[dahart]

Do you believe this is what parent was referring to? I must assume not because they used the word “authoritarian”, which implies they’re complaining about minority groups imposing their will on the majority.

Do you believe that Tyranny of the Majority is a valid concern with the vaccine mandates? Which minority groups are being oppressed?

[ifyoubuildit]

I can't speak for parent, I'll leave that to them. I just meant to show evidence that because something is approved by the majority doesn't disqualify it from being tyrannical.

Personally, I don't see why it wouldn't be a concern with the mandates, but I think this conversation has already been repeated by others ad nauseum:

I say bodily autonomy, you might say we mandate all sorts of vaccines, I say these aren't those vaccines, you might say well they're safe and effective, and I say talk to me in 5 or 10 years when we have long term data, and you might say well we've never linked adverse effects to previous vaccines after n days, to which I'd say good luck actually finding those impacts if they do exist and again these aren't those vaccines, and we eventually arrive at a difference in beliefs/biases and an impasse.

[dahart]

> I say bodily autonomy, you might say we mandate all sorts of vaccines […] talk to me in 5 or 10 years when we have long term data

It’s strange to me that the arguments against vaccines are all self-centered, about personal risk, and the arguments in favor are all addressing net social benefit. I kinda want the bodily autonomy to not get infected by someone refusing to take any social precautions over political beliefs.

We have more than enough data already, enough people have died from COVID, to prove the vaccine is a net benefit to society, and enough data and solid evidence to know that the personal risk is much lower than the risks that come from getting COVID.

> because something is approved by the majority doesn’t disqualify it from being tyrannical

We’re talking about something specific, not vague platitudes. Tyranny is defined as being oppressive, arbitrary or cruel assertions of power. None of that is true for the COVID vaccine.

[ifyoubuildit]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on your usage of autonomy there, but your point is taken. We should be looking out for each other, and I think you'd find that a lot of people probably are, even if they disagree with you about various covid/vaccine issues.

Regular testing, distancing, masking, foregoing normal activities are examples of other ways to look out for each other. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think we'll eventually find that folks who just got vaccinated and went about life like normal probably caused more spread than folks who didn't but kept up all the other precautions. I think if you assume everyone thats going about it differently from you is selfish, you're going to be missing chunks of the picture.

> We have more than enough data already...

And this is where we find our difference in beliefs/biases. Same for your opinions on what is and isn't tyranny, which you're welcome to.

[dahart]

> I think we’ll eventually find that folks who just got vaccinated and went about life like normal probably caused more spread than folks who didn’t

Why do you believe this? What evidence do you have to ignore the overwhelming conclusions of all the experts actually studying the disease and the vaccine? The idea that vaccinations cause more spread has in fact been studied on the COVID vaccine and on others. It’s generally not true for most vaccines, why do you think it’s true for this one?

Why are you talking about spread and not also hospitalizations and fatalities? The vaccine considerably lessens the risk of dying. Even if the spread rate were to increase a little (which I don’t really buy), but the risk decreases by an order of magnitude, isn’t a lower total death rate a social net benefit?

How many people have died of COVID to date? How many people have died of COVID vaccines so far? Seriously, please find and compare those two numbers.

Tyranny is defined in many dictionaries. It’s not my opinion, the word has a specific meaning. You haven’t answered the question of why a vaccine mandate should be considered tyranny, or how it compares to any other case of action mandated by law, or personal freedoms limited by law, of which we have many.

It would be lovely if anti-vaxxers were distancing and wearing masks, but that seems like a fantasy to me. How many anti-vaxxers really are wearing masks and taking all other precautions? There seems to be a lot of data that there’s a large correlation and significant overlap between people who are anti-vax and anti-mask and anti-lockdown. We had the chance to stop COVID spread, and we bungled it by politicizing the solutions, people are screaming tyranny over mask mandates and social distancing mandates too.

[ifyoubuildit]

> the overwhelming conclusions of all the experts actually studying the disease and the vaccine?

Forgive the snarkiness, but do you have some sort of machine that knows who all of the true experts are, and figures out the sum of all of their knowledge? Even better if it comes with daily updates. I'd love to borrow it if you do.

My point is you yourself would have to be an expert to be making the assertion that you're making. Are you? If not, it comes down to us just trusting different sources. I personally like published literature. I don't like the news or Twitter personalities or bureaucrats.

That aside, I think you're responding to something I didn't (or at least didn't mean to) claim. I'm not saying the vaccine itself makes you spread covid, I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if the people who heard "safe and effective" and thought "great, no need for any of that other stuff, let's party!" [Edit:] might be generating more cases than someone who takes every other precaution.

I believe this because there is published evidence that these vaccines only reduce spread, they don't stop it. (More exposure + some reduction in transmissibility) could be greater than (minimal exposure + full transmissibility). I'm not claiming this is fact. It's just the prediction of some dummy on the internet.

> Why are you talking about spread and not also hospitalizations and fatalities

Can't have hospitalizations or deaths without spread. I'm talking about looking out for each other here, the social good that you referred to. If my own personal odds of spreading to other people is low enough (for example because I regularly test and have previously recovered, and all the other precautions I mentioned), I've done my part. If someone is vaccinated but engaging in high risk activities, I've done more than them.

> Tyranny is defined in many dictionaries

Lots of things are defined in the dictionary. It's then on us humans to interpret them and apply them. I'm not necessarily saying the mandates are tyranny, I'm saying they could be. The mandates may turn out to be illegal. If they do, that might be considered the president unlawfully enforcing rules, which to some might be considered tyrannical.

[spurgu]

I'll bite. First of all I don't think vaccine mandates are "tyranny", just stupid/stubborn (and in the some cases virtue signaling).

> The idea that vaccinations cause more spread has in fact been studied on the COVID vaccine and on others.

The studies done since at least August (after delta) suggest that the vaccine doesn't do much for stopping transmission. For example: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

> Why are you talking about spread and not also hospitalizations and fatalities? The vaccine considerably lessens the risk of dying.

It all boils down to hospitalization. The problem here is that the vast majority of hospitalizations are old people and/or with co-morbidities. Vaccinating young and healthy (or children) does very little to help this (except line the pockets of pharma companies (and politicians if you believe in conspiracy theories)).

I got two jabs because I was under the false impression (as were many others) that I'd be protecting my parents (and other members of society), but now since that's out of the window thanks to delta (and omicron lurking behind the corner) I see very little reason to get a lifetime Pfizer subscription.

> It would be lovely if anti-vaxxers were distancing and wearing masks

Given that I've had two jabs but am strongly considering not getting a third, does that make me a pro-vaxxer or anti-vaxxer? I'm fairly young (in my 30's) and in good health. I'm not worried about Covid. I'm worried about older members of my family getting it and have recommended them 3rd jabs. For me, no thanks.

Re: masks, it's difficult to speak about this (due to being labeled an "anti-vaxxer" or "spreader of misinformation"), masks don't ultimately don't do that much. Assuming you're socially distancing you're already protected against droplets, and against aerosols you'd have to use N95's to get any kind of protection. Sure if someone is talking to you directly (or coughing at you) wearing a mask makes sense. But by that logic it means that we should be wearing masks everywhere (unless we stay isolated) for the rest of our lives. Not an attractive option.

We all hoped vaccines were gonna solve this, but the situation we're facing now is one of denial, where no one is prepared to admit that we don't know what to do, so governments are panicking and hoping that vaccine mandates or Covid passports are going to do anything other than make already angry/scared/frustrated people more angry/scared/frustrated. Hint: It won't. Covid is here to stay.

People are yelling "pandemic of the unvaccinated". Think ahead a bit. If we were to get to 100% vaccination rate, which is practically impossible, it would just become the "pandemic of the vaccinated". Which kinds of variants would we be worrying about then?

Which leads into the fact that research shows (as logic also dictates) that natural immunity offers better protection than just that of the vaccine. I'll take my chances and let my immune system do the work, thankyouverymuch.

We don't force fat people to go on diets either, even though they're a burden on the healtcare system. And here in Europe we have to pay taxes for their healthcare as well. We accept that.

> We had the chance to stop COVID spread

Did we, seriously? It's becoming increasingly clear to me that there's not really much we could do after maybe March/April 2020. We can only mitigate the damages, try to protect risk groups. And that's what we should be focusing on. Not broad senseless measures like for example Covid passports.