Tadmjones is the one who introduced the word “meaningful” into this discussion (in adverb form) and therefore is the one who should define it.
The CDC director’s statement makes clear that she is taking the word “prevention” to mean reducing risk to the point where the risk can be ignored. I took tadmjones’s phrase " to meaningfully slow transmission" to mean slowing transmission to an extent that makes the slowing worthwhile, which is clearly different from reducing risk to the point where the risk can be ignored.
33 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:
lockdowns
Until your post, this thread had been about vaccination, not lockdowns.
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.
56 minutes ago, tadmjones said:
ensures adherence to such a scheme would guarantee the alleged health benefit.
So you want a guarantee. Might that be too stringent a requirement?
57 minutes ago, tadmjones said:
the alleged health benefit
I don’t know what you consider to be the alleged health benefit. What I am saying is that if staying unvaccinated creates too much risk, this justifies the mandate.
It is legitimate to outlaw drunk driving because it creates too much risk, even though any given instance of drunk driving may not do harm, and even though people will still die in traffic accidents due to other causes.
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.
48 minutes ago, tadmjones said:
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.
Are you sure that this is what you meant to say?
50 minutes ago, tadmjones said:
The comparison to dui/dwi isn’t analogous because self intoxication is a volitional act.
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.
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.
6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
Until your post, this thread had been about vaccination, not lockdowns.
Fair enough. I should have said forced behavior based on ANY possibility of harmfulness (conflation of imminent vs. not imminent).
Doug, your comments can upset me so much that I have a heart attack. Shouldn’t we restrict you from posting? (in fact that goes for anyone including myself)
That is the absurdity that is not being addressed. There is this vapor of an idea that you are promoting that you are basing justification for loss of liberty.
The other issue is that every municipality can have it’s own cutoff at which they consider something hazardous. At a minimum that ambiguity/non-objectiveness has to be acknowledged.
I will grant you that a certain probability of harmfulness can require some defensive measure, but I would argue that it is an “individual” matter. Meaning a person has a right to defend himself against what he things is imminent and pay compensation when wrong. But governmental action … one size fits all preemptive restrictions should be based on unanimous consent.
14 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
(conflation of imminent vs. not imminent).
If there is a possibility of germs being spread now, isn’t that pretty imminent? Maybe you should explain further how you are drawing and applying the distinction.
14 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
The other issue is that every municipality can have it’s own cutoff at which they consider something hazardous. At a minimum that ambiguity/non-objectiveness has to be acknowledged.
As long as we have the current situation in which most people don’t understand the principles involved and there is a lot of pressure-group warfare, we will have this problem with all issues. Better understanding of the fundamental principles allows for a better approach to the technicalities of applying them to any particular situation. My primary concern in these discussions has been to try to clarify the fundamental principles. But I have also responded to some comments about the technicalities.
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:
If there is a possibility of germs being spread now, isn’t that pretty imminent?
Wow. Maybe now I have a chance to convince you.
No, it’s not imminent. It is in fact the norm. It is always possible to spread germs and it is always happening.
The other issue is the hazard is based on the recipient. Like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, similarly, danger is relative to the person being infected, as in young or old, weak or strong etc. So imminence also has to be define as imminent to whom?
In some ways, one could say that spreading germs is necessary, it is a necessary condition of survival. Without freedom to spread germs one cannot survive. Now if the germ has a high mortality rate, and high has to be declared in a non objective “voting” fashion, the policy will be determined by that. (unless someone can propose an objective measure) Right now a child or the young have a .03 percent chance of dying of it. If we voted on the danger, would this be dangerous?
And then the question arises of when this voting can and will be manipulated by crony system that exists all around the world. The answer is: it it inevitable. So there is that unnecessary damage that has to be considered to. In a sense I think you are looking at the germ risk in a vacuum without the other potential risks.
From the web:
im·mi·nent
/ˈimənənt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: imminent
about to happen.
“they were in imminent danger of being swept away”
ARCHAIC
overhanging.
You don’t seem to be using either of these definitions. Please state your definition.
3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
about to happen.
Germ spreading is pretty much ALWAYS “about to happen”.
21 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
(conflation of imminent vs. not imminent).
Please explain what you’re talking about.
4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
No, it’s not imminent. It is in fact the norm.
You seem to be saying that something has to be abnormal in order to be about to happen. Please clarify.
Please state what definition of “imminent” you are using.
8 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
Please state what definition of “imminent” you are using.
Doug, I’m using your definition. “about to happen”. Germs are always being spread. You are doing it right now, I am doing it too. It is not about to happen, it is happening. It is normal. It is expected. It’s not about to happen but rather already happening.
We are not moving from a state of it’s not happening to it’s about to happen to it is happening. It’s already happening. To claim that something that is already happening is imminent implies that it was not happening and it is about to happen.
You introduced the word “imminent” into this thread.
On 1/12/2022 at 6:48 PM, Easy Truth said:
(conflation of imminent vs. not imminent).
