This discussion is closed.
Pollokshed
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
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
1
agent37
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
(Original post by Pollokshed)
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
3
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by Pollokshed)
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
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
Last edited by PilgrimOfTruth; 1 month ago
3
Pollokshed
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by graceful.birb)
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
Hi, omgg
Thank you so muchhhhh
0
Pollokshed
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
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
Hi, im so sorry if i gave you the wrong idea

Its like a law stuff where we have to get used to arguing on tight subjects. But i understand what you mean

Because they could have used another motions rather than the vaccines.


You have really good points i would message my teacher about this cuz this has brought light to some new things to me

Thank you so much.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
Hiya, just a polite note to highlight that the topic of this thread is to help the OP with their essay, not to debate whether such an essay should be undertaken in the first place. The latter is not helpful to the OP, and this is an advice thread for them in the study help section. :ta:
2
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by Pollokshed)
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'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. :holmes:
0
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by 04MR17)
Hiya, just a polite note to highlight that the topic of this thread is to help the OP with their essay, not to debate whether such an essay should be undertaken in the first place. The latter is not helpful to the OP, and this is an advice thread for them in the study help section. :ta:
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".
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
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".
As you can read in my post, I have not suggested providing counter points is unhelpful.
0
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by 04MR17)
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. :holmes:
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 :-)
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
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'm letting the OP make those connections for themselves, as the encouraged mode of helping people in the Study Help section is to support users' thinking without giving them answers. If the OP would like to discuss it more, they are welcome to. If you yourself are writing a similar essay and wish to seek help from me, feel free to set up your own thread here. However, I must warn you I am very busy this coming week.
0
Pollokshed
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by 04MR17)
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. :holmes:
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?
1
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Pollokshed)
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.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by Pollokshed)
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?
:yep: 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.
1
Pollokshed
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
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.
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 .
Because apparenty tge vaccine helps boost some people's immunity. And these people who have refused the vaccines can be a detriment to some Other people as even tho they might have a strong immune system to fight it there is an undeniable possibility that they could transmission it and that could lead to the death of the other person (Indirect murder or no?) AN EXAMPLE ARGUMENT GIVEN. NOT MY VIEWS
0
Pollokshed
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by 04MR17)
:yep: 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.
Yes yes yess
Thank youuuuu

Phew... Im getting somewhere
1
Joleee
Badges: 19
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
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
0
Pollokshed
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by Joleee)
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
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
0
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by Pollokshed)
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 .
Yes it's unfair.

The whole fallacy of the "pro-vaccination" mantra is that millions of people have natural immunity to the virus or disease and thus don't represent any threat to anyone. Such people are generally safer than vaccinated people.

Something you need to bear in mind with all these thoughts and ideas is that there are 3 different types of people which are:

1. Those who have no immunity at all

2. Those who have strong lasting NATURAL IMMUNITY from having recovered from the virus/disease

3. Those who have VACCINE-DERIVED IMMUNITY

In group 1 above are people who for medical reasons can not risk getting the virus/disease and neither can they take the vaccines. It would be immoral to discriminate against these people and enforce restrictions on them

People in group 2 are the safest members of society. Thus there is absolutely no justification to discriminate against them or impose restrictions on them.

People in group 3 only have partial immunity as no vaccine is 100% effective. Vaccinated people therefore CAN and DO represent a risk to wider society because they may not be well protected by the vaccines they took. Aside from that many people's immune response to vaccines is a poor one so again they represent a potential threat to the rest of society.


Thus any argument that simply talks about vaccinated people is a flawed and incorrect one. Vaccinated people are not all "safe people" and many are definitely a threat and risk to the rest of society. Naturally immune people are the safest people out there.
0
Joleee
Badges: 19
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Pollokshed)
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
okay that's great! so it's an open-ended question. you can indeed argue 'no' if that's what you believe (i would say it's probably easier :yep:). you don't have to argue in favour of restrictions :nah: argue from your gut instinct (i'm assuming violation of human rights to insist on a vaccine; government is essentially punishing those who exercise their right to personal autonamy; authoritarian government in this sense is anti-democratic, but who knows what you're thinking). :goodluck:
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (11)
25.58%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (4)
9.3%
No I am happy with my choice (25)
58.14%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (3)
6.98%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed