Covid Vaccination

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Well regardless of what you choose to do, I hope that you and your child remain safe.

Thanks. I have made it so far. 

Many complex ethical questions surround the pandemic. Should I spend Christmas with my 95 yr old grandmother? Complex. Whether there is a moral obligation to vaccinate is a complex moral question, but I think the Christian tradition is on my side. Still, complex. The ethics of the strategy of "let my neighbor take it first" is much less complex imo. I get it as an effective strategy. I could see my way to it being "permissible" or "tolerated" possibly. Like divorce. 

But It is very difficult to reason morally together when people do not share a sense of reality - eg confidence in empiricism as a form of epistemology.

If we shared this understanding I could point out: you prefer society use lockdowns as opposed to a hurried up vaccine, because of the chances that the vaccine will have side effects.  But everything we know,  empirically, suggests the risk of side effects is small. And everything we know, empirically, points to - an at this point irreversible - certainty that hundreds of millions of people are going to starve as a consequence of the lockdowns that have already occurred.  To say nothing of the death and human misery that would occur if lockdowns were to be stretched over 3 years, as you suggest. 

Then we could compare and say, does the very unlikely risk to myself weighed against the almost certain destruction of others (based on everything we know, or think we know, empirically) result in there being a moral obligation here? 

But you don't share that reality with me - you don't "believe" we know, or can even think we know, that side effects are statistically unlikely and mass starvation as a result of lockdkwns all but certain. Am I mistaken? You don't trust the experts but don't have the means to prove it to yourself either. So we are stuck!

 

[elizabeth09]

On 12/18/2020 at 10:18 PM, Lilllabettt said:

Idk if it is or it isn't.  Ask your doctor. If you don't trust your doctor get a different one. If you want to wait to see what happens to other people that's kind of icky. That's all I'm saying. It's an icky sentiment. 

I know that this is a icky sentiment, but one thing that I know is I don`t know anything about this new vaccine.  And I am not going to get it because that is my chose, and only my parents can force me to get it.

[Lilllabettt]

35 minutes ago, elizabeth09 said:

I know that this is a icky sentiment, but one thing that I know is I don`t know anything about this new vaccine.  

An easy solution is to ask someone who does know something about it - your doctor. In fact it's your doctor's job to know about the vaccine. Since you freely admit you know nothing, ask the one person who goes to college for 11+ years to learn to give medical advice. And if you don't trust your doctor to give you good advice, get a new doctor! 

[Peace]

35 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Thanks. I have made it so far. 

Many complex ethical questions surround the pandemic. Should I spend Christmas with my 95 yr old grandmother? Complex. Whether there is a moral obligation to vaccinate is a complex moral question, but I think the Christian tradition is on my side. Still, complex. The ethics of the strategy of "let my neighbor take it first" is much less complex imo. I get it as an effective strategy. I could see my way to it being "permissible" or "tolerated" possibly. Like divorce. 

But It is very difficult to reason morally together when people do not share a sense of reality - eg confidence in empiricism as a form of epistemology.

If we shared this understanding I could point out: you prefer society use lockdowns as opposed to a hurried up vaccine, because of the chances that the vaccine will have side effects.  But everything we know,  empirically, suggests the risk of side effects is small. And everything we know, empirically, points to - an at this point irreversible - certainty that hundreds of millions of people are going to starve as a consequence of the lockdowns that have already occurred.  To say nothing of the death and human misery that would occur if lockdowns were to be stretched over 3 years, as you suggest. 

Then we could compare and say, does the very unlikely risk to myself weighed against the almost certain destruction of others (based on everything we know, or think we know, empirically) result in there being a moral obligation here? 

But you don't share that reality with me - you don't "believe" we know, or can even think we know, that side effects are statistically unlikely and mass starvation as a result of lockdkwns all but certain. Am I mistaken? You don't trust the experts but don't have the means to prove it to yourself either. So we are stuck!

I have no issue with empiricism as a form of epistemology. I majored in engineering in college. Plenty of labs. Plenty of reports using test data to demonstrate reliability. It's not like I am anti-science.

I think it is possible to demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the risk of X medicine is low or high. I am not an anti-vaccine person. I take the flu-shot every year as well as other medicines. What I do not have confidence in is the current process that occurred in record time, with massive amounts of political pressure, and financial incentive to produce a fast result. Those are ripe circumstances for serious error, if not outright manipulation of data. There are many, many people who have the same concerns. It does not make us bad people.

