undefined | Better HN

0 pointslern_too_spel4y ago0 comments

He said they should be able to with access to Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, which aren't yet available in sufficient quantity.

> They claim that hospitals should have accepted prior infection for workers as a valid exemption, and thereby avoided firings and resignations.

This is an argument for a modified hospital worker mandate, not an argument against vaccine mandates.

Additionally, the author confuses himself further by listing a patient unable to get care because his doctor refused to see an unvaccinated patient as a harm from mandates. Removing mandates which aren't yet in place does not change who that doctor would see. On the contrary, a mandate would have solved that issue because it would mean that patient would be vaccinated.

0 comments

s1artibartfast4y ago

>This is an argument for a modified hospital worker mandate, not an argument against vaccine mandates.

Correct, and I feel this was made clear that it was a sub point in the article.

I'm not interested on stealmaning every claim in the article, just the one you identified in your op

lern_too_spelOP4y ago

Then why does he even bother saying that if his thesis is that vaccine mandates are bad? He supports that thesis by arguing against strawmen before finally getting to the actual argument, which I quoted, and totally ignoring it.

s1artibartfast4y ago

I don't know what to say. I thought the article structure made sense but I guess it didn't for you. What you call strawmen is what I commonly hear as arguments for mandates.

Thesis: Vaccine are good but mandates are bad

Background: advantages to vaccines, transmission data, current risks

Refute common arguments for mandatory vaccination 1) protect the vaccinated. 2) decrease transmission 3) hospital capacity 4) prior infection is inadequate

Review downsides to mandates: Harms and inconvenience to those who choose not to be vaccinated.

Conclusion

I think they key point they are arguing for is in the "bottom line" conclusion:

>If this were really about science, why would we not allow previous infection, which confers all the benefits of vaccination, if not more, the same rights? Does it not seem that mandates are having the opposite effect to what is desired? Instead of increasing vaccination rates are mandates instead hardening and alienating the unvaccinated further? If we are being honest with ourselves, are the mandates truly for the protection of the vaccinated, or do they exist to punish the unvaccinated?

I agree it would have been clearer if they stated their position as a declaration, opposed to a question, but it is right there

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointslern_too_spel4y ago0 comments

He said they should be able to with access to Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, which aren't yet available in sufficient quantity.

> They claim that hospitals should have accepted prior infection for workers as a valid exemption, and thereby avoided firings and resignations.

This is an argument for a modified hospital worker mandate, not an argument against vaccine mandates.

0 comments

s1artibartfast4y ago

>This is an argument for a modified hospital worker mandate, not an argument against vaccine mandates.

Correct, and I feel this was made clear that it was a sub point in the article.

I'm not interested on stealmaning every claim in the article, just the one you identified in your op

lern_too_spelOP4y ago

s1artibartfast4y ago

I don't know what to say. I thought the article structure made sense but I guess it didn't for you. What you call strawmen is what I commonly hear as arguments for mandates.

Thesis: Vaccine are good but mandates are bad

Background: advantages to vaccines, transmission data, current risks

Refute common arguments for mandatory vaccination 1) protect the vaccinated. 2) decrease transmission 3) hospital capacity 4) prior infection is inadequate

Review downsides to mandates: Harms and inconvenience to those who choose not to be vaccinated.

Conclusion

I think they key point they are arguing for is in the "bottom line" conclusion:

I agree it would have been clearer if they stated their position as a declaration, opposed to a question, but it is right there

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse