Covid vaccines

I have to write an essay on why it is fair for restrictions to be placed on people who refuse vaccines. This is such a tight question for me as i would have loved to argue against it but i gotta do what has been set.

So does anyone have some reasons that i could argue on. I need 3 reasons minimum. And its due on the 30 of june. So any help would be really appreciated .
Thank youu

I have to write an essay on why it is fair for restrictions to be placed on people who refuse vaccines. This is such a tight question for me as i would have loved to argue against it but i gotta do what has been set.

So does anyone have some reasons that i could argue on. I need 3 reasons minimum. And its due on the 30 of june. So any help would be really appreciated .
Thank youu

I'm going to assume you need points why it is fair, right?

If so, here are some points.

- refusing a vaccine means you lack protection and are more likely to catch the virus, and by refusing, you are putting people in danger because if you were to catch it and weren't aware, and then met up with people who were vaccinated, those people won't get it but can still pass it on through their clothes, bodies, hands, etc. and the virus can keep spreading until it gets to vulnerable unvaccinated people.
- refusing a vaccine also prompts other people who know you to refuse one which destroys the whole point of being vaccinated because in order for a population to become safe, there needs to a large majority of people vaccinated. People are easily influenced by their friends and other people they know personally. Refusing a vaccine could also prompt more people to believe in becoming anti-vaxes and all that jazz
- refusing a vaccine means that you are generally just more liable to spreading it because just because you may be healthy, other people you might meet or even pass by on the street, or people who sit at the table after you, might not be and they could die
- also refusing a vaccine means that you are also putting people who are vaccinated in danger because vaccinations will never give 100% immunity, and if the off chance you are meeting with someone who is vaccinated, they can still catch the virus and die

Therefore, due to these reasons which can all cause death, people who do refuse vaccines should have restrictions imposed because they are both vulnerable and can spread the virus to other people, even if they are unaware.

^ I hope those are good enough!

Good luck with your essay

Being forced to write an essay on a topic that simply is not true is blatant manipulation and exploitation and simply wrong. You might just as well have been asked to write an essay on why it's acceptable to mug old pensioners when they come out of the Post Office with their pay packets.

Personally I would make a complaint about this.

It simply is not fair or moral to place restrictions on vaccine refusers. There is just no case for it.

Any points attempting to support the hypothesis are easily refuted. As an example I'll refute the points of the previous poster:

- refusing a vaccine means you lack protection and are more likely to catch the virus, and by refusing, you are putting people in danger because if you were to catch it and weren't aware, and then met up with people who were vaccinated, those people won't get it but can still pass it on through their clothes, bodies, hands, etc. and the virus can keep spreading until it gets to vulnerable unvaccinated people.

This is completely false because it makes the false assumption that people who are not vaccinated have no immunity.
Millions of people will have strong natural immunity to a virus or disease through having suffered it and in the vast majority of those cases that natural immunity will be stronger and longer-lasting than any vaccine-derived immunity. It's utterly immoral to place restrictions on people who have string immunity to a virus/disease just because they are not vaccinated.

The same goes for anyone who for medical reasons can not take a vaccine. Placing restrictions on them is totally immoral.

Finally there will always be a contingent of people who simply do not have the virus or disease in question and can be tested and proven not to have it. It is again utterly immoral to place restrictions on anyone who is not carrying a virus/disease. They are not a threat to anyone.


- refusing a vaccine also prompts other people who know you to refuse one which destroys the whole point of being vaccinated because in order for a population to become safe, there needs to a large majority of people vaccinated. People are easily influenced by their friends and other people they know personally. Refusing a vaccine could also prompt more people to believe in becoming anti-vaxes and all that jazz

This is equally false. The statement "in order for a population to become safe, there needs to a large majority of people vaccinated" is horribly incorrect and ignores basic virology and human immunology. The correct statement is "in order for a population to become safe, there needs to a large majority of people who are immune." That immunity can come from EITHER having natural immunity (from suffering the virus/disease and recovering) or from taking a vaccine. BOTH are totally valid routes to gaining immunity and BOTH contribute massively to herd immunity.
Of course some conditions are more deadly than others and taking the natural immunity route may not be viable. However for most viruses and conditions like Flu, Covid etc gaining natural immunity is a perfectly possible and acceptable route. Those that take this route should NOT be discriminated against, they should be treated just the same as vaccinated people.

- refusing a vaccine means that you are generally just more liable to spreading it because just because you may be healthy, other people you might meet or even pass by on the street, or people who sit at the table after you, might not be and they could die

This is the "emotional blackmail" route used by all pro-vaccine supporters and it is again bunkum. Other people have the opportunity to get vaccinated themselves and thus protect themselves hence there is absolutely no need for anyone else to risk vaccines to try and protect them.
Pro-vaccine supporters then push this further by suggesting that there are some people who can not take vaccines for medical reasons and that the rest of us should get vaccinated in order to protect them. However this is a totally ridiculous suggestion for the simple factual reason that when you vaccinate millions of people it is inevitable that the vaccines WILL harm a small proportion of people and will kill a minority. This can be readily seen in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the USA which you can perform searches and queries on at your leisure.
So what you then have is a tiny minority of people who have existing health problems that prevent them being able to take vaccines and another tiny minority of people that will be harmed/killed by the vaccines.

This notion holds no water at all because itt's crazy and immoral and unethical to harm one tiny minority to save another tiny minority especially when the minority you are trying to save already has serious health conditions and the other minority does not.


