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 jazzThis 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 dieThis 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 dieAs 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