. You have no right to spread the virus to others — to the vaccinated out unvaccinated. — Xtrix

This seems an incredibly naive belief, and it is not a consensus in the medical ethics community. Many countries have not implemented any sort of vaccine passport, precisely because it is in stark contradiction with forced medical procedures, of which it is a foundation of modern medical ethics not to do, so much so that it is put into laws that are very difficult to change, essentially constitutional (and many medical ethecists say shouldn't be changed).

And domestic vaccine passports are not the same thing as needing a vaccine to travel to a different country (where you are a guest and are not "forced" to go to) nor for participation in a relatively minor set of professions (you are not "forced" to have that profession).

Forcing everyone to undergo a medical procedure by making life practically impossible without it, is obviously a controversial thing in medical ethics. Nazi's thought they were "improving society" too; and, that institutions can go disastrously wrong (if not today, then maybe tomorrow) is the foundation of the moratorium on forced medical procedures in favour of "informed-consent" based medicine.

You have presented no argument, just blank assertion. Adding 'bottom line' also lacks probative force. And I am an ethicist and I think it is unethical.

What's your view about unprotected sex? Should it be allowed? Spreads disease. Should we ban it?
There's a drug that radically reduces your chance of catching hiv from someone infected with it. It's called prep. Should we make everyone take it?

How do we know that going with the majority of experts is more likely to be true, or more likely to give us the results we want? — Xtrix

Yeah, how? I don't think you gave a reason in what preceded this question. 99 doctors to 1 doesn't translate to 99% odds, not if all we know is that they are doctors. If the 99 doctors, when I ask them how they know heart surgery is the best bet, respond with something like "That's just how its done. I am following what I was taught in medical school". Then I will doubt their wisdom. If the 1 doctor who recommends an alternative to heart surgery, and gives explanations that make sense to me and examples of former satisfied clients, I may trust him over the 99 doctors. Not necessarily, but there is a chance. I have personal experience of family who have not listened to medical experts and came out well of it. On the other hand, this same family member later in life agreed to preventative heart surgery. In other words, he had no issue, but his doctor recommended it as a precautionary measure because of his age. He took the surgery and it severely compromised the quality of his life as a result.
I suppose in the doctor's opinion, the risk of side effects from the surgery were less than the risks of having future heart issues... but its hard to believe the doctor was right about which decision is more rational when the results didn't turn out in this family member's favor.

This seems an incredibly naive belief, and it is not a consensus in the medical ethics community. Many countries have not implemented any sort of vaccine passport, precisely because it is in stark contradiction with forced medical procedures, of which it is a foundation of modern medical ethics not to do, so much so that it is put into laws that are very difficult to change, essentially constitutional (and many medical ethecists say shouldn't be changed).

And domestic vaccine passports are not the same thing as needing a vaccine to travel to a different country (where you are a guest and are not "forced" to go to) nor for participation in a relatively minor set of professions (you are not "forced" to have that profession).

Forcing everyone to undergo a medical procedure by making life practically impossible without it, is obviously a controversial thing in medical ethics. Nazi's thought they were "improving society" too; and, that institutions can go disastrously wrong (if not today, then maybe tomorrow) is the foundation of the moratorium on forced medical procedures in favour of "informed-consent" based medicine. — boethius

I agree to this, this is barely a kind of "ethical" question. I think the good people not ready to get a vaccine should avoid getting infected for own egoistical reasons. Getting that germ is no walk in the park. That should be reason enough not to go hugging galore.

If you're not violating someone else's rights, then even if what you're doing is stupid - and not getting a vaccine is stupid - then no one is entitled to stop you doing what you're doing. Indeed, you need to butt out and let people live the lives they want to lead. Let them, to use Mill's term, engage in their own 'experiment in living'. — Bartricks

Fascinating back and forth.

I have a quick question (apologies for the poor articulation): Assuming the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine(s) is beyond doubt - you seem to believe this - do I have a right to spread potentially lethal misinformation? I doubt any who choose to not take the vaccine look at it as if they're making a stupid, reckless decision - they of course see things quite differently.

Anyhow, I find much of what you've written congenial, but it does seem to presuppose important conditions that are rarely met, e.g., reliable sources, indisputable facts, expert consensus, etc. Does the state have a role to play in securing these conditions of rational and ethical decision making? in stopping the spreader of disinformation (again, only applicable to cases where the issue is beyond doubt) from peddling harmful, even lethal ideas?

I think I know what your answer will be (it's up to the individual to uncover the truth without state intervention) though I'm curious to see the reasoning behind it.

I agree to this, this is barely a kind of "ethical" question. — Ansiktsburk

Well, it wasn't just the Nazi's that carried out forced medical procedures for the "good" of society. Everyone was doing it -- it's completely compatible with the Hippocratic oath if it is "good" for the patient -- it's just the Nazi's took it next level. And we still do it today to the mentally ill all the time, just with large efforts to avoid doing so, danger to others and "themselves", only option etc.

We could also imagine a scenario that is so severe, forced medical procedures seems reasonable even to me.

So, I wouldn't say it's barely even a question, and, I think it's also clear some medical ethicists, medical professionals and politicians (people who are supposed to have an ethical expertise and opinion on this) argue it is ethical to have vaccine internal passports.

Certainly there is an argument to be had ... which is argument currently happening.

But, to tie into my first comment on the thread, the fact there's clearly a legitimate debate (clearly well motivated to be concerned about giving governments the power to inject what they decide is necessary into everyone, and everyone needing their "papers" to prove it; and I know plenty of doctors who are against it, which isn't unusual where I live because it's the government's policy as well not to force/coerce vaccinations) on this issue, underlines the point the epistimic comparison to flat earth theory (which no one here is arguing about) is pretty substantial.

Should you consider expatriation so as to find valuable community members? — frank


No, I have friends in low places. — James Riley

It's the same thing though, isn't it? Except you don't have to adapt to Canada or Mexico. You can stay home and be governed by those who, by your account, shouldn't be in decision making positions.

Sorry, frank. I don't even remember what we were talking about. But the reference to Canada and Mexico reminded me once again of war. See below:



It is my understanding we are in a pandemic. A pandemic has been likened to a war; a war on an invisible enemy. The enemy is not conveniently overseas somewhere. He is here, among us. Around the world. Those who champion the right of individuals to not do what the military tells them to do in a combat zone are not merely civilians, non-combatants, or collateral damage; they are, instead, providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

If you want to get off the battlefield, do it, or you might get shot. Ultimately, in this case, you might literally get held down and given a shot: a vaccine shot. If you don’t want the shot, stay off the battlefield, go home, and pray the rest of us win the war quickly so we don’t have to kick in your door, hold you down and give you the shot. It is not the soldier's job to stay home and hide from the war. We are out here doing our part.

You can philosophize about being against the war, or being against the way the war is being conducted. But you are either with us or you are with the virus. You can sit around the bistro, drinking whatever, pinky extended, waxing on about Locke or whoever, but you could be doing that in Dresden, or Hiroshima and guess what? You will be history.

I can go on with the analogy, the players in this case and the players in WWII, etc. But suffice it to say, everyone has been trying extremely hard to play to your needs, your wants, and your desires; the government has been trying hard to maintain the peace and avoid the extremes of war. But you are and have been providing aid and comfort to a virus. Don’t be surprised when your rights go on hold. There are people on the front line and you are spitting on them as they work. That shit won’t last.

Or it will last, and you and your virus will win. You will surrender your fellow human beings and make peace with a virus. You and your virus will win. Then those who survive the virus can sit around and mourn the collateral damage and all those who died resisting the virus or who could not resist it. But most likely you will not mourn. I'm not seeing you mourn. It just doesn't fit.

Ultimately, in this case, you might literally get held down and given a shot: — James Riley

Nope.

If it's a war, we lost already. All the variants will be endemic in the US.

If it's a war, we lost already. All the variants will be endemic in the US. — frank

Like I said:

"Or it will last, and you and your virus will win. You will surrender your fellow human beings and make peace with a virus. You and your virus will win. Then those who survive the virus can sit around and mourn the collateral damage and all those who died resisting the virus or who could not resist it. But most likely you will not mourn. I'm not seeing you mourn. It just doesn't fit."

And there you were, championing the treatment of the enemy instead of soldiers and innocent civilians. You know, first come, first serve.

Now there could be an insurgency. And pay back at the polls. I guess we'll see.

This seems an incredibly naive belief, and it is not a consensus in the medical ethics community. — boethius

No, it isn’t. You have no right to harm others.

Forcing everyone to undergo a medical procedure — boethius

Not forced any more than school and work vaccinations have been forced, for decades in fact.

And I am an ethicist and I think it is unethical. — Bartricks

Because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Read more Caplan and learn something — that’s my advice.

What's your view about unprotected sex? Should it be allowed? Spreads disease. Should we ban it? — Bartricks

Imagine this is the level of thinking among “ethicists.” How sad.

Protected sex should be encouraged, and has been for years.

99 doctors to 1 doesn't translate to 99% odds, not if all we know is that they are doctors. — Yohan

:roll:

Yes, but that’s not the question.

You will surrender your fellow human beings an — James Riley

It's part of us now. You may as well accept it.

And there you were, championing the treatment of the enemy instead of soldiers and innocent civilians. You know, first come, first serve. — James Riley

Unvaccinated people aren't my enemies. They're fellow citizens. If you don't like that, I think there's an isolated spot near the Arctic waiting for your tiny house where you can survive on moose meat.

