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

Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–437 of 437 posts

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#431

Post by osigurdson »

fighterpilot wrote: post #291
betterunix2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...that is why I could never be a libertarian. People have repeatedly proved themselves unwilling or unable to live up to the libertarian ideal of behaving "rationally."

There's nothing inherently inconsistent between right-libertarian values and a vaccine mandate. Libertarians believe that force should be applied to person A to protect person B from person A in certain circumstances. If person A wants to punch person B in the face, restricting person A by force is perfectly consistent with libertarian values. If person A threatens to infect person B with a deadly disease due to refu…

I think it is less about the concern that others will be infected with severe disease and more about the potential cost and stress that the unvaccinated place on the healthcare system.

The vaccine costs $20 per dose while COVID treatment in the hospital is $23K (in Canada - likely similar in the US).

Perhaps a less draconian approach would be to allow the unvaccinated to purchase additional insurance to cover these costs in the scenario where hospitalization is required.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cihi-covid19-canada-hospital-...

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#432

Post by osigurdson »

version_five wrote: post #319
kxyvr wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the difficulty with the libertarian point of view regarding the COVID vaccine is that not all parties are given a free choice either. For example, if someone refuses a vaccine, should an emergency room be free to refuse care? Currently, they can not due to EMTALA. That's not to say that it's unreasonable to question and philosophize the implications of a mandate. At the same time, barring a more effec…

> For example, if someone refuses a vaccine, should an emergency room be free to refuse care? This argument doesn't hold up. First, tying availability of medical care to the "right" behavior unconscionable at so many levels. In a developed country, do we really want to create a tier of disabled or unhealthy people that we've denied care to because we don't like their behavior (maybe dont answer that) More practically…

It seems that smokers largely pay their way [1] since it is relatively easy to price the delta into the product and insurance premiums. Perhaps the unvaccinated could be treated a bit like smokers.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2918654/

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#433

Post by fighterpilot »

kcplate wrote: post #430
fighterpilot wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right that there's a big distinction there. But at the same time, I was attempting to point out that it's not only certainty of outcome where the NAP applies. We all accept that the NAP can validly apply in some situations where an aggression is probabilistic rather than guaranteed. Let me outline an alternative situation where an individual would have no freedom of choice, but where you might agree with the…

But—they have Ebola. The problem with a mandate of an imperfect vaccine on a person presently without Covid is they don’t have Covid. Frankly, I’d be ok quarantines imposed on Covid patients just like your Ebola scenario. My problem is the whole “Minority Report pre-crimesque” aspect of it all. It’s an unnecessary aggression imposed on an individual to maybe or maybe not prevent a something that maybe or maybe not wo…

That appears to be a distinction without a difference. Even though they already have Ebola, they may not infect someone else.

P(infect another) = P(get the disease)*P(transmit after getting it)

With the Ebola example, that's P_Ebola = 1.0*P(transmit after getting it).

With the COVID example, that's P_COVID = 0.3*P(transmit after getting it).

Both of these are sub-1 and not guaranteed to happen. In fact, P_COVID may actually be larger than P_Ebola depending on the relative R0 and assumptions we plug into the above calculations. So I don't see why the distinction you raised has relevance.

Detaining someone with Ebola, which we both agree is a good idea, is also a pre-crime measure, because they haven't infected anyone yet and they may never have infected anyone even without detention.

And I will also point out once more (due to your second sentence) that I do not support forced vaccinations for COVID. The COVID disease just isn't deadly enough and the vaccines aren't effective enough at preventing transmission for me to support that. I am merely saying I do support it in the abstract if a sufficiently deadly contagious disease comes about in the future.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#434

Post by anderjam »

kcplate wrote: post #400
fighterpilot wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing inherently inconsistent between right-libertarian values and a vaccine mandate. Libertarians believe that force should be applied to person A to protect person B from person A in certain circumstances. If person A wants to punch person B in the face, restricting person A by force is perfectly consistent with libertarian values. If person A threatens to infect person B with a deadly disease due to refu…

