Why would she be forced to take the injection if she's not a threat? They're destroying her professional and personal life over her refusal. She better be considered a threat for this to be at all rational or ethical.
I will continue to disagree with your one size fits all prescription. It would be trivial to allow an antibody test in lieu of vaccination.
Responding to your edit: I already answered the original question. Allow an antibody test to prove immunity. Stop demanding vax as if it's the only way to acquire immunity.
It's quite funny to me how presumptuous covid vaxx advocates are. They seem to be saying, "you're going to have to relent eventually. What do I need to say to speed that up?". As if there aren't people who will listen to what they have to say yet continue to refuse and have perfectly valid reasons to do so.
Requiring people to consume a medical product, especially one that has not been subject to the full FDA approval process, just to live their normal lives is morally wrong. They are making people into test subjects for a multinational corporation. It doesn't matter if we already do this to an extent with other vaccines; nothing in the past has ever come close to this.
It doesn't matter if you think the vaccine is more or less dangerous than the coronavirus. It goes back to basic human dignity and human rights. You wouldn't want strangers mandating injections into your body that you don't want. No one would be okay that, unless they are insane.
You might make the argument that anti-vaxxers are endangering others' health by being out in public without a vaccine, but that's only a claim. Lots of people make claims about others infringing their rights all the time, and a nontrivial number of those are baseless. A huge number of assumptions about medical science and constitutional law would need to be tested in court for it to hold any weight, unless you're willing to jettison the entire process of civil society.
I’m pro vaccine, but requiring I take a test or prove my trustworthiness strike me as fundamentally different than requiring I inject something in my body.
because the science is evolving so we shouldn't have to mandate those who already have natural immunity. Will coercing someone who has natural immunity to take a shot or lose their job be truly that much more beneficial to justify? I don't think so and it's ethically wrong.
It's a flawed argument of course because vaccination does not prevent transmission - even if it occurs at a lower rate among vaccinated people, a vaccination cannot replace a test. So this is another reason to reject this kind of coercion.
Take this a step further and consider vaccine mandates.
However flawed or not the antivaxxer's reasoning, imagine the stress of having to choose between yours and your children's livelihood or being forced to inject a substance you consider risky into yours or your child's body.
If anyone is speaking childishly, it's you, with smug condescension thrown right in. As should be obvious, an injection's level of invasiveness is dependent on context, and what is being injected. A needle into the body isn't just a silly little needle if it contains something that can kill or harm. I doubt you'd argue against it being invasive if some doctor in a psychiatric hospital where you were placed against your will decided to inject you with heavy doses of sedatives against your will as well, and against your insistence that you don't clinically need them. I'm not anti-vax or against the covid vaccines. I indeed believe they've done enormous good so far, but your arguments are absurdly absolutist in this context. People certainly deserve a fundamental right to choose if they're injected with certain medicines or not, and to impose injections of only recently created vaccines is certainly invasive under many circumstances, especially when it involves making such choices for minors despite their parents' wishes or even certain clinical recommendations..
Not necessarily. Like I said in other posts, wherever vaccination requirements existed we have protocols for sharing proof of antibodies. That's all that needs to happen. If you work in a hospital or want to dorm in a college, go ahead and submit your proof of antibodies.
But mandating it across the board and taking away people's opportunity to put bread on the table if they don't comply? That's not a sacrifice of some marginal amout of individual liberty - that is a declaration of war on liberty itself. The reason I say this is because it's not hard to think logically about where systems around vaccine passports will take us. A two-tiered society in which one side of tens of millions is forced out of society, ostracized, and dehumanized.
For no reason, considering we're already looking at the majority of Americans having antibodies one way or another soon. The 100 million who had past covid have superior antibodies already. Time for us to stop allowing this converastion to be framed around someone getting or not getting the vaccination.
I fully agree with you, particularly because not vaccinating means you're threatening the people who don't have a choice in the matter due to immune system or allergic reasons.
Unfortunately that's the framing of the argument though. It's people who value privacy and self-determination over everything else, even the health and well-being of those around them.
Then they should get antibody tests, and if their level of antibodies is high enough, we should let them do all the same things that vaccinated people can do.
Nope. The default position is for people to all be able to do everything the same. I'm okay with mask mandates when case numbers are above N. Since we already have 100 million Americans with superior antibodies from natural immunity, and vaccines freely available, why mandate and build systems around that? To give someone control?
But that's not what I hear. I just hear people ignorantly claiming they are immune because they got COVID (some even never confirmed, just they "think" they had it),
That's not your problem. See about your own vaccination and wear a mask. It's on them to be straight forward with their health. If they work in a NICU or want to dorm in a college that requires vaccinations already, then by all means use existing protocols to expect a report proving they have antibodies. That's fine. But it's not your problem or my problem whether or not smoeone just "thinks" they had it.
