Vaccine Priority Ethics

@sh76 said
I've been going over these questions in my mind for months and I thought it would be interesting to get people's opinions.

I imagine that for most of us, the COVID vaccines in our areas are being given out based on priority. Essential workers, old people, people with comorbidities are being given various levels of priority. The priority rules aren't always perfectly tailored, ...[text shortened]... nd get a letter of eligibility, but once you're done peeing, you'll be back to 194.

What say you?

I disagree with your second given.
There is personal responsibility. And if you think others need help before you (and arguably so), it’s very much heroic to state as much.
And I like heroics.

As for the rest, deliberately cutting the line is morally objectionable. Not even because one thinks themselves above the herd, but it means that someone more vulnerable has a higher chance of dying.

All this being said, when people are frightened, they act irrationally.
So, although I condemn the behaviour, I’m not in favour of punishments beyond shaming.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I'm sure you're right that there are people like that, but catering to them doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason to stop vaccinating people in the middle of a spike.

@earl-of-trumps said
Last week, the US hit 100 million inoculations, and Johnson & Johnsons is expected to be on line in July.

Basically, it's a moot point in the US.

Johnson & Johnson is already online. Perhaps you meant Novavax.

Your point is right-ish, bit it's still an interesting ethical dilemma that has other applications.

@sh76 said
Is there a certain amount of rule-bending that you would consider acceptable?

What about driving 35 in a 30 zone?

Interesting.
I have massive debates about speed limits.

To start: if there’s a chance of someone popping in front of the car (like in a 30km/hour zone, built up area, etc. ) , I drive like a snail. Better to be safe than sorry... or kill a bloody kid.

However, in the Netherlands between 06:00 and 19:00 there’s a 100 km/hr speed limit on motorways. For the environment.
Now, that’s harsh... throwing the environment in there... but hey, screw the environment, I couldn’t care less.

Now. I am a stickler for the rules. It’s part and parcel of my job description (hence I’m very careful about who I allow to know me personally... because many of the opinions I vent on this site really have to be nuanced in the real world).

But driving 100 on a Sunday morning at 07:30 on an empty 4 lane motorway... is complete madness.

And even if it’s not completely empty, I tend to drive faster than allowed. I judge the situation and adapt my speed to what is needed.
Then again, I have driven over 1.4 million km’s in my life. I am, as such, very experienced. You can’t let a 23 year olds with 50k under their belts make the same decisions (well, you can, but studies from Australia will contradict you).
So, how do you judge who can and cannot?

And even then, in this wisdom, I drive faster than is allowed.
And many a collegue who disagrees. Especially considering my role and my opinions about ethics and integrity.

To which I can, really, only reply: I’m a hypocrite. fire me. Go on. Do it!

I ain’t driving slower for anyone!
Unless my wife is beside me. Of course.

@shavixmir said
Interesting.
I have massive debates about speed limits.

To start: if there’s a chance of someone popping in front of the car (like in a 30km/hour zone, built up area, etc. ) , I drive like a snail. Better to be safe than sorry... or kill a bloody kid.

However, in the Netherlands between 06:00 and 19:00 there’s a 100 km/hr speed limit on motorways. For the environment ...[text shortened]... ire me. Go on. Do it!

I ain’t driving slower for anyone!
Unless my wife is beside me. Of course.

100 km/hr is roughly the maximum speed limit for any highway in New York state and many city highways are capped at 55 MPH (~88 KPH). In New York City there is a general limit of 30 MPH (~50 KPH) on city streets.

But nobody takes them literally. A 55 MPH speed limit means you start worrying at 65 or 70. There's an exception that proves every rule of course, but in real life, you don't get pulled over for going less than 10 MPH over the limit.

Edit: We have a beautiful scenic highway 'round these parts called the Pallisades Interstate Parkway with a speed limit of 50 miles per hour.

Try driving 50 in the left lane. LOL. You'll get more fingers than a millipede and more horns than a herd of elk.

@sh76 said
100 km/hr is roughly the maximum speed limit for any highway in New York state and many city highways are capped at 55 MPH (~88 KPH). In New York City there is a general limit of 30 MPH (~50 KPH) on city streets.

But nobody takes them literally. A 55 MPH speed limit means you start worrying at 65 or 70. There's an exception that proves every rule of course, but in real life, ...[text shortened]... 0 in the left lane. LOL. You'll get more fingers than a millipede and more horns than a herd of elk.

I drove through the Mojave desert... and stuck to the speed limit.
Bloody torture (beautiful drive though).

@sh76 said
I've been going over these questions in my mind for months and I thought it would be interesting to get people's opinions.

I imagine that for most of us, the COVID vaccines in our areas are being given out based on priority. Essential workers, old people, people with comorbidities are being given various levels of priority. The priority rules aren't always perfectly tailored, ...[text shortened]... nd get a letter of eligibility, but once you're done peeing, you'll be back to 194.

What say you?

If people are stupid enough to covet a vaccine that doesn't have FDA approval let them. They don't even have the critical thinking skills to realize the SARS2 pandemic killed no more people than a bad flu year.

These are the people who should be sterilized by the vaccine so they don't breed. Let it happen. Only people with decent critical thinking skills should breed.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Aren’t there studies on this issue?
Although I’m quite sure that racial profiling takes place, the numbers are still excessive.

Hasn’t it something to do with high-crime rate locations and police distribution?
So, if an area has less crime, you invest less police hours there. And that the high-crime areas are predominantly non-white?

That would bend the stats to blacks being stopped more often than whites.

And so, once again, it’s not about actual racism, but about socio-economic issues.

Legalise drugs, provide care in the community and make sure there are enough jobs and prospects. And the situation solves itself.

@metal-brain said
If people are stupid enough to covet a vaccine that doesn't have FDA approval let them. They don't even have the critical thinking skills to realize the SARS2 pandemic killed no more people than a bad flu year.

These are the people who should be sterilized by the vaccine so they don't breed. Let it happen. Only people with decent critical thinking skills should breed.

Sort of rules you out, eh...

@shavixmir said
Sort of rules you out, eh...

Nope, you.

It says right in the Pfizer insert that they don't know if it causes infertility. You can find plenty of weblinks saying there is no evidence the vaccine causes fertility, but they don't say there is evidence that it doesn't because there is none. They didn't put that in the insert because they wanted to warn people, they did it to avoid being held accountable for it if it turns out it does cause infertility. You can't sue a vaccine manufacturer for an unknown side effect even if it results in death, but you can if you can prove that Pfizer was aware of it and they are. The insert proves they are aware of it, but this was known from the first SARS vaccine.

There are other weblinks that say it doesn't cause infertility, but that is just a lie. No long term trials exist to rule it out.




https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf

@sh76 said
Johnson & Johnson is already online. Perhaps you meant Novavax.

Your point is right-ish, bit it's still an interesting ethical dilemma that has other applications.

Ok, I'll play along, best I can.

1. Is it ethical to take a job for the sole purpose of achieving vaccine priority.
EoT: In my opinion, YES.

2. Is it ethical to put yourself in a position to be eligible based on comorbidity?
EoT: Hell no. You raise the health insurance rates to do this?? Absurd.

What if you weigh 194 and you drink a gallon of water before walking into the doctor's office so you can tip the scales at 202 and get a letter of eligibility, but once you're done peeing, you'll be back to 194.
EoT: Legal, immoral. And idiotic.