Now, if hundreds of millions of people are guaranteed to starve because of locking down the economy (I suppose you are referring to the OXFAM report that I found when I googled that assertion, which uses the word "could" as opposed to "guaranteed" I might add) as opposed to the 1.7 million people who have directly died from the virus itself, would it not make a whole lot more sense for "the people in the know" (for example, the WHO) to have recommended a herd-immunity type strategy rather than social distancing? Does it make sense for you for the WHO to recommend shutting things down if that would result in many more deaths overall compared to the alternative (that report was written many months before we knew the date by which a vaccine would be available)?

Personally, I don't think that the virus warranted shutting down the economy in the exact manner that was done in many states (not that the various experts in the various states can actually agree on what the best course of conduct to take is). If it were up to me I would probably implement certain social distancing measures like scaling back on "super spreader" type events, without shutting down every store and business like some cities like NYC, and perhaps try to be more selective about shutting down activity, by selectively trying to reduce risk to the people in society who are most at risk of being harmed by the virus, while attempting to limit the impact on economic activity as a whole.

But that is neither here nor there. Look, we could debate all of the various numbers, the risks, the various different approaches that could be taken, whether medical professionals and government agencies are trustworthy or subject to corruption, what secondary effects on the food supply-chain are likely to result from the various options, and so forth. We could literally have a thousand page debate over all of that. I don't particularly care to do that because at the end of it we both know that we will still be in the same place where we are now - in disagreement about what the best course of action is.

The point I wanted to make is that the fundamental disagreement comes down to a different view of the evidence and the perceived risks of the different options that are available, and it doesn't make me or anyone else an immoral person for having a different view of those factors, than you do.

17 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

An easy solution is to ask someone who does know something about it - your doctor. In fact it's your doctor's job to know about the vaccine. Since you freely admit you know nothing, ask the one person who goes to college for 11+ years to learn to give medical advice. And if you don't trust your doctor to give you good advice, get a new doctor! 

I've put my trust into my doctor before, and it has caused me years of unnecessary pain and agony by the error that he made, in my view negligence. Now I don't blindly accept what any of these folks say, when it comes to what is going to be done to my own body. When I go to the ER nowadays with my issue, I don't just accept the treatments that the doctor says I should get, or even his diagnosis. I think about it, what pain it is going to cause me, and whether I think it is a good idea for me. Sometimes I follow their advice, sometimes I say "No thanks, you can release me now, I'm going home, or to see another doctor who says something to me that makes sense." Many of these guys are arrogant pricks who don't listen and quite frankly don't care, and look at you as more of an object than an actual human being. It's widespread in the medical profession, in my opinion. Perhaps you view these folks and the medical profession differently, but not me. I'm not inclined to do whatever they say just because they went to school for 11 years. It has to make sense to me and my particular situation.

[little2add]

Both Moderna and Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccines made without fetal cells. Both vaccines are approved by the FDA, pro-life advocates won’t be faced with having to choose the one that was ethically-made. Unlike some other vaccines in development, both vaccines were made without the use of fetal cells, or for that matter, any cells at all.

https://aleteia.org/2020/11/18/both-moderna-and-pfizers-coronavirus-vaccines-made-without-fetal-cells/

BEWARE:

the AstraZeneca/University of Oxford vaccine is being produced in aborted fetal cell lines.   Unfortunately, companies such as AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson use abortion-derived fetal cell lines to produce there corona-19 vaccines

 

 

[little2add]

For what it’s worth, my wife and daughter in law are both RN’s and work on the front lines, in or with our local hospital COVID units.   Neither are willing to be Guinea pigs and are declining the vaccine.   
even if they get the experimental vaccine they are required to ware all the PPE (masks, face shelf, gloves, etc) so they decided to wait a little longer... and wait and see what happens, for the time being.   

[elizabeth09]

16 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

An easy solution is to ask someone who does know something about it - your doctor. In fact it's your doctor's job to know about the vaccine. Since you freely admit you know nothing, ask the one person who goes to college for 11+ years to learn to give medical advice. And if you don't trust your doctor to give you good advice, get a new doctor! 

What will happen when the doctors are both pushing for me to get it?  And if I don`t want to get, what will happen, then?  

[Ice_nine]

On 12/19/2020 at 1:44 PM, Lilllabettt said:

People volunteer in clinical trials knowing and acknowledging they are human guinea pigs.