Please explain what you were talking about when you said this.
2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
On 1/12/2022 at 4:48 PM, Easy Truth said:
(conflation of imminent vs. not imminent).
Please explain what you were talking about when you said this.
It’s related to the idea of clear and present danger. The fundamental question of when is a threat actionable.
The final calculation takes into account the ROI.
At what point is it cheapest to win the battle?
How much would it hurt if we defended ourselves and how?
Is there a better way?
etc.
I am arguing that just because I or you see a threat it does not make it actionable.
Passports means forced vaccination in addition to the issue of an attack on privacy.
A potential to spread germs cannot be construed as aggression. Otherwise you are guilty of it when you breathe.
Based on that, I would add that it is not justification for governmentally forced vaccination for many reasons. . The most important is the issue of liberty meaning the right to flourish. Implied in the right to flourish is your hopes and your choices, your autonomy and your freedom to act rationally. Without it, you, in a sense don’t exist. You don’t have a right to exist. Eventually you will have to shut up and do as you are told … or else.
As I said, I am vaccinated. To reiterate, my fear is that with the idea of a person introducing “unnecessary risk” as aggression, liberty at it’s core is under threat.
1 Like
13 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:
A potential to spread germs cannot be construed as aggression. Otherwise you are guilty of it when you breathe.
You are blowing off the question of how dangerous the germs are.
13 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:
To reiterate, my fear is that with the idea of a person introducing “unnecessary risk” as aggression, liberty at it’s core is under threat.
Does this mean we should not have laws against drunk or reckless driving or reckless use of guns or explosives?
12 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
A potential to spread germs cannot be construed as aggression. Otherwise you are guilty of it when you breathe.
You are blowing off the question of how dangerous the germs are.
No Doug, with your formulation, just spreading is increasing risk. There is no mention of spreading how much and to whom. That is what I am objecting to.
12 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
To reiterate, my fear is that with the idea of a person introducing “unnecessary risk” as aggression, liberty at it’s core is under threat.
Does this mean we should not have laws against drunk or reckless driving or reckless use of guns or explosives?
If enforcement is based on an individual level, then it should be done. Keep in mind, I said enforcement not laws. The basic law is that you are not to infringe on another’s rights. In most cases that does not require more laws.
If you see your neighbor has fifty riffles or is shooting up the neighborhood, you have a right to self defense which starts with investigative right to have the person interviewed and then escalate if something dangerous is determined. But we don’t have a right to jail someone simply because they own a gun or even explosives. Their competence at handling it can and should be legitimately ascertained. In this case, the neighbor complains to the police to do it.
The issue you bring up is ultimately about “recklessness”. Are you equating that with “not choosing to be vaccinated?”
If that is the case, then self determination, liberty, is by it’s nature “reckless”. Kind of like freedom of speech. Dissent can get people killed sometimes. I’m not talking about crying fire in a movie theatre. Legitimate free speech can get people killed. Should there be laws against legitimate freedom of speech (which is a nonsensical question).
I have avoided the driving issue because it is muddied by the fact that we have public roads and governmental licenses. The issue of rules of the road has to be contractual and different roads as in different road in different countries have different rules. But yes, you can and should have rules to go by when driving.
7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
No Doug, with your formulation, just spreading is increasing risk. There is no mention of spreading how much and to whom. That is what I am objecting to.
One distinction we need to draw is between risk that is within the norm and risk that goes beyond the norm. COVID-19 is serious enough that the risk of it goes beyond the norm, at least to some extent.
7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
The issue you bring up is ultimately about “recklessness”. Are you equating that with “not choosing to be vaccinated?”
To me, the key issue is creating unnecessary risk.
On 1/15/2022 at 6:44 AM, Doug Morris said:
COVID-19 is serious enough that the risk of it goes beyond the norm, at least to some extent.
For the sake of argument, let’s go with that.
Now, when does one have to consider other risks as in death caused by economic damage, loss of hospital capacity for other illnesses, etc.
In other words is that risk that is beyond the norm, the only risk to be considered without any ROI calculations?
On 1/15/2022 at 6:44 AM, Doug Morris said:
To me, the key issue is creating unnecessary risk.
The risk of dying from taking the vaccine is a high risk for some and not others. Should we consider it as an aggregate risk and apply it to all people?
7 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
Now, when does one have to consider other risks as in death caused by economic damage, loss of hospital capacity for other illnesses, etc.
In other words is that risk that is beyond the norm, the only risk to be considered without any ROI calculations?
On 1/15/2022 at 8:44 AM, Doug Morris said:
All significant risks should be considered.
The risk of death caused by economic damage is much more relevant to lockdowns than to vaccine mandates or mask mandates.
8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
Should we consider it as an aggregate risk and apply it to all people?
We should not treat all people as being at risk because some are, and I have never advocated doing so.
Even if only one person is put at risk, that can still be an initiation of physical force against that person.
Any vaccine mandate should allow medical exceptions.