zapatos

Why? Because you are some anonymous stranger on the internet making unsupported claims? Thanks, but I'm holding out for something better.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that not all news sites in the world do things the same way. It's almost like they act independently.

Thanks for being specific.

Huh. I didn't know that was an absolute fact. Good to know. So what specifically are you suggesting?

I think the starting point is always the science and the medical situation. Our goal should then be to achieve as much of that as possible. That being said, there will always be competing goals, and public health recommendations will tend to impact those other goals. One cannot simply ignore the other goals. Back in my early days of IT we were tasked with improving the efficiency of our mainframe response times. Our first suggestion, not actually made to anyone outside our group, was to kick off all the users from the system thus ensuring no wait times for data retrieval. My point being that all public health recommendations will interfere to some extent with other worthy goals. Do you feel we've reached that tipping point? That the situation is so dire that stronger measures, such as 'vaccine or forced confinement' are needed?

Exactly. And in the case of the current pandemic my view is that we have not reached that point. In the US at least, if we cannot even get the states to quit fighting things like mask mandates then trying to mandate vaccines will be like tilting at windmills. We are so far from that point that even discussing it on a national level will likely lead to chaos. For places where 'the public good' is more of a priority the conversation could at least take place, but if people are 'mostly' getting vaccinated and following mask and distance mandates I don't see where the government can claim to have reached that tipping point.

Or not. People make the decision every day to do things that are not good for their health. Are you again purposely misunderstanding to make a point? Body autonomy does NOT "require the cooperation of others".

Then lock up COVID, not its victims. Of course not. And no one is saying it should be at any cost.

You misunderstand the meaning of body autonomy. It does not mean remaining healthy. It means being in charge of decisions regarding your own body. You may think that giving up decisions regarding your body to the fools who often run government is a good idea; I do not.

I'm not sure if you are under the impression I am conflating the two. What I am suggesting is that essentially forcing a shot on someone is unreasonable in this pandemic. I think that denying access to employment, private spaces, etc. if there is no vaccine is a better approach. I don't think that previously getting a vaccine should disqualify you from refusing future vaccinations.

Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

I think it is important to define what is meant by "enforcing" and "deadly". As I said before I generally feel that the response by authorities to this pandemic has been adequate, including the enforcement of vaccine mandates against this deadly disease. I wish more people viewed public health the way our members do, but I'm reluctant to support the government mandating 'vaccine or fine/confinement/etc.' for people outside the employ of the government. I have no problem with not granting people privileges to the unvaccinated (access to private property or employment for example) but taking their money or freedom of movement unless they give up body autonomy seems unwarranted.

Correct. Which is one of the reasons we don't have mandatory vaccinations for COVID.

Without the context I provided your response would be unassailable. But it is not reasonable to punish people when they do follow the rules then express outrage when they are hesitant the next time they are presented with a set of rules. Authority has broken the two way bond with many groups and now should deal with that loss of trust themselves instead of punishing those certain groups who do not readily get on board with the new rules.

And is it you who decides which is the correct train? Like everything else we discuss on this site things are not as simple as black and white. Most people here are of the same opinion and therefore the echos reinforce the legitimacy of that opinion. But some are reluctant to get a jab because authorities tell them to, and with good reason. We cannot punish people who don't do what we tell them to do, when they've seen suffering due to listening to authority in the first place. And last but not least, I suspect you'll find close to zero the number of health care professionals who would act on your suggestion.

Great OP CharonY! It is my opinion that for the most part, in most countries, governmental response during this pandemic has been adequate as outlined above. It is a fine balancing act trying to weigh certain rights against other (freedom of movement vs. right to be healthy) and any of numerous scenarios on which way we tilted would have been fine. There is no 'perfect' response to a pandemic. While someone who knows they are infected and purposely attempts to infect others as we've seen a few do with coughing on others in public deserves to be restrained, the thought of jailing people because they flaunt regulations by taking a walk around the neighborhood or other minor violations, seems extreme. We cannot control all risk and that should not be our goal.

I'll provide my bona fides soon. I don't want my posts deleted. After all, it's all about my credentials (and ability to not generate typos), not the content of my posts.

WTF? Are we requiring some sort of test before allowing people to participate on this site?

To begin with, it was the OP who made the link. Second, unless the jailing of of citizens can be justified by the harm they will cause, then we are very much talking about human rights violations. It's not. But freedom of movement is. You must tread very lightly if you want to make the punishment for not washing your hands a stint in jail.

Sure, if it was like Ebola, harsher steps would be required. Although the OP basically said 'what have we learned and what should we do differently?' For a replay of COVID-19 I would find incarceration to be unacceptable.

Looks like I might be in the minority in this thread but I couldn't disagree with this one strongly enough. I'd rather get COVID and join the (ugh) Republican Party than be part of forgetting human rights and locking people up.

Can you tell me who is using a PC filter? I ask because I've not seen either side of the discussion doing that. Any example would be great.

Very Nice!!!

"No Two Alike," by Nathan Myhrvold Nathan Myhrvold / Modernist Cuisine Gallery, LLC