So you picked up that he wasn't arguing for making people vaccinate. — Bartricks

No one is arguing for that, as I said at the beginning. These mandates are not legal. You still have a choice— even if you view it as unfair, it’s still a choice. Besides, we have school mandates already.

It’s unjust to force people not to smoke — or even not to do drugs, in my view. It’s just to prevent them from smoking in restaurants.

I won’t let you dodge this: Do you agree with school vaccine mandates or not? Smoking bans?

But not their expertise in ethics? — Bartricks

Whatever that may be, I’m in favor of it.

I’m not in favor of demonstrably wrong suggestions based on misunderstanding science.

You haven't said anything - anything - to challenge anything I've argued. — Bartricks

I have— several times. I can’t help it if you can’t see that. I’ll gladly repeat myself if you’d like.

Now, as for that article you linked to: did you read it yourself? — Bartricks

I have. I also quoted from it a little.

And what argument do you have? This is a philosophy forum - I've argued, you haven't. What's your argument? — Bartricks

I’ve argued as well. Claiming I haven’t doesn’t change it. The responses are there, on record.

I argue in favor of mandates. I argue why I’m in favor of mandates.

I use the example of smoking, and asked several questions related to this example, which you’ve repeatedly ignored— I assume now on purpose. But it’s a relevant one, as are the facts of the case at hand.

Lastly, and also ignored: we have had school and workplace vaccines requirements for DECADES. What do you make on those? Ethical— not ethical?

So, do you respect the views of ethicists or not? Or is it only when they say something you already agree with that you respect them? I am unclear what your position is. — Bartricks

I respect them if they deserve it, for example by demonstrating a basic understanding of medicine and vaccines.

Vaccine Mandates Aren’t Enough. Make Unvaccinated People Pay if They Harm Others.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/coronavirus-vaccine-mask-mandate-unvaccinated-51627939803

“Choices have consequences. Personal responsibility matters. Want to reject expert opinion and the established facts about Covid and put yourself and others at risk? Then you should pay, if your choice harms others.”


If you’re interested.

Oh, okay then. Good point. On an ethical issue - so an issue to do with what it is right or wrong to do - we should not listen to ethicists, but those with no expertise in ethics. — Bartricks

We should — provided they understand the medical facts. Medical ethicists usually do. You — whatever you are — clearly do not. So your advice about what to do is, thus, misguided — as I’ve stated before.

Should we ban smoking on airplanes and restaurants? If we think smoking is harmless for everyone besides the smoker, the ethicist will say “No, we shouldn’t ban smoking.”

That ethicist would be wrong. Why? Because second hand smoke is indeed harmful to others.

Also, there are medical ethics committees and those have ethicists on them. — Bartricks

Sure. I have nothing against ethicists.

Incidentally, medical ethicists I’ve read are in agreement about vaccinations.
— Xtrix

Really. Who? — Bartricks

I mentioned one already, who I’m sure you’re familiar with: Art Caplan. A medical ethicist. He’s strongly in favor of mandates. But that’s because he understands vaccines and the goals of vaccinations.

But they'll have arguments for their view.....which is something you don't seem to have provided me with. — Bartricks

I have, but you seem to be ignoring a great deal if them.

Your statements about how people taking the vaccine shouldn’t be effected by what unvaccinated people do leads me to believe you really haven’t researched this deeply enough. I think reading Caplan is as good a place as any to start.

Yes. My smoking example is a good one.

What happens when someone smokes in a restaurant, however? Why is that against the law? Why do restaurants have bans on them? Are they unjust? — Xtrix

This is simply incorrect.
— Xtrix

Explain. Is the vaccine effective? If it is, then they're not posing a risk to the vaccinated. If it is not effective, then yes - I agree, they're posing a risk to everyone. But then there's no point in forcing people to take an ineffective vaccine. — Bartricks

This is really your reasoning?

Did you say you were an “ethicist”?

And they're not ethicists, so perhaps they don't understand the ethical significance of this issue. — Bartricks

Or perhaps you don’t understand medicine or virology— which is in fact the case, given what you’ve said so far.

There’s a reason doctors get more respect and prestige than philosophers. I sense you’re a little perturbed but this.

No, Riled-up, it is 'ethicists' we should be listening to. — Bartricks

No, it’s doctors we should be listening to. Mostly virologists, epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, etc.

What’s “riled-up” mean here?

Ethicists are experts on what it is right or wrong to do. Doctors are not. — Bartricks

Doctors don’t consult “ethicists” in the ER. Medical ethicists — like Art Kaplan — are useful for tricky issues, but it’s usually very clear what is to be done. If someone is rushed in and needs surgery to live, you give them surgery. You don’t consult an ethicist about whether it’s right or wrong.

Incidentally, medical ethicists I’ve read are in agreement about vaccinations.

The unvaccinated are not posing a risk to anyone other than the unvaccinated. — Bartricks

This is simply incorrect. You’re not listening to what doctors are saying. They’re not encouraging everyone get vaccinated simply because they’re nice.

What objection do you have to what I said, then? I mean, I assume you think it is ok for the government to flex its muscles and bully people into getting the vaccine. Why? Because of the science? What does that even mean? — Bartricks

I don’t see how you could read my response and not see exactly where I object.

Nevertheless, you ask why. Why do you agree with government “flexing its muscle” about smoking in restaurants? Because we agree with what science and medicine has discovered about second hand smoke — since this has effects on others, it’s a legitimate use of power.

Likewise, if we accept the science about vaccines, and listen to the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus, we would quickly conclude that this “mandate” is legitimate as well—just as it is in schools and many workplaces over the last several decades.

So, if the vaccine is effective - and I am going to assume that it is, and believe that it is - then those who freely decide not to take it are exposing themselves and others who have made the same choice to a risk. — Bartricks

I addressed this:

It’s misunderstanding what’s being aimed for and misunderstanding what vaccines do, and also failing to take into consideration the factor of mutation. It’s not simply “well what do vaccinated people care? They’re protected!” — Xtrix

You’re just misunderstanding what experts are telling us and what the goals are.

Likewise, deciding not to get the vaccine is stupid, but people are entitled to do stupid things so long as doing them doesn't violate anyone else's rights. Right? — Bartricks

Yes. My smoking example is a good one.

What happens when someone smokes in a restaurant, however? Why is that against the law? Why do restaurants have bans on them? Are they unjust?

You have a right not to take a vaccine. But you do not have a right to come to the workplace, the school, the concert, the sporting event, or the airplane and infect others — whether others are vaccinated or not.

You’re also contributing to allowing the spread, which encourages variants — variations which may become more deadly and perhaps resistant to vaccines altogether.

Incidentally, the relevant experts in this scenario are not the scientists, but ethicists. For this is a normative issue, not a scientific one. The science can and should inform the ethical judgement, but it can't be a substitute for it, for scientific claims are simply not normative claims. — Bartricks

The scientific and medical experts are what’s relevant here. If we understand how vaccines work, about viruses, about pandemics, etc., then we can decide what to do — in this case it’s a trivial and obvious decision. Just as it is if we understand the science of secondhand smoke— and just as it is in school vaccinations for the last half century.

So, the experts we should be listening to here are professional ethicists, yes? Guess who's one of those? — Bartricks

The experts we should be listening to are doctors.

So, I am opposed - very opposed - to anyone being made to get a vaccine. I think it is wise to get one. — Bartricks

I’m opposed to people being made to stop smoking, though I think it’s wise to stop. But this isn’t the question. Why? Because (1) we’re not talking about making this a law and (2) this is not simply an individual choice.

It’s (2) that continually gets ignored, and why patience is wearing thin. It’s ignored because science and medical expertise is ignored. It’s misunderstanding what’s being aimed for and misunderstanding what vaccines do, and also failing to take into consideration the factor of mutation. It’s not simply “well what do vaccinated people care? They’re protected!”

If people choose to smoke in public places, I’m no longer opposed to them being stopped. I think you understand why. The exact same thing applies to vaccines. But again, no one is proposing a law. So I would think you have a much stronger resistance to smoking laws?

But given what I have just said - given my opposition to any government (or indeed, anyone) forcing or menacing anyone into getting one - am I an anti-vaxxer? — Bartricks

Who cares?

My personal view: no, I wouldn’t categorize you this way. You don’t sound anti-vaxx, you’re just anti-mandate for in my view misguided reasons.

I want to loop back to the OP, because I still maintain it’s an important topic in today’s climate:

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational yet "on the fence"?

I struggle with this. — Xtrix

I think a handful of people have actually addressed the question.

The conclusion I’ve reached is that it is indeed worth it, provided there’s a neutral, persuadable, or otherwise reachable audience to witness the exchange — and that keeping ones temper, sticking to logic, facts and evidence, and maintaining a respectful tone is the best approach.

