whYNOT

Both 'sides' can hold strange, irrational, unscientific theories about vaccinating. One of them, however, the vaxxers, is trying to force their way on the other, the so-called anti-vaxxers. You won't see the latter loudly and angrily trying to force non-vaccinating upon people and denouncing them (on FB and elsewhere). Although you point to an admittedly false alternative, where one person/side is for individual choice and the other is for collective obedience, I know where my sympathies lie.

LOL. Try it out, lad. Make an original and substantial - Objectivist - argument against anything I have said. I suggest DM, not to pay attention to this "captious or fallacious reasoner, quibbler". ["Sophist" def.]. Mr Quibbles will let you down.

No, by many scientists, possible and future mutations of the virus could be most harmful to the repeatedly mass-vaxxed especially. There are those who definitely should, in self-interest, get vaccinated because of preexisting conditions. Their risk-benefit ratio, Covid infection v. vaccination, is heavily weighted in favor. There are those who don't need to. There are those who don't want to. All have the rights to refuse or be temporarily hesitant, regardless of the reasons for those choices.

Seen, a mention of Rand, on The Wife's Facebook page among a largely freedom-orientated, rational and thoughtful thread (unusual and glad to know) by several South Africans: "For the record, all the antivaxx arguments - pro-choice, my body, experimental, microchips, Bill Gates, natural immunity, Big Pharma, a New Holocaust - it's all selfish, Ayn Rand, individualist, libertarian, bullshit". Notice the package-deal. Against forced vaccines - must - equal 'microchips' etc.etc. For his angry conclusion: generally for Oists one presumes, and essentially, absolutely true. The writer reveals profound awareness that the enemy of the collective is the individual. That is the main war, of which vaxxes and masks and so on, is a subsidiary.

What is "unnecessarily"? One man's standard of necessity will not be an other's and the criterion of 'judgment' will be subjective/relativist so none can judge objectively. It's necessary for a rational man to take all possible risks into account - and assume, benevolently and fearlessly, that no one is "out to get him" deliberately. If there are a few who will dangerously fire off guns in public, that is a remote reality he accepts for going out, pursuing his goals. Otherwise, for any who are so scared of people, be consistent - hide away from society on a mountain top or deserted island. (Or cover yourself up/take the jabs, etc.) This argument you pose resorts to alarmism, and sounds like the horde of vaxxers trying to intimidate and 'guilt' any others into compliant behavior. Only some libertarians' version of "initiation of force" (NAP) ~might~ lend your argument credibility. I.e. then NIOF is a floating abstraction, detached from man's nature, and ethics and individual rights. "You will NOT do such and such - you can't guarantee others may not be harmed!" (Ending up in practice a primary concern for 'the other', a rigid, self- restrictive commandment, inimical to an individual's freedom of action).

Life requires risk. Living IS risk. Or else one wouldn't get out of bed every morning. DM, you are stuck in a single and linear modality: person-to-person transmission. So you come by unending culpability for random others' health/illness, at risk of initiating force. Clear, you don't know the facts. A virus becomes an epidemic and pandemic when it has a greater transmission rate than one. When it has an R0 factor of (e.g.) 3, one may calculate that only five generations of infection starting from one person will lead to 1000 cases over a short period. Then show which person in the exponential chain is responsible for physical force, or, all of them... The transmission is "out of control". Basic questions of strategy 1. do you try to clamp down on the spread? (an unsuccessful policy, as fatality results show us. With a host of knock-on problems and damage, we won't see the end of for decades). or 2. do you self-select and select the "vulnerable cohort" for special protection, allowing the spread in the vastly less-risk population until natural herd immunity had been reached? (and it would have been) - then following up with vaccines for the vulnerable when they are later developed. https://www.physio-pedia.com/Endemics,_Epidemics_and_Pandemics "The WHO defines pandemics, epidemics, and endemics based on a disease's rate of spread. Thus, the difference between an epidemic and a pandemic isn't in the severity of the disease, but the degree to which it has spread. A pandemic cuts across international boundaries, as opposed to regional epidemics. This wide geographical reach is what makes pandemics lead to large-scale social disruption, economic loss, and general hardship. It's important to note that a once-declared epidemic can progress into pandemic status. While an epidemic is large, it is also generally contained or expected in its spread, while a pandemic is international and out of control".

