> Even then, the emotional distress and reverse placebo effect of coercing people to take a vaccine if they don't want it still outweighs any benefit.
That's ridiculous -- of course benefits can outweigh psychological side-effects. Usually you'd want those benefits to accrue to the person suffering the side-effects, but living in a civilized society means accepting that sometimes the good of the many outweighs the pain of the few. If a vaccine for a deadly, highly communicable disease can completely stop transmission then I think it's perfectly ethical to require everyone to accept it or isolate from those willing to do so.
> I understood the grandparent post to mean that the harm can sometimes outweigh the benefits when the vaccine is forced. Not that it's always the case.
On careful re-reading I believe you're correct. Though if a hypothetical 100% effective zero side-effects vaccine doesn't pass their bar of outweighing psychological harm then it seems unlikely anything could, hence my interpretation of GP as an absolute statement.
> Are you suggesting that the COVID vaccines were able to completely stop transmission?
Hah, I wish! No, just going with the GP's hypothetical.
> If a vaccine for a deadly, highly communicable disease can completely stop transmission then I think it's perfectly ethical to require everyone to accept it or isolate from those willing to do so.
Did you consider the law of unintended consequences?
That's ridiculous -- of course benefits can outweigh psychological side-effects. Usually you'd want those benefits to accrue to the person suffering the side-effects, but living in a civilized society means accepting that sometimes the good of the many outweighs the pain of the few. If a vaccine for a deadly, highly communicable disease can completely stop transmission then I think it's perfectly ethical to require everyone to accept it or isolate from those willing to do so.