I’m reminded of the well-known destruction of William F. Buckley by Noam Chomsky on "Firing Line" in 1969, discussing the war in Vietnam. What could be more persuasive to those “on the fence” about the issue then witnessing something like this?

https://youtu.be/9DvmLMUfGss

The difference is that Buckley is not in the same league as those mentioned in the thread’s title, in my view.

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1437172664821600262?s=20

Just came across this. Seems about right.

What is an anti-vaxxer? It is unclear to me. — Bartricks

There's plenty of literature on this. It has been a movement for a while, in fact. Generally it's exactly what the label says: being anti-vaccines. Won't get their kids vaccinated, believe vaccines cause autism (yes, that's still out there), etc.

I remember hearing years ago about how the flu vaccines have mercury in them, how they "give you" the flu, etc. So the seeds have been there for a long time.

Or is it someone who is fine with getting one themselves, and fine with others getting one, but doesn't believe others should be 'made' to get one? — Bartricks

So far no one is being forced to get one by law. That's not what's being proposed. Mandates, so far, are about workplaces and schools mostly. Many have the option to either get vaccinated or get tested more frequently. Everyone has the "option" to resign (or not go to school) if they don't like either. It's odd that mostly conservatives are screaming about this, yet are the first to say "You're free to leave your job and work somewhere else" when poor working conditions are brought up. But when a legitimate reason is given, suddenly they all become Eugene Debbs.

I don't think there's any reasonable, ethical basis for forcing people to get vaccinated. — Bartricks

If by "forcing" you mean what I described above, there is most definitely an ethical reason for doing so: the lives of those OTHER PEOPLE who share a space with said refusers.

It's baffling this is hard to understand, considering we've had school (and work) vaccination requirements for DECADES -- for reasons very easy to understand.

And in this case, refusing to be vaccinated means one exposes oneself and others who have made the same free decision as oneself to greater risks, not innocent others. — Bartricks

No. This is a mistake. Listen to what the overwhelming medical consensus say about this -- it's not hard to do. Takes a few minutes, and is well advised.

This is not simply an individual choice. If it were, there would be no push for it.

Come around, suffer the consequences of not coming around, or revolution. These people will come around. But why try to convince them? That horse done left the barn. They've killed untold numbers of people already. Time to turn up the temp and listen to them wail about fascism. Talk to the hand, bitches. — James Riley

Right. This is happening, one way or another. It's completely legitimate. Refusal to understand or "agree with" the law isn't an excuse when you're pulled over for drunk driving. Nor is it an excuse when asked to leave a restaurant for smoking inside.

They're killing people and prolonging this pandemic with their ignorance and stupidity. The ones who are really to blame are the people they trust: talk radio conservatives, Fox News pundits, social media stars, misinformation super spreaders, and politicians along for the ride.

When Trump gets booed for saying "Take the vaccine, it's good" -- you know the monster is unleashed and there's no going back. Still, it was Trump who helped create the monster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL9aJcqrtnw

Adam McKay tackles climate change. Looks like a decent cast.

So you confess this discussion was worthless from the beginning, then proceed to blame the worthlessness of it on someone else? — Derrick Huestis

No.

"But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational but "on the fence"?"

That was the question.

The discussion with Baker wasn't a complete waste, I suppose. Now I know something about engaging with him in the future.

Which is why plenty of people get sucked into Alex Jones. He's very compelling, too.
— Xtrix

Are you saying I shouldn't take horse deewormer and shit my pants in the grocery store? Or end up shitting all over the ER? — James Riley

Depends on your goals...

The demon that started this thread — Cheshire

:kiss:

There is also nothing inherently irrational with not being in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus. — Yohan

There is. If we know nothing about a subject, and care about truth, accuracy, well-being, etc., then the rational choice is the consensus view. If we actually want to do a long-term, deep study on the issue, or have some expertise ourselves, then there's nothing irrational about holding dissenting views. For the laymen, however, there is.

Easy example: climate denial. If we care about the planet, as laypeople, then we should trust the overwhelming consensus. It is irrational to do the opposite -- because that's going against our goal. The correct choice is to go with not what feels good, or makes us feel special, or aligns with our religious or political affiliation -- but with what's true. If we can't decide for ourselves if something is true or not -- and we usually can't -- then our only choice is to trust others. If we decide to trust Alex Jones over the CDC, that's irrational. If we choose to trust Sean Hannity over the IPCC, that's irrational.

