Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

vaccinations/health care and product promotions.

1910111214

Replies

  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 7,297 Member Member Posts: 7,297 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    Lietchi wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
    In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
    No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.

    A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
    No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
    I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.

    I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.

    OK, so only directing this at you as you identified being from Belgium, and I don't know the answer to this question: What's the Belgian public's attitude towards children being vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, and/or Polio? Because it's pretty much required here in the US, outside of complicating medical issues or the occasional anti-vaxer.

    Just wondering why a requirement for a Covid vaccine would be any different than the other required vaccines?

    What does "pretty much required" mean?

    There are no required vaccines in Canada, I would be surprised if they were in the US. Schools require proof of certain immunizations in order to attend, but that is not the same as mandating the vaccine itself. Maybe that is what you meant?

    That's likely what he meant, and some employers can mandate them too.

    I would see both of those things as far more coercive than anything we've been discussing re the covid vaccine (I think the covid vaccine may ultimately get put in the same category, though). And I have no problem with it, I don't think it is unethical. As Ann noted, if you really have strong principled opposition, you will make the hard choices. The fact that things like the "free beer" promotions seem to be working supports my view that many of those not getting the vaccine aren't really scared or morally opposed, they just are dug in on a partisan or cultural idea that covid is no biggie, the vax is for scaredy cats or snowflakes, or even just why bother, what a waste of time. If being able to laugh and say they did it for the free beer (or a lottery entry), then great.

    Personally, I'm just delighted that we are vaccinated to the extent that things are really starting to return to normal and this won't be another awful summer and we will be able to travel, at least around the country, and the economy can return to normal. Thanks to the vaccines for that, and anything that encourages more and more people to get it, yay! And that includes positive feelings about KK for being a good public citizen and trying to encourage others to get it, even if I still will not buy their donuts. I hope it did get them some extra sales.
    edited May 15
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 7,297 Member Member Posts: 7,297 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    No.

    And they can't here.

    Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit

    I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.

    I don't see allowing people to buy organs as at all analogous to the vaccine stuff we've been discussing, to be honest, and I do think this would pose ethical concerns such that buying and selling organs is not permitted. (I note that you did not reference selling organs, but that's what compensating the donor at least seems to suggest.)

    The hospital performing it or the doctors seems to me totally normal. Hospitals and doctors get to charge for their work, at least in the US where some are for profit. But non-profit hospitals also charge for the services they perform, of course, and pay their doctors, it's just ultimately the money stays in the hospital after expenses. I'm not sure how anyone could find this unethical.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,755 Member Member Posts: 8,755 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    No.

    And they can't here.

    Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit

    I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.


    Correct, I do.

    Hospitals here do not profit from transplants - these would all be done in major hospitals which are public organisations, not private profit making businesses.
    Also in real life, the only kidney transplants from living donors are family doing it for benefit of relatives.

    In "real life" in the U.S. people donate kidneys to friends and even to strangers, although that is usually part of a "chain" donation in which someone who is not compatible with a friend or family member gives to a stranger in the same position, and through some variable number of similar linked donations ends up benefiting the incompatible friends or family members of all the donors in the chain.

    Does that equate to being "paid" for organ donation? Does that make it a bad thing, even though it is saving lives?


    Also, there certainly are cases in the U.S. of individuals donating kidneys to strangers without any such benefit to someone they know. Weird that that happens in the U.S. with all of its ethically questionable provisioning of Krispy Kremes.

  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Member Posts: 8,755 Member Member Posts: 8,755 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    No.

    And they can't here.

    Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit

    I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.

    I don't see allowing people to buy organs as at all analogous to the vaccine stuff we've been discussing, to be honest, and I do think this would pose ethical concerns such that buying and selling organs is not permitted. (I note that you did not reference selling organs, but that's what compensating the donor at least seems to suggest.)

    The hospital performing it or the doctors seems to me totally normal. Hospitals and doctors get to charge for their work, at least in the US where some are for profit. But non-profit hospitals also charge for the services they perform, of course, and pay their doctors, it's just ultimately the money stays in the hospital after expenses. I'm not sure how anyone could find this unethical.

