We have never required anything like this to go to a restaurant. Or the gym. Or the beach. This is a huge new step.
Pointing out that children must be vaccinated against viruses that disproportionately harm children in order to participate in public education is true, but irrelevant to the question. Pointing out that we require certain vaccinations of immigrants is true, but irrelevant to the question.
(Not for nothing: we require immigrants to pass a citizenship test and a background check, too. If the standard is "anything that is OK for US immigration is OK for going to Chick-Fil-A", then we're going to have to disagree...)
> We have never required anything like this to go to a restaurant. Or the gym. Or the beach. This is a huge new step.
Indeed, instead there used to be mandatory, involuntary quarantine enforcement, sometimes (typhus, polio) on a per-household basis with the enforcement notice posted prominently on the front door. That restricted not only restaurants and beach visits but all visits of any kind.
I'm not exactly sure which side of the argument you're on here, but ignoring the utility and/or practicality of quarantine on a mass scale, I wouldn't compare it to a policy requiring everyone to show their papers to go to McDonalds.
It's almost like people are arguing "we did {restrictive policy} once, so any form of restriction is of the same form!"
I mean...hell: we had slavery once. So maybe let's set aside the idea that prior infringements of individual liberty justify future infringements of individual liberty?
I’d argue you not getting vaccinated and adding to the potential of a mutation that makes the vaccine ineffective is a violation of MY individual liberties, and the Supreme Court agrees. Which is why just about every state in the US actually can force you to get vaccinated, they just haven’t.
Could you provide the source for the supreme court agreement? It seems to me that forcing someone to get a vaccine would just as much violate their individual liberties so I'm rather curious what issue the supreme court was specifically addressing
I personally know several people who have told me that they would stab or shoot anyone who tried to force them get a vaccine. The logistics of that may be a bit tricky, of course.
How would the logistics of forced vaccination go down, anyway? Do you think people wouldn't forge their vaccine papers, bribe doctors or otherwise get them to be sympathetic, or otherwise circumvent/ignore the system/rules in order to avoid the vaccine?
As stated elsewhere in this thread, it is not going to be possible to stop the virus at this point. We will all eventually be exposed and the best we can do is be as safe as we believe we need to be and can.
Notably, the quarantine enforcement you describe were much more stringent requirements, levied against specific people who were believed to be infected or at elevated risk of infection (such as arrivals from overseas), never as a standing order issued against the population of the state's residents. Moreover, the quarantine laws which authorize this sort of thing in New York City demand due-process protections, such that those who are quarantined must receive notice that they are entitled to judicial review of the quarantine order.
I think it's a practical thing. We don't require vaccination for restaurants, but because vaccination is required at schools, practically you can assume that most people are vaccinated. And for many of these illnesses, we have attained herd immunity (although antivaxers are chipping away at that.)
We should want to be in the same world for COVID. I'm sorry, but I don't see why I should have to risk getting COVID when there is a perfectly safe, free vaccine, that if delivered to enough of the population, will allow us to achieve herd immunity. The risks of long COVID are real. You're either imposing a very safe vaccine on people, or a somewhat dangerous illness on them, it seems very obvious the best option is to impose the vaccine.
>You're either imposing a very safe vaccine on people
It's not very safe; there have been more adverse events reported in VAERS following the covid vaccines than in the past 20 years for all other vaccines. And unlike all those other vaccines, there's absolutely zero long-term safety data, because it's impossible to know the effects 3-5 years in future of a novel treatment that's only existed for one year.
This is true. Or, I think it is, I just checked the last 10 years; the three COVID vaccines have 60% of the reports from that time.
However...
Death 5,191 1.25%
Life Threatening 7,110 1.72%
Permanent Disability 6,103 1.47%
Congenital Anomaly / Birth Defect 232 0.06%
Hospitalized 23,990 5.79%
Existing Hospitalization Prolonged 228 0.06%
Emergency Room 58,335 14.08%
Office Visit 84,704 20.44%
None of the above 274,035 66.14%
Death, life threatening events, permanent disability, birth defects, and hospitalization events accounted for about 10% of the reports. 66% of them were "None of the above". (Multiple events can be reported, i.e. hospitalization and permanent disability, resulting in >100%.)
