This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Under what circumstances are mandatory vaccines justified?
I know that we already have a thread discussing covid vaccines specifically, but I thought it might be interesting to take a step back away from pragmatism (potentially) and the failure of the current covid vaccines in terms of preventing transmission.
I can see why a reasonable person would object to mandatory covid vaccinations in the context that we find ourselves. Call me an authoritarian an at heart, but I don't think that a reasonable person would object to mandatory vaccinations in all circumstances.
I can see why a reasonable person would object to mandatory covid vaccinations in the context that we find ourselves. Call me an authoritarian an at heart, but I don't think that a reasonable person would object to mandatory vaccinations in all circumstances.
Scroll to see replies
Never.
I draw the line at recommending some vaccines for people who work in specific professions connected with healthcare or some scientific experiments with an above average level of risk from hazardous substances.
I draw the line at recommending some vaccines for people who work in specific professions connected with healthcare or some scientific experiments with an above average level of risk from hazardous substances.
Humanity managed to survive pandemics before vaccines were even thing, we do not need to be vaccinated in order to get out of this pandemic.
Hundres of NHS staff are protesting against vaccine mandates because threatening them with the sack unnless they get the jab is nothing but blackmail. Politicians and their friends in big pharma are laughing at people who want vaccine mandates as you are only making them richer.
Hundres of NHS staff are protesting against vaccine mandates because threatening them with the sack unnless they get the jab is nothing but blackmail. Politicians and their friends in big pharma are laughing at people who want vaccine mandates as you are only making them richer.
Original post by londonmyst
Never.
I draw the line at recommending some vaccines for people who work in specific professions connected with healthcare or some scientific experiments with an above average level of risk from hazardous substances.
I draw the line at recommending some vaccines for people who work in specific professions connected with healthcare or some scientific experiments with an above average level of risk from hazardous substances.
What, even if a disease threatened the future of humanity? Imagine a highly contagious form of Ebola which had a long incubation period.
Original post by Cancelled Alice
What, even if a disease threatened the future of humanity? Imagine a highly contagious form of Ebola which had a long incubation period.
Even then I wouldn't agree with mandatory vaccination.
Recommending at least one vaccine or other treatment as a possible option but no mandated healthcare.
Original post by The RAR
Humanity managed to survive pandemics before vaccines were even thing, we do not need to be vaccinated in order to get out of this pandemic.
Hundres of NHS staff are protesting against vaccine mandates because threatening them with the sack unnless they get the jab is nothing but blackmail. Politicians and their friends in big pharma are laughing at people who want vaccine mandates as you are only making them richer.
Hundres of NHS staff are protesting against vaccine mandates because threatening them with the sack unnless they get the jab is nothing but blackmail. Politicians and their friends in big pharma are laughing at people who want vaccine mandates as you are only making them richer.
Only just.
Covid isn’t that bad on the scale of pandemics. Historians speculate that the Black Death killed 70% of England’s population.
This thread isn’t directly about covid anyway.
The fallacy of the thread is in thinking that vaccination is the only answer to a virus or disease. It isn't, nor will it ever be imo.
Thus no, there are no circumstances where mandating vaccines is acceptable
Nor should we imo be engineering business/politics towards situations where the only solutions are vaccines. We should be developing drugs and/or natural solutions. Capitalism has no place in the medical world. It's a disaster imo.
Thus no, there are no circumstances where mandating vaccines is acceptable
Nor should we imo be engineering business/politics towards situations where the only solutions are vaccines. We should be developing drugs and/or natural solutions. Capitalism has no place in the medical world. It's a disaster imo.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
The fallacy of the thread is in thinking that vaccination is the only answer to a virus or disease. It isn't, nor will it ever be imo.
Thus no, there are no circumstances where mandating vaccines is acceptable
Nor should we imo be engineering business/politics towards situations where the only solutions are vaccines. We should be developing drugs and/or natural solutions. Capitalism has no place in the medical world. It's a disaster imo.
Thus no, there are no circumstances where mandating vaccines is acceptable
Nor should we imo be engineering business/politics towards situations where the only solutions are vaccines. We should be developing drugs and/or natural solutions. Capitalism has no place in the medical world. It's a disaster imo.
Vaccines have rid the world of small pox, I personally think that we are lucky to live in a time where it’s not a threat (discounting bio weapons). I don’t see how a cure would be better than outright prevention.
How is something that has been developed natural?
Free market capitalism and health care isn’t a good mix because what’s good for generating profits isn’t what’s good for humanity. You seem to be suggesting that vaccines are always a product of capitalism, which is in my opinion bizarre.
