mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Fun Stuff > Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-09-09, 23:28   #1431
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

23×3×241 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tServo View Post
Here's an article..
and a post describing what I already gave a link to 10 minutes earlier. Glad you concur it's worth a read.
kriesel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-10, 00:42   #1432
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

115718 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tServo View Post
Here's an article from Politico as per the title of this post.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...=pocket-newtab

In a few words, there is a strong precedent for vaccine mandates based on a 1904 ruling.
[Nit-pick: Argued December 6, 1904. Decided February 20, 1905.]

A very strong precedent indeed. Part of it in particular is especially pertinent to present circumstances: From HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.:
Quote:
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-10, 06:58   #1433
S485122
 
S485122's Avatar
 
"Jacob"
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

24·109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus View Post
I forgot to mention - in order to preserve the value of their donations (by keeping it rare, you see) donors will have to undergo a sterilization procedure immediately afterward. When I said "keep it out of the gene pool," I meant it. But to your question. Hmm, it will be the last experience of its kind, so why not let donors choose their assistants?
...
Sterilisation is done via vasectomy (the interruption of the vas deferens) it just prevents the spermatozoids from being in the ejaculate. It has no impact on the sexuality except on fertility and that, for some people, the libido might be affected because of the belief that there can't be pleasure without the ability to inseminate or that without possible fertilisation sex would be a sin against one of the laws of religion. For me it was a liberation : I was at last in control of my fertility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
...
Allergies are not random; there's a quite significant heritability. ~60-80% from a parent.
So for specific persons, the tradeoffs may be far more severe than the population average.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18361713/
...
And it is also because of those people that have allergies and can not vaccinate that the rest of the population should vaccinate even if they are antroposophs, Christian scientists, member of one of the Protestant denominations that refuse vaccination or whatever. That 1905 ruling is to the point.
S485122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-10, 12:05   #1434
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

10011011110012 Posts
Default

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):
Quote:
Before closing this opinion we deem it appropriate, in order to prevent misapprehension as to our views, to observe - perhaps to repeat a thought already sufficiently expressed, namely - that the police power of a state, whether exercised directly by the legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances, or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases, as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression. Extreme cases can be readily suggested. Ordinarily such cases are not safe guides in the administration of the law. It is easy, for instance, to suppose the case of an adult who is embraced by the mere words of the act, but yet to subject whom to vaccination in a particular condition of his health or body would be cruel and inhuman in the last degree. We are not to be understood as holding that the statute was intended to be applied to such a case, or, if it was so intended, that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned. 'All laws,' this court has said, 'should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter.' United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 19 L. ed. 278; Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 47, 58, 36 L. ed. 340, 344, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517. Until otherwise informed by the highest court of Massachusetts, we are not inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination, or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health, or probably cause his death. No such case is here presented. It is the cause of an adult who, for aught that appears, was himself in perfect health and a fit subject of vaccination, and yet, while remaining in the community, refused to obey the statute and the regulation adopted in execution of its provisions for the protection of the public health and the public safety, confessedly endangered by the presence of a dangerous disease.

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2021-09-10 at 12:09 Reason: formatting
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-10, 13:55   #1435
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

23·3·241 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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-10, 14:26   #1436
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

23×32×139 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
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%?
Your argument is not as clean as you are trying to make it. Smallpox was not a novel disease. COVID-19 is. So at the time of the ruling there were already many, many smallpox survivors then extant. With COVID there is still a major part of the population that is still at risk.

With COVID19 the CFR depends on the number of cases in an area vs the standard of care that is available. In Italy early on the CFR was much higher as the healthcare infrastructure was overwhelmed. In Los Angeles during the winter surge, the death rate doubled when the ICU occupancy rate was in the 90% range and higher. In northern Idaho expect the CFR to go up. In Texas the pediatric CFR has gone up because the system is overwhelmed.

There are many many other things that we would not accept a 1% fatality risk. Crossing a street, taking an elevator, riding in an airplane, event parachute jumping. Why should we accept a 1% fatality rate for something that we have preventative measure against?

The argument against vaccination because of possible "long term" "side effects" is not well founded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/wait-am-i-going-to-need-a-booster-shot/
There were tens of thousands of people in those phase-three clinical trials. And any time we’ve seen an adverse reaction, a side effect from a vaccine, any vaccine in the history of all vaccines going back to smallpox, those side effects have occurred in the first two months after vaccination. So that was a very sensible, logical cutoff to get emergency use authorization.

With full approval, companies have to submit six months of data. The FDA is currently reviewing tens of thousands of pages of data.
We know that polio and other diseases have long term consequences for survivors (post polio syndrome). COVID 'long haulers' are experiencing long term effects of the disease. The greatest side effect of a COVID vaccination happens within about 15 minutes and is due to components used for delivery and is quickly addressable. Basically it becomes a non-issue.

Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 2021-09-10 at 14:28
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-10, 15:59   #1437
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

5·997 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
"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.
<snip>
The ruling addresses this issue also:
Quote:
Assuming that medical experts could have been found who would have testified in support of these propositions, and that it had become the duty of the judge, in accordance with the law as stated in Com. v. Anthes, 5 Gray, 185, to instruct the jury as to whether or not the statute is constitutional, he would have been obliged to consider the evidence in connection with facts of common knowledge, which the court will always regard in passing upon the constitutionality of a statute. He would have considered this testimony of experts in connection with the facts that for nearly a century most of the members of the medical profession have regarded vaccination, repeated after intervals, as a preventive of smallpox; that, while they have recognized the possibility of injury to an individual from carelessness in the performance of it, or even in a conceivable case without carelessness, they generally have considered the risk of such an injury too small to be seriously weighed as against the benefits coming from the discreet and proper use of the preventive; and that not only the medical profession and the people generally have for a long time entertained these opinions, but legislatures and courts have acted upon them with general unanimity. If the defendant had been permitted to introduce such expert testimony as he had in support of these several propositions, it could not have changed the result. It would not have justified the court in holding that the legislature had transcended its power in enacting this statute on their judgment of what the welfare of the people demands.' Com. v. Jacobson, 183 Mass. 242, 66 N. E. 719.
Uncwilly's distinction between smallpox being a long-known disease while COVID-19 is novel, may be pertinent to the issue of "common knowledge."

