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

This is a completely ill informed position.

There was a chance to avoid the pandemic, via containment (which I advocated strongly for at the start of the pandemic on this very forum), which successfully contained SARS 1 the first time (difference; SARS came out of a poor place no one hesitated restricting flights / quarantining everyone); but that would have been bad for airplane stocks (as people, especially politicians, do hesitate to restrict flights from China).

Vaccines would never have avoided "all the grief"; even the above containment would have been a lot of grief for people who get it anyway and are in quarantine as well as hundreds of millions of people who would have had travel plans disrupted.

Of course, failing containment, vaccines can help, but it's a complete exaggeration to put all the blame on anti-vaxxers.

Notice how, since this blame game could start, talk of holding people accountable for not containing the pandemic (following far clearer science and "expert" opinion; this exact problem, and what to do about it, has been studied and modeled for decades) has all but disappeared. Funny how governments aren't carrying out any introspection as to why they were "anti-science" at the start of the pandemic when they feared a stock dip in a few sectors more than millions of people dying.

Likewise, experts also pointed out at the start of vaccine development that there's a large portion of the public that won't take them, so depending entirely on vaccines is a policy made to fail (and also leaves the developing world hanging), compared to policies (preparing for another wave, increasing global health capacity, nutrition, etc. that would benefit everyone and also mitigate both vaccine reliance failing, and even if vaccines succeed, mitigate the fact it's totally certain a percentage of people people wont' take them).

Governments went with the only policy that hands over billions to corporations ... and put essentially zero investment into basic health measures and increasing health capacity. For instance, a small percentage of what's been spent on the pandemic could have solved world hunger, which requires no waiting for any "science development" and would have mitigated the effects of the pandemic in the third world as well as being morally justifiable anyways.

The lack of gun control always keeps us hopping. — frank

Deal with the criminals. DOH!

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

Did they kill 600,000 + in a year and a half? I'm all for regulating them in any event. But they weren't brought up because this thread isn't about pesticides. DOH!

There was a chance to avoid the pandemic, — boethius

You can just stop there.

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. — Xtrix

Did I confuse questions?

But they weren't brought up because this thread isn't about pesticides — James Riley

Oh I see, you just pick and choose your villains. Typical.

Again, totally delusional.

World succeeded in containing SARS 1; now, even if that was impossible in this case; which who knows, if sane policies weren't implemented to find out: it was still the only chance to actually avoid "all the grief". Vaccines only became available after many people already died, so, how would vaccines avoid that grief?

Avoiding "all" or even close to all, would have only been possible with containment: maybe fast and competent response in China (which did suppress the virus when they did implement containment ... after infecting the rest of the world) was obviously the best chance.

I remember a time on this very forum when we were concerned about the fact China obviously censored their scientists trying to warn the rest of the world ... and also may have killed the one's that got the word out; which, is obviously far inferior to China getting the word out themselves and acting on an obvious health emergency proactively.

I remember a time when some participants still with us argued what happened in China wouldn't happen in the West for [insert delusions] and not any "science" that could be recognized.

After that, could essentially shutting down world plane travel have succeeded in containing the virus? Maybe not, but it would have bought plenty of time to optimize policy response strategies and mitigate plenty of grief even if containment did ultimately fail. Rather, we supercharged the spread of the pandemic around the world; no one who studied this question would tell you that was a good idea. And, world plane travel got shut down anyways, so it there was only anti-science delusion behind trying to delay that comeuppance.

which who knows if sane policies weren't implemented to find out — boethius

Enough said.

P.S. Sorry I used the word "all". I was just thinking of the kids of a guy I know who's sig line was the John Wayne quote: "Life's hard. It's even harder when you're stupid." He didn't vax and died. I'm sure someone missed their trip to Italy. Oh, the grief!

99 doctors tell you you need surgery on your heart or else you'll probably die, and 1 says you shouldn't -- knowing nothing else, what do you do? (Assuming you want to continue living.)

Seems like an extreme example -- but that's exactly the level we're at with, again, climate change. (Actually it's said to be around 97%, but other studies have it higher, and I suspect it is.)

I'll give away the answer: you go with the 99% of doctors. It's as simple as gambling: do we put all our money on an event that wins 99% of the time, or not? Of course we go with the greater chances of success -- again, assuming we wish to win money and not lose money. — Xtrix

You beg the question that the majority of scientists are more likely to be right. If we don't know anything else except the amount of doctors that advocate for surgery vs the amount that don't , that doesn't tell us who is more likely to be right.

