Well Dylan, when I read your question to the commentariat, a warning light went off in my head, as I wondered “why on earth would anyone ask such a question given the time and context? After all, it’s not as if some deadly contagious disease were running amok, and people were refusing effective prevention…”, and I became suspicious that you were fishing for evidence that people who had been opposed to the C19 vex mandates were basically prejudiced and unreasonable; I have a hard time understanding your “dualistic rut”.
Having said that, I’ll bite. My answer would be “yes” under the following conditions:
As regards the disease it must 1) have a high case fatality rate at least several orders of magnitude worse than the flu among those who are healthy, non-immune-compromised across all age groups (probably at least 1-5%). 2) be highly transmissible via breathing or casual contact (R0 at least 2.0). 3) have a long incubation time, AND an infected person typically be asymptomatic for at least a few days before symptom onset (so we don’t have asymptomatic infected people spreading a deadly virus) 4) have no animal reservoirs (in which case the virus can never be eradicated)
As regards the vaccine it must 1) be sterilizing (i.e. prevents infection/transmission with a likelihood at least 99%) 2) not incorporate experimental technologies (e.g. no mRNA shots or adenovirus carriers). 3) it must have safety data acquired first with animals for at least 3 months, followed by at least one year of human safety AND efficacy data involving at least 10,000 subjects and 10,000 controls, which show that having received the vaccine is at least an order of magnitude safer than not having it. (This was not done with the C19 shots). 4) The experimental protocol must NOT be performed by a party with a financial interest in vaccine approval. All experimental data from ALL experiments be made public and factored into the approval/authorization process.
As regards vaccine policy 1) The vaccine must NOT be required for those who have recovered from the disease (which may be proven via antibody tests). 2) The national regulatory apparatus must NOT be funded by interests that stand to benefit from prospective vaccine policies. 3) Said regulatory apparatus must be accountable to the public for any policies which affect the public. Regulators must be prohibited from rotating into employment with the industries that they regulated for a least 7 years after leaving public service, and even then forfeit their pensions earned from their regulatory employment (including retro-actively). 4) The vaccine must not be administered during an epidemic/pandemic, as this has been understood for decades as having the potential to drive viral evolution to evade the vaccine. 5) Pregnant or nursing women and nursing infants must be excluded from any mandates. 6) Medical exemptions for medically specified issues must genuinely be permitted.
Anyway, this is my off-the-cuff response to your question. It wouldn’t take much to persuade me that my criteria are overly lax. We “anti-vaxxers” are not all that unreasonable.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: When would you comply?
Date: 2024-02-28 01:20 am (UTC)Having said that, I’ll bite. My answer would be “yes” under the following conditions:
As regards the disease it must
1) have a high case fatality rate at least several orders of magnitude worse than the flu among those who are healthy, non-immune-compromised across all age groups (probably at least 1-5%).
2) be highly transmissible via breathing or casual contact (R0 at least 2.0).
3) have a long incubation time, AND an infected person typically be asymptomatic for at least a few days before symptom onset (so we don’t have asymptomatic infected people spreading a deadly virus)
4) have no animal reservoirs (in which case the virus can never be eradicated)
As regards the vaccine it must
1) be sterilizing (i.e. prevents infection/transmission with a likelihood at least 99%)
2) not incorporate experimental technologies (e.g. no mRNA shots or adenovirus carriers).
3) it must have safety data acquired first with animals for at least 3 months, followed by at least one year of human safety AND efficacy data involving at least 10,000 subjects and 10,000 controls, which show that having received the vaccine is at least an order of magnitude safer than not having it. (This was not done with the C19 shots).
4) The experimental protocol must NOT be performed by a party with a financial interest in vaccine approval. All experimental data from ALL experiments be made public and factored into the approval/authorization process.
As regards vaccine policy
1) The vaccine must NOT be required for those who have recovered from the disease (which may be proven via antibody tests).
2) The national regulatory apparatus must NOT be funded by interests that stand to benefit from prospective vaccine policies.
3) Said regulatory apparatus must be accountable to the public for any policies which affect the public. Regulators must be prohibited from rotating into employment with the industries that they regulated for a least 7 years after leaving public service, and even then forfeit their pensions earned from their regulatory employment (including retro-actively).
4) The vaccine must not be administered during an epidemic/pandemic, as this has been understood for decades as having the potential to drive viral evolution to evade the vaccine.
5) Pregnant or nursing women and nursing infants must be excluded from any mandates.
6) Medical exemptions for medically specified issues must genuinely be permitted.
Anyway, this is my off-the-cuff response to your question. It wouldn’t take much to persuade me that my criteria are overly lax. We “anti-vaxxers” are not all that unreasonable.
—Lunar Apprentice