[glofish]

I think you deliberately avoid taking an effort to appreciate the ethical side of the issue.

There is no vaccine that we currently mandate for the sole reason of protecting someone else.

The fundamental requirement of the Hippocratic Oath is "First, do no harm". If you are vaccinating someone, you better cause less damage to that person than the disease itself would do.

I have a kid, I am not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch of imagination: the whole family gets flu shots every single year.

But will I rush to get my kid vaccinated with a new thing rushed to market during a exaggerated hysteria, a vaccine not properly vetted for long term effects ... uhh most certainly not. I am going to wait a couple of years to see how others will fare.

(FYI I work in life sciences and I like to believe that I understand the inner workings of a living cell better than overwhelming majority of the population)

[greedo]

We impose many restrictions on individuals in the name of protecting others. Off the top of my head, my city doesn't allow driving under the influence, discharging firearms within city limits, public nudity, yelling fire inside a theater. We also vaccinate to build up community immunity, not just to address the health of an individual person.

And as far as COVID vaccinations go, you're trying to have your cake and eat it. Either COVID-19 isn't risky/dangerous for young people, (meaning we can safely vaccinate them), or it's dangerous to them. If you're trying to say that a vaccine for COVID-19 would have worse effects than the disease itself, I think this would be extremely unlikely, since it doesn't occur with other vaccines.

If a COVID vaccination has a 1 in 100K rate of deleterious side effects (up to and including COVID-19) in the general population, then vaccinating the US population (330M) would result in 3300 cases of COVID (or bad side effects). The benefit of this would be saving roughly 2M people from death, and countless others from hospitalization and long term complications.

[glofish]

Comparing vaccinating someone to driving under the influence makes no sense whatsoever.

As for the other content, it just shows you don't understand what kind of problems an insufficiently tested vaccine could cause. You should educate yourself better:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/dengue-vaccine-fiasc...

[greedo]

You're moving the goalposts. You originally were talking about the risks of vaccinating kids and young adults, and saying that the vaccine had to be better than 1/100k. Now you're saying concerned about insufficiently tested vaccines. These are completely different issues, but you're trying to muddy the water.

Of course no one wants to take a vaccine that didn't undergo proper clinical trials. The argument was whether a vaccine that had typical side effect ratios would be ethical.

[s1artibartfast]

You are correct that there is a utilitarian argument that vaccinations will save lives. You and the parent post disagree about the new vaccine risk level. Do you think that they should be compelled to vaccinate their child with the unproven vaccine. What if the risks outweigh the benefit for the child, but are positive for society at large?

[greedo]

I don't think anyone should be vaccinated with an unproven vaccine. Any vaccine issued should have cleared Phase IV, with minimal short-lived and long-lasting side effects. I won't take a vaccine, nor have my children vaccinated until then. I'm also looking at the current rush for a vaccine with a jaundiced eye. I think the likelihood of ever finding a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 is small, however I hope we get lucky, and the tremendous resources being applied to finding a vaccine pay off.

I don't think we disagree about the new vaccine risk level, since we don't have a vaccine, nor know anything about its side effects.

If a vaccine is has differing risks based on age group, then I would hope that we vaccinate the lowest risk group; assuming the risk variance is significant.

As a society, vaccinations are naturally government infringement upon individual rights. But a well-functioning society routinely infringes on individual rights. We place children in protective services when their parents don't care for them properly (in the mind of the government). We (in extreme times) invoke a draft for military personnel. As my dad used to say, your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. Rights are not inviolable; though care should be taken to limit infringement.

As SC Justice Robert Jackson once said, the protections afforded by the Constitution "must not be discredited by an interpretation to mean liberty without law."

[s1artibartfast]

I agree that we wont have an understanding about the vaccine risk until it is developed, and would add that we wont have a good understanding until many years after it is developed.

I don't feel that you answered my questions directly, but if I understand correctly, it appears that you would hypothetically favor compulsory vaccination of children for the greater good, even if the personal risk outweighs the benefit.

I wholeheartedly disagree, as I do with the draft. Similarly, I 'think the right not to be punched, is analogous to forcing someone else to vaccinate for your benefit.

As a society, we get to decide what impositions we impose on individual liberty. Where would you draw this line?

I draw the line at criminal charges for failure to vaccinate.