    If the donors were compensated, at least they'd have the money on hand when the hospitals and doctors send them bills for their organ removal surgeries, which is a thing that has happened though it shouldn't, or if the donor has post-surgical complications, the costs of which the recipient's insurance won't pay.
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 7,297 Member Member Posts: 7,297 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    No.

    And they can't here.

    Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit

    I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.

    I don't see allowing people to buy organs as at all analogous to the vaccine stuff we've been discussing, to be honest, and I do think this would pose ethical concerns such that buying and selling organs is not permitted. (I note that you did not reference selling organs, but that's what compensating the donor at least seems to suggest.)

    The hospital performing it or the doctors seems to me totally normal. Hospitals and doctors get to charge for their work, at least in the US where some are for profit. But non-profit hospitals also charge for the services they perform, of course, and pay their doctors, it's just ultimately the money stays in the hospital after expenses. I'm not sure how anyone could find this unethical.

    If the donors were compensated, at least they'd have the money on hand when the hospitals and doctors send them bills for their organ removal surgeries, which is a thing that has happened though it shouldn't, or if the donor has post-surgical complications, the costs of which the recipient's insurance won't pay.

    Yeah, agree -- I of course don't see them being compensated for the medical procedure "buying a kidney." Similarly, you can't buy a baby, but you can pay for the medical care of a surrogate or adoptive birth mom who decides to give her kid up (and she can change her mind).
  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Member Posts: 6,712 Member Member Posts: 6,712 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    No.

    And they can't here.

    Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit

    I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.


    Correct, I do.

    Hospitals here do not profit from transplants - these would all be done in major hospitals which are public organisations, not private profit making businesses.
    Also in real life, the only kidney transplants from living donors are family doing it for benefit of relatives.

    In "real life" in the U.S. people donate kidneys to friends and even to strangers, although that is usually part of a "chain" donation in which someone who is not compatible with a friend or family member gives to a stranger in the same position, and through some variable number of similar linked donations ends up benefiting the incompatible friends or family members of all the donors in the chain.

    Does that equate to being "paid" for organ donation? Does that make it a bad thing, even though it is saving lives?


    Also, there certainly are cases in the U.S. of individuals donating kidneys to strangers without any such benefit to someone they know. Weird that that happens in the U.S. with all of its ethically questionable provisioning of Krispy Kremes.

    Yes of course my real life referred to real life in Australia since that is what I was asked about.
    Strangers donating to unknown random recipients isn't a thing here ( talking about living donors)

    Last sentence sounds very defensive - no, it isn't weird that different cultures have different ideas of acceptable ethics on different things.
  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Member Posts: 6,712 Member Member Posts: 6,712 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    No.

    And they can't here.

    Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit

    I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.

    I don't see allowing people to buy organs as at all analogous to the vaccine stuff we've been discussing, to be honest, and I do think this would pose ethical concerns such that buying and selling organs is not permitted. (I note that you did not reference selling organs, but that's what compensating the donor at least seems to suggest.)

    The hospital performing it or the doctors seems to me totally normal. Hospitals and doctors get to charge for their work, at least in the US where some are for profit. But non-profit hospitals also charge for the services they perform, of course, and pay their doctors, it's just ultimately the money stays in the hospital after expenses. I'm not sure how anyone could find this unethical.

    If the donors were compensated, at least they'd have the money on hand when the hospitals and doctors send them bills for their organ removal surgeries, which is a thing that has happened though it shouldn't, or if the donor has post-surgical complications, the costs of which the recipient's insurance won't pay.

    That's a US thing though.
    .
    In other countries with universal health care all that is a moot point

    I expect stranger donors here , of , say, bone marrow from the bone marrow registry, might be compensated for things like lost work time, travel expenses and the like.

    But actual health costs are not an issue.
  • fitstrongfitlovefitstrongfitlove Member Posts: 52 Member Member Posts: 52 Member
    I eat plant based mostly whole foods. I stopped by KK on my way home from my last shot.

    It was yummy and I would go back once in a while if I wanted something sweet to waste 200 calories.

