This is a problem - it is often not very informed.
As for medical history, we have to show vaccination records for a number of things - school, travel sometimes, certain lines of work.
Proof of vaccination against a highly mutation-prone virus in the midst of a pandemic doesn't reveal anything more about you than it would about anyone else - which is specifically allowed via HIPAA, for example. It's no more medical history than knowing your age.
These points don't really stand up for me. It's like saying "I choose to believe they cause autism, I've been informed by my other Facebook Mom group members, thus I do not consent."
None of it is based on science or rationality, in my opinion.
[1] - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v...
Because it's pointless, and because the pandemic is killing people right now, not whenever some arbitrary administrative milestone is achieved. But most importantly, because people who bring that point up are typically completely ignorant of what medicine approval entails, why the process is there in the first place, and why it normally takes so long.
Just one element among several: it usually takes a long time because diseases take time to develop and we lack test subjects. Here the disease spread very rapidly, develops insanely fast, and thus judging the efficacy is nearly immediate. As for safety, vaccines almost never have long term side effects, so the risk is low to begin with, whereas the risks of the disease are huge.
In short, this is a specious argument, and a ridiculous proposition on the face of it born of ignorance and motivated by a rebeliousness as callous as it's puerile.
The drug companies are not only under total immunity but also will get paid regardless if the vaccine works or not in the long term. The reporting of adverse effects is probably getting suppressed, for example OSHA is now admitting it won't record vaccines adverse effects so it doesn't discourage vaccinations (https://ogletree.com/insights/osha-revokes-guidance-on-recor...). There were vaccines that were deemed "safe" yet were scrapped because they weren't (Dengue vaccine, Guillain-Barré of the 1979 flu vaccines).
The immunity of the vaccines is fading after a few months and Pfizer is now talking about bi-annual booster shots and daily pills.
Personally I got my two shots of Pfizer, which is considered the safest, because it made sense to me. But even then I got adverse effects making me not want another booster shot. Calling people "anti-vaxxers" is because they do not want to take an experimental vaccines (mRNA vaccines are not vaccines in the traditional definition) is just intellectual laziness.
Vaccines almost never have long term side effects, and there is no reason to believe the vaccines at hand have any reason to have any. But maybe it does. What's the probability? Based on those priors, extremely low. Not zero, but extremely low.
The disease, on the other hand, definitely has long term side effects. We know that.
If the risk of infection was low, you'd have a point. Maybe. But the fact is, without vaccine, everyone stands a very significant chance of getting infected. The very small risk of long term side effects is just ridiculous compared to those of the disease, and unlike the vaccine, the disease does not care about your "freedom."
The chance of long term effects is not very high. You'll likely survive covid without pneumonia and you'll likely survive the vaccine without an aneurysm.
The reason I was hesitant was: - It doesn't stop the spread - I already had covid / the risks of covid are mostly minuscole for healthy young people - New variants will drop the efficacy
In the end, I did it only because I was planning to travel (which ended up being wise, given the requirements). And I still had to waste money getting tested.
[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
GP simply stated that we should be consulting experts in the fields, not laypeople, when it comes to things of a scientific nature.
These were your words, not theirs.
> If it’s not a PhD in biochemistry or something similar, then it’s not relevant to their decision making abilities
In my opinion, that is much closer to "if you don't have a PhD in biochemistry, you can't don't deserve to make a decision (i.e. stupid)" than "listen to experts".
Where my sympathies really like is with people who *want" the vaccine but cannot get one due to circumstances (no paid time off, live in an inaccessible area, under the control of an anti-vaxxer, etc.)
Care to expand what these "scientific" reasons are?
What's the bar for full approval? Whatever the FDA says it is. Usually that includes convening the advisory committee. That didn't happen. Recently, 3 members resigned from said committee. While these resignations weren't about the vaccines, they were about a lack of trust in FDA (interim) leadership.
If you want to continue to believe everything is just okie-dokie, knock yourself out, but you're not going to convince anyone.
The general public doesn’t understand that expedited approval was a well understood category years before COVID and designed exactly for situations like this. Check the way back machine of your feeling paranoid.
As to the actual science we have vastly more data on COVID vaccinations than most drugs or vaccines the FDA is approving. It really isn’t some ad hoc process it’s well designed procedures and massive quantities of scientific data.
People can refuse medical treatments, even if deemed in their utmost interest.
The FDA does quite a bit of outreach over heath and food safety because information has real public health implications. Ex: https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/selecting...
Which isn’t to say their doing a great job, just that they consider it part of their mandate and they get funding for it.
Seeing as how I'm in Germany and I have close friends at RKI, I choose to believe them - as they are unequivocally the experts on the topic - over American politics.
> but you're not going to convince anyone.
Please argue in good faith next time.
Your medical history is not a "protected right." The people who provide medical care to you are not allowed to release your medical records without your consent.
What are you talking about? It is under the 5h and 14th amendments and under similar rights in other jurisdictions.
https://healthcare.uslegal.com/records/sources-of-protection...
Medical data does have various protections in the US, but it’s far more limited than just blanket protection.
Immunization status is considered protected information according to the HIPAA and the ADA, and similar laws exist in other jurisdictions.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-1...
https://www.hipaajournal.com/is-it-a-hipaa-violation-to-ask-...
The requirement to provide the information says otherwise.
Your sexual orientation is private information your employer can’t ask about, your vaccination status isn’t protected. Providing it can be required for employment.
Your third link even says: The EEOC confirmed “there’s no indication that there’s any federal law that would be violated by the employer asking this question.”. It also in most cases it can be a requirement for employment.
Which requirement?
> Your sexual orientation is private information your employer can’t ask about, your vaccination status isn’t protected. Providing it can be required for employment. Your third link even says: The EEOC confirmed “there’s no indication that there’s any federal law that would be violated by the employer asking this question.”. It also in most cases it can be a requirement for employment.
You're confusing being able to ask and discriminating against vaccination / medical status. The things an employer can't ask are very specific (and numerous). The things an employer can't discriminate against are more broad.
The requirement to provide vaccination status to go to school or be employed.
I think you have some basic confusion here. HIPPA covers your Name, but that’s not in any way inherently protected information. It becomes so in a medical setting because having your name associated with for example an AIDS clinic lets people infer things. As such it’s the association that’s protected not your name.
Then you have examples of the "worst atrocities and abuses in history" that were due to schools requiring vaccinations?
Japan's Unit 731
The Nazi medical experiments
MK Ultra in the US and Canada and elsewhere in the world
Lobotomy and the other psychiatric abuses
The human atomic bomb and nuclear radiation experiments
Tuskegee syphilis experiments
Buck v. Bell which game way to +70k forced sterilizations, which by the way relied upon Jacobson v. Massachusetts where the State forced vaccination upon someone who had adverse effects.
Given the strength which which you made your claim, I thought you would have better evidence to support it.
I do think that the medical attrocities you list have had a lasting and deleterious effect on public trust of government medical ethics and contribute significantly to vaccine hestitancy.
You're making a distinction without making a meaningful difference. They have everything to do with requiring a medical intervention by the state, which has led to abuse in the past. Jacobson led to Bell v. Buck which led to forced sterilizations. And I should have mentioned King Leopold using Congolese as vaccine test subjects.
> Only the last one has any relation to vaccine mandates at all and the causal link there is somewhat tenous given the sordid particulars of Buck v Bell (including the deliberate incompetence of Buck's lawyer). It isn't clear that case would have gone differently without the Jacobsen v. Massachusetts precedent.
Having a bad lawyer is irrelevant the judges still have to know the law. And Jacobson was crucial in the decision because it negated the limit the State has on bodily integrity. Also given that you backup your claims with no arguments, they could simply be dismissed with no arguments, but they needed to be addressed nonetheless.
> Given the strength which which you made your claim, I thought you would have better evidence to support it.
Forced medical procedures lead to abuses. I've given many historical examples. Your counterpoints are not supported by any meaningful counter-examples.
> I do think that the medical attrocities you list have had a lasting and deleterious effect on public trust of government medical ethics and contribute significantly to vaccine hestitancy.
Coercion and total lack of accountability aren't exactly the best marketing strategy.
You made an very strong "always" claim. All that is needed to refute such a claim is a single counter example. I brought up school vaccination requirements because I believe they are an important exception to the principle you put forward. (I could probably have also picked border entry vaccination requirements.)
In my view, you should have made a weaker claim, such as that forced medical interventions have a history of problematic abuse and have lead to atrocities. As a result, new types of forced medical intervention (and generally any type of violation of body sovereignty) should be approached with extre caution.
> Having a bad lawyer is irrelevant the judges still have to know the law.
This is factually and obviously false. If lawyers aren't needed to help judges to decide cases fairly and in accordance with the law, then why so we have them and why do we pay them so much money?
Forcing medical interventions in the name of the public good has always degenerated in the worse atrocities and abuses in history.