I talk about minority experts and bring up as an example, Alex Jones? — Yohan

He claims to be an expert. So does Donald Trump. But fine -- take dissenting expert views. We're in no position to judge that either.

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.

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? What about in harder cases where there's less agreement? Can we really put a number on it the way we can with the roll of a die? All those questions are important, too.

Am I in a position to determine who I can trust? Or should I consult an expert on that as well? — Yohan

The choice about who to trust is up to each one of us regarding things we don't understand.



Yes, affect and effect are different. One is a verb, one is a noun. I choose not to care about it, since the meaning conveyed is the same, and its so trivial as to be embarrassing to go on about. But you two have fun with it. Small victories, I guess.

"If when you are out of Breath, one of the Company should seize the Opportunity of saying something; watch his Words, and, if possible, find somewhat either in his Sentiment or Expression, immediately to contradict and raise a Dispute upon. Rather than fail, criticise even his Grammar." - Franklin

Also, there is nothing inherently irrational with being in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus. — Yohan

I agree.

If a minority expert offers more compelling arguments for their views than the "overwhelming scientific or medical consensus" than it is rational believe them. — Yohan

You're in no position to judge if it's more or less compelling. Which is why plenty of people get sucked into Alex Jones. He's very compelling, too.

The "them", the "those people". Those in the title of your thread. — baker

So sue Creationists and flat-earthers, etc?

I won't bother following this line of thought. But thanks for the tip.

*sigh*
You know, it would help your case to spell properly. Mixing up verbs like you do makes you look irrational and emotional. And incompetent. — baker

No, it doesn't. You say this because you yourself are emotional. Affect and effect are often used interchangeably. There's a subtle difference, but both convey the same basic information to English speakers.

It does make you rather pathetic to bring this discussion into spelling, however. Revealing -- so thank you for that. Now I know not to waste too much time on you in the future.

So you have a goal (to change other people's minds) — baker

That's not my goal and wasn't the question of this thread. If I could snap my fingers and change people's minds, fine -- but in the real world, I know very well it often can't be done and is, essentially, a waste of time. Much like this discussion with you.

Good luck with your amazingly constructive attitude! — baker

Good luck with your spelling bee.

You owe him an apology! — baker

I guess you couldn't read between the lines, so I'll spell it out: what was said still applies, whether vaccinated or not. HIs entire comment was based on a straw man anyway.

You do realize that he said he got vaccinated? — baker

Wonderful.

It does matter when it effects other people. These ideas do effect the other people. So no, you're not "free to it" at that point. I can't act in a way that harms others, regardless of my beliefs.
— Xtrix

So why don't you sue them? — baker

Sue who?

Oh, and "to affect" and "to effect" are two different verbs. — baker

Affect and effect are overlapping. I decided a while ago not to bother with "affect."

How pathetic that you resort to this, by the way. Can't say I'm totally surprised.

It's on you to spell out what exactly it is that you want, and then act in ways that will lead to your goal. — baker

I'm not interested.

You're free to be a coward, but I've said elsewhere, although I don't have a death wish and will do basic things to protect myself, I will not let fear control my life. — Derrick Huestis

:rofl:

How utterly pathetic that this is the hill one chooses to die on -- vaccines, during a pandemic. In their minds, this is akin to Socrates and Jesus. Imagine that.

No one cares if you die or not. Feel free. The issue is other people. Again: you want to smoke -- fine. You want to smoke around me? You will not.

I stated a truism. I'm not misleading — Yohan

You think it's a truism, but it isn't. It treats everything as if there are "two sides," and there aren't. Are there really "two sides" to whether the earth is flat? No. Also, even in less extreme examples, like with climate change, where one person is in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the other isn't, it's completely misleading to suggest they're equally irrational.

I meant to say that both sides, those who are married to mainstream narratives, and those married to counter-mainstream narratives can both be immune to facts. — Yohan

Both are non-experts who choose who they trust. If one trusts the overwhelming scientific or medical consensus, that's simply a better choice than the other non-expert who chooses to trust Internet conspiracy theories.

I don’t care if the vaccine cures every disease in human history. If someone doesn’t want to put it in their body they shouldn’t be forced to do so — NOS4A2

Perfectly fine. Just like it's perfectly fine to smoke if you choose to do so. I think you're an idiot for doing so, but it's your right. Just stay away from anywhere people congregate.