This requotation needs addressing as an example of many such scientists who independently have voiced similar reservations (for the very long term, not side effects). They are gaining nothing out of it, quite the opposite, their reputations are being slurred. No one can doubt that there has been information censoring/filtering throughout the pandemic by the 'legitimate' scientists. The rush to coerce vaccinations on whole populations must give pause for thought. If even a theoretical possibility, vaccinations "may be making mutant viruses worse". So what does the individual, who wants to follow the proper science, believe in and do? Place automatic faith in govt., media and pharmaceuticals? Take the jab when he/she has no pressing need of it? If they have any hesitancy, given the scientific dissent, previous cover-ups and noble lies, and they have the slightest reasonable doubt - their reluctance to be sacrificed for the common good is eminently supportable by Objectivists, you'd think. These people probably represent the last remnants of the independent individualists in collectivist societies. Mandates. Who benefits? If 'Society' is the beneficiary, not oneself and one's own, you not only have the right to refuse you have the moral right to refuse.

No one has said or implied this? Really? What has Doug Morris implied and stated many times? Initiation of physical force. I have said that the ¬rights¬ must be respected (which they are not, in the larger community and some countries) even if the ¬choice¬ made by many is not respected or respectable. That's all. A critical distinction. Polio inoculation, btw, was an essential preventive measure made by parents - only - on behalf of their child. For whom polio was dangerous. It was never meant 'to stop the spread', the rationalization for having kids who don't need it get vaccinated for Covid.

Lowest hanging fruit? Rather dig into the research for yourself. I can go on forever putting up more of the dissenting views from different countries. Take an example, treatment by Ivermectin which was mocked up to a month ago, is now getting serious reappraisal (and officially used in Japan and India). Another source, not Malone, who take the unified view, in the UK: https://www.totalhealth.co.uk/blog/blunders-pandemic-proportions

I am not conflating anything, my stance has always been pro-individual choice. Repeat, you are not pro-liberty if you believe that liberty is only for the smart and rational by your 'revealed knowledge' (mind reading). Or, only for one's own specially informed group, and not that of the others - and the many scientists - who contest the "settled science". There are good reasons not to vaccinate, one being that natural immunity, by prior infection, has been apparently proven to be more durable. Seven times by the Israel study, 20 times more, if one goes by Malone. You don't have the expertise to argue either way, and nor do I. And if someone's health threat from catching Covid is extremely low to zero, on a personal risk-benefit scale - for whom and for what is one getting vaccinated, in the first place? No particular reason? That's borderline irrational.

When you went from "initiation of physical force" (misunderstood) by not masking and not vaccinating - to "murder" by Covid, you were obviously through with "requiring" them to do so. You are ordering them, by force of gvt. I have a strong need to ensure individual freedoms, to which an Objectivist would agree; what's your need by belaboring over and over that single point, IOF?

Simple reply to the enraged anti-"anti vaxxers". (What's - really - their beef? They are safely jabbed, supposedly. It is becoming clearer it's not harm and deaths they largely worry about, that excuse is the cover for not having moral control over everyone )

DM: Can we get this straight? (Non-) initiation of force is the concrete effect of the Objectivist principle, individual rights. Individual rights are the positive right to one's freedom of action. Knowing this, a rational person understands everybody else has the right to his/her chosen acts (and convictions or beliefs). If there is an infectious disease around, and 'someone' might well be carrying it or left the virus on a surface, he/she may well choose to take rightful actions to avoid the infection through self-protection. He does NOT presume others must stop acting and living for his sake. You have forgotten the positive and over-ruling principle to focus on the negative act, "initiation of physical force", and come up with your repetitive mantra. One always has the right to take (avoiding) action, one doesn't have the right to expect or demand an anonymous 'other' to protect one. (Away from one's property).

No, Malone's "key"argument is for a ¬targeted¬ response by way of vaccination, according to risk-benefit evaluations. There are many scientists who think that way. Not blanketed - mandated - for everybody. If you know/believe you are in one comorbidity category or other, YOU should be vaccinated. See the above Mayo report. Of course anyone who feels they need it, for whatever their reasons e.g. "I want to do my bit to care for the community and stop the spread" - has access to the jab also. That is their individual right as much as those who don't want it. Don't blindly follow what someone else quibbles of Mallone, it is his over all, rational and individualist, STRATEGY that counts above all, as well as scientific concerns it integrates with.