Oh I see, you just pick and choose your villains. Typical. — frank

No, the thread picked the villains. DOH!

The world is full of villains and I've fought quite a few of them. Covid is just the latest and the subject of the thread. Certainly you could have taken a page from Isaac and chosen fat-people comorbidity, instead of pesticides. :roll:

This is a philosophy forum, maybe reformulate your statement the first time. Obviously "all" is a big difference with "some".

But my main issue is the scapegoating anti-vaxxers. Lot's of policy failures throughout this pandemic worth discussing, but society has been given a cathartic "other" to blame and to hate.

Where I have issue is the total hypocrisy. Western governments are not "pro-science" or they'd do something about climate change. They are pro-science when it benefits the largest corporations that care about the issue and pro-something-else or like you know we can't actually like you know "do anything" when the science doesn't benefit the largest corporations that care about the issue.

The current wave in the US was completely predictable, with or without vaccines, and there are other policies that could have been implemented since 2020 that would be a good idea anyways, regardless of how well the vaccines work, how many people take them, or what percentage of the population is needed for "heard immunity" if the vaccines would even accomplish that, which they don't (or even if they worked at all, which wasn't a given when vaccine development started; so, was an insane risk-management decision to not competently prepare for more waves ... actually learn something from the first wave).

But again, my basic point is that this issue is obviously not on the same level as "the earth is flat" or "the universe is 6000 years old" which no one here is debating.

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. — Srap Tasmaner

It isn’t correct to lump teenagers and the very young in with people with medical conditions when you say this.

This is from the JCVI’s recent judgment on the universal vaccination of 12-15 year olds:

Given the very low risk of serious COVID-19 disease in otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year olds, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced and a precautionary approach was agreed.

It seems there’s a lot of fear within this debate, on both sides, that gets masqueraded as reason.

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

I agree, very strongly. But there is a clear problem. What if they consider me their enemy? (For "they", feel free to substitute climate-change deniers, flat-earthers, Nazis, racists, theocrats.)

In this case, it's very direct: if I were in a position to use state power to forcibly vaccinate someone against their will, I might regret resorting to force and even apologize for doing so, but protest that what I'm doing is for their own good, and for the good of others. They won't agree. What do we do?

Climate change deniers lack vision and keep their eyes closed for the obvious which even the layman (especially the layman) can see: climate is changing in an unnatural short time span.

Anti vaxxers just don't wanna vax. Let them.

9/11 conspiracionists just think these 4 planes were remote-controlled by government officials to start a new war, make money from it, patriot acting to consolidate their power, while infusing society with fear (safe-boxes to be sold in which you can drink your red Lambrusco wine while outside you box hell is breaking loose).

Creationists are right. Only, it didn't happen 6000 years ago.

Flat-Earthers are locally right.

This is a philosophy forum, — boethius

Thanks for being helpful.

Lot's of policy failures throughout this pandemic — boethius

Enough said.

Western governments are not "pro-science" or they'd do something about climate change. — boethius

Climate change gets the same treatment as Covid. We can't interfere with Cletus's God-given right to roll coal! Freedom! Murica!

The current wave in the US was completely predictable, — boethius

Yeah, I think Obama was working on a plan that Trump trashed.

there are other policies that could have been implemented since 2020 that would be a good idea anyways, — boethius

Yep. But freedom.

Hell, social distancing and masking could have done tons, but it's too much to ask. Don't expect any help on climate change.

It isn’t correct to lump teenagers and the very young in with people with medical conditions when you say this. — AJJ

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Here in the US we're not vaccinating children under 12. Vaccinating those between 12 and 18 is I guess becoming pretty common, but certainly wasn't earlier in the year.

Young children, and teenagers, may indeed be at lower risk of becoming infected, and at lower risk of becoming seriously ill, but they're certainly not immune. I have a friend who teaches in a public high school that, within the first month of the new school year, had three children sick enough to be hospitalized and many more sick enough to miss school.

It seems there’s a lot of fear within this debate, on both sides, that gets masqueraded as reason. — AJJ

Is this obiter dicta, or was there something in my post that struck you as fear masquerading as reason?

Certainly you could have taken a page from Isaac and chosen fat-people comorbidity, instead of pesticides — James Riley

He's actually right about that. I've got a good video to help you get up to speed on "food-gate" if you're interested.

if I were in a position to use state power to forcibly vaccinate someone against their will, I might regret resorting to force and even apologize for doing so, but protest that what I'm doing is for their own good, and for the good of others. They won't agree. What do we do? — Srap Tasmaner

I'm not sure what you're asking. Wouldn't that issue be settled by the Supreme Court?

I'm not sure what you're asking. — frank

Sorry. What concerns me is navigating the differing perspectives of our fellow citizens. It's all very well to choose not to consider those who differ with us enemies, but in some cases they will consider us enemies. I worry about that.

I've been writing about this topic, on this forum, since March 2020.

The moment to put in place policies that would have had a dramatically different outcome was then. The countries that contained competently ... managed to contain the pandemic.

March 2020:

All of the above is also complicated by the fact people will continue to need care for other things. This creates 2 issues. First, people come into the hospital for other reasons but happen to have coronavirus, transmit it to health workers who then transmit it to other patients and visitors in hospital for other reasons. When a place get's contaminated, they aren't disinfecting the entire place for no reason; it's just that bad in terms of persistence in the environment which quickly becomes an impossible task at a large scale. Second problem is that as health services are strained, people start dying from other things due to lack of care, so those people must be added as casualties of the pandemic. There is lot's of pneumonia anyways.

All this combines to create a complete global health catastrophe. Although there's already plenty of global health catastrophes due to poor policies, so what's one more, this one was likely preventable with policies previously in place, so is unfortunate in that regard.

Basically it's the mutabu virus, just played out in China with the US as a "don't place sycophant in charge" thematic sub-plot, and changing the main plot to preserve face rather than "the weapon" ... and infecting the entire world instead of blowing up a small town, is what I'm saying.

This may seem preemptively overly dramatic, but 700 million people are already in quarantine, self isolation or restricted travel in China, which is 10% of the global population and happened within the span of months; it's fairly reasonable to expect the same to happen to the rest of the globe within the next few months now that containment within China has completely failed and the rest of the world is where China was about 2 months ago.

The speed of this outbreak also means that it's unlikely the virus will lose much in lethality, as evolving to be less lethal as viruses normally do is an evolutionary process that takes time ... but such quick spreading doesn't create less strains than had it proliferated over a longer amount of time and so different strains may emerge that can infect people again (on-top of it, potentially being the case, that many can get the same strain again).

The only viable way to even slow down the virus significantly at this point requires basically shutting down the global economy. We're in the down-playing and denial phase from Western governments, in my opinion, to avoid pressure to take radical measures until it is too late for those to serve any purpose (as they calculate it — boethius

Really depends on age. A bad outcome radically increases with age ... which will also help spread the virus exponentially when the younger generations realize it's not a huge threat to them and need to go about their business at some point.

If you're young, main problem of travel is potentially being trapped in quarantine ... but Western governments seem to have decided to stop trying to maintain containment, but they may turn that policy on and off randomly for PR reasons. — boethius

All predictions that came true, from one random poster on the internet, over a year and a half ago.

The people most responsible are the governments that had "the science" telling them contain early, contain hard (especially early days, how "bad" the virus even was represented large error bars; could have been a lot worse than it is even now, which is bad). This was all known and uncontroversial science of literally decades of study and modelling of pandemics, how to identify them, and what to do.

Definitely total incompetence of the Trump administration I would say most contributed to "all the grief", doesn't make them less responsible just because they were totally incompetent. But, he's voted out, why didn't the next administration immediately start fixing those obvious policy failures of not preparing for more waves.

If people are suffering now from governments not preparing health systems to deal with another wave, that's really avoidable grief. Governments and twitter warriors blaming individuals for failed government policy is simply pathetic standard of intellectual honesty.

What did experts say back then about a vaccine? Well, would be nice if we could develop one, and would be nice if it works really well, and would be nice if both logistically and everyone being willing resulted in super high numbers to achieve some level of heard immunity. But, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Governments and twitter warriors blaming individuals for failed government policy is simply pathetic standard of intellectual honesty. — boethius

It brings to mind the soldier blaming the hippie for causing the loss in Vietnam. The analogy can be spun out in a different direction, though. This war is at home. Government policy early on may have been fucked, but the protestor didn't help. Indeed, evil gubmn't was just getting oxygen from them.

He's actually right about that. I've got a good video to help you get up to speed on "food-gate" if you're interested. — frank

I saw Fast Food Nation. Does that count? My point is, your pesticide argument is fallacious.

Wouldn't that issue be settled by the Supreme Court? — frank

I think it was. Like a hundred years ago.

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? — boethius

"Medical procedure"? That's deliberately beefing up what amounts to a tiny prick of the arm. But so be it.

I don't have a right to force people into doing the smart, relatively painless, socially responsible thing. I don't want the police going into people's homes and injecting them with a vaccine. I haven't seen anyone argue this. I've seen a lot of deliberate conflating, however.

We do also have the right to life, health, and safety. This is where individual freedoms can be restricted, as the courts have ruled, if it has effects on other individuals. This is why we have smoking bans and hand washing laws. This is also why, more pertinent to this discussion, we have school and work mandates for vaccines, and have for years. We don't want smallpox and polio around -- we don't want COVID around.

Plenty of schools and businesses have already mandated vaccines, before Biden's announcement the other day. Perfectly sensible. Is this "coercion"? Yes, but no different than "coercing" people into wearing clothes when they go into public places -- and, importantly, it has not been made "illegal" to refuse vaccines. Exceptions are always permissible, as well.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/when-are-vaccine-mandates-appropriate/2020-01

The entire question here, and has been from the beginning, is whether this (vaccine mandates) state / corporate power is legitimate or illegitimate, just or unjust. In this case, I think it's very clear that this is a legitimate use of power, and that those who disagree with this are simply overlooking what medical experts (and medical ethicists) have been saying, and misunderstand both basic functions of vaccines and the goals of herd immunity.

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. — boethius

Schools don't require vaccinations where you live? That's odd.

But again, this isn't being "forced" in the sense you're meaning. You cannot be physically made to get the vaccine against your will. Likewise, you're not physically forced to wear clothes when going to school -- but you'll be asked to leave if you don't. That's a kind of "coercing" people to wear clothes, but it's not technically forcing anyone (flawed example, because we have laws on the books against public nudity).

It's not even a medical procedure, so if that was their position on masks obviously forced / coerced vaccination is essentially no-doubt unconstitutional. — boethius

The Supreme Court disagrees. I can't speak for other countries. Regarding mask mandates: most countries do, in fact, require masks -- unlike the US. They're even tougher than we have been.

https://masks4all.co/what-countries-require-masks-in-public/

There have been vaccine mandates for various professions and schools in the UK, Canada, Australia, Greece, France, etc.

It brings to mind the soldier blaming the hippie for causing the loss in Vietnam. The analogy can be spun out in a different direction, though. This war is at home. Government policy early on may have been fucked, but the protestor didn't help. Indeed, evil gubmn't was just getting oxygen from them. — James Riley

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with my basic point on the issue (and I haven't developed it much, since my main point is that obviously this issue is totally different than the earth being flat).

However, where I live there has never been a legally enforced mask mandate, not even talk of "internal vaccine passports" in any serious way (as totally unconstitutional), never a "hard lock down" (but some months non-essential shops were closed), benefit of seeing how vaccines play out in other countries and then using those statistics to optimize choice of vaccines per group, timing of shots, easier to convince people too when other countries have done the hard part of experimenting on their citizens, pretty much only a handful of covid deaths throughout the pandemic and nothing close to triage has happened (though there are lot's of knock-on effects; mainly people cancelling their own appointments for fear of going to the hospital, creating a health backlog, but obviously not has bad as an actual lack of resources).

Why?

Because the government actually implemented "the science" that said pretty amazingly clearly that the longer the delay, the harder the measures later, the higher the burden on the health care system (that has less time to prepare), the more disruption to society, the more deaths for a whole bunch of reasons.

No real "first wave" to speak of.

Plenty of governments "listened to the science" and reaped the benefits.

Governments that didn't, blood of the first wave and every subsequent wave are on the hands of the politicians that didn't follow the obvious science, but followed the stock market (obviously Trump the champion here; literally phoning ariplane CEO's to ask their opinion; we don't have the transcripts but I can guarantee each one said "well, I'm not a medical expert, but I can say that stopping air travel will affect the industry", as, obviously it would, and, I'm sure they simply didn't know what else to say).

Young children, and teenagers, may indeed be at lower risk of becoming infected, and at lower risk of becoming seriously ill, but they're certainly not immune. I have a friend who teaches in a public high school that, within the first month of the new school year, had three children sick enough to be hospitalized and many more sick enough to miss school. — Srap Tasmaner

This is more of what I’m referring to as fear masquerading as reason. Here’s John Ioannidis, a highly respected researcher in epidemiology, saying that according to his research (in places such as Germany) the absolute risk of an under-65 dying from Covid-19 is about the same as driving your car to work: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T-saAuXaPok (at about 1:20)

To speak of young children being hospitalised with Covid-19 has the the same fearful effect as speaking of all the anecdotal reports of horrific vaccine injuries. Do you dismiss the latter as being unverified and unrepresentative? If so it seems worth considering that you may be employing the same trick.

You beg the question that the majority of scientists are more likely to be right. If we don't know anything else except the amount of doctors that advocate for surgery vs the amount that don't , that doesn't tell us who is more likely to be right. — Yohan

It does. That's not what "begging the question" means. I wonder if you and AJJ are the same person.

Anyway, I'm giving you an option. What would you do? You want to avoid that question out of fear it makes your position look ridiculous. But that's not the case. It's a straightforward example. The answer is clear: we'd listen to the 99 doctors. More experts working on the same issue and coming to the same conclusion to this degree is rare, but it happens. Which is why the consensus on climate change is over 97%. Knowing nothing else, you can argue that "doesn't tell us who is more likely to be right," but at that point you're off in space.

Could they all be wrong and the 1 doctor right? Sure. That's possible. Maybe flat earthers have it right, who knows? There's a chance, I guess. How big a chance, would you say? 1%? .001%?

But knowing nothing else, any sane person would go with the 99. Why? Because the overwhelming consensus on an issue among experts tells you something about the issue.

Yes, I do assume overwhelming consensus has a greater likelihood of being true than not. That has nothing to do with "question begging". I was seeing if you came to the same conclusion. Apparently you don't. So be it.

But again, my basic point is that this issue is obviously not on the same level as "the earth is flat" or "the universe is 6000 years old" which no one here is debating. — boethius

No one said they were the "same."

"Medical procedure"? That's deliberately beefing up what amounts to a tiny prick of the arm. But so be it. — Xtrix

It's not beefing up anything. Saying masks are a "medical procedure" I would agree is exaggeration, even if, technically it is.

Injecting a therapy into someone that is going to change their immune system is clearly far from "wearing a mask".

It's clearly a significant medical procedure, and there are obvious risks, and obvious risks of giving the government control of what they can decide to inject into you.

For instance, just a couple years ago a large part of the US population was convinced a fascist takeover was, if not imminent, certainly "on the table".

Maybe it was close or maybe Trump and co. were so amazingly incompetent they couldn't even coup if they had the means to do so.

It is worth considering, however, if a "bad government" does get into power, how much power they get to start with.

What I am arguing here, however, is simply that these questions have far more room for legitimate debate than "the earth is flat" or "the earth is 6000 years old".

Which is the only thing being grossly conflated in this thread.

I haven't seen anyone argue this. I've seen a lot of deliberately conflating, however. — Xtrix

That's why I say, look around, maybe get out more.

It's not deliberately conflating ... if there are governments that exist which are have zero coercive measures, and their politicians even say they couldn't legally do so without changing laws, maybe that makes the point it's obviously not basically unanimous medical ethical position to mandate / coerce / force vaccination; which was your original point.

There's even a government, Norway, that has a law that would allow the government to mandate (with threat of fines / prison), but has not implemented that law. Presumably, there's some medical ethical reasons not to do so (no consider Covid "bad enough" to warrant that).

Of course, Norway also followed the obvious pandemic science (actual scientific consensus) and has few deaths and social disruptions due to the pandemic, so, "mandating" seems alarmism and government overreach in a context of a government putting in place competent policy from the beginning.

In places where governments weren't competent ... maybe those governments aren't competent generally speaking and we can maybe see why people have low trust in their government.

saw Fast Food Nation. Does that count? — James Riley

If it had a doctor explaining how the sugar industry manipulated government recommendations resulting in an increase in the incidence of diabetes and obesity in the US, then yes.

Did this in turn lead to America's disproportional mortality rate from COVID-19? That would require more research.

Early on, it seemed to me that most of those hardest hit were black and Latino. Now I'm finally seeing one fat, diabetic unvaccinated white person after another dying.

And this is my answer to the OP. I doubt you have the flexibility to listen to what I'm trying to tell you here. But I put it out there anyway, and I'm only surprised if you take a second to look at things differently.

It's not deliberately conflating ... if there are governments that exist which are have zero coercive measures, and their politicians even say they couldn't legally do so without changing laws, maybe that makes the point it's obviously not basically unanimous medical ethical position to mandate / coerce / force vaccination; which was your original point. — boethius

That's a political and legal issue. The WHO has been pretty clear on their recommendations. No one is saying we want to physically force people into vaccinations -- that's a false characterization and a red herring.

