[ampgt]

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

[masklinn]

> How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body?

That’s absolutely not new in any way? Public health has always been a force majeure trigger.

> Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

They’re not, but it can be quite difficult to impossible to push back against religious communities as they’ve managed to carve out lots of assumptions that you’re supposed to respect whatever they choose out of nowhere.

[bingohbangoh]

What historical public health measures exist that are as invasive as a needle in my body on a regular basis?

Non-COVID vaccinations are not the same thing here. The typical American booster shots are administered far, _far_ less frequently. They don't require yearly (or every 6mo) shots to be effective.

These non-COVID vaccinations also don't require me to, say, not participate in society (per the recent vaccine mandates in swaths of Western Europe). As for schools, I knew many kids whose parents chose not to get them vaccinated when I was growing up. It was tougher to get those exemptions at the University level, but still not impossible. The way these vaccination rules are playing out, thus far anyway, are trying to make it impossible to not be vaccinated no matter what the reason. Nobody cares what your reason is, even if its medically related. [0]

Also of note is that those non-COVID vaccinations work really really well. The COVID vaccinations are far less effective, as the increasing rates in places like Israel or Gibralter show. It should be noted that, at least thus far, its better to be vaccinated than non-vaccinated as the former are less likely to have severe symptoms battling the disease. But these are hardly the polio vaccine, _at least not yet_ as a better vaccine may come along.

[0]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9806345/Incoming-fr...

[threatofrain]

Hasn't it been this way since forever?

Firstly, the US has always granted special exceptions to religion for many public policy requirements. You can complain about how it's unfair, but it's likely that the public needle of opinion won't budge past a threshold within this lifetime.

Secondly, there have already been widespread medical requirements for all sorts of aspects of public life, and this hasn't been controversial. Immigrants are required to be immunized. Churches may require missionaries to be immunized. Schools may require children to be immunized.

[loxias]

> Hasn't it been this way since forever?

At least since Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905).

> granted special exceptions

This podcast: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1027132680/can-the-government... explained the "religious exception" quite well.

My paraphrasing is horrible, but the gist was something like: "religion has a sort of 'most favored' status, so if there's ever a secular exception to a rule, there must also be a religious exception".

Personally, I think that's absurd, but I'm less upset about it after hearing the explanation. I highly recommend listening to the 18 minute episoide.

[olivermarks]

I'm an immigrant into the USA and was never 'required to be immunized'

[threatofrain]

Ok.

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccin...

[filoleg]

What's your definition of "immigrant into the USA" here?

You aren't required to get immunized for H1B and a number of other visas, but for green card (aka permanent resident card), you are absolutely required to get a general medical exam + screen for TB + get up to date on all your vaccinations. You need to do it shortly before the green card interview, because you are expected to bring those papers with you for the interview.

[cosmotic]

We should at least try to budge that needle. As long as that argument is used, it won't budge. We gotta budge it despite the argument.

[Daishiman]

Why?

[loxias]

> "How did we get to a point..."

Every day, we all make tradeoffs as part of the price to pay for living in society. This is not a new thing. (and I assert it's counterproductive and anti-social behavior (harmful to society, the opposite of pro-social, not meaning "introverted") to assert that it is.)

I can't build a DIY rocket powered car and drive it around town. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

I can't even drive a store bought car without a drivers license. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

I can't open a restaurant and sell food without some sort of license/permit from the city. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

(I recently learned the hard way that) I can't even build a new wall in my home without having the design approved and permitted. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

I can't attend school (public or private) without DTaP, Polio, and MMR vaccines, making it a de facto requirement of life.

These are all restrictions on personal liberty that we accept up as part of the social contract.

And yet, somehow, there is this (literally!) sickening idea going around that it's a "new thing" to require _this specific_ vaccine. Considering the fact that we know that being un-vaccinated will eventually hurt people (by increasing transmission, and hastening the onset of a disastrous mutation), I'm terrified and enraged that it's not being treated similarly to driving drunk.

