What to do if close family member won't get the Vaccination?

[JessFR]

no government is forcing you to get vaccinated, i don't see how giving medical advice is 'dictating'- do you think they are dictating when they suggest you take adequate exercise, eat fruit and veg, wear a seatbelt, etc?

some governments are ensuring that refusal to vaccinate does not have an adverse effect on the rest of the population, which it is their duty to protect, for example by not allowing unvaccinated children in school, but they aren't dictating anything. in that scenario, parents are free not to vaccinate their children but they do not have the freedom to force other children who can't be vaccinated to be put at risk by their children.

One concern here.

We don't allow them to have unvaccinated kids in school.... But we also require them to have their kids educated.

Which means the only way for them in practice not to have their kids vaccinated is to have their kids home schooled. And these kinds of parents are the last people who should be educating anyone since they're usually extremist whack jobs.

In truth that probably describes 90% of parents home schooling their children in America.

 

[novaveritas]

some governments are ensuring that refusal to vaccinate does not have an adverse effect on the rest of the population, which it is their duty to protect, for example by not allowing unvaccinated children in school, but they aren't dictating anything. in that scenario, parents are free not to vaccinate their children but they do not have the freedom to force other children who can't be vaccinated to be put at risk by their children.

In the country you live in there is no such policy, because it is pragmatically recognized that the risk of infection that children who cannot be vaccinated are carrying is due to their status the risk arises from themselves.

Mandating or coercing compliance is also recognised to be highly counter-productive and is a minority view in the medical and public health sphere. Appealing to enlightened self interest is much more effective.

 

[novaveritas]

I don't think you can ethically refuse to treat someone, regardless of what retarded thing they've done to bring about their own harm.

Which is not to say that I'm against trying to pressure people into getting vaccinated. I'm just not really OK with using this particular tactic as the means.

It doesn't seem entirely established yet that coercive tactics are even needed. I mean it doesn't seem entirely clear what the vaccination rate will be without interference.

And even if it's too low that doesn't inherently mean that these kinds of coercive tactics, let alone this particular one, are the best way to increase the rate of vaccination.

my god we mostly agree, had to happen sooner or later!

 

[JessFR]

my god we mostly agree, had to happen sooner or later!

I'm scared...

I know how you feel.. I kinda sorta mostly agreed with TripSitterNZ about abortion earlier too.

Something is wrong with the fabric of the universe.. can you feel it?

 

[novaveritas]

I'm scared...

I know how you feel.. I kinda sorta most agreed with TripSitterNZ about abortion earlier too.

Something is wrong with the fabric of the universe.. can you feel it?

I felt a great disturbance in the force as if millions of voices cried out in terror and then were suddenly silenced

Not sure I like it, can we go back to me randomly throwing swerve balls and barbs at you? at least things were more predictable and disagreement certainly helps refine thinking.

 

[JessFR]

I felt a great disturbance in the force as if millions of voices cried out in terror and then were suddenly silenced

Not sure I like it, can we go back to me randomly throwing swerve balls and barbs at you? at least things were more predictable

No... We must not fear change! We must boldly go forward and learn to understand this new world where we sometimes sorta agree with each other!

We can't fear what we don't understand, if we do we become stagnant and doomed to live in a world of repetition with star wars prequel trilogies then star wars sequel trilogies. Is that what you want?

 

[novaveritas]

No... We must not fear change! We must boldly go forward and learn to understand this new world where we sometimes sorta agree with each other!

We can't fear what we don't understand, if we do we become stagnant and doomed to live in a world of repetition with star wars prequel trilogies then star wars sequel trilogies. Is that what you want?

No, we must embrace the future and welcome it complete with the slightly dubious straight to on demand streaming spin offs. It is a future where baby Yoda becomes teenage Yoda, gets a drug habit, an unsuitable girlfriend and crashes his parents car, but eventually gets his shit together, gets a steady job as a mid level Jedi manager, gets a mortgage and a wife, goes on vacation once a year and gets into model trains.

