Germany bans unvaccinated from shops and pubs.

[Ratched]

We really are going to end up with a two tier society. It's actually quite worrying.

I am NOT anti vaxx, just concerned at how we are sleep walking into giving away our hard won freedoms.

@Lilifer Actually, nobody has effectively countered my arguments.

I'm not primarily interested in whether anyone is being selfish. You have wholly misconstrued my focus. I want the most ethical and scientifically substantiated approach to be put in place. What I would like is this: 99%+ of people elect to have the vaccine (to some extent, choosing their 'brand' - both for concrete medical reasons and to salve more nebulous concerns). The remaining small percentage would include the medically unsuitable, rare psychiatric exemptions, and a smattering of people who are ultimately... just antivaxxers.

The problem is that our population is not medically literate enough to achieve the outcome we need. The effects of Covid, which are so harmful in so many ways (e.g. children with disrupted education, elderly people declining without visits), can be best mitigated by near-total uptake.

I do not have a child with disrupted education. I do not have a relative in a care home. By definition, then, these concerns cannot be selfish.

I find that - genuinely - really interesting, because to me, nudging seems more sinister! I think a mandate is a relatively 'open' situation; if the public hates it, they can vote the government out and send a strong message that it isn't acceptable. Nudging, imo, is worrying because it's covert.

I don't think you can look at the two things in isolation though @Innocenta. In my opinion, the only reason we've got to a stage where people would even consider vaccine mandates or locking up just the unvaccinated as being reasonable or proportionate is the constant drip, drip, drip of the press stories and manipulation of figures we've all been subjected to.

It is not a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated' and the unvaccinated are not taking up a vast proportion of beds or dying in larger numbers but this is what is being reported almost daily in an attempt to try and turn everyone against them. This othering & labelling people as 'unclean' or 'selfish' lacks nuance and is ethically very wrong.

I have said that some nudging could be problematic. I don’t agree with anything linked to any type of social credit for example. But a classic nudge is an opt out system - eg you are automatically enrolled in a pension but you can opt out. That’s not really covert - it just gets around the issue of people forgetting to sign up but your choices and the rewards remain the same.

Relying on “voting the government out” doesn’t really guarantee people much choice. First of all a mandate could be in place years before that opportunity. Secondly, this climate of fear is stifling debate on these issues and some of these policies are getting cross party support because this is an “emergency”. It’s much more complex than that but I don’t have time to right an essay just now.

The problem is that our population is not medically literate enough to achieve the outcome we need.

Or is the problem:
Our science communicators need to do better
Vaccines need to be more accessible
We need to do a better job reaching some communities
We need to consider other policies that could also mitigate spread like easier testing
Etc.

What are your medical literacy credentials?

@Flyonawalk

I hope people can fight this.

What a disaster this would be. Segregation of society on medical grounds. What next - limitations on those with HIV or hepatitis?

Surely bodily autonomy is worth protesting for.

No, because people use their brains when it comes to getting the Hep B vaccine and HIV patients are quite glad to take their medication.

Also, saying people aren't getting vaccinated for Covid on "medical grounds" is a huge stretch. A very small number of people can use that excuse, the rest are just selfish fuckers who will happily take every headache pill under the sun with zero research while whining about a perfectly functional and safe vaccine which could actually get the entire world out of this shit pit.

Anyway vaccine uptake in the UK is not stellar but it’s fine and it has been effectively targeted to vulnerable groups, which hasn’t necessarily happened elsewhere.

As we see though, it isn’t a total solution even with better uptake.

@ShiftingSands21

I have said that some nudging could be problematic. I don’t agree with anything linked to any type of social credit for example. But a classic nudge is an opt out system - eg you are automatically enrolled in a pension but you can opt out. That’s not really covert - it just gets around the issue of people forgetting to sign up but your choices and the rewards remain the same.

Relying on “voting the government out” doesn’t really guarantee people much choice. First of all a mandate could be in place years before that opportunity. Secondly, this climate of fear is stifling debate on these issues and some of these policies are getting cross party support because this is an “emergency”. It’s much more complex than that but I don’t have time to right an essay just now.

How is debate being stifled? You are fully and freely expressing your views. You have every right to send an electronic communication or letter to your MP, or any cabinet minister you choose, or to Boris Johnson. You won't face any penalty for expressing your opposition to a vaccine mandate.

Don't use phrases like 'climate of fear' when they are not actually applicable.

There is a massive human rights issue around health provision.

Even if someone is extremely unwell with e.g. psychosis, they have the right to self-determination regarding health decisions, with very little exception, rightfully so.

I can see on the one hand that having high % vaccinated is very helpful for a nation (and also protects any remaining unvaccinated people to some extent, if it means that covid infection rates are lower and ICU beds more available)

At the same time, I can see that there are huge ethical, legal & civic problems with constraining people, especially the Greek approach of fining pensioners.