Antibiotics is a brilliant example of capitalism hurting humanity, essentially big pharma doesn’t want to touch antibiotic development because the majority of people don’t need to take them very often and mostly only take courses that last days whereas people who take blood pressure medication (for example) will often need it for years. Vaccines prevent disease, if your motive is money and the vaccine well works, you’ve kind of failed.
When the disease presents a clear and present danger to people, in the form of large numbers of deaths, take Polio or Smallpox. Making people get those vaccines, as doubtlessly plenty of tools would refuse if done now, would be the right thing. For Covid? No. It does nothing but damage the reputation of vaccines for a poxy virus with a tiny mortality rate, in ones book.
Whats been done over Covid hasnt been quite as damaging as the dangerous 'vaccines' given to the military in the past. I forget the name of the jabs given in the early 2000s (alas its unsearchable now as the only thing that comes up is covid) but the forcible giving of Covid is doing similar damage as those ones did.
Whats been done over Covid hasnt been quite as damaging as the dangerous 'vaccines' given to the military in the past. I forget the name of the jabs given in the early 2000s (alas its unsearchable now as the only thing that comes up is covid) but the forcible giving of Covid is doing similar damage as those ones did.
Original post by Cancelled Alice
I don’t see how a cure would be better than outright prevention.
The answer is simple. Do we all need a dose of Chemotherapy in case one day we get cancer? Nope. Do we all need to take paracetamols daily in case we get a headache. Nope.
The problem with mass vaccination strategy is that it tends to assume that everyone is going to contract the disease which of course is not the case and it equally tends to work on the worst case panic inducing notion that every case will be severe or even terminal which of course is also untrue.
Much depends on the disease in question.
As an example, Shingles, the later life complication of the Chickenpox virus, is for most people an ordeal that lasts about 2-3 weeks and is uncomfortable and sometimes painful. Some cases can be severe of course but most are not. In most cases, the painful rash Shingles causes lasts 7 to 10 days and takes two to four weeks to fully heal. (https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/shingles)
It must be recognised therefore that some people would prefer to take their chances with Shingles rather than get vaccinated for it especially if all it causes for most people is a couple of weeks of down time and recuperation. Others of course don't want to take that risk and so opt for vaccination. Each to their own.
The salient point here is that the choice to get vaccinated or not is determined by a great many factors which need to be assessed. There's never imo a "one size fits all" solution for entire populations. So in this respect if there exist cures then some people will naturally opt to forego vaccination and take their chances and then ask for the cures/treatments if they are unlucky enough to contract the disease.
Again staying with Shingles. From the same vk.ovg link above:
"In England and Wales there are about 50,000 cases of shingles in people aged 70 or above every year, and it is estimated that about 50 of these cases result in death. "
Ok so how many people aged over 70 are there in the UK? Statista tells us there are 7,679,719 of them
(https://www.statista.com/statistics/281208/population-of-the-england-by-age-group/)
So 50,000 cases out of 7.6 million people equates to 0.65%
That's a pretty darn small percentage imo and bear in mind that most of those cases will just see people have 2-4 weeks of recuperation and they'll recover fine. A small number will have more serious problems including the 50 deaths a year stated above.
50 deaths out of 7.6 million people equates to 0.00065% which is utterly tiny
So specifically in the case of Shingles there appears to be a tiny 0.65% chance EVERY YEAR of an over 70yr old getting Shingles
and an even tinier 0.00065% chance of dying from it according to those figures.
So I ask you quite sincerely, do you really think we need to vaccinate every over 70yr old against Shingles given the chances of getting it are so very small and given that even if you did get it your chances of dying are 1000 times smaller ?
I certainly don't think it's needed or indeed right to even contemplate it.
If there were a cure or treatment to be given when someone does get Shingles then that for me would seem a much better way to deal with the situation.
And indeed there are such treatments as the CDC confirms here:
"Several antiviral medicines—acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir—are available to treat shingles and shorten the length and severity of the illness. These medicines are most effective if you start taking them as soon as possible after the rash appears."
https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/about/treatment.html
Again it's all about choice. It's perfectly acceptable imo for people to reject Shingles vaccines and take their chances,just as it's perfectly reasonable for those that want it to get vaccinated.
So I hope the above explains a couple of the factors that I would personally assess when deciding whether to take a vaccine or not, the actual chances of me contracting the disease in the first place and the likelihood of it killing me. There are countless other factors I would assess too, I could list 10-20 right off the bat if you like.
So Shingles for me personally is one example where I personally think a cure is better than applying a vaccine prevention solution to all.