 

[Jabberwocky]

No it was me that mentioned conditional probability, which it clearly is. The harm arises from a chain with boolian logic. which in turn leads to a conditional probability chain. Failure estimates for nuclear reactors is based on conditional probability chains too, so are rocket failures or any complex engineering. If something is true or false then it is boolian. therefore boolian conditional probability is more than adequate to describe the chance of a risk becoming extant, no need to invoke anything more complex.

that is your naive understanding and in broad strokes you are roughly correct, but there is more to it than that- as i said in my previous post, this branch of logic would not exist if boolean logic and probability were sufficient. the decisions about how to react when complex safety critical systems behave unexpectedly apply non standard logic because of their inherent fuzziness and the need to take into account counterfactuals, something that standard predicate calculus cannot do.

I stated that I was unhappy that you claimed medical interventions were carried out without your consent and that should not happen, feel free to revisit what I wrote. If you were sectioned then by definition you were deemed generally incapable of consent, though I am very uncomfortable with what that approach implies regarding agency and choice. I was taught medical ethics.

you stated that in emergency situations (i.e. urgent surgery) consent is assumed and that's ok.

the thing is, i'm fucking glad i was treated without my consent. ime it is not really possible for an anorexic to consent to treatment and starving to death is fucking brutal, by the time i got to hospital my blood pressure was so low that the doctors couldn't explain why i wasn't in a coma and your brain doesn't function properly in that state. i was convinced i was right and the world was wrong. i'm so glad i got a chance at life instead of having to wait until i died in a horrifically slow and painful way. ditto being forced to go to rehab.

so i am comfortable with the idea of medical treatment without consent because i have benefited massively from it, i think this is probably why i'm more open to medical interventions being made without consent than you.

One concern here.

We don't allow them to have unvaccinated kids in school.... But we also require them to have their kids educated.

Which means the only way for them in practice not to have their kids vaccinated is to have their kids home schooled. And these kinds of parents are the last people who should be educating anyone since they're usually extremist whack jobs.

In truth that probably describes 90% of parents home schooling their children in America.

yep completely agree. its very concerning. i had an ex boyfriend who was 'home schooled' and he got 0 gcses or qualifications ever despite being reasonably bright. i think there should be consequences for deciding not to vaccinate your children but i also think the children shouldn't suffer for their parents actions, any more than they do due to the medical neglect. its basically an impossible situation and i just find it unbelievably sad.

In the country you live in there is no such policy, because it is pragmatically recognized that the risk of infection that children who cannot be vaccinated are carrying is due to their status the risk arises from themselves.

i was referring to australia. i have no idea why there is no such policy in britain but i suspect that if the number of unvaccinated children reached a certain threshold and kids start dying as a result, then the policy regarding this would be revised. not necessarily by excluding unvaccinated children from school, ideally by getting them vaccinated.

Mandating or coercing compliance is also recognised to be highly counter-productive and is a minority view in the medical and public health sphere. Appealing to enlightened self interest is much more effective.

i do agree with this and i don't think i've actually said anywhere that people should be coerced. just that people who go against medical advice despite having no psycholoigcal condition impairing their ability to decide should take responsibility for their actions, instead of expecting an over stretched medical system to take on that responsibility, especially when right now that means some people might not get the treatment they need to survive.

i fully respect people's decisions to be fucking idiots and die as a result but i don't respect their expectation that anyone should look after them if their idiotic decisions land them in trouble.

the notorious anti-vax leaders appeal to enlightened self interest, they are just wrong. but the level of distrust they create in medical science means that the more accurate enlightened self interest argument 'i.e. you will be protected from awful, potentially deadly diseases and the risk of side effects is very low' falls on deaf ears. or they produce reams and reams of easily debunked arguments and move the goal posts or accuse you of being a sheep each time you address one of their points. so i completely agree with you in theory i'm just at a loss as to how to put it in practise.

 

[novaveritas]

that is your naive understanding and in broad strokes you are roughly correct, but there is more to it than that- as i said in my previous post, this branch of logic would not exist if boolean logic and probability were sufficient. the decisions about how to react when complex safety critical systems behave unexpectedly apply non standard logic because of their
inherent fuzziness and the need to take into account counterfactuals, something that standard predicate calculus cannot do.

Thankyou. Traditional logic (predicate logic) and a conditional probability chain gives a good enough estimate of the probability of the risk of harm in this situation becoming real. It is the clearly correct tool for the job and getting to a reasonable answer is the whole point of the exercise.

if that is naive in your view and things should be over complicated but the misapplication of fuzzy logic and academic confusion, then I am happy to be regarded as naive by you. As are those that design safety critical components for nuclear reactors and rockets who do exactly the same calculations exaclty the same way. I don't expect you to explicitly concede the point. you have built a hill here.

You wrote a statement in natural language and that statement can be distilled into a series logical statements which consist of a series of binary outcomes, branches on the decision tree, and this case the tree is limited and the outcome can be described in terms of a series of independent probabilities. You were given the opportunity to refute or disprove the veracity of any of those statements or the chain itself, but you didn't so they stand as truths, are we agreed on that?

Further this leads to the reasonable conclusion:
The probability of a harm being done caused by an unvaccinated individual by infecting and killing or otherwise harming an unwitting bystander is likely to be vanishingly small in the case of coronavirus measles or many other diseases.

You are entitled to have a different perception to how important that tiny risk is, but it is neither rational or logical to use that argument as the basis for justifying infringing the principle of informed consent, given freely without threat or coercion, whatever form that stick takes, including in the form of withholding medical care from non compliant people which you seem to still advocate.

the thing is, i'm fucking glad i was treated without my consent. ime it is not really possible for an anorexic to consent to treatment and starving to death is fucking brutal, by the time i got to hospital my blood pressure was so low that the doctors couldn't explain why i wasn't in a coma and your brain doesn't function properly in that state. i was convinced i was right and the world was wrong. i'm so glad i got a chance at life instead of having to wait until i died in a horrifically slow and painful way. ditto being forced to go to rehab.
so i am comfortable with the idea of medical treatment without consent because i have benefited massively from it, i think this is probably why i'm more open to medical interventions being made without consent than you.

It is very simple, people who are capable of giving informed consent should never be treated without consent.

If this was in the UK if you look at your records you will probably find you were sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Either way it is not important, people have agency which must be respected, they have the right to refuse or consent to interventions. This is long standing ethical doctrine. Whether you personally are comfortable with medical intervention without consent is not relevant, the medical profession in general are not and there are very good reasons for that holding that position.

 

[BelleRed]

Steady on Belle, there is no evidence that LINS is Wenlock (I've checked). So please desist with these personal attacks...

Okay Fubzy. But Wenlock always uses a proxy and he's smart. I just can't get away from him. Reddit used to be safe for me, but he followed me there too. And had a hand in killing Cosmic Giraffe.

 

[Jabberwocky]

this is your original statement, i do not debate the facts:

if your concern is people who are not vaccinated may become infected and may infect unwitting people and thus may kill the unwitting people, then that is not a extant risk.

i debate your conclusion. modal and real valued logics are literally developed for reasoning about things that may happen. and under those systems, the probabilities along the way will not disappear into 'not an extant risk' but they will quantify the risk precisely and enable decisions to be made in that scenario. it is not about brute calculation of probabilities as you seem to think it is, rather how decisions should be made in the light of different possibilities.

if that is naive in your view and things should be over complicated but the misapplication of fuzzy logic and academic confusion, then I am happy to be regarded as naive by you. As are those that design safety critical components for nuclear reactors and rockets who do exactly the same calculations exaclty the same way. I don't expect you to explicitly concede the point. you have built a hill here.

you are right, i won't concede on something i am right about. i will trust my lecturers and friends who work in the fields where this type of logic is applied rather than a random person on the internet with little evident mathematical background. we had a visitor give us a lecture about their work in this area for nuclear safety but unfortunately i forget his name. if you're not really curious about how to derive precise statements logically so don't look in more detail, and all you know is boolean logic and conditional probabilities, and most people in life sciences don't even get that right, then obviously you will distill things into a view that fits that.

 

[novaveritas]

this is your original statement, i do not debate the facts:

i debate your conclusion. modal and real valued logics are literally developed for reasoning about things that may happen. and under those systems, the probabilities along the way will not disappear into 'not an extant risk' but they will quantify the risk precisely and enable decisions to be made in that scenario. it is not about brute calculation of probabilities as you seem to think it is, rather how decisions should be made in the light of different possibilities.



you are right, i won't concede on something i am right about. i will trust my lecturers and friends who work in the fields where this type of logic is applied rather than a random person on the internet with little evident mathematical background. we had a visitor give us a lecture about their work in this area for nuclear safety but unfortunately i forget his name. if you're not really curious about how to derive precise statements logically so don't look in more detail, and all you know is boolean logic and conditional probabilities, and most people in life sciences don't even get that right, then obviously you will distill things into a view that fits that.

For an unvaccinated person to harm an unwitting bystander the logic holds, the output of one single branch, everything has to be true, in all other scenarios no harm results. Disprove or refute the logic if you want.
Don't flap your arms, throw random statements peppered with buzzwords and appeals to authority when it is clear you don't understand this is an binary situation: kill bystander, don't kill bystander. Or if you like harm bystander don't harm bystander. By failing to identify the true nature of the question and the statement you have disappeared down a rabbit hole of your own making.

I have a very highly tuned bullshit detector honed over years working in finance and science, you are bullshitting me, I know it, you know I know it. So lets just leave it there. Unfortunate because something interesting could have come out of it.

 

[Jabberwocky]

when it is clear you don't understand this is an binary situation: kill bystander, don't kill bystander. Or if you like harm bystander don't harm bystander. By failing to identify the true nature of the question and the statement you have disappeared down a rabbit hole of your own making.

i do understand that, what i disagree with is your assertion that unvaccinated people, in cases where vaccines prevent transmission of disease, don't pose a risk. even within your oversimplified formulation, there is a risk and this will be a probability until something has happened, and only at that point will it become true or false (probability goes to 1 or 0). you can't assert something is boolean one minute and probabilistic (i.e. real valued) the next and then tell me i'm the one whose wrong. you're not even being consistent.

I have a very highly tuned bullshit detector honed over years working in finance and science, you are bullshitting me, I know it, you know I know it. So lets just leave it there. Unfortunate because something interesting could have come out of it.

good for you. i don't know what you think i'm bullshitting about. i think what's happened is that you have over stretched yourself in terms of what you think you understand, when you probably haven't even done any classical first order predicate logic let alone any of the alternatives. and now you can't admit that your understanding in one area is limited and thus there are more accurate methods than the one you are asserting because some how being right is more important to you than learning.

if you doubt my education you are welcome to ask me about it and i'm pretty sure i could teach you something. just please not set theory, the axiomatisation of arithmetic was really cool but all the shit about infinity went way over my head.

edit: if you think my claims about the applications of fuzzy logic are at fault, a quick google search would have shown they are correct: Fuzzy logic is extremely useful for many people involved in research and development including engineers (electrical, mechanical, civil, chemical, aerospace, agricultural, biomedical, computer, environmental, geological, industrial, and mechatronics), mathematicians, computer software developers and researchers, natural scientists (biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics), medical researchers, social scientists (economics, management, political science, and psychology), public policy analysts, business analysts, and jurists. i must admit as my msc was over 12 years ago my knowledge may not be the most up to date but i doubt things have regressed in that time.

 

[trogere]

I got very sick because of dental amalgams. It took me years to realize that this "safe product" is not safe. I lost trust in the official message and I won't get the vaccine. I'm still relatively young and not very at risk of major covid complications.

 

[JessFR]

I'm still relatively young and not very at risk of major covid complications.