You, thinking of other, unwilling people as guinea pigs in your risk benefit assessment of whether to take a vaccine, is gross. I totally get why people do it. It makes strategic sense from a self interested perspective.  This is the motive of all antivax sentiment right ... why take even the small risks of a vaccine ... let others take it and get the benefits of herd immunity without risking anything personally. 

 

Many people are chomping at the bit to get stuck with that needle. What's the problem with going ahead and letting them and seeing what happens? I didn't get the sense she was shoving anyone into the clinic or would be ok with anyone forcing vaccination on people.

[Lilllabettt]

5 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Many people are chomping at the bit to get stuck with that needle. What's the problem with going ahead and letting them and seeing what happens? I didn't get the sense she was shoving anyone into the clinic or would be ok with anyone forcing vaccination on people.

The problem is how this treats people - as tools whose gullibility is useful to you. If you honestly believe the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested you shouldn't be "ok" with anyone getting it. "You do you" isn't a Christian approach to public health.

 

On 12/20/2020 at 3:46 PM, elizabeth09 said:

What will happen when the doctors are both pushing for me to get it?  And if I don`t want to get, what will happen, then?  

Well, there's strong constitutional precedent for mandatory vaccination. This has never been carried out on a nationwide scale; long story short it probably won't happen. 

But, employers can mandate the vaccine. Private businesses. Your access to public services, such as schools, hospitals, museums, parks, transportation etc can be severely curtailed if you decide not to be vaccinated. You may not be able to fly, attend graduations, performances, sporting events. Long story short if you choose to ignore your doctor's advice, it could be very unpleasant for you. If you have a doctor who agrees you shouldn't take it, then it will be significantly less unpleasant. 

[elizabeth09]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

The problem is how this treats people - as tools whose gullibility is useful to you. If you honestly believe the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested you shouldn't be "ok" with anyone getting it. "You do you" isn't a Christian approach to public health.

 

Well, there's strong constitutional precedent for mandatory vaccination. This has never been carried out on a nationwide scale; long story short it probably won't happen. 

But, employers can mandate the vaccine. Private businesses. Your access to public services, such as schools, hospitals, museums, parks, transportation etc can be severely curtailed if you decide not to be vaccinated. You may not be able to fly, attend graduations, performances, sporting events. Long story short if you choose to ignore your doctor's advice, it could be very unpleasant for you. If you have a doctor who agrees you shouldn't take it, then it will be significantly less unpleasant. 

What if no one ask?  No one ask if I get the flu shot every winter.  Or if I am updated on my vaccinations.

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, elizabeth09 said:

What if no one ask?  No one ask if I get the flu shot every winter.  Or if I am updated on my vaccinations.

Trust me... you will be asked.

[Peace]

14 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

 If you have a doctor who agrees you shouldn't take it, then it will be significantly less unpleasant. 

Well that is easily accomplished. Plenty of these guys are for sale.

14 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

If you honestly believe the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested you shouldn't be "ok" with anyone getting it.

This simply is not true. I already refuted this faulty reasoning above.

[Lilllabettt]

7 minutes ago, Peace said:

This simply is not true. I already refuted this faulty reasoning above.

I know, however I consider your refutation to be weak sauce.

I don't believe smoking is healthy however if people want to smoke, I'm fine with it. After all, if they get cancer there will be research opportunities that wouldn't have existed otherwise. If they don't get cancer maybe we will learn cigarettes are safe after all. we all benefit.

I also totally support the decision for baby boomers to not wear seat belts in cars, if that's what they want to do. I think it's unsafe but it's not like I could stop them, anyway. Plus cars can be made safer for all with the opportunity to study how bodies are thrown through windshields.  Plus plus, if they smear their brains on the concrete their job will have a vacancy. A big problem with boomers is their unwillingness to retire and let younger generations step up. 

[Lilllabettt]

On 12/19/2020 at 11:19 PM, Peace said:

would it not make a whole lot more sense for "the people in the know" (for example, the WHO) to have recommended a herd-immunity type strategy rather than social distancing?

This was the strategy Sweden deployed. It didn't work.

"natural" herd immunity works as a function of R(0) - the # of times the virus is able to spread per single infection.  No one knows what this is for coronavirus but the best estimates are 60-70%.

