Thread by @drjanaway

The ethical case for #vaccination. A thread.

Before we consider what is, I believe, a reasonable case for universal vaccination, we must first address the problem of misinformation. There is no better way to do this than to present the facts as they most reliably exist.

First we must consider the truth that nothing in science is ultimately correct in all cases, but based on a statistical likelihood that error is less likely. Essentially if the relationship between two variables exists by something less than chance, we can be confident of 'truth'

This is not to remove the philosophical quandary of what defines 'truth' in its entirety, and if we were to be strict and reference Kant's diktats of reason we would conclude the same, that all knowledge is inferential and thus subject to our senses and conceptualisations.

As such, we create within all fields of science, and extend this to other systems including that of faith, a belief system based on 'working models' of reality, some of which provide greater accuracy in replication of events, for example, mathematics and physics.

As we branch further from these 'axiomatic' (rule defined,) sciences, into those that pertain to the concept of free choice (such as psychology and sociology,) such accuracy decreases in response to the unpredictability of individual interactions and choices.

At its peak, human nature itself limits the predictability of its future by science, providing a seemingly random direction to endeavor, and as such, applying a non-sequitur logic to what is essentially axiomatic concepts.

Within such conceptualised framework lies no ethic or morality. Science does not, within its realisations, provide any guidance on what is 'right' in a moral sense, only further data to predict the impact of decisions made. Science brought us the bomb, people brought us Hiroshima

So here we may dispense quickly with any scientific guidance toward what is morally optimal, and realise this is a question of human philosophy. And to make a rational decision on this we must also understand that there is no specific good or evil.

Once again, these are human concepts, and as Sam Harris once attempted to postulate, 'health' is a universal force for good and measure of directed decision making. Unfortunately, health is not the concept that makes sense, it is secondary to one simple thing, survival.

Darwinian thinking teaches us that the role of a species is to form a carrier and protector for its genes, not itself, and the species whole associated with the most local form of it. This is why we protect our families over others. Our genes, and behaviour, are built this way,

To our genes, which although not sentient harbour eons of knowledge secondary to selective pressures, our survial as thinking and acting entities only matters insofar as to reproduce. We may consider the male spider who faces death at copulation to understand this clearly.

So with this in mind, we may consider our 'morality' to be somewhat tied up in our survival, and like many existential pressures, those occurring within large social groups are selective and cruel, and thus what is most agreed leads to permanence.

Within humans, in both Darwinian and psychodynamic models (which together can form evolutionary psychology,) this means preservation of the gene pool, and as such, moral 'rules' moving toward this aim. Not for the individual, but for the whole.

These rules are not 'moral' per se, but simply options we may choose that we have deemed primarily acceptable to our specific culture and species. A spider's morals would differ drastically from ours, as well as the morals of politics find discrepancies between social ideals.

So we now may surmise, that our morality is but a stand-in by proxy of what enables survival in the perceived group of the species, but is not tied inextricably to the whole. This is why we war, fight, cheat and kill. Most of the greatest 'evil' have thought themselves just.

So to remedy this question of what unites all of us, not far removed from Harris or Kant, even Nietzsche for its potential hedonism, is the ability to survive en mass. This rule is equal across all parts of species and does not require conflict in this case.

A virus such as #COVID19 has the same moral ethic as us (given the caveats mentioned above,) in that it wishes to suvive. It mutates and spreads to do this, killing people not as a goal, but as an end result, much like we kill animals to feed ourselves.

We cannot consider it evil, but we can consider it an inpediment to survival, and as such a barrier to the moral epithets by which we define our behaviour toward our enduring gene-line and, thus by extension, the decisions made against it.

To make a brief diversion, to further establish facts, here are the rates of death for covid19 with and without vaccination:

Unvaccinated: 938.9 p100,000
Had first dose: 302.5 p100,000
Had second dose 40.9 p100,000

From the above standpoints, we can surmise the following axioms:

1) Vaccination reduces death overall
2) Vaccination need not aim to provide conflict or worsening of harm to another culture/group due to its use in one

However, point 2 has been argued against within the framework of 'prioritizing covid treatments' preventing the treatment of other diseases. Whilst an emotional and seductive argument, it falls easily when the following is considered.

1) The impact of covid makes staffing for treatment of other diseases less possible
2) The impact of covid is more severe in these cases
3) Prioritisation, for the majority, would be indeed hitting covid first to ensure the maximum survival

These points are somewhat deliberate and stand under scrutiny, but people may argue that the use of a vaccine is less important in those of lower risk, often citing a 99% survival rate. This is not the case, and the rate increases greatly in older and more ill groups.