Now there could be an insurgency. And pay back at the polls. I guess we'll see. — James Riley

I doubt it.

No, it isn’t. You have no right to harm others. — Xtrix

Well, that's the issue isn't it.

A medical procedure is by definition harmful; so, what's your right to force / coerce people to have it?

Furthermore, limiting the power of the state (which I in no way share the extremism of libertarians about ... and, would also say their idea of immutable rigid market "principles" are extreme state power that they are in denial about), is for the purposes of limiting the harm the state can do.

Limiting state power has obvious costs. In exchange for not giving the state power that could easily be abused (people needing "papers" to participate in normal society), there are costs to that.

Not forced any more than school and work vaccinations have been forced, for decades in fact. — Xtrix

Not where I live: due to it being a forced medical procedure. Which you may disagree with, but the fact entire countries do actually implement a moratorium on forced / coerced medical procedures should be enough to support my claim there's legitimate debate on this issue ... whereas no country implements a "flat earth" based geologic and space institution.

There are countries that didn't even have a legally enforceable mask mandate, only a recommendation, because enforcing that by law would be unconstitutional. It's not even a medical procedure, so if that was their position on masks obviously forced / coerced vaccination is essentially no-doubt unconstitutional.

But, even so, in places where it is as you say, the alternative "home schooling" is not at the same level as carrying papers to simply exist in society.

Internal vaccine "passports" is clearly a step much further than has existed before. In pre-pandemic times, if this issue was brought up, it was entirely accepted that the consequence of not having forced / coerced medical procedures is that the government can't do that even when it would be a good social outcome in that case. Otherwise, the moratorium on forced medical procedures and "informed consent" based medicine is ... only until we don't want to, then we'll force you for sure.

It's part of us now. You may as well accept it. — frank

I'm afraid you may be right. Too bad. I can't imagine all the grief that could have been avoided.

Unvaccinated people aren't my enemies. They're fellow citizens. — frank

They aid and abet a virus. The company you keep . . .

I doubt it. — frank

You could be right. We could get Trump, or a new Trump and live in a colder, harder world. One that I doubt a guy like you would like. On the other hand, business will be good for you. Though I suppose it always is.

All the best, man. :mask:

If the vaccine works, then the unvaccinated pose no threat to the vaccinated. — Bartricks

It's complicated.

There is, as I understand it, very strong evidence that the vaccinated are less likely to become infected on exposure, to develop Covid, but it's certainly not 100%. We do not have a vaccine that literally immunizes you against SARS-CoV-2. If we did have an immunizing vaccine, your argument would be strengthened.

Of course, just being unvaccinated is not threatening, in itself, to anyone. What we're interested in is whether someone who is infected can infect someone else. There is also evidence, though it is not as strong, that being vaccinated reduces the likelihood you will transmit it to others. Reduces, but not all the way to zero. Since there is also strong evidence that being vaccinated when you get infected reduces the severity and duration of the ensuing illness, we could conclude that the vaccinated potentially present a greater risk to the unvaccinated than the unvaccinated do to the vaccinated. (The transmission reduction effect is smaller and perhaps less well-supported -- I'm still not clear on this -- than either of the other effects, the reduction of the chance of being infected, and the reduction of the severity of the illness if infected.)

If you are not vaccinated, you are more at risk of getting sick when exposed to the virus, and the illness you develop is likely to be more severe and last longer, no matter whether you caught the virus from someone who was vaccinated or someone who wasn't. Since there are people who cannot get vaccinated, people with certain allergies and medical conditions, the very young, and for now teenagers (though that may be changing), everyone is a potential threat to them, and it seems the unvaccinated are probably a somewhat bigger potential threat. (Again, "potential" because not unless you're infected.)

In the broadest strokes, you are right, that the unvaccinated take the biggest risks with their own health and the health of those who are also not vaccinated, but not everyone who is unvaccinated is unvaccinated by choice. There is at least some reason to think they also present a risk to the vaccinated as well -- smaller, though, because being vaccinated reduces both the chances of getting sick and the severity of the illness when you do, but of course those are only likelihoods. It is even possible for a vaccinated (but carrying or even infected) person to infect a vaccinated person and for the latter to become severely ill, but that is less likely than an unvaccinated (but carrying or infected) person infecting a vaccinated person who becomes very ill.

Since none of the effects are 100%, I feel I should add that the mandate case would be strengthened if vaccines actually blocked transmission. They do not.

On the other hand, business will be good for you. Though I suppose it always is. — James Riley

The lack of gun control always keeps us hopping.

Plus nobody in this thread addressed the huge amounts of pesticides humans drop everywhere. You guys are useless.