This means that to achieve heard immunity in the United States, 197 million people would have to contract the virus. 2 million would have to die, the majority among the most vulnerable in our society. To say nothing of the long term side effects of the virus among survivors - permanent lung scarring, permanent loss of taste and smell, incapacitating "brain fog" and ideopathic pain.
Or we can pursue induced herd immunity by using a mass vaccination program, using a 5 second injection that has been clinically tested in hundreds of thousands of people for 6 months, has a death rate of 0% and a mild temporary complication rate of a fraction of less than 1%.

You think we, as a society, should go with natural herd immunity option because the vaccine is too unknown. The known horrible effects of infection and death are less scary to you.

 

[Peace]

4 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

I know, however I consider your refutation to be weak sauce.

I don't believe smoking is healthy however if people want to smoke, I'm fine with it. After all, if they get cancer there will be research opportunities that wouldn't have existed otherwise. If they don't get cancer maybe we will learn cigarettes are safe after all. we all benefit.

I also totally support the decision for baby boomers to not wear seat belts in cars, if that's what they want to do. I think it's unsafe but it's not like I could stop them, anyway. Plus cars can be made safer for all with the opportunity to study how bodies are thrown through windshields.  Plus plus, if they smear their brains on the concrete their job will have a vacancy. A big problem with boomers is their unwillingness to retire and let younger generations step up. 

First, there is there is a distinction between having a positive knowledge or belief that something will cause harm, and not knowing either way whether something is safe, or harmful. The situation with the vaccine is the latter, your hypothetical above is the former. If your hypothetical were analogous, it would not be that you think that smoking causes cancer, it would be that you have no knowledge about whether or not it causes cancer, so people are free to do it if they believe it is safe (I have many friends who smoke cigars. I don't know that is good or bad, but they are free to do it in their own judgment.)

Secondly, I believe that Keto diets are healthier than moderate-carb diets. If other people believe that moderate-carb diets are healthier, I do not have to desire in my heart-of-hearts that the entire world follow a Keto diet, in order not to commit moral error. That is ridiculous. I think it is healthier if people walk for 30 minutes a day. I don't have say a prayer to St. Michael at night that the entire world walks for 30 minutes, instead of riding a bike, taking a swim, drinking a glass of wine with dinner, or whatever else people decide to do for their own health in their own prudential judgment. It's exactly the same principle. Catholic morality does not require me to have a totalitarian mindset that denies the right of other people to make their own prudential judgments concerning their own health.

As for the latter part of your argument, as noted previously you did the same exact thing by allowing other people to participate in clinical trials and take on risks to themselves, for your own benefit.

5 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

This was the strategy Sweden deployed. It didn't work.

"natural" herd immunity works as a function of R(0) - the # of times the virus is able to spread per single infection.  No one knows what this is for coronavirus but the best estimates are 60-70%.

This means that to achieve heard immunity in the United States, 197 million people would have to contract the virus. 2 million would have to die, the majority among the most vulnerable in our society. To say nothing of the long term side effects of the virus among survivors - permanent lung scarring, permanent loss of taste and smell, incapacitating "brain fog" and ideopathic pain.
Or we can pursue induced herd immunity by using a mass vaccination program, using a 5 second injection that has been clinically tested in hundreds of thousands of people for 6 months, has a death rate of 0% and a mild temporary complication rate of a fraction of less than 1%.

You think we, as a society, should go with natural herd immunity option because the vaccine is too unknown. The known horrible effects of infection and death are less scary to you.

I think you misunderstood me. I am not a particular advocate for a herd-immunity strategy.

If you look at your numbers above, you basically concluded that 2 million would die from a herd immunity strategy. But you wrote that hundreds of millions would starve to death due to shutting down the economy through social distancing measures. If it were true that hundreds of millions would starve to death due to shutting down the economy, then the herd immunity strategy would be vastly preferable to shutting down the economy (in the absence of a vaccine, which we did not have at the time the OXFAM estimate was made).

But almost nobody advocated for herd-immunity at that time, and almost everyone advocated for shutting down the economy. That is, shutting down the economy was seen as the medically optimal solution at the time. That by itself should show you that the estimate that hundreds of millions would starve to death as a result of the social distancing measures is unrealistic. In other words, if the hundreds of millions estimate were accurate, then herd immunity would be a much better solution, resulting in far fewer deaths.

As for the specific strategies, risks, and so forth - again as I wrote that could be a thousand page thread. The only point I wanted to make there was that people are not acting immorally because they have a different view of the risks and options than you do.