[BackBlast]

> I can't attend school (public or private) without DTaP, Polio, and MMR vaccines, making it a de facto requirement of life.

> These are all restrictions on personal liberty that we accept up as part of the social contract

Historically it had been trivially easy to fill out a form and go to public school without vaccines everywhere I've lived.

The purpose of the form is to know who to send home from school if there is a break out of a disease that is relevant to those who choose not to vaccinate. A very accommodating position.

This policy is now potentially being changed to hard requirements with no escape valve for good or ill. It is factually incorrect to say it had always been this way. This is a material change to policy, fights in legislatures about vaccine mandates have been brewing for at least two decades that I have seen. You can expect a lot of lawsuits and legislative battles along these lines as well.

[landemva]

'I can't even drive a store bought car without a drivers license.'

If you are a corporation or business, that is generally true. If you are using a conveyance in your personal capacity, then you are not regulated unless you voluntarily sign up to be licensed. Your choice.

"For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 75 Mont. 240, 243 P. 1073 (1926)"

[loxias]

Thanks for this! (really) And thanks for a great citation.

I don't have a drivers license. I always assumed driving a car without a license, registration, and proof of insurance was illegal and would get me in trouble. I admit, I didn't research this aspect before writing my above comment (tho I did research the vaccine requirements, my source is a government website).

Now I don't quite know what to think! Can I legally drive a car on public roads in California?

[importantbrian]

I'm late to the party on this but before you go trying to drive without a license what OP posted is untrue. Here's is a good write up about it from Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/supreme-court-rules-driver...

[s1artibartfast]

In the case of the parent article, the equivalent framing to add to the list is:

I can't rely on my naturally acquired immunity with 80+> efficacy instead of a vaccine with 90% efficacy to go to work. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

[u801e]

What study shows 80% or greater efficacy for primary immunity versus secondary immunity via vaccination? Do they go into detail regarding how long the immunity lasts, and whether it covers varients? Viruses that cause the flu or common cold change from season to season, so immunity (either primary or secondary) doesn't really protect against a subsequent varient.

[s1artibartfast]

>What study shows 80% or greater efficacy for primary immunity versus secondary immunity via vaccination

The CDC claims being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated. Most vaccines are 90+ effective. Say for example moderna is 95.3% effective, natural immunity would be 89% (100% - 4.7% x 2.34)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

>Do they go into detail regarding how long the immunity lasts, and whether it covers varients?

There is a lot of information missing on duration, but we know people who were infected with SARS-CoV-1 still have antibodies 20 years later. Natural infection triggers an immune response on many more parts of the virus than the vaccine, so protection against variants should also be good or better than the original vaccine, but not better than a booster vaccine tailored specifically to a given variant.

[criticaltinker]

> being un-vaccinated will eventually hurt people (by increasing transmission, and hastening the onset of a disastrous mutation)

Your statement is missing the sorely needed nuance that individuals with immunity acquired through natural infection are at least equally well protected as vaccinated individuals. That is the consensus in the scientific consensus literature right now.

This fact is the central argument of the lawsuit presented in the OP.

It's imperative to move beyond the dualistic framing of these discussions as "vaccinated versus unvaccinated". At this point it's borderline misinformation to continue with such rhetoic.

[smorgusofborg]

People acquire natural immunity by being a danger to themselves and others. This professor is effectively and advertisement campaign for covid Parties to get back to work without needing the acceptable risk by being an insanely negligent factor in public health. I don't see any point in creating a public health process to find people who have safe levels naturally acquired by no negligence of their own to not cause more problems by performing this testing.

[Grimm1]

If this was a sterilizing vaccine, such that you couldn't spread the virus or be infected after taking it I'd say neither are okay, religious or otherwise, because your personal choice has the potential to affect a wide range of people by getting them sick, making your personal choice not so personal. Your rights end where mine begin and all of that.

You shouldn't be able to spread a virus to others without consequences if there is a low risk way to completely eliminate that chance. Bodily autonomy is not an excuse to prolong a deadly pandemic especially because in this instance, this type of bodily autonomy doesn't come without large measurable consequences to society at large.

[andi999]

Even non sterilizing could be argued, it effects other people if you cannot find an ICU after your car accident because they are full with unvaccinated (and some vaccinated) covid patients.

[xondono]

The problem with this argument is that you can use it to also ban tobacco, and alcohol, and sugar, and red meat, and then you can move to things like sports, and start banning bungee jumping and rock climbing,…

There’s no obvious way to draw a line, but you definitely need one.

[wtallis]

> There’s no obvious way to draw a line, but you definitely need one.

That's why you look at the magnitude of the effect, not just the direction of the effect. Not all slopes are slippery. Our legal system does not collapse as soon as it is tasked with determining which harm is more important to prevent.

[xondono]

> Our legal system does not collapse as soon as it is tasked with determining which harm is more important to prevent.

No, it just sucks at drawing lines and harms thousands if not millions of innocent bystanders.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> is that you can use it to also ban tobacco, and alcohol, and sugar, and red meat, and then you can move to things like sports

To be honest, IMHO both smoking tobacco and sports that cause a lot of concussions (eg. Rugby, American Football) are not going to last in the long term, or become marginal not mainstream activities.

This might involve legislative pressures on them, as well as a decline in social acceptance. In the case of Tobacco, we see this drop well advanced already. This is no bad thing, considering the outcomes from these activities.

[bradknowles]

If eating red meat was causing the ICUs to fill up, then I think the public health concerns should take precedence. And then we should be talking about a nationwide ban of the practice.

Likewise with smoking.

But neither of those activities has that level of impact on public health. So, the measures to be taken to curtail that kind of activity likewise should not be as strong.

But COVID is that bad. So, yes — vaccinations should be mandatory. Masking in public should be mandatory. At least, until the pandemic is over and we have sterilizing vaccines as well as medications that are proven to help cure the disease. And yes, this period could last years.

And if you don’t want to be vaccinated and you don’t want to wear a mask in public, then you don’t have to go out into public. You can stay home. And if you want to violate that rule too, then we should be able to lock you up in a COVID hotspot jail.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Smoking _does_ cause hospital wards to fill up. But it happens on average a few decades later. So, the measures taken to curtail it have also come in over decades. But in the end, they will be strong.

I'm in agreement with you on COVID and the necessary public health measures during an active pandemic.

[woofie11]

It can, but it's a lousy argument. If my body doesn't affect your body, it should be my choice. Freedom is an American value. It's not a world value, and I wouldn't impose it on other countries, but it is an American one.

I'm 100% for vaccine mandates iff vaccines significantly reduce R0.

I'm 100% against them if they do not. Once my vaccination stops affecting the public health, it's my choice.

Banning unsafe things IS a mistake. Yes, I ought to be able to sword fight on a tightrope with sharp swords and no protection over a pit of alligators, if I decide that's what I want to do.

If that's the concern, then triage the unvaccinated COVID19 patients last. But in the long term, capacity expands to meet demand, and it's perfectly okay to change insurance premiums for anti-vaxers, smokers, or otherwise (or sword fighting over a pit of crocodiles, for that matter).

[smorgusofborg]

> If that's the concern, then triage the unvaccinated COVID19 patients last.

This is an ethics violation.

I don't really get your argument on risk. Non-vaccinated people with natural acquired immunity each got their special card rights by having caused a definite risk to everyone because they computed potential mutations perpetuating the pandemic and most likely perpetuated them. We have too high a population compared to 1918 to even have a that rough equivalent of what happens with a new virus in a pool of any more than 2 billion who aren't vaccinated.

All I hear when I hear anti-vax arguments is a freeloader who refers to natural things that are completely unrelated to the life science is letting them live. If you don't like artificial vaccination, you need to propose how you want to lower the population to pre-science era levels.