- also refusing a vaccine means that you are also putting people who are vaccinated in danger because vaccinations will never give 100% immunity, and if the off chance you are meeting with someone who is vaccinated, they can still catch the virus and die

As with the earlier statements this is wrong because it totally fails to take into account the millions of people who will have strong and lasting natural immunity who will be no threat at all to vaccinated people. It would be wrong to place restrictions on those people.

In fact for some viruses/diseases it is actually the vaccinated people who represent a direct threat to the unvaccinated because some vaccines contain LIVE VIRUS (though attenuated) and those people CAN and DO shed that virus through various means, in their urine, faeces and other ways for up to 2 weeks following vaccination. In fact we should be forcing people who take such vaccines to quarantine for 1-2 weeks so that the rest of society is protected from their virus shedding. A study of Flu Vaccines found that the vaccinated people shed the Flu virus up to 6 times more than unvaccinated people. Read it here:

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/1081

"In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons. "


As can be seen the arguments of pro-vaccination supporters can be very easily pulled apart as they are baseless and hold no water at all. They simply seek to force a vaccination regime whilst totally ignoring the utterly vital role of the human innate and adaptive immune system.

It's totally immoral, unethical and wicked to contemplate placing restrictions on people who refuse vaccines.

I hope this helps you set out the various arguments in whatever essay you write. My advice is to write the truth, not be forced to write a bunch of lies.

Good luck

I have to write an essay on why it is fair for restrictions to be placed on people who refuse vaccines. This is such a tight question for me as i would have loved to argue against it but i gotta do what has been set.

So does anyone have some reasons that i could argue on. I need 3 reasons minimum. And its due on the 30 of june. So any help would be really appreciated .
Thank youu

Thanks for your concern however by providing the counter arguments to the supplied arguments OP is getting a more rounded appreciation of the issue involved which should greatly help. Confirmed by OP's statement "has brought light to some new things to me".

I'd also point out that children are vaccinated with many things throughout their life, because it is deemed that they are ineligible to make an informed decision about their own healthcare. Parental consent is instead needed, even though the child may themself not want to have the vaccine, they are forced to nonetheless. Just some food for thought.

How does that scenario relate to OP's brief regarding placing restrictions on vaccine refusers?

Are you suggesting that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be penalised/punished or otherwise discriminated against?

If so why? And I look forward to easily refuting any reasons you might drum up :-)

I'd point out that it can be quite a challenging and fulfilling task to be forced into arguing against something you believe.

I'd also point out that children are vaccinated with many things throughout their life, because it is deemed that they are ineligible to make an informed decision about their own healthcare. Parental consent is instead needed, even though the child may themself not want to have the vaccine, they are forced to nonetheless. Just some food for thought.

Hmmmmmm.... So if im getting this

The vaccines are given to the kids cuz they are at risk of the diseases. The parents make the decisions for them because they are seen as more knowledgeable and superior and also are to have the child's best interest at heart. so does that corelate with the fact that the Government want us to get this vaccines cuz they are seeb to be superior to us and know what is "good" for us?

Hmmmmmm.... So if im getting this

The vaccines are given to the kids cuz they are at risk of the diseases. The parents make the decisions for them because they are seen as more knowledgeable and superior and also are to have the child's best interest at heart. so does that corelate with the fact that the Government want us to get this vaccines cuz they are seeb to be superior to us and know what is "good" for us?

Parents are fed information about:

1. The level of risk any given virus or disease represents to them and/or their children. This information may not be true or the full information involved.

2. The level of risk any vaccine represents to them and/or their children. This information may not be true or the full information involved.

In addition parents are essentially forced by government to vaccinate their children in many countries/states because refusal results in penalties like not being able to put their kids in schools which is both ridiculous and abhorrent imho.

This is a serious dilemma for many parents. Many parents believe rightly that vaccines can be harmful and sometimes fatal. Thus they want the human right to not subject their children to such risks. There are no good arguments imho for punishing parents or kids who refuse vaccines.

Spot on. So you could draw some parallels and argue that ordinary people who may be ill informed are in the same position to the government as uninformed or partially educated are to parents. And if the parent jurisdiction is legal based on lack of necessary knowledge why can't the government follow the same principle. You and I can likely both think of some good counter arguments here, but I'm sure that if you can do that you can also devise an argumentative route to refuting those counters too.

what is the exact question for your essay OP? might be helpful if you provided it like, what type of restrictions are we talking here? travel is the only one i can imagine atm.

if you must argue this the only thing i can think of atm is potentially causing a burden on the NHS, which might put a burden on other patients who also require serious help and may be neglicted due to doctors etc servicing those with Covid instead. also might be fewer hospital beds and need more equipment and medicine, which might cause a burden on the national budget/distribution of finances, so other public services might be neglected. or the UK just borrows more money and we get more into national debt, which is also no good.

or perhaps it just delays the end of lockdown (cuz people keep getting sick); lockdown destroys the economy, people's mental health and financial situation. idk if that answers the question tho till you post it

Okay so in a scenario where a person refuses the vaccine if the government restricts them
Lets say they are restricted from traveling for a given period of time. Is that unfair to them .

Hiii, thank you for the reply

So i just checked and the question is not even Covid specific. Sorry.

Its says " It is fair to place restrictions on hose who refuse vaccines" discuss