    I think it's brilliant marketing. I love it.
  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Member Posts: 6,712 Member Member Posts: 6,712 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    No.

    And they can't here.

    Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit

    I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.


    Correct, I do.

    Hospitals here do not profit from transplants - these would all be done in major hospitals which are public organisations, not private profit making businesses.
    Also in real life, the only kidney transplants from living donors are family doing it for benefit of relatives.

    In "real life" in the U.S. people donate kidneys to friends and even to strangers, although that is usually part of a "chain" donation in which someone who is not compatible with a friend or family member gives to a stranger in the same position, and through some variable number of similar linked donations ends up benefiting the incompatible friends or family members of all the donors in the chain.

    Does that equate to being "paid" for organ donation? Does that make it a bad thing, even though it is saving lives?


    Also, there certainly are cases in the U.S. of individuals donating kidneys to strangers without any such benefit to someone they know. Weird that that happens in the U.S. with all of its ethically questionable provisioning of Krispy Kremes.

    Yes of course my real life referred to real life in Australia since that is what I was asked about.
    Strangers donating to unknown random recipients isn't a thing here ( talking about living donors)

    Last sentence sounds very defensive - no, it isn't weird that different cultures have different ideas of acceptable ethics on different things.


    When the common practices of a particular culture are repeatedly criticized as unethical, and someone from that culture points out that those "unethical" practices of rewarding or incentivizing good behavior haven't led to the moral hazard of disincentivizing disinterested acts of kindness in that same culture (even at some personal risk), accusing someone of being defensive sounds a lot like gas lighting.


    I said your last sentence sounded defensive - and I stand by that, it did.

    Thread was intended as a discussion of opinions and of course those will be culturally influenced - it isn't weird that different cultures have different ideas of acceptable ethics on different things.
    And kidney donating and getting vaccinated really are quite different things.

  • YellowD0gsYellowD0gs Member Posts: 479 Member Member Posts: 479 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    Lietchi wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
    In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
    No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.

    A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
    No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
    I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.

    I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.

    OK, so only directing this at you as you identified being from Belgium, and I don't know the answer to this question: What's the Belgian public's attitude towards children being vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, and/or Polio? Because it's pretty much required here in the US, outside of complicating medical issues or the occasional anti-vaxer.

    Just wondering why a requirement for a Covid vaccine would be any different than the other required vaccines?

    What does "pretty much required" mean?

    There are no required vaccines in Canada, I would be surprised if they were in the US. Schools require proof of certain immunizations in order to attend, but that is not the same as mandating the vaccine itself. Maybe that is what you meant?

    No, I mean REQUIRED, and not by the School, by STATE LAW, administered by State and Local Health Departments. Here's one readily accessible citation, there's at least 49 other versions. There are exemptions for medical reasons, and as I mentioned the occasional anti-vaxer.

    So, how would a requirement for a COVID vaccine be any morally or ethically different than these?
    edited May 16
  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Member Posts: 6,712 Member Member Posts: 6,712 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    I don't see someone concluding "This may benefit me" as erasing the voluntary part.

    By this logic, any sort of incentive is messing with free will.


    Yes it is.

    Informed consent should be made without irrelevant incentives.

    Life is absolutely crammed with irrelevant incentives. I can only conclude that free will is something you rarely see.


    Not sure how you conclude that.

    No I dont think health decisions are crammed with irelevant commercially motivated incentives like this.
    At least not everywhere.
  • 33gail3333gail33 Member Posts: 745 Member Member Posts: 745 Member
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    Lietchi wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
    In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
    No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.

    A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
    No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
    I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.

    I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.

    OK, so only directing this at you as you identified being from Belgium, and I don't know the answer to this question: What's the Belgian public's attitude towards children being vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, and/or Polio? Because it's pretty much required here in the US, outside of complicating medical issues or the occasional anti-vaxer.

    Just wondering why a requirement for a Covid vaccine would be any different than the other required vaccines?

    What does "pretty much required" mean?

