[ad_1]
Two strategies can be distinguished in the fight against the covid pandemic: elimination and peaceful coexistence. But how peaceful will it be when the virus continues to circulate and mutate in the population? It would be better if the infection could be completely removed. But how? The strict Chinese model terrifies. It may be more reasonable to rely on herd immunity. However, the price for such a spontaneous appearance of a sufficient number of sick people is unreasonably high. In that case, it is safer to help with the vaccination as part of fighting the infection. When between 60 and 70 percent are vaccinated, it is to be expected that the virus will stop circulating among the population. But is it possible to achieve such a vaccination rate?
You can expect people to get vaccinated to avoid infection and not risk infecting frail family members. But now the vaccination campaign is being carried out with the aim of vaccinating all frail people first. What happens when they (we) are vaccinated? Are there still reasons in the population to take the syringe?
Can’t you appeal to people who feel confident about themselves and lack close unvaccinated relatives to get vaccinated for the good of the herd?
One response one can expect from humans is that although flock immunity is good, one does not want to contribute.
One of those campaigns is difficult to carry. One response one can expect from humans is that although flock immunity is good, one does not want to contribute. Your own contribution is negligible.
It’s true? Sometimes we delude ourselves that we mean less than we do. Many have thought that there is no point in participating in political elections, since the probability that the vote itself will make a difference is extremely small. Hegel has already presented this “paradox of the voice”:
With regard to elections by general participation, it can be noted that, especially in large states, the indifference of the elector towards the use of his own vote is necessarily followed, since it will have a negligible effect on the number of votes … (“Basic lines of the philosophy of law”, min översättning)
But it makes sense to vote. Hegel was wrong. Derek Parfit has demonstrated this in the book “Reasons and People” (Oxford University Press, 1986). If we vote selfishly, Hegel may be right, but if we put the same emphasis on the welfare of all, the situation will be different. The political alternatives that we are faced with benefit some and harm others, but one must be very cynical to say that these effects of favoritism and disadvantage cancel each other out and that, therefore, all alternatives are equal from one perspective. that focuses on the interests of all stakeholders.
Torbjörn Tännsjö.
Photo: free thought
If, on the other hand, it is assumed that some benefit more than others are disadvantaged, or that those who benefit are more, while counting the effects for each individual, the total positive effect of one of the alternatives compared to the others it can be significant. In other words, in that case the stakes are high, which means that even a small probability that the vote itself will make the decision makes it worth voting (in Tersman and Tännsjö, “People & Will” we develop this reasoning).
Is this reasoning Is it possible to move to vaccination aimed at creating herd immunity? I’m not entirely sure, but I don’t think so. There is probably no absolute “threshold” here, as in the case of participating in elections, where my effort goes from being meaningless to making the decision. This is a genuine example of vagueness.
There is also a motivationally problematic circumstance regarding herd immunity. What is required is a certain percentage, expressed somewhat vaguely, for protection to emerge. Leave room for free passengers. If enough people have received the syringe, I don’t need to take it, even if there had been a certain threshold at which my efforts would have been decisive. One thought that comes to mind is this. If I’m going to sacrifice myself for the herd, everyone else must do the same.
Did we get a system with first and second class citizens?
Is then all hope and herd immunity? No, but we probably can’t rely on people’s free will to do this. It is not enough to appeal to people to get vaccinated for the good of the herd. Everyone can correctly claim that their own efforts make no difference. What is needed is collective action. To achieve this, the herd needs watchdogs, whips, and carrots, in a suitable mix. Preferably with an emphasis on carrots. In this sense, we should look favorably on the requirement for vaccination passes to access various sporting and cultural events.
Is it unfair that some can attend these events and others cannot? Did we get a system with first and second class citizens? Yes, but if the alternative is that nobody can visit them, only the jealous can have something to object. And if these passes help the group to act correctly, we will also receive a safe cultural life where in the end everyone can be included.
Read more:
Tersman and Tännsjö have two radical proposals to save democracy