So naturally you'll go around infecting people who are more vulnerable.

 

[Jabberwocky]

So naturally you'll go around infecting people who are more vulnerable.

have you not got them memo yet jess?

other people don't matter. your right to refuse to take medical advice trumps other people's right to avoid otherwise preventable death. just forget the fact that society wouldn't exist if everybody valued their perceived bodily sovereignity over other people's actual life or death.

 

[JessFR]

have you not got them memo yet jess?

other people don't matter. your right to refuse to take medical advice trumps other people's right to avoid otherwise preventable death. just forget the fact that society wouldn't exist if everybody valued their perceived bodily sovereignity over other people's actual life or death.

I don't read my memos, they go straight in the trash. :D

Really this shouldn't even be about rights. So the fuck what if you have a right to refuse the vaccine? DON'T refuse it. Consider that one day you might be one of those vulnerable people and contribute to society being a little better rather than a little worse.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Really this shouldn't even be about rights. So the fuck what if you have a right to refuse the vaccine? DON'T refuse it. Consider that one day you might be one of those vulnerable people and contribute to society being a little better rather than a little worse.

yeah, that's the bit i don't get. viruses don't respect people's rights so people somehow prioritise their own right to make stupid decisions over their own health.

though i guess they also don't think their health is at risk, but i've read some heartbreaking accounts of ex-anti vaxxers who came to earth with a bump. then even more heartbreaking that little boy who ended up in hospital with tetanus and once he was discharged his parents didn't even follow up getting his second tetanus shot. honestly i feel like that's child abuse.

 

[stardust10]

'Hitler should have used a flu variant, people give up their basic rights so easily'

This annoyed me. Sorry but nobody is forcing you in to anything against your own will or putting you in a concentration camp for example. How can you even compare it?

I believe that by CHOOSING not to be vaccinated those people are effectively contributing to the virus killing others. However just because I and many others feel this way doesn't mean that you must conform. You are allowed to be selfish and I am allowed to think you are selfish.

Another thing I was thinking about is what does life look like for at risk people long-term and for those who cannot have the vaccine. For instance, how they are viewed and treated. Would you date or be friends with a man or woman who is at risk, out of fear of infecting them if you are anti-covidvax or cannot have one due to allergies? What about the workplace, working alongside those with other health problems that cannot be exposed. Should those people like my friend (28yo) who has a compromised immune system never work or socialise in public again out of fear of her life, literally.

I get it in a way in that, I wouldn't want to live in a dictatorship either so it's good not to force people, but for me it's about my own morals and weighing it all up. Not bigging myself up btw as sometimes I think it'd be easier not to give a f**k and I am in no way perfect, I just care. And I don't care if You don't have anyone close to YOU that's at risk because what about My elderly parents? My friends and My neighbors? Or just people in general and the risk of mutations. Or can we go and f**k ourselves just because people are angry about a vaccine.

If people don't care, or have a different opinion on the vaccines then I have as much free will to be angry/frustrated about it (hence this long venty post lol). Obv like many others I love my parents, they are my everything and the virus would almost definitely take them out. They have suffered big time mentally like a lot of folk due to shielding.

So there you have it, nobody is forcing anyone yet all you hear is people whining about being forced in to it like it's Nazi Germany when it isn't. It's not all about you and your free willy. I think since those people have a choice then they must realise that they may have to deal with the effects of their choice such as, working from home, declaring they haven't been vaccinated prior to interviews etc which sucks the whole thing does. But that is your choice and you need to weigh it up rather than complain because you're not the only ones suffering. You or loved ones could be dead or suffering with long covid, count your blessings.



Edit: I musta needed that also sorry if I come across pretentious I'm just very emotional about it all, especially for my parents.

 

[trogere]

So naturally you'll go around infecting people who are more vulnerable.

The Covid "vaccines" are very particular. They only protect you against major complications, but you still can get the virus and give it to others even if vaccinated. Social distanciation is still recommanded after vaccination.

I'm generous, I'm leaving my doses to people more at risk of complications!