Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

nclalegal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 146 posts

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#81

Post by xondono »

wtallis wrote: post #75
xondono wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this argument is that you can use it to also ban tobacco, and alcohol, and sugar, and red meat, and then you can move to things like sports, and start banning bungee jumping and rock climbing,… There’s no obvious way to draw a line, but you definitely need one.

> There’s no obvious way to draw a line, but you definitely need one. That's why you look at the magnitude of the effect, not just the direction of the effect. Not all slopes are slippery. Our legal system does not collapse as soon as it is tasked with determining which harm is more important to prevent.

> Our legal system does not collapse as soon as it is tasked with determining which harm is more important to prevent.

No, it just sucks at drawing lines and harms thousands if not millions of innocent bystanders.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#82

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

criticaltinker wrote: post #58
Grimm1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was a sterilizing vaccine, such that you couldn't spread the virus or be infected after taking it I'd say neither are okay, religious or otherwise, because your personal choice has the potential to affect a wide range of people by getting them sick, making your personal choice not so personal. Your rights end where mine begin and all of that. You shouldn't be able to spread a virus to others without consequen…

For the sake of discussion, here are some counter-arguments: > If this was a sterilizing vaccine There's no question that if we had a vaccine that provided sterilizing immunity, the calculus for public health policy would be affected. However, we have to account for the inevitability of viral mutation and evolution. This idea goes hand in hand with the fact that immunity is a spectrum, and just because a vaccine prov…

> Compulsory mass vaccination does not come without significant risks to public health.

It's bold of you to keep raising this "anti-vaccination" point verbatim, after it keeps getting flagged, and the responses do not agree with you at all. What is your agenda here?

One response:

> a shameful misinformation tactic and you should stop doing it immediately

So, why did you not stop?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28251661

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28252125

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#83

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

xondono wrote: post #52
andi999 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even non sterilizing could be argued, it effects other people if you cannot find an ICU after your car accident because they are full with unvaccinated (and some vaccinated) covid patients.

The problem with this argument is that you can use it to also ban tobacco, and alcohol, and sugar, and red meat, and then you can move to things like sports, and start banning bungee jumping and rock climbing,… There’s no obvious way to draw a line, but you definitely need one.

> is that you can use it to also ban tobacco, and alcohol, and sugar, and red meat, and then you can move to things like sports

To be honest, IMHO both smoking tobacco and sports that cause a lot of concussions (eg. Rugby, American Football) are not going to last in the long term, or become marginal not mainstream activities.

This might involve legislative pressures on them, as well as a decline in social acceptance. In the case of Tobacco, we see this drop well advanced already. This is no bad thing, considering the outcomes from these activities.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#84

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #48
Grimm1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was a sterilizing vaccine, such that you couldn't spread the virus or be infected after taking it I'd say neither are okay, religious or otherwise, because your personal choice has the potential to affect a wide range of people by getting them sick, making your personal choice not so personal. Your rights end where mine begin and all of that. You shouldn't be able to spread a virus to others without consequen…

What if there was a medical treatment prbabisticly reduced aggression, violence, or other antisocial behavior?

If you look at "reducing environmental levels of the metal lead" instead of a "medical treatment" then yes it does exactly that (and other harms). This is the reason for banning of lead in Gasoline, paint, pipes etc etc.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#85

Post by BackBlast »

loxias wrote: post #70
ampgt wrote: post #12

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

> "How did we get to a point..." Every day, we all make tradeoffs as part of the price to pay for living in society. This is not a new thing. (and I assert it's counterproductive and anti-social behavior (harmful to society, the opposite of pro-social, not meaning "introverted") to assert that it is.) I can't build a DIY rocket powered car and drive it around town. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or…

> I can't attend school (public or private) without DTaP, Polio, and MMR vaccines, making it a de facto requirement of life.

> These are all restrictions on personal liberty that we accept up as part of the social contract

Historically it had been trivially easy to fill out a form and go to public school without vaccines everywhere I've lived.

The purpose of the form is to know who to send home from school if there is a break out of a disease that is relevant to those who choose not to vaccinate. A very accommodating position.

This policy is now potentially being changed to hard requirements with no escape valve for good or ill. It is factually incorrect to say it had always been this way. This is a material change to policy, fights in legislatures about vaccine mandates have been brewing for at least two decades that I have seen. You can expect a lot of lawsuits and legislative battles along these lines as well.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#87

Post by olivermarks »

threatofrain wrote: post #62
ampgt wrote: post #12

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

Hasn't it been this way since forever? Firstly, the US has always granted special exceptions to religion for many public policy requirements. You can complain about how it's unfair, but it's likely that the public needle of opinion won't budge past a threshold within this lifetime. Secondly, there have already been widespread medical requirements for all sorts of aspects of public life, and this hasn't been controver…

I'm an immigrant into the USA and was never 'required to be immunized'

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#88

Post by s1artibartfast »

loxias wrote: post #70
ampgt wrote: post #12

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

> "How did we get to a point..." Every day, we all make tradeoffs as part of the price to pay for living in society. This is not a new thing. (and I assert it's counterproductive and anti-social behavior (harmful to society, the opposite of pro-social, not meaning "introverted") to assert that it is.) I can't build a DIY rocket powered car and drive it around town. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or…

In the case of the parent article, the equivalent framing to add to the list is:

I can't rely on my naturally acquired immunity with 80+> efficacy instead of a vaccine with 90% efficacy to go to work. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#89

Post by s1artibartfast »

framecowbird wrote: post #59
josephcsible wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It builds outrage and fear off the idea what the state is doing is completely unprecedented. However, that's not entirely true. That's what I find intellectually dishonest. Fair, although there is one other angle from which I think this is unprecedented: aren't those other restrictions all things that you can't do, with this being the first one that's something that you have to do? For example, consider freedom of…

Yeah that's super interesting. Is an action morally any different to a lack of action? This is like the train trolley: where you can either phrase it as doing nothing, or pushing a lever. People apply much more stringent moral codes when there is action involved, or even when the fat man is actually pushed by hand.

I think this exactly the distinction. A lot of people frame their worldview which places value and judgement on the action, while freeing someone from responsibility for their inaction (deontological ethics). This is also common but not exclusive in many legal system (e.g. it is not murder for a bystander to not save a life/pull the lever).

I think this is coming into conflict with rising a utilitarism and consequentialist ethical worldview in the united states. Neither system is perfet, but one challenge of the consequentialist worldview is that it holds people accountable for sub-optimal behavior. (e.g. it is murder to not pull the lever, or not donate to save that starving child in Africa).

Without getting too off track, I think the conflict between these two ethical views is a big driver of the tone of discusource and current ideological conflicts in the US, be it public health, racical justice, and the role of the government.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#90

Post by threatofrain »

olivermarks wrote: post #87
threatofrain wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't it been this way since forever? Firstly, the US has always granted special exceptions to religion for many public policy requirements. You can complain about how it's unfair, but it's likely that the public needle of opinion won't budge past a threshold within this lifetime. Secondly, there have already been widespread medical requirements for all sorts of aspects of public life, and this hasn't been controver…

I'm an immigrant into the USA and was never 'required to be immunized'

Ok.

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...

Post reply on HN