> Uh....I want our decisions to be based on evidence.
But we don't live in societies ruled by scientists, as much as we would like. And it's not as if scientists are perfect either, they have their own shortcomings, both individually and as a group.
> Science is not a moral theory, and I'm not pretending it is, but it our most reliable source of empirical data.
Yes, so consider it a failure of communication that not everybody sees it that way. And it's up to the scientists to figure out better ways of communication. It's a sales job.
> Science never says "you should do X", so you don't have to worry about that. It only says "Best data available says that doing X will result in in Y with probability P".
Yes, but by the first press release that will already have been changed into 'you should do X or terrible thing Y will happen'.
And that's not even getting into those scientists who let themselves be harnessed into doing active wrong.
So scientists are not above doubt and would do well to remember that the vote of an anti-vaxxer counts for just as much as the vote of an MIT graduate and that the latter are likely in the minority. So you have to at least try to figure out a way to bridge the gap if you want the problem to be solved.
> I'm all for a pragmatic, effective approach to getting people to vaccinate, and I want one that balances people's rights. I also agreed that turning the issue into a culture war is counter-productive.
> At the same time, I want to get people to vaccinate, and while I won't hold them down and jab a needle in their arm to do it, I am in favor of doing what we can to effectively get them to vaccinate.
So, what would you do other than what we do today?
> Anecdote: I have a friend who got sick during the Ebola scare, and had recently been in [an Ebola-free country in] Africa, so the police came by and forced her to go to the hospital where they determined she didn't have Ebola and sent her a bill. Which she had to pay.
> I'd argue that forcing her to go to the hospital was reasonable (or would have been if it hadn't been predicated on the idea that "Africa" is one homogenous place full of Ebola), but that charging her for it was not.
Agreed on all counts.
> I think we as a society have the right to demand people with serious contagious diseases be quarantined and receive treatment, and that we as a society should pay for that.
Yes.
But vaccination against diseases that are endemic and that have far lower incidence rates, mortality and so on are a different thing than ebola, which has a quality all its own. Also, visiting a country with an elevated risk was a decision made of free will whereas being born is not.
> I assume that at least if she had Ebola, you'd agree with overriding her bodily autonomy for a forced quarantine.
I do.
> That's further on the freedom end of the "bodily autonomy vs. societal well-being" scale than I'm on, but still one that recognizes the trade-offs and makes a thoughtful, pragmatic balance rather than holding one goal, bodily-autonomy, as completely outweighing the other.
Yes. And it is also roughly where society is at these days.
> I don't actually know if you'd agree with the forced quarantine, but I'm making the assumption that, like most everybody, you agree that the trade-off is sometimes worthwhile.
I do.
> With vaccines you absolutely reasonably take the stance that requiring them is the wrong balance, but you seem to be arguing as if even evaluating the cost-benefit is wrong--at least judging by your initial post. "But your body is yours and yours alone and that's a good thing even if there are negative consequences for society."
In principle yes, I think that is a very high bar to cross and there should be an extremely carefully laid out argument if you want to cross that line. And we do have mechanisms for that if it is so required up to and including placing children in foster care if their parents do not take proper care of them.
But such a maneuver should always carry the signature of a judge.
> It's hard to draw a line about where the balance lies, and it feels more principled to say "value X always outweighs value Y", but very, very few people are willing to take the hard stance. Instead they take the hard stance where they've drawn the line, and pretend that's the non-arbitrary line, dismissing the reductio as "well, yes, in that example it's obvious".
It's never simple. But I'm comfortable with hard lines being drawn and judges being allowed to cross those lines at their discretion. That's enough of a safeguard for me.
> Are you willing to actually go with "bodily autonomy trumps societal consequences in every situation"?
Yes, unless a judge overrules that.
> Or are you striking a balance?
I think that's balanced enough because it allows evaluation on a case-by-case basis whilst erring on the side of caution and giving maximum power to the individual as long as they are capable of taking the responsibility for that power. Just like we are able to commit people to mental institutions against their will and without their consent but only after a very thorough look at the case.
> Because if you're striking a balance, the debate has to be about where the balance lies, not just "bodily autonomy uber alles".
No, but it's a good default.
> And that requires--in addition to moral beliefs--using empirical data ("science") about what the costs and benefits are.
Obviously, and the empirical data so far does not warrant a de-facto 'vaccinate or be relieved of your parental duties' regime. It may come to that but for now we don't have it and there are all kinds of options that should be maxed out first before we'd let it get that far.
It's funny, I wonder how the debate would go if the choice were a life ending injection because of the cost to society instead of a life-saving injection at the beginning to statistically expand your life-span.
I'm pretty sure a lot of the people arguing for vaccination would switch sides to 'bodily integrity' in an eye-blink.