Mandatory Vaccines: Should They Truly Be Compulsory?

Post Reply New Topic

When patient rights interfere with national safety there is usually very little reluctance in deciding which has priority.

but what if I want to not take vaccines?

should I not get what I want?

The externalities are pretty high though. The concept of "herd immunity" is very important in epidemiology and, depending on the infectiousness of the disease in question, often requires an extremely high percentage of the population to be vaccinated to avoid an outbreak. I believe measles, for example, requires at least 95% vaccination, higher if the population density gets too high. Many people would fail to immunize because they have been given misinformation about vaccines or the diseases they prevent. For example, I know people who will adamantly refuse to receive a flu shot this year simply because they believe H1N1 has been overhyped.

Biological hackers? It really is quite difficult to successfully weaponize infectious agents. There are maybe 1-2 thousand individuals globally who possess the competence to produce bioweapons with any degree of success, and few if any of these would be able to act alone.

Aside from that, yeah, it becomes a serious public health concern if people refuse treatment or preventive care. Pandemics sweep the world periodically, and they'll only get worse as increased transportation makes the world smaller, effectively enlarging communities. A pandemic is not a minor issue, or one you can just ignore. Lots of people are going to die when the next pandemic hits. If you refuse to comply with public health measures, you are risking increasing the death toll.

"Mandatory" isn't alwats taken literally.

I use the mandatory evacuations as an example, having lived on the Gulf Coast for 27 years. When local governments issue mandatory evacuations, all it means is that if you don't evacuate, emergency people (police, fire, EMS) won't be able to help you, and basically, you're on your own,

If Pakistan could develop an atomic bomb, it is far easier for a relatively primitive nation or terrorist group to devise military use of biology. And these weapons are not radioactive to make them easily discernible by ordinary inspection at ports of entry. Diseases have been used militarily throughout history and it is a real threat. See http://www.emedicinehealth.com/biologic ... cle_em.htm
To ignore this real threat is beyond stupid.

Public safety and health trump your personal preferences. If the disease is a) contagious and b) deadly (smallpox for example) you lose and the public wins.

ruveyn

Note : in Canada we'll apparently be able to get everyone their vaccine. <.<

At least we won't (directly) have to pay to get preferential treatment like in the USA. <.<

Oh and btw, i've heard the virus becomes more virulent the lower the temperature (under (+) 37C is perfect for them). Hence why they're trying to give everyone their vaccine 'fore winter.

Atomic weapons are actually comparatively primitive next to bioweapons. Only the US and the former Soviet Union developed any real capability in terms of developing bioweapons. The main concern is if old Soviet stockpiles fell into the hands of some terrorist groups, but they certainly could not make their own.

Of course, it is still possible to try to make use of existing diseases militarily, but that actually tends to be a fairly ineffective weapon for a variety of reasons.

No, most diseases tend to spread best in warm environments. Close to human body temperature (37˚C, 98.6˚F) is optimal for the spread of disease. The reason epidemics spread most in winter is tied to people remaining indoors in close quarters with poor ventilation and the heat turned up.

As an aside, why would you refer to "under (+) 37C" as a lower temperature and a reason to vaccinate before winter? You're listed as being in Montreal, and if I'm not mistaken it rarely reaches as high as 37˚ there, even in summer. I'm confused.

Here is a short part of a larger article about the possibility of genetic hacking.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ckers.html

Overhyped. Yes, it is possible to obtain most of the materials necessary for working in biology pretty easily, but not many people have the education to do anything useful with those materials. Besides that, making a genetically modified organism is quite different from specifically engineering a useful bioweapon. The article vastly overdramatizes the accomplishments of the biologist in question.

Edit: What exactly do you even mean by "genetic hacking?"

One steady characteristic or your comments, Orwell,(in spite of your being quite well informed) is your steady conservatism and lack of imagination. To assume that aggressive and negative forces in other countries do not have the intellect nor the training to do severe damage to the US and the West in general is to indulge in the hubris that all technical skills have a happy home in the USA. The world is full of nasty surprises and it would be wise to expect the unexpected. There are some real nasty, very well trained guys out there who are thoroughly pissed off. The French had their Maginot Line and it wasn't worth a high flying fart at the Moon.

The article I indicated mentioned genetic hacking. It's not my term. Look it up.

Not so.

First, how do you declare a disease "contagious?" Go back 50-100 years, I'd be inclined to trust a government official's declaration. Lately, there is much hype about the risk of a disease. "Pandemic" is the new buzz word that is blatantly used to create pork barrel spending for products not needed or unproven and to pass laws granting broad and unjustified power for yet another government program or agency.

Today, I'd not trust the claim of a "pandemic" until I saw the body count...I'm that cynical from all the effort to whip the general public into a state of non-stop hysteria over the latest possible virus in the world.

Second, what protects the public from reckless vaccination. I understand how vaccination works. I've had my shots. I don't doubt that in the past they did more good than harm.

Still, in the past, if a shot resulted in serious complications, you had rights against the company that made it. Now, they want blanket immunity (no pun intended) for any civil liability that might arise from complications from untested vaccinations. Do you want to submit to injection of unproven vaccination products knowing you have absolutely no rights or recourse if they inflict horrible side effects on you?

I suggest you do some research into Gulf War Syndrome. I know of many vets who were given a battery of shots before deploying to Saudi Arabia, and they were told nothing of what was put in their bodies, and all the problems of Gulf War Syndrome started shortly after that. The military cares nothing about your health 10-20 years down the road...it only cares about your survival in the battlefield for the next 24 months. They don't hesitate to compromise one interest (yours) for another (theirs). Tanks use depleted uranium in their armor to improve combat survivability. Anyone operating tanks that use DU must have regular blood tests to check for excessive radiation exposure.

Informed consent exists for a reason. The more information I have, the less inclined I am to accept any of these new vaccinations they want to push upon the public.

The externalities are network externalities. They only apply to the non-immunized, so if something is worth immunizing against, then it is going to be likely worth it for nearly EVERYONE to immunize against. Your point about "high degrees of immunization" really seems to favor my own position, because it is not worth betting that 95% of other people will do what is good to keep you safe.

I'd say that your biggest point is misinformation, however, the threat is usually just towards the misinformed individuals as other people will vaccinate. As well, the idea of liberty is to allow people to make choices, even self-destructive ones that we disagree with. Additionally Orwell, how will we have evolutionary improvements if we don't remove the stupider members of the population?