I looked up coercion and here’s what it says: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
I think vaccines become coercive when you can no longer say no. There will probably be many restrictions, from flying, to school and employment, but the moment someone who just wants to bury their head in the sand and never go anywhere, to say no, that’s why it’s crossed a line.
All of those are implicit threats of force (fines, forceful arrest, imprisonment, deportation, etc).
You cannot fly or else...
You cannot work or else...
You cannot have a gathering of friends and family or else...
These are not polite suggestions. If I tell you that you must not leave your home or else I will curbstomp you, you are not then making the choice to "bury your head in the sand and never go anywhere".
> in Toronto, children as young as 12 have been offered free ice cream for vaccines and do not need parental consent.
"CLAIM: Video shows parents in Toronto being blocked by police as children were given the COVID-19 vaccine in exchange for ice cream, without parental permission.
The linked article does not disprove the quoted claim, in fact it confirms it.
The facts in that very article confirm that ice cream was employed as an incentive, that no parental consent is required for vaccination regardless of age in that jurisdiction [0] and that children were indeed eligible (and I'm sure the video confirms, present) for the vaccination [1].
[0] "Under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, there is no minimum age to provide consent for vaccination"
[1] "health officials approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for ages 12-15"
As you note, the article confirms peripheral elements of the claim.
What the articld judges false is the central, lurid claim that “Video shows parents being blocked by police...”.
What it shows is a anti-vax protestors being blocked by police.
Its true that it confirms the “...as children were given the COVID-19 vaccine in exchange for ice cream without parental permission.”
But without the first part (and the implication that comes with them together that it was not merely without parental consent but contrary to the expressed wishes of parents who were being forcibly kept from removing their children), the second part is...a lot less significant.
I'm very pro covid-19 vaccine - it probably saved my life.
I am however uncomfortable with the idea that the state can compell an individual with incentives or the implied threat of travel curtailment to accept any medication.
Especially when those of us who do not want to get Covid-19 can get the vaccine and leave the others to their choice.
While the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, it's also an observation that often rings true.
This is like suggesting that Christmas holiday sales coerce people into being religious.
Society on mass is generally promoting the concept of vaccination. Good on companies like Uber and such supporting a widely accepted social agreement (though their motive may or may not be over all non-business motivated).
9 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 44.2 ms ] threadI think vaccines become coercive when you can no longer say no. There will probably be many restrictions, from flying, to school and employment, but the moment someone who just wants to bury their head in the sand and never go anywhere, to say no, that’s why it’s crossed a line.
You cannot fly or else...
You cannot work or else...
You cannot have a gathering of friends and family or else...
These are not polite suggestions. If I tell you that you must not leave your home or else I will curbstomp you, you are not then making the choice to "bury your head in the sand and never go anywhere".
"CLAIM: Video shows parents in Toronto being blocked by police as children were given the COVID-19 vaccine in exchange for ice cream, without parental permission.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False."
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-243075072658
The facts in that very article confirm that ice cream was employed as an incentive, that no parental consent is required for vaccination regardless of age in that jurisdiction [0] and that children were indeed eligible (and I'm sure the video confirms, present) for the vaccination [1].
[0] "Under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, there is no minimum age to provide consent for vaccination"
[1] "health officials approved the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for ages 12-15"
What it shows is a anti-vax protestors being blocked by police.
Its true that it confirms the “...as children were given the COVID-19 vaccine in exchange for ice cream without parental permission.”
But without the first part (and the implication that comes with them together that it was not merely without parental consent but contrary to the expressed wishes of parents who were being forcibly kept from removing their children), the second part is...a lot less significant.
I am however uncomfortable with the idea that the state can compell an individual with incentives or the implied threat of travel curtailment to accept any medication.
Especially when those of us who do not want to get Covid-19 can get the vaccine and leave the others to their choice.
While the "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, it's also an observation that often rings true.
Society on mass is generally promoting the concept of vaccination. Good on companies like Uber and such supporting a widely accepted social agreement (though their motive may or may not be over all non-business motivated).