View Single Post
Old 2021-09-10, 13:55   #1435
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

22·7·211 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
The general issue of an individual being unfit to be vaccinated (which clearly includes being allergic to the vaccine) is covered in the previously-cited ruling (my emphasis):
"No such case is here presented."
In part because the plaintiff was denied the opportunity to make a medical case in court. (See Politico article.)
It's one thing to dismiss possibility or near certainty of lesser harms, for a disease with a 33% case fatality rate (smallpox), and another thing for CFR of ~1.5% (Covid19).Where does it stop; 0.5% CFR? 0.1%? 0.01%?
A puzzle for medical ethics, the judiciary, legislators, and the public.
The fine applicable in 1904 is equivalent to ~$155 today. Much lower consequence for nonvaccination than what is currently in effect or being considered for those who do not get vaccinated; leave without pay, loss of employment, denial of medical services, inability to travel by certain means or go certain places, etc.
Thought experiment: suppose there had been a vaccine for AIDS in 1983, long before development of the better treatments for it. Make the case that those most at risk ought to have been compelled to be vaccinated. Even before it's deemed safe by the usual careful R&D & clinical test sequence. Square that with nondiscrimination re certain groups.
"For the greater good" brought us the Tuskegee experiment atrocity.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2021-09-10 at 13:58
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote