Capco

No one ever notices the Polish-American cohort until it's too late.

I'm disgusted by the selfishness I've seen today in this thread. I need a break. And a drink.

It. Is. Not. About. Them. It. Is. About. People. Who. Cannot. Get. Vaccinated. It. Is. About. A. Rapid. And. Comprehensive. Response. NOW. That. Mitigates. Future. Outbreaks.

I'm not attempting to predict the future. All I'm saying is that if the states wanted to compel vaccination, they have the power to do so for every single person that does not have a genuine medical excuse.

Oh ho ho, I've been waiting for this one. First, let me point you to these two posts: Finally, the states that do not allow religious exemptions are: California, Maine, Mississippi, New York, West Virginia, and Connecticut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy_in_the_United_States

There are several states that require compulsory vaccinations without exemption unless it's a genuine medical reason. And it is entirely within their power to do so. The states that allow non-medical exemptions do so because they have chosen to, not because they lack the power to do so. If they changed their laws to compel vaccination, it would be entirely Constitutional.

I don't believe I said that nothing bad ever comes from the government. Unless the people themselves are infallible then a government of the people will never be infallible, either. The people of that era wanted eugenics, and so they exercised their popular sovereignty to make it happen. It's easy for us in hindsight to judge their (admittedly gross) misconceptions, but unless you have a better alternative to democratic government, then you're going to have to accept this reality that government can still be beneficial without being perfect in every instance. Imagine the flipside from the perspective of a pro-eugenics American of that era. Imagine if the government told them that they knew better than the populace when it came to the horrors of eugenics, and so decided to disregard the will of the people. In that instance, would you support the government doing the "right" thing (and what is "right" is subjective with the times), or would you support the will of the people?

I want people to stop being obstinate, selfish know-it-alls. I want them to be willing to get vaccinated. But if the government decided it was in the best interest of the welfare of its citizens to compel vaccinations, I would have no qualms about it. It shouldn't have to even get to that point in the first place though.

Yep. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

American exceptionalism at its worst, unfortunately.

Yes, but there are occasionally clever ways for the federal government to coax the states into uniform application of a law across all 50 states, such as judicious use of the Spending Clause. There's one example involving federal transportation funding for highways that I thought had to do with seatbelt wearing laws (something reserved for the states) but I cannot find any evidence for that right now, so it might have been for something else. EDIT: I think I remember now. It was for alcohol intoxication laws across all 50 states.

I think it's also worth pointing out that science is falsifiable (particularly the hard sciences but also the social ones). Scientists and experts are constantly challenging the claims of others in their fields. The entire peer-review process and the scientific method is centered around that. Accountability is built into the system itself. In fact, scientists love being wrong when new information becomes available that invalidates something prior, because it means they have expanded our knowledge about the universe. That's another reason why I have so much faith in the expertise of others. A true expert is never satisfied with the status quo and always pushing the limits of what we know.

My point is that Beasley does not have a Constitutional right to decline a state-mandated compulsory vaccination in lieu of a medical reason. I figured it was pretty clear.

There is currently no state-mandated compulsory vaccination for COVID, but if there were then he, nor anyone else, has any Constitutional right to refuse absent a genuine medical reason to do so. American jurisprudence on this topic is over 100 years old and fairly settled. Individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state. Per Justice Harlan: "[I]n every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and... "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 [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others." and finally... "[In] extreme cases [for certain individuals] in a particular condition of . . . health, [the requirement of vaccination would be] cruel and inhuman[e], [in which case, courts would be empowered to interfere in order to] prevent wrong and oppression." Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).

I've just had an epiphany. People today wouldn't be so quick to condemn the expertise of others with decades of experience in their fields if they actually had to go to the library and check out a book. Easy access to information via the internet is a double-edged sword.

Where did you get opioid addiction from? Fwiw, the reason why I posted that was to exemplify the sad state of affairs with regards to some people refusing to trust the information, experts, and institutions that allow society to exist in the first place.

Cole illustrated the problem perfectly with this tweet:

Friendly reminder: please refrain from injecting political discourse into this discussion. It makes life easier on the moderators.

I'm very pleasantly surprised to see such widespread agreement on what comrade Kay wrote. These conversations give me hope that we can become less divisive and start getting sh*t done again.

Good post but just a quick aside, you can actually eradicate a virus. It's been done, albeit only twice. Smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980, and rinderpest was declared eradicated in 2011.

Apparently Cantankerous is known for Scrooge McDuck diving into conversations without reading anything.

I think one of the biggest disconnects we are seeing with regards to this pandemic is the act of boiling down everyone to an individual and comparing one individual to another. But that's not the correct framework. Instead, the balancing act is between the individual and the group, and the group will always outweigh the individual when it comes to public health concerns like vaccination. This isn't the case of one person requesting another to take a vaccine. This is a case of society as a whole requesting its individual members to step up to the plate for the betterment of society itself. The state has the power to compel vaccination. Public health concerns absolutely trump individual rights in cases like these.

Inigo, I've always been a big fan of your posts but I cannot count this to be one of them. Vaccination is not a highly subjective or personal issue unless you have a genuine medical reason to avoid vaccination. Vaccination is a broader public health issue that goes beyond the individual.

I thought this depended on the infectious agent itself mutating. Afaik, the biochemistry of the immune response is a kind of "lock and key" system. The only way for the key that the immune system has to cease working is for the lock that is the infectious agent to change in some manner. Then again I'm not a virologist so who knows if I'm even right. Oh wait. Woe is me. I am supposed to verify all founts of knowledge personally and disregard experts like virologists. Derp. My bad Cole.

That doesn't even count the hidden posts.