Also, I'm talking about the United States. I can't speak for other countries, even though many have issued mandates -- including France, which I believe was one of the earliest.

In places where governments weren't competent ... maybe those governments aren't competent generally speaking and we can maybe see why people have low trust in their government. — boethius

Yes, but the Trump administration, which completely botched this entire thing by ignoring it and claiming it will "go away by Easter" (April of 2020), is no longer in charge of government.

Biden's mandates should have happened months ago. They're legitimate, legal, and follow the advice of the medical community.

The title of the OP obviously makes all these issues "the same" with respect to the question of "worth engaging with". That's the question.

Again, if whole countries don't have mandated vaccines, it's no where close to "settled science" and "settled ethics" like the earth is round like a ball.

Norway is particularly interesting (because, it's not "unconstitutional", but they haven't don it, because competence generally means they don't really need to consider it):

The Norwegian Government has since the beginning of the pandemic maintained that vaccination against Covid-19 will be voluntary like other vaccines. Behind this benevolent attitude lurks sweeping pre-pandemic legal powers for the Minister of Health and Care Services to order compulsory vaccination if necessary, to contain a serious outbreak of a dangerous contagious disease (Article 3-8 of the Infection Control Act 1994). However, compulsory does not mean forced vaccination. Violating a vaccination order may constitute a crime punishable with fines or potentially prison (Article 8-1). — Article explaining Norwegian vaccine position

Turns out reasonable government people trust more:

One reason for the authorities’ legal toolkit not being applied may be that the public view on vaccination is generally positive. In a survey from June 2020, 89% of the respondents agreed that vaccines in general are safe and the authorities enjoy a high level of trust. A survey from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health conducted in December 2020 before vaccination started, reported that 73% of the adult population were likely to accept a Covid-19 vaccine, while 11% were negative. However, a large scale (65,000 respondents) survey conducted in April 2021 following the AstraZeneca vaccine being put on hold in Norway due to serious side effects, showed that the attitude towards vaccination is contingent on its safety. Only 28% were likely to accept the AstraZeneca vaccine, while 91% were likely to accept a vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna and 68% would likely accept another non-specified vaccine. — Same article explaining Norwegian vaccine position

Also interesting, the "technically they can law" isn't so easy to implement:

Another reason is that compulsory vaccination in the current situation would hardly be legal anyway. Suppose the public support for the vaccination program dropped, leading the Norwegian authorities to consider making vaccination compulsory, that decision like all other measures according to the Infection Control Act 1994 would have to pass a proportionality test (Article 1-5). Even if compulsory vaccination against Covid-19 would be introduced in other countries and would in principle be accepted by the ECtHR given the wide margin of appreciation, it would not necessarily pass a proportionality test in Norway. A proportionality test such as the one required by Article 1-5 of the Norwegian Infection Control Act 1994 needs two components. One is the necessity of containing the spread of the virus due to its negative effects on public health. The other is the harm caused by the infection control measure, in this case a very intrusive interference with the right to private life. While the potential negative effect of compulsory vaccination is likely equal in all countries, the potential benefit from the vaccine is not, but rather dependent on death, sickness, and infection rates in each country. In Norway, where the death rate of the virus is very low, the outcome of the proportionality test may therefore be different than in a country with a very high death rate.

Incidentally, the same logic of proportionality appears to lie behind Norway’s decision to put the AstraZeneca vaccine on hold, while it is still administered in countries with a higher death rate. — Same article explaining Norwegian vaccine position

What I am arguing here, however, is simply that these questions have far more room for legitimate debate than "the earth is flat" or "the earth is 6000 years old".

Which is the only thing being grossly conflated in this thread. — boethius

No, they haven't been -- by anyone except you. Totally different topics, as was made clear a while back.

There's sensible debate to be had about the legitimacy of state power, and whether vaccine mandates are an example of such. I get the concern. I'm not equating this with anti-vaxxers, and especially not flat Earthers. But I do think the case is clear cut and that people are arguing for the sake of argument -- typical in philosophy forums, I suppose.

I so far haven't heard one good argument against the legitimacy of vaccine mandates for schools and in business, especially given they've been around for decades. Why the sudden outrage? We know why: because it's a current hot topic and has become politicized. So everyone comes out of the woodwork with an "opinion."

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

Everyone's. And you're not usually so obviously stupid. What's up?