    There are no required vaccines in Canada, I would be surprised if they were in the US. Schools require proof of certain immunizations in order to attend, but that is not the same as mandating the vaccine itself. Maybe that is what you meant?

    No, I mean REQUIRED, and not by the School, by STATE LAW, administered by State and Local Health Departments. Here's one readily accessible citation, there's at least 49 other versions. There are exemptions for medical reasons, and as I mentioned the occasional anti-vaxer.

    So, how would a requirement for a COVID vaccine be any morally or ethically different than these?

    That says it’s required for school attendance, that is not mandating the vaccine. They have to get it if they want to attend public school- it’s the same here.
    edited May 17
  • PsychgrrlPsychgrrl Member Posts: 3,148 Member Member Posts: 3,148 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    No.

    And they can't here.

    Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit

    I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.


    Correct, I do.

    Hospitals here do not profit from transplants - these would all be done in major hospitals which are public organisations, not private profit making businesses.
    Also in real life, the only kidney transplants from living donors are family doing it for benefit of relatives.

    In "real life" in the U.S. people donate kidneys to friends and even to strangers, although that is usually part of a "chain" donation in which someone who is not compatible with a friend or family member gives to a stranger in the same position, and through some variable number of similar linked donations ends up benefiting the incompatible friends or family members of all the donors in the chain.

    Does that equate to being "paid" for organ donation? Does that make it a bad thing, even though it is saving lives?


    Also, there certainly are cases in the U.S. of individuals donating kidneys to strangers without any such benefit to someone they know. Weird that that happens in the U.S. with all of its ethically questionable provisioning of Krispy Kremes.

    Yes of course my real life referred to real life in Australia since that is what I was asked about.
    Strangers donating to unknown random recipients isn't a thing here ( talking about living donors)

    Last sentence sounds very defensive - no, it isn't weird that different cultures have different ideas of acceptable ethics on different things.

    I agree it makes sense, though. Ethics are often considered to begin where the law stops. And we have very different laws from country to country. Not better or worse, just different.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Member Posts: 10,442 Member Member Posts: 10,442 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.

    If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.

    Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?

    No.

    And they can't here.

    Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit

    I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.

    I don't see allowing people to buy organs as at all analogous to the vaccine stuff we've been discussing, to be honest, and I do think this would pose ethical concerns such that buying and selling organs is not permitted. (I note that you did not reference selling organs, but that's what compensating the donor at least seems to suggest.)

    The hospital performing it or the doctors seems to me totally normal. Hospitals and doctors get to charge for their work, at least in the US where some are for profit. But non-profit hospitals also charge for the services they perform, of course, and pay their doctors, it's just ultimately the money stays in the hospital after expenses. I'm not sure how anyone could find this unethical.

    To be fair, I did warn "This is completely unrelated to the question at hand" when I asked.

    People fascinate me. I like asking questions about vaguely similar scenarios because it helps me understand where people think the lines are, that can help shed light on their thinking. Sometimes I ask a question because something in a conversation reminded me of something else and I want to know somebody's thoughts on that too. @33gail33 is obviously very intelligent, and has been saying some pretty insightful things, I'm not convinced about all of them and organ donation is an ethically extreme version of the informed consent idea, so it raised my curiosity.
  • MotorsheenMotorsheen Member Posts: 19,902 Member Member Posts: 19,902 Member
    I only agreed to the vaccine for the free lollipops after the shot(s).

    Thing is, no lollipops.

    Damn them.



    I feel cheated, deceived, betrayed and yes... cheap.
  • Minion_training_programMinion_training_program Member Posts: 10,383 Member Member Posts: 10,383 Member
    Motorsheen wrote: »
    I only agreed to the vaccine for the free lollipops after the shot(s).

    Thing is, no lollipops.

    Damn them.



    I feel cheated, deceived, betrayed and yes... cheap.

    But at least you got great reception now, don't ya?
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 7,297 Member Member Posts: 7,297 Member
    There are a lot of unvaccinated people who are not anti-vaxx, but maybe just a little lazy or unmotivated. If we catch people going about their daily business, I think that would help.

    Yeah, this is what I've been thinking too.
Sign In or Register to comment.