So the question now turns to 'is it right to vaccinate for yourself or others.' The former clause is your decision without caveat when it comes to your own health, even if it were to go against the apparent morality of survival. However, it is in the latter we find problems.

If this virus had a 50% mortality, I doubt we would have any opposition to vaccination to protect ourselves and/or others. But with every percentile reduction and distance from 'whom' we may save, it is not unreasonable that our survival apparatus becomes less fussed.

The solution to this problem is within the exponential reality of large groups, where the process of infection and method of spread becomes diktat in determining what would be the 'moral' behavior most acceptable to the masses.

Our goal within this framework is protect the most vulnerable so that they may survive, and we do not mean this in purely reproductive terms, or we would have a eugenic argument and kill everyone after reproduction. We mean for all of us, young and old, ill or healthy.

The crux of human society is the value of each person in it, the intricate social matrices formed by interaction, and the value of wisdom, assistance, socialist principles, and health. These together promote overall existence and human protection within local and large groups.

As such any means by which we may promote a greater human survival would be arguably beneficial, which forms an adjustment to the asocial darwinian design, in that survival is social. We must protect others to survive.

Vaccines, in this case, present a valuable and tested method of protecting others other than ourselves, which is the foundational matrix of our social system. In terms of its 'morality', ignoring the absolute truth, this has been our workable approach, by choice.

To ignore this now by matter of statistic is a personal choice, but it cannot be made easily and with any workable moral authenticity without addressing the points above. No vaccine is perfect, nor without risk, but the overall effect is valuable to survival.

I am arguing not for your personal choice, but providing a moral argument to justify taking your own risk in vaccination (small,) to prevent the larger risk to those who cannot (large.) Ultimately this is a matter of your own choosing, and should not be inforced.

As such I oppose mandates, but once again this is a personal choice based on distaste. We already have mandates for firearms, but we do not treat a lack of vaccination as deliberate harm to others. Unless people choose to infect others knowingly, which is a crime.

So to circle back to the initial point, the science pertains to no moral authenticity, but our social constructions do, which in themselves are of Darwinian nature, but limited by human choice. The choice is yours, as is this argument to consider.

As such, a choice not to vaccinate, although inherently immoral by any measure of omniscient truth, must be taken against the reasoned argument that it may risk harm to others, and by extension, you must take responsibility for it, for better or worse.

This argument is not comprehensive but hopes to provide a jumping-off point for discussion. For me, it's time to go to work.

Caveats:

1) No individual should be forced to put themselves at risk through the instrument of another to protect another, so every individual has a right to refuse on these grounds at least and should not face punishment for it. i.e if you are medically exempt.

2) The individual circumstances of the person, in terms of risk vs benefit to themselves, should take priority in all cases within a reasonable estimation, such as those who could be harmed by a vaccine are exempted.

3) If one chooses not to be vaccinated, this should be accepted as a choice, and unless in a position where they risk others, should continue to be supported in such choice. If in a position where they may hurt others, ie Healthcare, this is less tenable.

4) We must remember this is not a permanent situation, so we must support each other and learn. I would imagine that the moral arguments can be very subjective.

5) The above items provide no moral framework or argument for mandatory vaccination, nor stigmatisation, but a way of communicating concerns and discussing approaches. I do not feel vaccination should ever be done against capacitous refusal.

6) Most people are 'good people.' It is assymetry of information and disagreement among polarised groups that leads to war. We should be beyond that, but it does mean abandoning our egos at the door.

6) The entire judgment of a person cannot be reduced to the ascribed moral significance of one action or inaction in ernest, may who choose not to vaccinate are people who have contributed hugely to society, we may not judge by our own standard.

7) Within no framework are we to consider a 'lesser class of person' for these decisions, or force upon them treatments 'for the many against will', as this would form instrumental abuse. The only exception would be large risk to others, which cannot be formed without specifics.

8) Morality is a subjective epithet defined by personal choice. We may only discuss and consider, and best avoid mandate, or else we run the risk of creating a society where those of inaction are seen as criminals without a warrant. These are people.

9) Most disagreement comes from misinformation, fear, and a need to protect. Some individuals may have an exclusive right to this validated by circumstance, and others simply misled. This is why communication, not ostracisation, matters.

10) This all may be subject to change, nil is permanent and no reasoning is without flaws. All I can do is try to make the best of such conflicting narratives in a way that supports everyone. I hope I have done that, if not, then I'll try harder.

TLDR = listen, help, learn, support, do our best, don't attack, punish, abuse. We will all be around after this, but not all of us, but the more we learn, the more will survive.

Final note in this monster: any misunderstanding of the concepts above is not a failure of the reader, but me as the commmunicator.