Here's an example of how you can see why I have a problem with your approach. You know how we're going to spend federal dollars to make take-home test kits available at-cost at retailers? Are you okay with people getting those test kits and seeing the results entirely privately in their own home, with no one knowing? If not, then the problem is on you. If you are, then what's the need for anyone to gate-keep access to society by demanding proof at the door? If you can't trust your fellow citizens when you're shopping, why trust them to build and run a system of enslavement like one where you have to use a covid passport to go to school or the bar or a theater or the gym or anywhere else?
So... go get antibody tests, and lobby health authorities to recognize post-infection immunity as valid, assuming it's been tested by a lab.
This is progress, but yeah, still a no. Limit the scope of these authorities now before they decide everything for you.
So you're willing to admit exemptions. Who determines their legitimacy? I think I have a very rational risk/reward assessment that tells me the booster is not in my best interest. It's not so easy. Your strategy of coercion extends to doctors as well. Doctors that post about adverse affects are often banned for spreading misinformation. There's a lot of pressure on them not to write up notes for exemption. There's no guarantee that I will get a life-threatening adverse reaction from my next shot. Maybe I'm just be bedridden for a week. They have to make a judgement call under strong pressure. I'd rather wear masks, stay isolated, work remotely, whatever. I'm cognizant of society and responsible. But I don't have a choice short of quitting work, which I don't want to do. That's why forced vaccination is wrong.
I’m all for getting everyone vaccinated as well, but I’d be really concerned about the precedent this sets.
The reasons governments are reluctant to do this is they it sets a precedent for them to dictate what a person can do with their bodies.
Saying someone must have an injection, regardless of how well intentioned it is, requires you to be able to dictate what goes into their body. Pretty much the same set of powers that would dictate the old pro-life vs pro-choice debate.
I’m greatly conflicted. I want people vaccinated, but I personally do not like the idea of giving up bodily autonomy to do so.
Your free choice to put a substance into your body is hardly an analog to "we will fire you if you don't put this substance into your body with the specific purpose of inducing an immune reaction".
(Not an anti-vaxer and I'll be getting the vaccine as soon as I'm able, if that context matters.)
Getting the vaccine has health risks and it would mean a "kiss the ring" submission to untrusted power to many people. Bioethics is clearly on their side - forcing a human to undergo any medical procedure against their will supposedly to benefit other people is a violation of that human's basic rights.
There is no legal penalty for refusing the vaccine. You still have the choice to undergo testing instead. Mandating either testing or vaccination is a perfectly reasonable workplace safety requirement during a pandemic. No one's bodily autonomy is being violated by this rule.
I don't want to fully argue that you should be forced to be vaccinated.
I do however, want to point out that vaccination isn't just meant to protect you from getting COVID. It is also meant to prevent you from spreading COVID to others. Hence an argument "It's my safety so it should be my choice" is wrong, because it is not just your safety at stake here.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be your choice, but it does mean that there is a public stake in whether people get vaccinated. Certain people have medical reasons for opting out. I could see you having psychological reasons for the same. But that doesn't necessarily extend to "anyone can refuse vaccines for any reason".
Even if we accept that risk is higher for others (which I am not), it does not follow that the vaccine should be mandated especially for a cohort where we know that not only is COVID not a meaningful risk for them, the vaccine itself puts them at higher risk. It is unethical to put these people at risk for the good of others. That is utilitarian and instrumentalizes human beings for the good of others. You can argue that they should have the option, but they should not be forced for someone else's good.
I don't think anyone should be forced to take any medicine against their will as long as they are not in a coma or incapacitated and unable to reason.
I personally had the vaccine because I have very high blood pressure, have pretty high blood sugar (even though I'm fit/in shape) and am almost 40. It was MY CHOICE in the risk vs reward game of numbers it I did it only for myself with a good life insurance already in place that covers death/incapacity from medication too(covers COVID vaccines too).
What if I would of ended up like that BBC presenter? Dead. For me it's down to my family and that is it.
This will be a bit exagerated but (hopefully) shold get the point across: At the end of the day anyone else is disposable as long as my family is safe from harm.
As long as the vaccine is not 100% safe nobody should be allowed to force anyone else to take it.
Edit: One thing that puzzles me though
- Why is nobody talking about those that are immune or already have the antibodies and don't need a vaccine? Why force them to have it if those vaccinated are safe?
we don't require anyone to take the vaccine, and we will never require anyone to take the vaccine. What we should and will do is restrict what someone who is not vaccinated can do to limit the harm they will cause to others. No one is going to bang down your door and force a vaccine into your arm, but if you do not want to get vaccinated you will need to change your life because you will be restricted from participating in many things where you are a danger to others.
I will continue to disagree with your one size fits all prescription. It would be trivial to allow an antibody test in lieu of vaccination.
Responding to your edit: I already answered the original question. Allow an antibody test to prove immunity. Stop demanding vax as if it's the only way to acquire immunity.
It's quite funny to me how presumptuous covid vaxx advocates are. They seem to be saying, "you're going to have to relent eventually. What do I need to say to speed that up?". As if there aren't people who will listen to what they have to say yet continue to refuse and have perfectly valid reasons to do so.
reply