No one is saying everyone must get vaccinated or face legal consequences. What they're mandating is vaccines for workplaces, schools, etc. Refuse? OK -- then either don't come here or agree to be tested more often to protect others. Vaccine passports for travel, also a good idea. Those that don't like any of this -- tough. Just like it's tough for smokers these days.

We’ve seen what happens when we give the state the power — NOS4A2

School and work vaccine mandates have been around for decades.

Also, we follow laws every day of our lives. Some are legitimate, some aren't. You happen to think this mandate (not a law) is illegitimate, but that's because you're a medical ignoramus and, again, we're lucky you're not running the show.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-could-become-like-the-flu-if-more-people-get-vaccinated-11631439002?mod=mhp

From the WSJ.

Both sides — Yohan

This is misleading. Try arguing both-sides to the flat earth “debate.” It simply looks ridiculous there.

Yes, as laymen we should question those in authority.

But most of the time, our real choice lies in who we deem trustworthy— because we can’t be questioning everything at all times, and we can’t do “deep dives” into every medical, mechanical, scientific, or physical issue that we face— we rely on those with the requisite experience, knowledge, expertise to guide us as we get on with our lives.

We do this all the time. When we go to the doctor, when we go to the auto mechanic, to the bank, and even when we go over bridges. There’s a level of common-sensical trust and reliance on others’ goodness and expertise that’s taken for granted in everyday life.

This issue about vaccines is no different, as vaccines have been around for a long time, mandates have been around a long time, etc. What’s changed is the anti-vax movement and politicization of every issue. Because of this, laypeople who would otherwise get the shot and get on with their lives now feel the need to have an “opinion” about it and choose a “side.”

Many — enough to prevent vaccination targets from being met — are going with Alex Jones, “plandemic” and other such nonsense, some more sophisticated and nuanced than others. But all as wrong and misguided as flat earthers and, unfortunately, much more dangerous.

To argue that both sides are equally irrational is irrational.

Argue with emotion because logic is hard. — Derrick Huestis

“Logic.” :rofl:

“Against climate change? Then don’t drive a car or heat your house!”

How original! Because we haven’t heard this denialist bullshit (sorry, I mean “logic”) a million times before. You seem satisfied with it, so I’ll let you be.

Pathetic, naïve, ignorant morons. — protonoia

:lol:

Why do they all sound the same?

Matrix Resurrections.

More like “Matrix Exhumed.”

Go ahead and call me "conspiracy theorist" or whatever you've been programmed to label anyone who has an opposing view (based on long research). — protonoia

:lol:

“Long research.”

Tired denialist thinking.
Common.
Boring.

It does matter when it effects other people.
— Xtrix

You can justify anything on that basis. — Derrick Huestis

No, you can't.

it isn't worth pissing people off for — Derrick Huestis

It is. I don't care who it pisses off. Smoking laws piss people off -- doesn't give them a right to make everyone take in secondhand smoke.

For what it's worth, not that you will change your opinion, drunk driving kills many people, but banning alcohol didn't work so well. — Derrick Huestis

Drunk driving is illegal.

If we could put a prohibition on the coronavirus, I'd be for that.

I think a great option is for private insurers to up the cost for those unvaccinated. That's a very sensible move, on top of other measures.

My tax money shouldn't be going to pay for the medical bills of those that could easily have avoided this by getting a shot.

Most Americans support vaccine mandates in certain public spaces, survey finds

"In an ideal world, vaccine requirements (or weekly testing) wouldn’t be necessary. Americans would see that the coronavirus has already killed more than 4.6 million people worldwide. They would understand that vaccines are the single best tool we have to protect lives and restore the economy. They would be racing to the nearest pharmacy and consider themselves fortunate to be living in one of the few nations in the world where that’s possible."

If only...

Meant to post this here:

Very good editorial in the NY Times, worth quoting at length.

As Americans contemplate the prospect of a second winter trapped in the grip of Covid-19, remember that it didn’t need to be this way. Vaccines were developed in record time, and have proved to be both incredibly safe and stunningly effective. Nearly two-thirds of eligible Americans have accepted these facts and done their part by getting fully vaccinated.

Yet tens of millions more have not, allowing the more contagious Delta variant to sweep across the country, where it is now killing more than 1,500 people in the United States daily. Right now, the list of the very sick and the dead is made up almost entirely of the unvaccinated. But as long as the virus continues to spread widely, it can and will evolve in ways that put everyone at risk.

Faced with this avoidable catastrophe, President Biden is right to order tighter vaccine rules, which he did for roughly two-thirds of the nation’s work force on Thursday. “We’ve been patient,” Mr. Biden told vaccine holdouts. “But our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”

The president moved to require all executive branch employees, federal contractors and millions of health care workers to be vaccinated. Workers at private businesses with 100 or more employees will have to either get vaccinated or take a weekly Covid test. Any business covered by the order must offer its employees paid time off to get their shots or recover from any side effects.

[...]

Yet vaccine resisters carry on about violations of their freedom, ignoring the fact that they don’t live in a bubble, and that their decision to stay unvaccinated infringes on everyone else’s freedom — the freedom to move around the country, the freedom to visit safely with friends and family, the freedom to stay alive.

The Supreme Court made this point more than a century ago, when it upheld a fine against a Massachusetts man who refused to get the smallpox vaccine. In a majority opinion that echoes powerfully today, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote, “Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

Refusers’ hollow appeals to “freedom” are especially hard to take considering that Americans already accept countless restrictions in the name of safety: We are required to wear seatbelts, for example, and to get vaccinations to attend public school.

Speaking of school vaccination requirements, they’ve proven wildly effective. Thanks to vaccines, measles and the mumps were essentially eradicated in children, at least until vaccine opponents opened the door for them to return.

A small number of people have a legitimate reason to decline the vaccine — say, those with an allergy. Others, particularly racial minorities, are mistrustful because of their personal experiences with the health care system, or because the vaccines are relatively new. Still others have struggled to get time off work or have worried (mistakenly) about the cost.

Beyond these, it’s hard to understand any arguments against getting the shot. The vaccine made by Pfizer is now fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the one by Moderna is expected to be shortly. — NY Times

It goes on, and worth a read. Says it all quite nicely, I think.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/biden-covid-vaccine.html

Very good editorial in the NY Times, worth quoting at length.

As Americans contemplate the prospect of a second winter trapped in the grip of Covid-19, remember that it didn’t need to be this way. Vaccines were developed in record time, and have proved to be both incredibly safe and stunningly effective. Nearly two-thirds of eligible Americans have accepted these facts and done their part by getting fully vaccinated.

Yet tens of millions more have not, allowing the more contagious Delta variant to sweep across the country, where it is now killing more than 1,500 people in the United States daily. Right now, the list of the very sick and the dead is made up almost entirely of the unvaccinated. But as long as the virus continues to spread widely, it can and will evolve in ways that put everyone at risk.

Faced with this avoidable catastrophe, President Biden is right to order tighter vaccine rules, which he did for roughly two-thirds of the nation’s work force on Thursday. “We’ve been patient,” Mr. Biden told vaccine holdouts. “But our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”

The president moved to require all executive branch employees, federal contractors and millions of health care workers to be vaccinated. Workers at private businesses with 100 or more employees will have to either get vaccinated or take a weekly Covid test. Any business covered by the order must offer its employees paid time off to get their shots or recover from any side effects.

[...]

Yet vaccine resisters carry on about violations of their freedom, ignoring the fact that they don’t live in a bubble, and that their decision to stay unvaccinated infringes on everyone else’s freedom — the freedom to move around the country, the freedom to visit safely with friends and family, the freedom to stay alive.

The Supreme Court made this point more than a century ago, when it upheld a fine against a Massachusetts man who refused to get the smallpox vaccine. In a majority opinion that echoes powerfully today, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote, “Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

Refusers’ hollow appeals to “freedom” are especially hard to take considering that Americans already accept countless restrictions in the name of safety: We are required to wear seatbelts, for example, and to get vaccinations to attend public school.

Speaking of school vaccination requirements, they’ve proven wildly effective. Thanks to vaccines, measles and the mumps were essentially eradicated in children, at least until vaccine opponents opened the door for them to return.

A small number of people have a legitimate reason to decline the vaccine — say, those with an allergy. Others, particularly racial minorities, are mistrustful because of their personal experiences with the health care system, or because the vaccines are relatively new. Still others have struggled to get time off work or have worried (mistakenly) about the cost.

Beyond these, it’s hard to understand any arguments against getting the shot. The vaccine made by Pfizer is now fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the one by Moderna is expected to be shortly. — NY Times

It goes on, and worth a read. Says it all quite nicely, I think.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/biden-covid-vaccine.html