[s1artibartfast]

What if there was a medical treatment prbabisticly reduced aggression, violence, or other antisocial behavior?

[Grimm1]

Well today if you were to punch me you'd likely be on trial for assault, and if you killed me, murder. Antisocial behaviors generally aren't legally punishable until they're taken out on someone else.

In this case, if you choose not to get the vaccine and then through contact tracing or some other mechanism an outbreak is traced to you when you could have gotten a vaccine? Assault sounds correct to me and if you killed someone through inaction, then something equivalent to negligent homicide sounds correct to me. You're not necessarily malicious but I'd say fairly negligent.

Not that that's what is currently the case, but it seems fair to me and in that world, rolling the dice on criminal charges instead of just getting a vaccine that 169million people in US alone currently have taken with no issue seems like a dumb dice roll to me, but most people have steadily proven to me over the last few years that they're not great at risk calculation over and under.

[mlac]

I am vaccinated and pro-vaccine, but it is not “zero issues”. There are side effects with the vaccines, and some of them are significant (partial paralysis).

The numbers still work that we should get vaccinated, but it’s unclear if people who have the worst side effects from the vaccine would be the same ones who would have suffered the worst effects of COVID (death).

So I get it - if you’re young, healthy, and unlikely to die from COVID, it is a non-zero (very, very small) risk from talking the vaccine. But I still think people should get the shot.

[hallihax]

I'm not aware of any actual data on this, but it seems to me that those who choose not to be vaccinated are probably also very unlikely to be tested on any regular basis (if at all), and also (at least in the UK, where I am) not engage in any kind of voluntary contact tracing.

There seems to me to be a gap between what people think is happening, and what is actually happening. How exactly are people who haven't tested positive for Covid (either through a negative result, or simply avoiding testing altogether) going to be identified as the source of an outbreak if they're also not engaging in contact tracing in the first place?

As it stands, it seems to me like the most likely people to be contact traced are those who are also testing regularly, and are also the most likely to be vaccinated. I would be surprised if non-vaccinated people are anything but rarely identified as the source of an outbreak, precisely because they're also much less likely to ever get tested (unless seriously ill) or engage in contact tracing.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

If you look at "reducing environmental levels of the metal lead" instead of a "medical treatment" then yes it does exactly that (and other harms). This is the reason for banning of lead in Gasoline, paint, pipes etc etc.

[s1artibartfast]

Yes, but this gets away from the bodily autonomy topic which the thread was exploring.

People want bodily autonomy.

People want to be free of the 2nd order harms of the medical decisions others make.

[framecowbird]

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding vaccination. However, there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body.

The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion.

Why do we accept that but are suddenly outraged by vaccination? Vaccination mandates aren't new either: many countries will not even let you enter unless you are vaccinated against yellow fever.

I think there are valid arguments opposing vaccine mandates but the "this is an unprecedented infringement on freedom" isn't one of them.

[josephcsible]

> there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body. The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion.

You're only applying this argument in one direction, but it works in both directions. Most people who want the vaccine to be mandatory disagree with the state restricting drug usage and abortion. If you disagree with some policy and want to get it overturned, it seems wrong to try to use it as precedent to set new policies in the meantime.

[framecowbird]

I agree, and I'm not arguing that X is OK just because it's similar to Y and Z.

What I don't like is the pretence that this is suddenly a brand new unprecedented invasion on privacy. It builds outrage and fear off the idea what the state is doing is completely unprecedented. However, that's not entirely true. That's what I find intellectually dishonest.

[josephcsible]

> It builds outrage and fear off the idea what the state is doing is completely unprecedented. However, that's not entirely true. That's what I find intellectually dishonest.

Fair, although there is one other angle from which I think this is unprecedented: aren't those other restrictions all things that you can't do, with this being the first one that's something that you have to do? For example, consider freedom of speech. Exceptions that compel speech are much rarer than exceptions that prohibit speech.