Further, there are limitations to the conclusions that you can draw from VAERS:
"VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to VAERS. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind."
If someone gets a vaccination and is then run over by a bus, that can be reported as a "Death". Additionally, given the politicization of COVID vaccines, I think we can expect that there is a strong bias towards reporting events. The COVID vaccines have a number of common side effects (mine were almost as bad as those of my shingles vaccination), which may explain some of the excess.
But fundamentally, the VAERS data simply cannot be used to determine whether or not a vaccine is unsafe.
On the other hand, consider: There have been 349,000,000 doses administered, with about 428,000 events reported, meaning that 0.12% of doses result in an event and 0.04% result in an event involving health care. I ride a motorcycle. I would be overjoyed at those kinds of safety odds.
this just isn't remotely true. There is a long history in the US of cities and sub national governments requiring vaccination, limiting the things the unvaccinated can participate in, and fining people who refuse to be vaccinated. https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-supreme-court There is a long history of case law establishing the rights of subnational US governments to act in the interests of their citizens in protecting public health.
This is not true. When the smallpox vaccine was being rolled out many restaurants, social clubs, and other places of congregation required proof of vaccination.
Suggesting that Adults must be vaccinated against viruses that disproportionately harm Adults in order to participate in public life is not irrelevant to the question
I was thinking about these categories with the opposite approach: we need a safe way [to educate people without the burden of home schooling] way more than we need a safe way [to eat/exercise without the burden of doing so at home].
At this point in time, children have experienced an infection rate, and complications that are near zero, statistically. To date, no child has received a vaccination.
Why would we punish the vaccinated, and children, for a minority unvaccinated population? A population that largely (entirely?) puts their own self at risk and no other individual that has taken steps to protect themselves from the virus.
Vaccines (in the US at least) are free to anyone that wants one at this point. It's been that way for months. If someone doesn't have a vaccine, it's because they chose to not get one - and therefore take on the risk of becoming ill or death. That's their problem... not children's problem or vaccinated people's problem.
We're doing all this to protect a population that's actively resisting your protection.
With all that said, let's get back to normal here. People who don't want vaccines aren't going to get them even if you made it the law... be realistic.
If I'm interpreting this page (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COV...) correctly, children less than 5 provide 2.4% of cases of COVID in California; they are 5.8% of the population so they seem to have a lower infection rate (although those 75-79 provide 1.6% of cases from 2.7% of the population). Children between 5 and 17 provide 10.7% of cases from 16.7% of the population.
Children have a very non-zero infection rate while they do have effectively a zero death rate (no actual information on "complications").
The data is listed weird, because someone over the age of 12 can get the vaccine. A 17 year old has a lot more social opportunity to catch the virus, etc.
Regardless, the people who do get sick, typically get only midly-so, and rarely (statistically 0) experience serious complications or death.
Therefore, my initial conclusion that the risk for children is near zero stands.
I'm not saying we punish children. I'm saying it's more important to allow public education to proceed in whatever way works than to allow restaurant- and gym-going to proceed willy-nilly.
I don't like restrictions in general, but I do prioritize these two things in a certain way.
"Normal" is being vaccinated. This isn't the world's first pandemic, nor is it the world's first widespread vaccination campaign.
The fear, paranoia and mistrust around vaccinations against COVID is not normal. "Just let nature take its course" isn't normal, at least not in the modern history of civil societies.
Regardless of your personal definition of normal, you will not convince the unvaccinated people to get vaccinated. You've tried, and failed.
Short of going door-to-door with guys with guns and body armor, forcefully pinning down people and jabbing them with vaccine - nothing you (or anyone) does will convince people to get a vaccine if they've decided at this point they do not want it for whatever their reasons may be.
So... go about your business as usual. Stop trying to protect people that refuse your protection. It's wasted effort, and hurts everyone else that is already vaccinated.
You can do a lot of things to compel people to get vaccinated, short of going door to door with guns.
You can deny people entry to various places contingent on vaccination, which is what a lot of places are doing now. You may not be able to convince people to get vaccinated for their own sake or the sake of the health of their neighbors, but way more people will choose being able to go to work, school or the bar over staying unvaccinated.
I chose "getting a student loan" over "not registering for the draft" and I was both terrified of getting drafted and morally opposed to killing, as much as any 18 year old can be.