Cancelled Alice
How is something that has been developed natural?
My bad, I didn't make myself clear enough there. What I meant was properly evaluating natural cures even though they make no profits for Pharmaceuticals. Properly studying Vitamin C, D etc and a wide range of foods,herbs and spices.
Cancelled Alice
Free market capitalism and health care isn’t a good mix because what’s good for generating profits isn’t what’s good for humanity. You seem to be suggesting that vaccines are always a product of capitalism, which is in my opinion bizarre.
My view on that is mixed TBH. I think many years ago vaccines were more about health, they mostly provided sterilising immunity and were "one shot" affairs. Since then and in my opinion, we seemed to have morphed towards maximising Pharma profits with repeat vaccination programmes (such as the yearly Flu shots) and others which some studies/systematic reviews suggest have very limited efficacy. For example in regards to Flu shots a systematic review by the internationally respected Cochrane Institute concluded that:
" Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case"
https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influenza-healthy-adults
I think there's a marked difference between the likes of the Smallpox vaccines and the Flu and Covid vaccines.
Again that's why I take every vaccine in its own right and assess the 20+ factors that I believe should be assessed to determine if I should get vaccinated or not.
Cancelled Alice
Vaccines prevent disease, if your motive is money and the vaccine well works, you’ve kind of failed.
They don't all prevent disease, though I personally think the definition of "vaccine" should certainly mean that it does prevent disease and thus provides actual immunity.
Original post by The RAR
Humanity managed to survive pandemics before vaccines were even thing, we do not need to be vaccinated in order to get out of this pandemic.
Hundres of NHS staff are protesting against vaccine mandates because threatening them with the sack unnless they get the jab is nothing but blackmail. Politicians and their friends in big pharma are laughing at people who want vaccine mandates as you are only making them richer.
Hundres of NHS staff are protesting against vaccine mandates because threatening them with the sack unnless they get the jab is nothing but blackmail. Politicians and their friends in big pharma are laughing at people who want vaccine mandates as you are only making them richer.
Classical example of this is the other Coronavirus Pandemic that happened in 1889-1890 and was caused by Human Coronavirus OC43
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1889%E2%80%931890_pandemic
At that time there were no vaccines and the pharmaceutical interventions were limited.
However viruses evolve and become much less pathogenic as time passes and our immune systems learn how to deal with the virus itself.
The virus that caused the pandemic at that time it now causes common colds. Actually human coronaviruses are responsible for a good number of colds every year.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/general-information.html#:~:text=Common%20human%20coronaviruses%2C%20including%20types,some%20point%20in%20their%20lives.
It's precisely what happens with this particular one Sars-Cov-2 that is now becoming endemic in the population. Pandemics dont last forever.
What plays the most important role here, imo, is natural immunity which in my view is superior to vaccine induced immunity and there is plenty of evidence around to suggest this. Vaccines are good imo in supplementing this process and protect those who are at the highest risk, i.e the elderly and the clinically vulnerable.
A great video by Dr Campbell who analyses very fresh research in the US and has been published by the CDC. Clearly showing the power of natural immunity, here:
Title: Excellent Natural Immunity Confirmed
https://youtu.be/25-iJKPA1CA
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by londonmyst
Never.
I draw the line at recommending some vaccines for people who work in specific professions connected with healthcare or some scientific experiments with an above average level of risk from hazardous substances.
I draw the line at recommending some vaccines for people who work in specific professions connected with healthcare or some scientific experiments with an above average level of risk from hazardous substances.
Mandatory vaccinations cannot be justified in my view in all circumstances. You cannot be forced through mandates to get vaccinated.
Original post by Lucifer323
Mandatory vaccinations cannot be justified in my view in all circumstances. You cannot be forced through mandates to get vaccinated.
Even in a specialist research lab involved in biological weaponry testing & developing antidotes?
Original post by Cancelled Alice
Only just.
Covid isn’t that bad on the scale of pandemics. Historians speculate that the Black Death killed 70% of England’s population.
This thread isn’t directly about covid anyway.
Covid isn’t that bad on the scale of pandemics. Historians speculate that the Black Death killed 70% of England’s population.
This thread isn’t directly about covid anyway.
Indeed!!
Covid is a mild disease or no disease for the vast majority of those who are infected by the virus and with a very small infection fatality rate. In my view we have witnessed one of the most bizarre, obsessive and anti-scientific campaigns to vaccinate everyone irrespective of evidence and facts, and regardless of pre-existing immunity, natural immunity, age, medical conditions and risk to benefit ratio.