Wait…what? You think forcing a person to accept a substance into their body under force isn’t inconsistent with libertarian values? As a classical liberal, I can’t think of something more offensive to my values and I am a fully vaccinated person and wished everyone else was too. This is absolutely f’ing horrifying and will ultimately be used against everyone at some point in the future. The body is the absolute indiv…

agreed

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#435

Post by kcplate »

fighterpilot wrote: post #433
kcplate wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But—they have Ebola. The problem with a mandate of an imperfect vaccine on a person presently without Covid is they don’t have Covid. Frankly, I’d be ok quarantines imposed on Covid patients just like your Ebola scenario. My problem is the whole “Minority Report pre-crimesque” aspect of it all. It’s an unnecessary aggression imposed on an individual to maybe or maybe not prevent a something that maybe or maybe not wo…

That appears to be a distinction without a difference. Even though they already have Ebola, they may not infect someone else. P(infect another) = P(get the disease)*P(transmit after getting it) With the Ebola example, that's P_Ebola = 1.0*P(transmit after getting it). With the COVID example, that's P_COVID = 0.3*P(transmit after getting it). Both of these are sub-1 and not guaranteed to happen. In fact, P_COVID may a…

One is a known effective reaction to a danger. The other is an ineffective proaction to a possible danger. If you are going to violate someone’s liberty, you better have a damn good reason to do it.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#436

Post by fighterpilot »

kcplate wrote: post #435
fighterpilot wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That appears to be a distinction without a difference. Even though they already have Ebola, they may not infect someone else. P(infect another) = P(get the disease)*P(transmit after getting it) With the Ebola example, that's P_Ebola = 1.0*P(transmit after getting it). With the COVID example, that's P_COVID = 0.3*P(transmit after getting it). Both of these are sub-1 and not guaranteed to happen. In fact, P_COVID may a…

One is a known effective reaction to a danger. The other is an ineffective proaction to a possible danger. If you are going to violate someone’s liberty, you better have a damn good reason to do it.

They're both possible dangers, even though you're trying to frame the Ebola example as a certain danger, which it just isn't, since there's a very decent chance that they won't infect anyone even without detention. It's not valid to label one as "reaction" and another as "proaction". They're both pre-crime measures for possible dangers. Neither of them is a certain danger.

It is also not "ineffective" in the hypothetical I was discussing. You seem to insist on the point that I wish to hoist forced vaccinations for COVID, which I don't. I'm strictly speaking in the abstract given a hypothetical where there's a vaccine capable of preventing transmission of a disease that is much more deadly than COVID.

But I agree with your main point that the circumstances should be very extreme before such measures are considered. If there's a contagious disease that is killing 10-50 percent of infected people and early quarantine measures have failed and we have a vaccine that seems effective at preventing transmission, then I'm probably in support of forced vaccinations, although I suspect it might not be necessary since everyone will be desperate to get it.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#437

Post by kcplate »

fighterpilot wrote: post #436
kcplate wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is a known effective reaction to a danger. The other is an ineffective proaction to a possible danger. If you are going to violate someone’s liberty, you better have a damn good reason to do it.

They're both possible dangers, even though you're trying to frame the Ebola example as a certain danger, which it just isn't, since there's a very decent chance that they won't infect anyone even without detention. It's not valid to label one as "reaction" and another as "proaction". They're both pre-crime measures for possible dangers. Neither of them is a certain danger. It is also not "ineffective" in the hypothet…

Actually, I really don’t think we are really that far off from each other, as we are both making the distinction that an effective measure coupled with an extreme situation would be needed.

I’m more concerned with the existing proposed mandate, because it is not hypothetical and I don’t think it satisfies either test (an extreme situation with an effective prevention).

A hypothetical Ebola situation would be different animal just because of the mortality rate being around 20+ times the average Covid rate. The other factor being who it kills. Ebola is pretty indiscriminate. Covid danger is significantly higher among elderly and folks with pre-existing conditions and it looks like many of those folks heeded the vaccination call (85%+ have at least a single dose in the US).

Post reply on HN