How Many Would Favor Real Vaccine Mandates?

[TexasTiger 12,964]

4 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

That was a lot of words to attach to a false dilemma.

To use your false dilemma example, we don't outlaw cars to save lives because we derive so much benefit from driving cars.  Actual, tangible benefit.  (Not to mention, the choice wasn't to drive cars or ban them, it was that we require a license to make sure people who do drive are reasonably safe behind the wheel.)

What tangible benefit is there for people to not get vaccinated?  Unless you believe that the vaccination is actually dangerous.

On one side of the ledger you have named health threats and damage to the entire economy of the country and individual's livelihoods.  What exactly is on the other side of the ledger to balance it out?

Freedom?  The standard for freedom in our country (up until abortion became legal, anyway) has always been that one individual's freedom stops when it infringes upon others' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Either the vaccine is more dangerous than rabid pro-vaxxers will admit or the danger of not being vaccinated to others is not as great, or both.

If not, name another circumstance (an actual circumstance, not a hyperbolic straw man false dilemma) in which society tolerates a significant threat to others that could be prevented with almost no cost or threat to the party posing the danger.  I can't think of one.

The reason to not get vaccinated for many folks is demonstrate their Trump tribalism bona fides.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The reason to not get vaccinated for many folks is demonstrate their Trump tribalism bona fides.

 

I absolutely agree.  But that doesn't seem like a good reason to me.  Does it to you?

If not being vaccinated is so destructive to others, I mean.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

6 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I absolutely agree.  But that doesn't seem like a good reason to me.  Does it to you?

If not being vaccinated is so destructive to others, I mean.

I think it’s one of the strangest most self-destructive trends in my lifetime— Tide Pods for the older set.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

11 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

That was a lot of words to attach to a false dilemma.

To use your false dilemma example, we don't outlaw cars to save lives because we derive so much benefit from driving cars.  Actual, tangible benefit.  (Not to mention, the choice wasn't to drive cars or ban them, it was that we require a license to make sure people who do drive are reasonably safe behind the wheel.)

Tell me you don't understand what a false dilemma is without telling me you don't understand false dilemmas.

Of course we don't outlaw cars.  We regulate their use.  Just like we aren't outlawing living without a vaccine during a pandemic.  We are - in a far more limited way than even our laws regarding motor vehicles - regulating what one can do or places one can go if not vaccinated.

Of course there's a tangible benefit to driving cars.  But there's tangible harm in allowing it to go completely unregulated.

 

11 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

What tangible benefit is there for people to not get vaccinated?  Unless you believe that the vaccination is actually dangerous.

On one side of the ledger you have named health threats and damage to the entire economy of the country and individual's livelihoods.  What exactly is on the other side of the ledger to balance it out?

I'm thinking your question is worded wrong here.

 

11 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Freedom?  The standard for freedom in our country (up until abortion became legal, anyway) has always been that one individual's freedom stops when it infringes upon others' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Either the vaccine is more dangerous than rabid pro-vaxxers will admit or the danger of not being vaccinated to others is not as great, or both.

If not, name another circumstance (an actual circumstance, not a hyperbolic straw man false dilemma) in which society tolerates a significant threat to others that could be prevented with almost no cost or threat to the party posing the danger.  I can't think of one.

The vaccine isn't dangerous.  The danger of not being vaccinated is multiple times over greater than not being vaccinated.  

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Tell me you don't understand what a false dilemma is without telling me you don't understand false dilemmas.

Of course we don't outlaw cars.  We regulate their use.  Just like we aren't outlawing living without a vaccine during a pandemic.  We are - in a far more limited way than even our laws regarding motor vehicles - regulating what one can do or places one can go if not vaccinated.

Of course there's a tangible benefit to driving cars.  But there's tangible harm in allowing it to go completely unregulated.

 

I'm thinking your question is worded wrong here.

 

The vaccine isn't dangerous.  The danger of not being vaccinated is multiple times over greater than not being vaccinated.  

You seem to be either intentionally or unintentionally skirting the point while focusing on irrelevant details, some of which no one is even in disagreement about.

Here's it in a nutshell:  You've ridiculed the idea of requiring vaccines claiming that doing so violates a reasonable cost-benefit ratio.  Yet you have completely failed to show how it violates such a ratio at all, much less to a ridiculous level.

You say the vaccines are safe and although I have been making an assumption that you also agree that people being unvaccinated endangers others, you haven't corrected me on that point.  You have also stated that you feel like being unvaccinated costs individuals and the entire economy.  

So it seems like there's tremendous benefit to requiring vaccinations and an infinitesimal cost.

Exactly why is the cost-benefit ratio for requiring vaccinations not a no-brainer, then?  Why is it ridiculous to suggest mandates?

Edited October 19, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy