Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. 27 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

    Are you sure that this is what you meant to say?

    The laws against drunk driving are aimed at the endangering, not the intoxication.  They do not apply to someone who gets drunk but doesn't drive.  If someone has liquor poured down their throat against their will, so that they have to swallow or drown, and they become intoxicated thereby, it should still be illegal for them to drive.  It is right to forbid someone to drive who has lost their ability to drive safely because of effects of old age, even though aging is not a volitional act.

    Yeah , pretty sure. To the first question.

    And I'm pretty sure dui/dwi laws are only applicable when intoxication is indicated. Reckless driving violations apply whether or not intoxication is a factor. So 'endangering' is like the genus with different species.

    Instances of violating laws aren't immoral acts based on the existence of laws, though it'd be nice if they were.


  2. We keep bouncing back and forth between the general and the particular, between the abstract and the concrete.

    IF there were such as thing as an objectively provable safe and effective vaccine for a communicable disease that poses a severe health threat to the majority of a population, one that can be proven to only confer the recipient with perfect immunity and no other biological outcomes: a mandate for its requirement to participate in the general/common market place would be plausible in a society based on the protection of individual rights.

    But as I have claimed since the 'beginning' of the covid pandemic , this 'disease' and the current slate of 'vaccines' do not meet those standards.

    The comparison to dui/dwi isn't analogous because self intoxication is a volitional act.

  3. I objected to the OP based on the fact that a 'vaccine passport' scheme would be an infringement of civil rights based on the fact that the vaccines do not curtail transmission to a degree that ensures adherence to such a scheme would guarantee the alleged health benefit. So any phrasing should be viewed in that context.

  4. 20 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

    That whole statement seems meaningless because prevention is in fact "meaningful slowing".

    Again there still is no definition  of what percent of lethality of the virus … lockdowns and authoritarian techniques become justified. Kind of like there is an objective delineation of when to give up one's right's.

    What if someone said "you're not being meaningfully reasonable"? The word "meaningful" seems to be a way to bring in an arbitrary and make it sound good.

    Yes and it seems like the reasoning one would use to rationalize the fact they were gaslit, check your premises.

  5. 1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

    Does this take into account the distinction between shedding infectious viruses and shedding non-infectious viral remnants?

    What test makes this distinction among samples ?

    The caveats at the end of the article you linked basically says that this distinction was not accessible for their study.



  6. The prevalence of break-through cases?

    As to the OP , since we agree that the COVID vaccines aren’t “100 %”, how would a system that identifies vaccine status work to provide added protection against infection among the vaccinated?

    I assume your argument would be that barring unvaccinated people from ‘polite society’ lessens the risk to those who responsibly vaccinated themselves.

    But given that any individual regardless of vax status could be contagious at any given time , wouldn’t a real time test be a more reliable indication of ‘safety’?

    Is a system that operates based solely on vaccine status reliable ‘enough’ for the privacy rights and freedom of association rights violations such a system would confer ?

    I take the question in the OP assumes that vax passports in themselves are a proven medical safety measure , and proven to a degree that would necessitate relinquishing certain civil rights enjoyment , ie that violations of the policy would merit criminal and or civil repercussions.

  7. 6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

    Vaccines work, but not 100%.  Thus your argument breaks down.

    The point is not to force a utopia on people, but to prevent them from unnecessarily endangering people, the same as with drunk drivers.  Laws against drunk driving are not aimed at establishing a utopia in which nobody ever gets drunk, nor a utopia in which nobody ever abuses alcohol, nor any utopia.

    Serious exaggeration.

    My argument is that covid vaccines do not work to meaningfully slow transmission, so what use is a vaccine verification system? It could or may be useful if they showed a high 'enough' efficacy against transmission.

    Even if the jabs were highly associated with transmission reduction, covid isn't a life threatening disease to the majority of society. It shouldn't be a question if people living their day to day lives unnecessarily endangers others, it should be what level of necessary risks are those most endangered by the disease willing to take.

  8. This argument implies the jabs are sterilizing vaccines.

    If we are talking about Ebola and there were a sterilizing vaccine I doubt much ‘coersion’ would be necessary. 

    With these vaccines and this contagion , vax passports aren’t a health measure , that premise is just an excuse for centralizing data and any and all power that would accrue to the ‘authorities’ that collected it.

    Why would individuals need the power of government to protect themselves , if vaccines ‘worked’ ? Getting vaccinated would confer protection.

     If the vaccines don’t ‘work’ how does distinguishing ‘vax status’ among individuals provide any added protection above common sense and risk analysis?

  9. On 12/16/2021 at 6:55 PM, Doug Morris said:

    If most eligible people had gotten vaccinated and boosted, the spread would have dramatically declined, and the nature of the pandemic would have changed.   

    Do you mean with the currently formulated jabs , or a more general statement about virology in regards to sterilizing vaccines ?

    The data on current formulations seems to point findings such as 






  10. 2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

    If most eligible people had gotten vaccinated and boosted, the spread would have dramatically declined, and the nature of the pandemic would have changed.   

    Would Israel be an example of this changed nature ? My impression is that that population has most eligible people included in that level of vaccination. I think they have fairly controlled travel so as a group the population could be view as an isolated population and the data can be a clearer picture of at least large signals for cause and effect. 

  11. 1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

    No one anywhere was claiming that they literally halt infection and transmission. 

    Of course no one was saying introducing leaky vaccines during initial spread would halt transmission. But no one was saying these are leaky experimental vaccines , no ‘sanctioned’ health officials anyway.

    But the idea that the jabs would end the pandemic was the narrative being pushed by all sanctioned officials. Government officials are pressuring the large media groups to suppress discussions that point to the levels of ineffectiveness and the fact that there are no known long term safety perimeters.

    If the data shows case/infection rates near ‘peak’ levels attained prior to introduction of the jabs , that is a far cry from allowing some transmission. Perhaps no one literally said the jabs would sterilize 100% of the recipients , but the guidance certainly said , more than intimated , that spread would dramatically decline.

  12. 16 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

    You are not taking into account the increased transmissability of the new variants. 

    Has the mechanism that increased the transmissability been defined ? Higher viral loads? Spike protein increased 'binding' site (s) ? What would the data look like if the transmissability stayed the 'same' but the vaccines were ineffective against transmission?

  13. 25 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

    Getting to where most people didn't have to worry much about COVID-19 and could go back to normal.

    If you're concerned, maybe you should inquire with the retailers and the local health department.  Ask detailed questions.


    Are saying that the jabs function was only to ameliorate worry ?

    That safety and effectiveness were secondary or non-relevant concerns? That EUA's were granted in order to quell panic?

  14. 1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

      The biggest reason vaccines have not accomplished as much as hoped is that a lot of people haven't gotten vaccinated.



    What was the hoped for accomplishment?

    and as an aside , does anyone think the local CVS, Rite Aid Walmart jab clinic followed the rather precise storage and handling specifications of the Pfizer formulations? I have my doubts on the abilities of my local Rite Aid employees and I question if the facility has the proper equipment in good working order to be up to the task. I bet there is probably a significant failure rate given the mass distribution, which I would count as a plus.

  15. 34 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

    To clarify, I don't mean all of life on Earth would suffer. I mean that to the extent resources from Earth are transferred to the Mars colony, those are resources unavailable for supporting life on Earth. It might not be the most important concern, but some thought should be given to the propriety of sending Earth's valuable materials on a potentially one-way journey to Mars.

    Not to quibble for the sake of quibbling, but you do see the arguments both for and against are here based on collectivist morales? "life on Earth" "Earth's valuable.."

    "Hey Hank, I'll trade you Dagny for that metal"

    "Um ok deal, If you don't mind , what do you plan to do with it?"


  • Create New...