The vegan position on shellfish is inconsistent.

[brimstoneSalad]

Infants can not be vaccinated for hep A until one year of age, who cares about the sentience of these animals when a consumer eats SHELFISH that are RAW under cooked or from polluted water the run the very high risk of contracting HEP A! Also don't forget the immuno compromised and the elderly. Keep bivalves in the ocean so they can help clean our polluted waters.

Then don't feed them to unvaccinated folks. Problem solved.

Or more importantly: Always cook them.

Willingly putting yourself at risk of contracting a contagious disease is a moral failing due to the risk it imposes on others you may come into contact with.
Even if I may have a disregard for my own safety and so fancy a swim in raw sewage, I shouldn't do it because I could get others stick.

[Vincent Berraud]

I think this is exaggerated. You don't get sick because you eat a raw oyster. I have eaten plenty, never got sick. If you know where they are from and are reasonable about eating them fresh, the risks aren't great.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think this is exaggerated. You don't get sick because you eat a raw oyster. I have eaten plenty, never got sick. If you know where they are from and are reasonable about eating them fresh, the risks aren't great.

Are there benefits for people eating them raw, or is it hard to find them cooked?

[Vincent Berraud]

They taste better. That's how they are typically served, with a dash of lemon.

[brimstoneSalad]

They taste better. That's how they are typically served, with a dash of lemon.

Can they not be quickly steamed to pasteurize them?

It seems like having sex without protection. It might feel better, but it puts you and others you come into contact with at some risk (particularly the immune compromised).

[Vincent Berraud]

Yuck, rapidly steaming them sounds disgusting, taste wise.
I think that we'd need to look at figures and statistics if we were to compare this with anything. From my perspective, the comparison with unprotected sex seems non-sensical. I would never have unprotected sex with a partner I don't know and trust entirely. I have raw oysters regularly. I know where they come from and I eat them fresh. They're delicious and I get b12 and omega 3 out of them, but it's not the reason why I eat them: I eat them because I enjoy the taste. Because as far as we know they are not sentient and are not likely to be found to be sentient.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think that we'd need to look at figures and statistics if we were to compare this with anything. From my perspective, the comparison with unprotected sex seems non-sensical.

To compare is not to equate, I'm just referring to the reasoning to establish the concept.
Can I assume you would recognize promiscuous unprotected sex as wrong for those reasons (exposing others to risk)?

Would you agree that if the risks were similar, they would be similarly wrong?
And if the risks are half, half as wrong, etc.?

I tend to push very hard against anti-vaccination for this reason, since it exposes people to greater risk (the children not being vaccinated, and others).
I think you would to.

But without knowing well the risks involved in raw shellfish on a statistical level to compare directly to the risks of unprotected promiscuous sex or echewing vaccination, can it be justified on the basis of taste?
Isn't exposure to an unknown risk in itself a problem?

Both the FDA and CDC have information and warnings on raw oysters and recommend cooking or other methods of pasteurization.
The risk is apparently both bacterial and viral, and the freshness is not relevant since they're picked up by live oysters in the water.
I'd be interested in seeing statistics, but I'm not really motivated to research them since I don't eat them.