Hacker News Reader

Comment by version_five | Hacker News Reader

> mandating flu vaccines

One of my big fears is that this is coming. People have been emboldened and received very little pushback against forcing others to get the covid vaccine, and to prove it wherever they go. How long until we start hearing "flu vaccine saves lives, I have the right to know if someone around me isnt vaccinated, etc etc". I'm almost afraid to say it out loud, and I bet a lot of people here already support it.

Childhood vaccination against Polio and the other big and previously debilitating childhood illnesses is nothing like mandating a covid vaccine, especially during a live event where the guidance and effectiveness is changing daily.

View on HN

I fully support it. The only thing that gives me pause is the cost. As long as the vaccine is easily available free of cost, I am OK with a mandate.

Obviously I dont, and I think it would be boring to get into the pros and cons, but what I'd suggest thinking about if we go down this road is a constitutional amendment, one way or the other, to either say "here is an enumeration of the powers government has to impose vaccines/treatments on people", or "people have a specific right not to be subjected to mandates" in order to get a greater clarity and settle the discussion from a government powers perspective. We can argue all we like about what's constitutional now, but it would be much better to actually clarify it, for better or worse. I don't see much chance of this happening in the current environment, but I think it would elevate the debate

Are we using the word “mandate” correctly? So far all I’m seeing are requirements in order to utilize certain public/private resources (like visiting a place). But if you’re not using those resources, then the vaccine isn’t required. I’d think a “mandate” would entail requiring the vaccine for everyone.

It's a mandate because it's not 'the places' choice whether to enforce it or not on their own property.

Thanks. I hadn't really looked at it from that perspective. But still that's not mandating that people _get_ the vaccine. That's mandating that a _business_ requires customers/employees to have it (and there are always ways to get accommodations).

Overall, it's confusing to me because I see people arguing "no one should be forced to get a jab who doesn't want one!" But so far I'm not seeing instances of that occurring, so it's unclear why they're arguing that (unless it's mostly a pre-emptive, which is fine and understandable).

It will be interesting to see how far pedantry like this can be taken in justifying crimes against society

I was honestly asking the question. Have a good one.

I'm a big fan of permanent vaccine mandate and permanent mask mandate and permanent social distancing mandate and maybe even additional permanent protective gear mandate like gloves or hair nets.

For all people in California.

Nothing is ever free of cost...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com