#and it's supposed to be bad news to get the vaccine while you're actively infected

[sapphicautistic]

being an insomniac on the west coast is way more boring than when I lived in a more easterly time zone

[robin-hood-for-freedom]

I now present to you, my followers, the single worst article I have ever read.

TLDR: A supposed 'libertarian' is actually defending vaccine mandates.

This is actually so bad, I think its worth a full response:

If the vaccine causes no appreciable injury, can you still refuse to be injected, notwithstanding that you might be visiting significant risks on others?

For starters, thats a BIG 'if.' In fact, we know for a fact that there is a (yes very small, but not nonexistent) risk of serious harm from the vaccine in the short run, and we have no way of knowing if there will be harm 5 years from now.

But beyond that: The idea that not taking the COVID vaccine is 'visiting significant risks on others' is just...not true. Its pretty well accepted at this point that the vaccine doesnt prevent the spread of COVID, it just reduces your chance of having serious problems from it.

And that to me, is why vaccine mandates are dead on arrival. Even if we knew the vaccine was 100% safe(which is isnt), and guaranteed you wouldnt get sick from COVID(which it doesnt), it only protects you, meaning theres no 'externality' to not taking it.

Occasionally, however, advocates of limited government will condone directives to engage in benign activities (even when not cost-free) if failure to do so might cause injury to innocent bystanders. Safety requirements for nuclear power plants would be one example

This is actually a very high-level libertarian question that I dont think I should unpack here(maybe another post). But Its also not really relevant, since not taking a vaccine even if it did reduce the spread of COVID(which again it doesnt) isnt nearly as potentially harmful, nor as clearly intentional as, say building an unshielded nuclear reactor in the middle of a crowded city.

Punishing aggressive acts that have already caused damage is a routine government function. But it’s more complicated when government compels conduct that might minimize or alleviate future harm. That’s an area of the law — endangerment — where rights theory is difficult to apply. How much increased risk do I have to endure before your potentially malign failure to act can be redressed? When rights theory doesn’t provide adequate guidance, defenders of liberty often look to utilitarian, cost-benefit tradeoffs

I'm not sure I actually agree with this. But even if I did, it would have to be in the most cartoonishly extreme cases. Abandoning rights theory in favor of utilitarian cost-benefit analysis in anything less can lead to justifying all kinds of horrific shit. And applied too broadly can justify almost anything.

And, no I dont think refusing to take a vaccine(that doesnt even prevent the spread of COVID) comes anywhere near that level. To quote Jules from Pulp Fiction it ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport

vaccine mandates are nothing new. Wyoming, an indisputably conservative state, requires vaccines for 12 diseases if a child wants to attend either public or private school or a care facility, or participate in school-sanctioned activities.

A lot to unpack here:

First I'm against every single aspect of this, not just the vaccine mandates, but all the way down to the very existence of public schools. So this probably isnt the best example.

But even if you want to set that aside: Do you seriously not see a difference between a kid needing a vaccine to go to public school, and an adult needing one to go to the grocery store?

Also, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that every single one of the diseases kids need to be vaccinated for are more dangerous to them than COVID-19.

Oh and obligatory mention that the COVID vaccine doesnt prevent the spread of the virus.

More vaccinations would have slowed transmission and thereby afforded fewer opportunities for the virus to mutate.

The vaccine doesnt prevent the spread of the virus. So this is just straight up bullshit.

And even if it were true: the delta variant originated in a country(India) that hadnt had access to vaccines due to fuckery by the US government and pharma companies. So maybe you should be going after them instead of people who are understandably skeptical of a new medical treatment that we cant know the long term effects of.

Significantly, based on data from 40 states, persons fully vaccinated accounted for as little as 0.2 to 6 percent of COVID deaths, and 0.1 to 5 percent of hospitalizations.

While this might be argument for getting vaccinated(assuming those numbers are accurate, which I kinda doubt), its not an argument for forcing the vaccine on people. Since the vaccine doesnt prevent the spread of COVID, you arent reducing the risk to anybody but yourself.

Third, can we be sure that a vaccine mandate will remedy the problem? Put differently, haven’t we seen numerous breakthrough cases in which vaccinated persons have nonetheless been infected? Yes, but the key reason breakthrough cases are a growing part of the total is that we’ve vaccinated a higher percentage of the population. Most important, as noted above, people who are fully vaccinated experience far fewer hospitalizations and deaths.

All of this is completely irrelevant since the vaccine doesnt prevent the spread of COVID

Yes I'm getting tired of repeating myself, but this point cannot be emphasized enough: If you're argument for vaccine mandates is that not getting vaccinated poses a threat to others, then the fact that the vaccine dosnt prevent the spread kills your argument before it even begins.

Perhaps we should just wear masks and maintain social distancing. But the consensus is that the vaccine would still be necessary, and far more effective.

Funny thing, the CDC is saying masks and social distancing are necessary even with the vaccine because(say it with me now) the vaccine doesnt prevent the spread of COVID.

Perhaps natural immunity from contracting the disease is stronger than vaccine-induced immunity. But most studies say otherwise.

I feel like I should point out here that I've seen a lot of arguments from people on both sides of this question. And I dont have enough knowldge of immunology to be able to judge which is the correct position.

Although it wouldnt really matter if the vaccine were more effective than natural immunity, since it doesnt prevent the spread of COVID.

Perhaps a vaccine mandate can be geographically or demographically constrained. That’s an obvious consideration, which suggests that local officials be given substantial discretion in establishing the scope of any mandate.

I suppose that would be better than a national mandate. But even that much would be unjustified since the vaccine doesnt prevent the spread of COVID.

Or perhaps vaccinations could remain optional, but with restricted access to selected activities by the unvaccinated. That notion — a vaccine “passport” — has the support of nearly 82 percent of Americans, according to a recent survey.

In other news: 82% of Americans are morons who dont realize the vaccine doesnt prevent the spread of COVID.

(okay but seriously, given that almost half of all Americans arent vaccinated, I have to question the methodology of this survey).

 we are in the midst of a health emergency, which means that suitably modified, narrowly-tailored, time-limited rules may be justified.

This is a one-time thing because we are in the middle of an emergency is the justification for nearly every tyrannical act ever undertaken by governments. And to hear it coming from a supposed 'libertarian' is equal parts terrifying and nauseating.

Oh and the vaccine doesnt prevent the spread of COVID.