The infection fatality rate of Covid-19 is 0.15%
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33716331/
In comparison the Spanish Flu had an infection fatality rate of around 10%
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html
In addition from all the evidence around it seems that natural immunity provides for many (not all) the best and most robust avenue in acquiring strong and long term protection which is in my view superior to vaccinations.
See video by Dr Campbell analysing one of the best types of research in the US and published by the CDC that will bring many changes in the near future.
Excellent natural immunity confirmed
https://youtu.be/25-iJKPA1CA
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by londonmyst
Even in a specialist research lab involved in biological weaponry testing & developing antidotes?
Yes. If they develop antidotes to any specific viruses that may cause disease then they must find volunteers to test these antidotes if this is what you are referring to.
Original post by Napp
When the disease presents a clear and present danger to people, in the form of large numbers of deaths, take Polio or Smallpox. Making people get those vaccines, as doubtlessly plenty of tools would refuse if done now, would be the right thing. For Covid? No. It does nothing but damage the reputation of vaccines for a poxy virus with a tiny mortality rate, in ones book.
Whats been done over Covid hasnt been quite as damaging as the dangerous 'vaccines' given to the military in the past. I forget the name of the jabs given in the early 2000s (alas its unsearchable now as the only thing that comes up is covid) but the forcible giving of Covid is doing similar damage as those ones did.
Whats been done over Covid hasnt been quite as damaging as the dangerous 'vaccines' given to the military in the past. I forget the name of the jabs given in the early 2000s (alas its unsearchable now as the only thing that comes up is covid) but the forcible giving of Covid is doing similar damage as those ones did.
Precisely Mr Napp!!
In my view the obsessive and rather unscientific campaign to vaccinate everyone irrespective of evidence and facts has brought imo science and scientists to disrepute for a disease with an infection fatality rate of 0.15% which cause to most of us either mild symptoms or nothing.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33716331/
I will agree that mandatory vaccinations are not justified for Covid. And I will take it further that vaccinations in general for Covid should have been available mostly to those who are elderly or clinically vulnerable. Those with natural immunity in my view have a much better form of protection and should be left alone.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/prior-covid-infection-more-protective-than-vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/
Prior COVID infection more protective than vaccination during Delta surge -U.S. study
"People who had previously been infected with COVID-19 were better protected against the Delta variant than those who were vaccinated alone, suggesting that natural immunity was a more potent shield than vaccines against that variant, California and New York health officials reported on Wednesday."
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Lucifer323
Yes. If they develop antidotes to any specific viruses that may cause disease then they must find volunteers to test these antidotes if this is what you are referring to.
I was more thinking about the issues around legal liability connected with duty of care to staff.
For instance an accident at work resulting in at least one fatality on the premises that involves staff members who were recommended to get vaccinated or have an immediate injection in case of exposure but decided not to.
For example with high risk specialist experiments involving contact with anthrax or syphilis.
Original post by londonmyst
I was more thinking about the issues around legal liability connected with duty of care to staff.
For instance an accident at work resulting in at least one fatality on the premises that involves staff members who were recommended to get vaccinated or have an immediate injection in case of exposure but decided not to.
For example with high risk specialist experiments involving contact with anthrax or syphilis.
For instance an accident at work resulting in at least one fatality on the premises that involves staff members who were recommended to get vaccinated or have an immediate injection in case of exposure but decided not to.
For example with high risk specialist experiments involving contact with anthrax or syphilis.
Still I don't think they can be forced through mandates. In the case of anthrax which has a high infection fatality rate then someone knows in advance what chances they have if they work in a laboratory dealing with the bacterium. I don't think the laboratory should be legally liable if such accident happened. They should be liable only if they don't provide the conditions necessary which will ensure that these accidents are rare occasions.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/anthrax#:~:text=The%20mortality%20rates%20from%20anthrax,that%20is%2080%25%20or%20higher.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Napp
When the disease presents a clear and present danger to people, in the form of large numbers of deaths, take Polio or Smallpox. Making people get those vaccines, as doubtlessly plenty of tools would refuse if done now, would be the right thing.
Hmm but here again we hit the age old killer issue with such lines of thinking.
Let's take Smallpox
Pretty nasty disease, with I think a 30% mortality rate.
Vaccine is strong and provides sterilising immunity AFAIK so getting vaccinated should mean you can't then get the disease
So, if everyone who wants it, gets that vaccine and is thus protected, then what does it matter if there are others who decide they do not want the vaccine and who are prepared to take their chances both in terms of catching the disease and in terms of dying from it if they did get it?
The fact always remains that those people who are protected by vaccines should have nothing at all to fear from anyone else.
The exceptions are the tiny minority of people who for medical reasons can't take the vaccines but there is no ethical or moral justification for mass vaccinating everyone on the planet just to protect such a tiny minority of people because in mass vaccinating you will always harm a small number of people through adverse side effects (including some deaths). Saving one minority by harming another minority is simply unjustified.
So it boils down to the fact that some people will always choose to take risks with their lives. You refer to them as fools, as is your right to do so. But the world then is already full of such "fools" who take unnecessary risks with their lives through:
- smoking
- riding motorcycles
- skiing
- snowboarding
- rock climbing
- drinking alcohol excessively
- taking drugs
- rally driving
- horse riding
etc etc
These are really tired old arguments and the bottom line is there is imo never any justification for forcing vaccinations on people.
Were we to embark on forcing humans to not take risks with their lives, vaccinations would come way down the priority pecking order and life would become extremely dull.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
Hmm but here again we hit the age old killer issue with such lines of thinking.
Let's take Smallpox
Pretty nasty disease, with I think a 30% mortality rate.
Vaccine is strong and provides sterilising immunity AFAIK so getting vaccinated should mean you can't then get the disease
So, if everyone who wants it, gets that vaccine and is thus protected, then what does it matter if there are others who decide they do not want the vaccine and who are prepared to take their chances both in terms of catching the disease and in terms of dying from it if they did get it?
Let's take Smallpox
Pretty nasty disease, with I think a 30% mortality rate.
Vaccine is strong and provides sterilising immunity AFAIK so getting vaccinated should mean you can't then get the disease
So, if everyone who wants it, gets that vaccine and is thus protected, then what does it matter if there are others who decide they do not want the vaccine and who are prepared to take their chances both in terms of catching the disease and in terms of dying from it if they did get it?
Er what point are you trying to make sorry?
On the highlighted, because we dont live in a libertarian dystopia where everyone just looks out for themsewlves and tells everyone else to die..
Your desire to refuse to think of anyone but yourself in such regards is impressive. Not least because you used a disease thats has killed hundreds of millions as your example..
The fact always remains that those people who are protected by vaccines should have nothing at all to fear from anyone else.
In what way is that true exactly? Not least in that vaccines are not a pancea for disease and no one has ever claimed they are.. ergo your argument that people have mothing top fear if they chose to get jabs seems specious..
The exceptions are the tiny minority of people who for medical reasons can't take the vaccines but there is no ethical or moral justification for mass vaccinating everyone on the planet just to protect such a tiny minority of people because in mass vaccinating you will always harm a small number of people through adverse side effects (including some deaths). Saving one minority by harming another minority is simply unjustified.
Well there clearly are in some cases, such as with deadly diseases (e.g. the above mentioned one). As i said, not ones like covid with damn all mortality where there is no real benefit of enforcing mandatory vaccination but the argument that it is never ap[priorate seems lacking in substance given there is no reason a virus like Marburg, if it were to mutate in such a fashion as to make it similar in transmissibility to covid would require a meaningful response..
So it boils down to the fact that some people will always choose to take risks with their lives. You refer to them as fools, as is your right to do so. But the world then is already full of such "fools" who take unnecessary risks with their lives through:
- smoking
- riding motorcycles
- skiing
- snowboarding
- rock climbing
- drinking alcohol excessively
- taking drugs
- rally driving
- horse riding
etc etc
These are really tired old arguments and the bottom line is there is imo never any justification for forcing vaccinations on people.
Were we to embark on forcing humans to not take risks with their lives, vaccinations would come way down the priority pecking order and life would become extremely dull.
the issue is not people 'taking risks witrh their own lives' as opposed to being reckless with others. We do not live in a world where ones actions have no effect on others and that is the point here.. if we lived with your opinion on the matter we would still be dying from smallpox, polio and god knows how many other preventable diseases, bacterial infections etc. there is a good reason public health matters have always been considered a national concern.
Did you just compare dying from viruses toi a sporting activity..? Either way, as i said, that is why i stated explicitly that mandatory vaccinations should only be reserved for the most serious of circumstances and not wasted on minor matters likle covid.
im not sure why youre listing recreational activities? In what way is getting a vaccine like smoking crack whilst riding a pony? Aside from the list being dubious in the first place (taking drugs is not inherently dangerous, your taking of paracetamol for example or someone eating a weed brownie) it bears no relation to jabbing from where im sitting...
Long story short, if vaccines were only a matter of a persons sole health and not that of others youd have a point but theyre not. As with polio, peoples refusal to take the jab has allowed that disease to stray in circulation and not be eradicated.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
