The morality of individualism v the collective is probably a topic for another thread, even if it is the crux of my original argument.Maybe, but if you're going to make it an argument of morals; it's just as easy to say that an individual choosing to not get the vaccine is immoral and unethical due to the potentially severe negative impacts on society as a whole. And which is more important, the impact on an individual, or on a collective?
In any case, kids require certain vaccines to go to childcare and school. Healthcare workers have been required to get other vaccines for yonks. My sister was required to get the flu vax when she worked at Kmart. You don't have to get it, but there are consequences for not doing so (termination of employment), just like with anything else. I'm sure that some people think they're being oppressed when they're forced to drive at or under the speed limit, but given that that law improves both their, and other driver's safety, I'd happily tell them to get in the bin with such arguments.
There are less cases of people getting covid twice than there are breakthru infections but thats not important at this moment.Considering there has been cases of people getting it twice I’d say it’s not but then again who’s to say the second dose is less severe.
There is a study floating around that reckons professional soccer players have a decrease in performance of 5% (based on how many passes they make in a game and maybe time on ground as well) for up to six months and that they also have a negative effect on team cohesion onfield - either they aren't fit enough to play properly or its done something to their cognitive processes. Its not a peer reviewed paper or anything but it does raise some interesting points and leaves open the possibility that COVID vaccination for footy players may be as important as maintaining fitness standards and may be an important part of maintaining fitness standards.Yes, there are moral and ethical considerations to consider for other inoculations for specific industries. I am in favour for inoculations for those industries and even for COVID, but I just think we just should think about the moral and ethical implications of mandates/termination at some point. A tiny, but not insignificant, percentage of people don't want to take vaccines. That is something we are going to have to deal with.
I just had my Pfizer booster yesterday, 8 1/2 months since I had my 2nd Pfizer shot in Israel. Nil pain at all and happy to have it along with my yearly flu shot which I had last week.The morality of individualism v the collective is probably a topic for another thread, even if it is the crux of my original argument.
At the end of the day, the anti-vaxxers are the ones taking the far greater risk for their beliefs. If you are double vaxxed, likely with boosters next year, then you are likely to recover quicker and the negative effects are vastly reduced, with transmission being debatably reduced over time, in comparison to a non-vaxxed individual.
Look, I agree with most of your points. Pretty much all anti-vaxxer arguments don't stand up to any level of serious scrutiny. My point is that the consequences you highlighted do have some ethical and moral implications at some level, as does effectively forcing people (via mandates or forcible termination not based on a preservice condition) to take something they are not fully comfortable with.
It's not a personal choice, it's a social choice. If it's safe you should get it and accept the consequences if you refuse. Those consequences include responsible people, businesses and workplaces choosing not to have you around.I get the health implications of not getting vaxxed and all that jazz, I am double vaxxed myself, but getting the sack for not getting it just seems wrong on some level.