No easy answer.

Education/ persuasion/ incentives?

@Ghoulette

The repeated that people are selfish seeks irrelevant to me. It’s basically impossible to define. I see no particular evidence that people who do take the vaccine are motivate by altruism either. Would a vaccine mandate even solve the problem? Do we have evidence for that? It’s so much less straightforward than it sounds. It might not even increase uptake in the right groups! Think about it! Older people may not care if they can go out to a club. A 19 year old might decide to get vaccinated for a mandate but the relative contribution to preventing hospitalisations would be vanishingly small. Etc. So many factors have gone unconsidered.

[quote herecomesthsun]**@DaisyNGO* and @peboh*

It may have been mentioned in other correspondence also - I thought at the time that it was entirely unrealistic - because of my children.

I certainly haven't been asking acquaintances when they had their last vaccination, but then again, I have continued to be very careful. We have been on holiday several times and so on.[/quote]
Thank you for clarifying.
It's definitely unrealistic in most situations for any of us to avoid unvaccinated people. Not even those unvaccinated by choice, but such as people like my dh who medically can't have it and children.

@ShiftingSands21

The problem is that our population is not medically literate enough to achieve the outcome we need.

Or is the problem:
Our science communicators need to do better
Vaccines need to be more accessible
We need to do a better job reaching some communities
We need to consider other policies that could also mitigate spread like easier testing
Etc.

What are your medical literacy credentials?

I have no formal medical literacy credentials, and have never claimed to have any. Feel free to advanced-search me to verify this.

I am an 'expert patient' under the care of multiple specialties, with medical conditions present since childhood. My medical literacy is (very) regularly commented on by professionals. I have several advantages in maintaining this standard of medical literacy - a double first from Oxford, which taught me to read critically and analyse effectively; continuous exposure to science-focused media throughout my life; continuous, in-depth discourse about science and medicine with my wife (who works professionally in science), particularly in response to her frequent literature searches on relevant topics.

However: all of this can be true, and is true, without it translating to the equivalent of any type of qualification. Something I'm highly conscious of - which is why I always encourage people I'm speaking with online not to rely on 'convincing sounding' people (who, like me, know a lot of medical terminology and are very well-informed about a range of conditions), but simply to seek actual medical attention.

tldr, on the internet nobody knows you're a dog

@Innocenta

I would be fascinated to know what your criteria are for a “climate of fear”.

[quote ShiftingSands21]@Innocenta

I would be fascinated to know what your criteria are for a “climate of fear”.[/quote]
You used the phrase. What are yours?

@innocenta

So - exactly. You have come to your conclusions based on your background. Someone has come to their conclusions based on theirs. How are you sure that you are the person to dictate whose conclusions are right and who is “medically literate” enough to draw a “right” conclusion?

[quote Innocenta]@Lilifer Actually, nobody has effectively countered my arguments.

I'm not primarily interested in whether anyone is being selfish. You have wholly misconstrued my focus. I want the most ethical and scientifically substantiated approach to be put in place. What I would like is this: 99%+ of people elect to have the vaccine (to some extent, choosing their 'brand' - both for concrete medical reasons and to salve more nebulous concerns). The remaining small percentage would include the medically unsuitable, rare psychiatric exemptions, and a smattering of people who are ultimately... just antivaxxers.

The problem is that our population is not medically literate enough to achieve the outcome we need. The effects of Covid, which are so harmful in so many ways (e.g. children with disrupted education, elderly people declining without visits), can be best mitigated by near-total uptake.

I do not have a child with disrupted education. I do not have a relative in a care home. By definition, then, these concerns cannot be selfish. [/quote]
I think several posters on here have countered your arguments quite well.

But I find it interesting that you use the word "ethically" . How do you square mandatory vaccination with ethical considerations?

Can I ask why you have appraised us of your intellectectual credentials, is that an attempt bolster your points in this discussion? In this debate, are we only to value the opinion of those who have what you term "medical literacy?"

@Lilifer Did you miss the part where I was directly asked about how/why I deemed myself medically literate?

I agree that 99% of the time, mentioning past academic stuff is irrelevant in the extreme. Here, I was asked about medical literacy and felt it would be civil to respond. Sorry you feel so affronted by that!

Do share an instance of my position being effectively countered, I'm interested to see exactly what you're referring to. I haven't personally felt any response achieved this, but am willing to look again.

@ShiftingSands21 Your point rests on a mistaken assumption that I have claimed - or even implied - that my background is the only, or even the best, way to become medically literate.

You asked about me. So I replied - I did actually think it was a little invasive of you, but I considered it was ultimately fair enough to want to know some of the background, when some adopts a strong position. Why would you ask me - and ultimately waste both our time - if you didn't want an answer?

Nowhere in my post is there any claim that my medical literacy is the best, or the only sort. Feel free to reread it.

Just because you are not vaccinated does not mean you have covid.

People with Covid go into pharmacies though to buy something to make themselves feel better; or their relatives, who have been told to self isolate at home, go to get a LFT test.....

Yes, and think also about the self-employed who don't get paid if they don't work, and might not want to keep having boosters which make them ill for a week or more at a time and prevent them from working.

Well, its a lot better than lockdowns, for those self employed, who did not qualify for furlough and had no money to live on at all for months.

[quote Innocenta]@Lilifer Did you miss the part where I was directly asked about how/why I deemed myself medically literate?

I agree that 99% of the time, mentioning past academic stuff is irrelevant in the extreme. Here, I was asked about medical literacy and felt it would be civil to respond. Sorry you feel so affronted by that!

Do share an instance of my position being effectively countered, I'm interested to see exactly what you're referring to. I haven't personally felt any response achieved this, but am willing to look again. [/quote]
No I did not, but I query the relevance of putting in your double first from Oxford, a wonderful achievement for sure, but irrelevant to proving medical literacy, most reasonably intelligent people can read and analyse medical data.

@Shifting sands, @BlueSkiesAbove and @Xenobitch have all robustly countered your arguments, obviously you'll not concede that🤷‍♀️

And would you like to answer my question to you on how one squares mandatory vaccination with Ethics?

I said nothing about 'medical data', @Lilifer 

I said 'which taught me to read critically and analyse effectively', one item in a list of several others, which I acknowledge to be privileges. It's strange that you're not attacking my mention of the fact that my wife works in science - that doesn't appear to irk you at all. But one explicit mention of my degree, in all my time on MN, garners this reaction... In all honesty, I think you should examine why you responded like this.

Evidently you can't cite a specific example of a rebuttal, then.

Please put any question you actually want me to spend time on in clear and non-meretricious terms. Thank you! I will engage with good faith questions and challenges, as before.

@Innocenta My point really doesn’t rest on that assumption. It rests on the idea that medical literacy is hard to define and that it is difficult to demonstrate as either a necessary or sufficient condition for making the “right” choice. You helped to demonstrate that it is difficult to define and you helped to demonstrate that it isn’t clear who would be the arbiter of who is sufficiently medically literate. I’m glad you answered but you needn’t have if you found it invasive as the question also works as a rhetorical one.

[quote ShiftingSands21]@Innocenta My point really doesn’t rest on that assumption. It rests on the idea that medical literacy is hard to define and that it is difficult to demonstrate as either a necessary or sufficient condition for making the “right” choice. You helped to demonstrate that it is difficult to define and you helped to demonstrate that it isn’t clear who would be the arbiter of who is sufficiently medically literate. I’m glad you answered but you needn’t have if you found it invasive as the question also works as a rhetorical one.[/quote]
Again, this is simply not accurate and doesn't reflect what I said. You are making it impossible to engage with you by persistently misrepresenting what I say in replies. Naturally that leads me to doubt that you are speaking in good faith.

How are you sure that you are the person to dictate whose conclusions are right and who is “medically literate” enough to draw a “right” conclusion?

This implies, by your use of the singular ('the person'), that I have either stated or implied that my medical literacy enjoys a quality of supremacy above all other people. My post did not include that claim or implication; in fact, it very specifically disclaimed any such thing.

I am responding to the precise wording you have used.

@Innocenta

I said nothing about 'medical data', *@Lilifer* 

I said 'which taught me to read critically and analyse effectively', one item in a list of several others, which I acknowledge to be privileges. It's strange that you're not attacking my mention of the fact that my wife works in science - that doesn't appear to irk you at all. But one explicit mention of my degree, in all my time on MN, garners this reaction... In all honesty, I think you should examine why you responded like this.

Evidently you can't cite a specific example of a rebuttal, then.

Please put any question you actually want me to spend time on in clear and non-meretricious terms. Thank you! I will engage with good faith questions and challenges, as before.

I have asked you twice now to discuss the issue of ethics and mandatory vaccination and you have ignored that which I think probably indicates you’re not really interested in engaging with me on any constructive level. Maybe best just to agree to disagree 😊

"Again, this is simply not accurate and doesn't reflect what I said. You are making it impossible to engage with you by persistently misrepresenting what I say in replies. Naturally that leads me to doubt that you are speaking in good faith.

How are you sure that you are the person to dictate whose conclusions are right and who is “medically literate” enough to draw a “right” conclusion?

This implies, by your use of the singular ('the person'), that I have either stated or implied that my medical literacy enjoys a quality of supremacy above all other people. My post did not include that claim or implication; in fact, it very specifically disclaimed any such thing.

I am responding to the precise wording you have used."

Good Lord, your wife must be a very patient person!! 😂