Thanks to the current state of medical science, the cause of COVID was identified, and, based on that knowledge, effective preventive vaccines developed in a matter of months. Compare that to the millennia between the emergence of smallpox and the discovery of a preventive vaccine, which was before the exact cause was known.

Do we deny that the viral cause of COVID, the seriousness of the disease, and the availability of effective vaccines are "common knowledge," simply because a vocal minority, egged on by irresponsible politicians and opportunists, refuse to accept them? Or do we avail ourselves of the hard-won advances in understanding contagious diseases, and in ways to develop preventive vaccines?

Polio has a 2% to 5% mortality rate in children. But when vaccines became available, people needed no urging to get their kids vaccinated. Of course, polio also paralyzed a lot of kids without killing them. That almost certainly made the disease more terrifying than its mortality rate alone might indicate.

Perhaps "long COVID" might one day play a similar role. But that would require that people get their heads out of the sand, or whatever place they've got them that the sun don't shine, and accept the reality of the situation they are trying so desperately not to face.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-10, 16:53   #1438
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

5×997 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
<snip>
"For the greater good" brought us the Tuskegee experiment atrocity.
This is sheer demagoguery.

The "common good" is a recognized legal concept. One of the objectives of the Constitution of the United States, as stated in its Preamble, is "to promote the general welfare." That is, the common good.

Resorting to trying to argue against vaccine mandates by dismissing the whole concept of "the common good" used to justify it, is the epistemological equivalent of clutching at straws.

There isn't a philosophical or legal concept that can not be (and has not been) abused, to the detriment of mankind in general or some group in particular. Just as there is no technology that can not be (and has not been) abused - including fire (arson) and the wheel (hit-and-run).

There is an old adage, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." In the present instance, the overwhelming majority of unvaccinated patients being hospitalized with COVID illustrates this, as well as the impact of poeples' "individual choice" to refuse vaccination, or to recognize the reality or severity of COVID on the common good. Northern Idaho is on "crisis standards" of hospital care. Samaritan's Purse, a Christian relief organization, has set up relief operations in Mississippi to help hospitals with more patients than they can handle. They're not used to doing this sort of thing in the US.

Saddest of all, perhaps, are the people who experienced epiphanies and regretted not getting vaccinated because they were on their deathbeds with COVID.

(There have been people who still refused to acknowledge the reality of COVID even when it was killing them, but I reckon they got what they deserved.)
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-10, 17:02   #1439
masser
 
masser's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
wear a mask

6C116 Posts
Default

Just a reminder: let's keep this conversation civil and avoid soapbox-style discussions.

This thread should not be dominated by political sniping, finger-pointing or grandstanding. I struggle with this myself from time to time; it's easy to lay the blame on others. Let's keep the thread to reported facts and reputable journalism shares.
masser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-15, 16:09   #1440
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

5·997 Posts
Default

Pope questions vaccine skeptics, including cardinals
Quote:
ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (AP) — Pope Francis said Wednesday he didn't understand why people refuse to take COVID-19 vaccines, saying "humanity has a history of friendship with vaccines," and that serene discussion about the shots was necessary to help them.

"Even in the College of Cardinals, there are some negationists," Francis said Wednesday, en route home from Slovakia.

He noted that one of them, "poor guy," had been hospitalized with the virus. That was an apparent reference to U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, who was hospitalized in the U.S. and placed on a ventilator last month after contracting the virus.
<snip>
Significantly, Francis didn't cite the religious objection used by some who refuse the vaccines. Some conservatives have refused to get the shots citing the remote and indirect connection to lines of cells derived from aborted fetuses.

The Vatican's doctrine office has said it is "morally acceptable" for Catholics to receive COVID-19 vaccines based on research that used cells derived from aborted fetuses. Francis has said it would be "suicide" not to get the jab and both Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI have been fully vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech shots.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-16, 15:35   #1441
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

10011011110012 Posts
Default

Idaho rations health care statewide as COVID surge continues
Quote:
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Idaho public health leaders on Thursday expanded health care rationing statewide amid a massive increase in the number of coronavirus patients requiring hospitalization.

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare made the announcement after St. Luke's Health System, Idaho's largest hospital network, on Wednesday asked state health leaders to allow "crisis standards of care" because the increase in COVID-19 patients has exhausted the state's medical resources.

Idaho is one of the least vaccinated U.S. states, with only about 40% of its residents fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Only Wyoming and West Virginia have lower vaccination rates.

Crisis care standards mean that scarce resources like ICU beds will be allotted to the patients most likely to survive. Other patients will be treated with less effective methods or, in dire cases, given pain relief and other palliative care.

Thursday's move came a week after Idaho officials started allowing health care rationing at hospitals in northern parts of the state.
Dr Sardonicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 13:53.


Thu Oct 21 13:53:30 UTC 2021 up 90 days, 8:22, 1 user, load averages: 1.77, 1.21, 1.10

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.