[framecowbird]

Yeah that's super interesting. Is an action morally any different to a lack of action?

This is like the train trolley: where you can either phrase it as doing nothing, or pushing a lever. People apply much more stringent moral codes when there is action involved, or even when the fat man is actually pushed by hand.

[s1artibartfast]

I think this exactly the distinction. A lot of people frame their worldview which places value and judgement on the action, while freeing someone from responsibility for their inaction (deontological ethics). This is also common but not exclusive in many legal system (e.g. it is not murder for a bystander to not save a life/pull the lever).

I think this is coming into conflict with rising a utilitarism and consequentialist ethical worldview in the united states. Neither system is perfet, but one challenge of the consequentialist worldview is that it holds people accountable for sub-optimal behavior. (e.g. it is murder to not pull the lever, or not donate to save that starving child in Africa).

Without getting too off track, I think the conflict between these two ethical views is a big driver of the tone of discusource and current ideological conflicts in the US, be it public health, racical justice, and the role of the government.

[cycomanic]

There is two problems with this argument.

First it's easy to turn it around, it seems wrong to shout now about "infringing my freedom" if you have been pushing to infringe other people's freedom for a long time (I'd say most antivaxers are conservatives at the moment).

And second is that people oppose restricting drug use and abortion for other reasons than simply it is telling someone what to do or not do with their body.

BTW there are many other examples so it's just plain stupid to argue telling me what to do with my body is wrong on principle.

[jokethrowaway]

Abortion is different as it's someone else life. If you kill a baby in your belly, you're still ending another life and violating the non aggression principle. If the pregnancy is threatening your life, then you could justify it.

In regards to drugs - I think any sort of government interference is horribly wrong. Likewise, if I want to kill myself, that's on me.

[avastmick]

> Why do we accept [the state telling people what to do with their bodies in some cases] but are suddenly outraged by vaccination?

We're certainly not "suddenly outraged by vaccination". In fact, vaccines and anti-vaccine sentiment have historically gone hand in hand[1]. The historical reaction to vaccines _is_ worsened when mandated. The Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1866 in reaction to the British compulsory vaccination order for smallpox.[2] Would smalpox have been eliminated if people could have chosen for themselves?

[1] https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Anti-Vaccination_Leag...

[foogazi]

That says more about the bullshit nature of religious exemptions

[archontes]

We regulate things that can harm people. If your body can harm people, it's subject to regulation.

We regulate your ability to punch, to bite, and to infect. Simple as that.

And this last was formally established by the SCOTUS 116 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

[mleonhard]

It goes back as far as 1906: Mary Mallon (aka Typhoid Mary) was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid. The government barred her from working as a cook. She took a fake name and resumed cooking for others. After several people died, the government discovered her crime and imprisoned her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

[dragonwriter]

> How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body?

What do you think employment, literally, is? A gives B money and direct’s what B does (of necessity, with B’s body), both positively and negatively, within some agreed (mixed between explicit agreement and implicit agreement via governing law) parameters.

[thurn]

It's funny you say this, because I think everyone would actually agree that I have a strong First Amendment free speech right to tell you what to do with your body. Similarly, businesses and institutions have a First Amendment right (the right of association) to choose who they do business with.

[bcrosby95]

> Similarly, businesses and institutions have a First Amendment right (the right of association) to choose who they do business with.

Private institutions. George Mason University is a public school and the situation for this professor is actually the exact opposite of what you seem to be claiming here.

[kbenson]

And yet they can require many things of people that are infringements of rights of expression and autonomy, such as dress codes.

If en employee there notified them that they had been infected with a highly infectious disease (think smallpox) and still wanted to go to work, would they have a right to deny that person? If so, what specifically constrains them in a situation like this that wouldn't in a situation like that?

[josephcsible]

Would you deny a person entrance to your building because they had Ebola or rabies?

Would you deny a person entrance to your building because they weren't vaccinated against Ebola or rabies?

Why the different answers?

[true_religion]

I think it’s okay for a public venue to deny people access due to something being present, but not due to something not being present.

For example, I generally support laws that let people go topless or nude in public. But I’m okay with places banning people due to clothing choices… like all white conical hoods.

[kbenson]

Those are exactly the types of things I'm trying to get the GGP comment to elucidate on. Mine was not a comment making a judgement, but seeking clarification on reasoning, by providing a case many could and would agree on to contrast against, in a similar vein to what you attempt to be doing.

[maxerickson]

They weren't forcing them to do anything with their body, they were imposing a some job conditions.

Imagine of they required the guy to wear clothes or something ridiculous like that.

[fatbird]

We aren't out warring on "no shirts, no shoes, no service" mandates in private businesses, but somehow mandating a vaccine for a pandemic disease that kills is a gross infringement on our bodily autonomy? Religious exemptions for vaccinations shouldn't be allowed either.

[josephcsible]

You can take your shirt and shoes back off once you leave a business. A better comparison would be businesses that banned certain hairstyles or tattoos.

[fatbird]

In fact, you are, in the US, allowed to refuse service to someone based on their tattoos or hairstyle [0]. The only prohibition in general on refusing service is to protected classes such as race or sex.

So now we can refuse service to someone with a tattoo we dislike, but not because they're unvaccinated? We don't deserve to survive as a species if we're that fucking dumb.

[0] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AHnJsx...

[josephcsible]

In a lot of states, hairstyle is considered a protected class these days.

[jdjd6]

If you are so concerned, by all means you can get as vaccines as you want. To now, it remains unanswered why others have to be forced to receive the vaccine.

[fatbird]

Because most of the effect of vaccines is their effect en masse. It's a solution lying almost entirely within the realm of collective action, so it's a test of whether we're collectively smart enough to implement a rational collective solution, which includes using some degree of coercive measures to achieve it.

Basically, if we let a pandemic kill millions because a fetish for personal choice prevents us from doing what's necessary to prevent it, we're too fucking stupid to survive as a species. That doesn't have to mean going to door-to-door with guns and needles; getting to the critical mass we need just means refusing to let the stupidly unvaccinated into a variety of public venues like airplanes and universities long enough to make them get the vaccine.

[elurg]

Rejecting vaccination endangers other so it should always be mandatory, except on health grounds.

Religion exemptions exist only because of the political power of religious groups. They should be abolished.

[sorethescore]

Neither is okay. Vaccination should be mandatory.

[michaelmrose]

When your not doing something with your body results in the harm of death of people other than yourself? The right to swing your fist has always ended at others nose. What we are litigating is not that concept well established but a still somewhat fluid understanding of the situation as it stands and how to apply our understanding of fact and law to the necessary choice between your autonomy and others safety.

Vaccinating someone who has already had covid is thornier and less clear. Medically it is certainly advisable a rerun isn't always mild and studies have shown individuals who are previously infected have twice the chance of reinfection compared to those who are also vaccinated.

The chance of misadventure from being vaccinated is fantastically low and the risk of reinfection while a lot smaller than in a naive individual is a long way from zero. I have substantial doubts regarding any immunologist would say

>and that it violates medical ethics to order unnecessary procedures.

Unless he had been in a coma and had just woken up yesterday.

What he is fighting for then is the right to undertake a course of action that is both meritless and brainless but I don't think we have a right to protect him from himself so the problem becomes is he risking others to an unacceptable degree. I'd say no. If he becomes infected he could infect others including the ample unvaccinated so he IS risking others by his actions but the risk is probably at this juncture small although this could change and he would be stupid to delay.

Importantly the test needs to be one with an acceptably low false positive rate performed by a legitimate lab. Not a self test for practical purposes lest people find a way to foul the test (see the soda issue where kids found out that an acidic liquid led to a positive test) or sell each other spit over the internet or something equally stupid.