No guns, no goonsquads, just pile on the headaches and most people will find themselves to get vaccinated regardless of their own doubts, beliefs or prior declarations.
Bars already check licenses before serving alcohol.
Schools already check vaccination status for other diseases during enrollment.
Workplaces already check immigration status for all employees.
There will always be non-compliance; there are always a few bars that don't check IDs or accept obvious fakes. But most won't risk losing their liquor licenses.
There are a lot of "what if"s in the world, and in public policy in particular. What if no one pays their taxes? What if a state legislature overrides the popular vote of their electorate in a Presidential election? What if the President orders a nuclear first strike and the military doesn't follow the order?
While all of these questions are interesting, for the most part we can get by without having any answers to them. Why borrow trouble worrying about something that may never happen?
What if workplaces mandate vaccines, what if schools, if bars and ballparks and theaters, and we still don't reach the 90-95% thresholds needed to contain the more virulent viruses?
Well, something else will happen. Maybe we give up. Maybe we try other coercions. Maybe the combination of vaccination rates and post-infection immunity will be high enough that the entire question is moot.
Or we don't do any of these extreme, totalitarian measures because it doesn't matter anyway?
Because doing so is a one way road to more extreme, totalitarian measures next time there's a disagreement about public policy (and next time, perhaps you find yourself on the "wrong side").
Because covid won't be a thing forever, and sacrificing core values of your nation for temporary gain is foolhardy.
Because, again, the people you're trying to protect with these extreme, totalitarian measures don't want your protection and statistically will turn out just fine anyway.
>Short of going door-to-door with guys with guns and body armor, forcefully pinning down people and jabbing them with vaccine
Even this would not work (at least in America), because there's a heavy overlap between the unvaccinated and gun owners, and they vastly outnumber whatever police force would be attempting to enforce the vaccination.
>So... go about your business as usual. Stop trying to protect people that refuse your protection. It's wasted effort, and hurts everyone else that is already vaccinated.
Umm... no. They spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (and COVID) at every opportunity, they consider themselves on a crusade against vaccination and the vaccinated. Society is under no obligation to let dangerous fools remain comfortable in their foolishness.
> They spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (and COVID) at every opportunity
Except they don't. The people who are vaccinated aren't afraid, uncertain or in any doubt. Nor can they contract COVID from unvaccinated people - otherwise what would be the point of the vaccine anyway?
> they consider themselves on a crusade
Who cares? Why do you care what some other people think? If you're vaccinated, their choices literally have zero impact on you.
> Society is under no obligation to let dangerous fools remain comfortable in their foolishness
Last I checked, we were talking about the US... so ya, they are allowed to be foolish, particularly since the only people they are potentially harming is themselves.
So... what is your plan? Are we storming people's houses with armed men to forcefully vaccinate people that don't want it? Or are we just sitting on some high horse?
I'll tell you who's spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt - it's the very same people making these arguments. Get a vaccine - or else! But you'll still need to wear a mask - or two - and quarantine at home and be careful who you're around because the COVID will get you regardless.
It's complete poppycock. Given those choices, why would someone want to vaccinate if literally nothing about their life improves afterwards?
I think what we have here is an intolerance for other people's choices... and a desire to compel people into submission of what some other people believe is the "right way". Both sides are guilty of willfully ignoring facts when convenient... so who's right? Good thing we're in the US and don't have to care - both can be wrong and go about their business without bothering each other.
Sorry but their choices do affect others, from the nurses who have to treat them to the hospitals turning away patients if they are overwhelmed or delaying surgeries.
It's not now, but it was as i know people who suffered from delayed treatment. As well my aunts a nurse and covid was hell for her, i'd rather she not go through that again because people think they are too good to get the vaccine and turn it into a political issue.
> Your children don't need to go to a public school
You’ve got this part backwards, if I’m reading this correctly. You must adhere to public health mandates to send a child to public school. If you choose not to abide, then you can opt to send your kid to a private school.
That would be false.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/immunization.asp
which points to
https://www.shotsforschool.org/child-care/
https://www.shotsforschool.org/7th-grade/
https://www.shotsforschool.org/k-12/
And then there's
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-b-chapter-...