Ethical Vaccine Distribution
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Ethical Vaccine Distribution
Every tactic is appreciated and the more explanations, the better.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
Seriously, I would defer to the experts and use the strategy that would likely save the most lives. It might mean distributing the vaccines to the hardest hit areas first. But, if Fauci and the rest said that we could save more people by inoculating in areas where the virus hadn't hit first, then I would listen to them, even though the public might not see the wisdom of that strategy. I would give it to the youngest or the oldest first--whichever should save the most people in the end. I would value all lives equally in these considerations, not giving preference by age or wealth or anything else. You would get the vaccine if your getting it first was likely to contribute to the lowest possible death toll in the end.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8375
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
(Critically needed to aid others.)
Second, caregivers, nurses and medical personnel.
(Also needed for the sake of others.)
Next, those with medical conditions.
(Those who are most vulnerable.)
Then those who are over 80 years old.
(Those who are also at high risk.)
Then over 65.
(Relatively at high risk.)
Over 45.
(Moderate risk.)
21 & under as approved for the vaccine.
(Moderate risk.)
All others.
(22 - 44 least risk.)
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
- Empiricist-Bruno
- Moderator
- Posts: 585
- Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
Unethical scientists don't develop vaccines for people but simply because they rush to create something that naive people will want to buy.
In today's world, economic rules dictate how the vaccine will be distributed. If you care about ethics, go vegan or you need to be considered hypocritical, which is not really ethical. Going vegan means to reject products tested on animals, including the life saving products recently created by capitalists who caused the deadly problem in the first place and who try to present their evil products as the solution.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7146
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
Ethics is principally for humans, not animals.Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 6:19 am Ethical vaccine distribution starts with giving it to those who understand the risks/ benefits involved. Given that the vaccine was first distributed among captive, unwilling animals it is pretty clear that too few of us care about ethical vaccine distribution otherwise we would be jailing all the scientific community involved in the development of the vaccine.
Unethical scientists don't develop vaccines for people but simply because they rush to create something that naive people will want to buy.
In today's world, economic rules dictate how the vaccine will be distributed. If you care about ethics, go vegan or you need to be considered hypocritical, which is not really ethical. Going vegan means to reject products tested on animals, including the life saving products recently created by capitalists who caused the deadly problem in the first place and who try to present their evil products as the solution.
I doubt that you would want to offer yourself in place of an animal for testing, though there is not doubt you have gained much by their sacrifice.
- Empiricist-Bruno
- Moderator
- Posts: 585
- Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
Where did you get that from? Many people consider themselves animals, no?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 6:27 amEthics is principally for humans, not animals.Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 6:19 am Ethical vaccine distribution starts with giving it to those who understand the risks/ benefits involved. Given that the vaccine was first distributed among captive, unwilling animals it is pretty clear that too few of us care about ethical vaccine distribution otherwise we would be jailing all the scientific community involved in the development of the vaccine.
Unethical scientists don't develop vaccines for people but simply because they rush to create something that naive people will want to buy.
In today's world, economic rules dictate how the vaccine will be distributed. If you care about ethics, go vegan or you need to be considered hypocritical, which is not really ethical. Going vegan means to reject products tested on animals, including the life saving products recently created by capitalists who caused the deadly problem in the first place and who try to present their evil products as the solution.
I doubt that you would want to offer yourself in place of an animal for testing, though there is not doubt you have gained much by their sacrifice.
I certainly would offer myself for testing in certain circumstances such as if a rabid bat bit me and the first anti rabies vaccine was being offered as an experimental treatment. But you are correct to say that I would not volunteer to be given deliberately a deadly virus to see if my experimental vaccine was effective against it followed shortly after with me being killed so I could be dissected to see if the vaccine did indeed help or not fight the disease in my lungs.
I have gained much by their sacrifice?? That's pretty far fetched. I am embarrassed by appearing to be a part of species who attack mother nature thinking that they may be able to grow in wiseness that way. I currently feel totally devalued by my apparent association with the dominant others of my species. And then being informed that I am in fact a beneficiary of the sacrifices of these animals is implying/suggesting that I caused this. You right wing innocent psycho guys are killing me, stop it!
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
Not bad, not bad at all.AverageBozo wrote: ↑October 24th, 2021, 11:58 am First, vaccinate the first responders.
(Critically needed to aid others.)
Second, caregivers, nurses and medical personnel.
(Also needed for the sake of others.)
Next, those with medical conditions.
(Those who are most vulnerable.)
Then those who are over 80 years old.
(Those who are also at high risk.)
Then over 65.
(Relatively at high risk.)
Over 45.
(Moderate risk.)
21 & under as approved for the vaccine.
(Moderate risk.)
All others.
(22 - 44 least risk.)
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8375
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
While it's good to protect the carers, it's the vulnerable who are at the greatest risk. It does no good to keep the carers safe if their patients catch covid; perhaps the vulnerable should be protected first?AverageBozo wrote: ↑October 24th, 2021, 11:58 am First, vaccinate the first responders.
(Critically needed to aid others.)
Second, caregivers, nurses and medical personnel.
(Also needed for the sake of others.)
Next, those with medical conditions.
(Those who are most vulnerable.)
Then those who are over 80 years old.
(Those who are also at high risk.)
Then over 65.
(Relatively at high risk.)
Over 45.
(Moderate risk.)
21 & under as approved for the vaccine.
(Moderate risk.)
All others.
(22 - 44 least risk.)
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7146
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
Obfuscation.Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 5:38 pmWhere did you get that from? Many people consider themselves animals, no?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 6:27 amEthics is principally for humans, not animals.Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑October 25th, 2021, 6:19 am Ethical vaccine distribution starts with giving it to those who understand the risks/ benefits involved. Given that the vaccine was first distributed among captive, unwilling animals it is pretty clear that too few of us care about ethical vaccine distribution otherwise we would be jailing all the scientific community involved in the development of the vaccine.
Unethical scientists don't develop vaccines for people but simply because they rush to create something that naive people will want to buy.
In today's world, economic rules dictate how the vaccine will be distributed. If you care about ethics, go vegan or you need to be considered hypocritical, which is not really ethical. Going vegan means to reject products tested on animals, including the life saving products recently created by capitalists who caused the deadly problem in the first place and who try to present their evil products as the solution.
I doubt that you would want to offer yourself in place of an animal for testing, though there is not doubt you have gained much by their sacrifice.
Put it this way . Ethics is principally for humans, not NON-humans.
And yet many humans dis EXACTLY that.
I certainly would offer myself for testing in certain circumstances such as if a rabid bat bit me and the first anti rabies vaccine was being offered as an experimental treatment. But you are correct to say that I would not volunteer to be given deliberately a deadly virus to see if my experimental vaccine was effective against it followed shortly after with me being killed so I could be dissected to see if the vaccine did indeed help or not fight the disease in my lungs.
It's a pity that you rate pigs over your own species.
It's only far fetched to a person who does not care about other people.
I have gained much by their sacrifice?? That's pretty far fetched.
We area a part of "mother nature", no?I am embarrassed by appearing to be a part of species who attack mother nature
Insults are prohibited on this Forum.thinking that they may be able to grow in wiseness that way. I currently feel totally devalued by my apparent association with the dominant others of my species. And then being informed that I am in fact a beneficiary of the sacrifices of these animals is implying/suggesting that I caused this. You right wing innocent psycho guys are killing me, stop it!
I'm left wing - possibly the most left wing on the Forum.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
Could go either way—most vulnerable first or caregivers first.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 7:12 amWhile it's good to protect the carers, it's the vulnerable who are at the greatest risk. It does no good to keep the carers safe if their patients catch covid; perhaps the vulnerable should be protected first?AverageBozo wrote: ↑October 24th, 2021, 11:58 am First, vaccinate the first responders.
(Critically needed to aid others.)
Second, caregivers, nurses and medical personnel.
(Also needed for the sake of others.)
Next, those with medical conditions.
(Those who are most vulnerable.)
Then those who are over 80 years old.
(Those who are also at high risk.)
Then over 65.
(Relatively at high risk.)
Over 45.
(Moderate risk.)
21 & under as approved for the vaccine.
(Moderate risk.)
All others.
(22 - 44 least risk.)
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: February 7th, 2018, 1:58 pm
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
I remember an episode of Baywatch where a brash, young lifeguard trainee was asked if in a situation where they and a person they were rescuing were about to be driven into some rocks by a wave who would they protect? They quickly answered that they would put themselves in between the rescuee and the rocks to take the impact.AverageBozo wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 9:48 amCould go either way—most vulnerable first or caregivers first.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 7:12 amWhile it's good to protect the carers, it's the vulnerable who are at the greatest risk. It does no good to keep the carers safe if their patients catch covid; perhaps the vulnerable should be protected first?AverageBozo wrote: ↑October 24th, 2021, 11:58 am First, vaccinate the first responders.
(Critically needed to aid others.)
Second, caregivers, nurses and medical personnel.
(Also needed for the sake of others.)
Next, those with medical conditions.
(Those who are most vulnerable.)
Then those who are over 80 years old.
(Those who are also at high risk.)
Then over 65.
(Relatively at high risk.)
Over 45.
(Moderate risk.)
21 & under as approved for the vaccine.
(Moderate risk.)
All others.
(22 - 44 least risk.)
The trainer asked him who would rescue both of them if the trainee became too hurt to continue the rescue.
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Ethical Vaccine Distribution
And that’s why I started my list the way I did. However, a case could be made for starting with the elderly since first responders and caregivers are presumably less vulnerable and therefore sufficient numbers of them will still be available. As a former field medic I prefer the Baywatch approach.mahfouz wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 11:49 amI remember an episode of Baywatch where a brash, young lifeguard trainee was asked if in a situation where they and a person they were rescuing were about to be driven into some rocks by a wave who would they protect? They quickly answered that they would put themselves in between the rescuee and the rocks to take the impact.AverageBozo wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 9:48 amCould go either way—most vulnerable first or caregivers first.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 26th, 2021, 7:12 amWhile it's good to protect the carers, it's the vulnerable who are at the greatest risk. It does no good to keep the carers safe if their patients catch covid; perhaps the vulnerable should be protected first?AverageBozo wrote: ↑October 24th, 2021, 11:58 am First, vaccinate the first responders.
(Critically needed to aid others.)
Second, caregivers, nurses and medical personnel.
(Also needed for the sake of others.)
Next, those with medical conditions.
(Those who are most vulnerable.)
Then those who are over 80 years old.
(Those who are also at high risk.)
Then over 65.
(Relatively at high risk.)
Over 45.
(Moderate risk.)
21 & under as approved for the vaccine.
(Moderate risk.)
All others.
(22 - 44 least risk.)
The trainer asked him who would rescue both of them if the trainee became too hurt to continue the rescue.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023