OPINION : New COVID-19 restrictions will be needed for anti-vaxxers

Discussion in 'World Events' started by dumbest man on earth, Jun 28, 2020.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,612
    We all take that risk. Just as you could get an infection from an incompetent healthcare worker administering the vaccine, or be killed when the clinic you are getting the injection in collapses. Just as leaving your house could get you killed by a drunk driver. Just as your very next breath could contain nerve gas that could kill you.

    So decide. Which risk is worse? Will you stop breathing, lest you get poisoned? Will you stay inside forever, lest you get hit by a drunk driver? Most of us make better tradeoffs than that.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,016

    You do not understand that how a vaccine is manufactured places some at risk of deadly anaphylaxis. I can empathise with those who do not want to take the risk.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,612
    Of course I do. The same is true of that salad you buy. (Check out how many places that made ingredients for that salad also process tree nuts, or shellfish, or dairy.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    My take ( to clarify my own thoughts):
    Is it worth looking at this issue by breaking down the different anti vax attitudes?

    For example:
    Anti Vax - Due to Ideology
    I know of a number of good friends that are Vegans that are quite obsessed by their vegan ideology. I can and do respect their principles.

    Why?:
    As many vaccines make use of eggs and chicken embryos in their manufacture it forces the Vegan to consider making an exception to their somewhat strict adherence to Vegan principles, compromising those principles if they wish to help the collective they belong to in lowering the risk of viral transmission.
    Of course most advances by medical science involves the use of animals and animal products, which would lead to rejection of just about all that contemporary medicine provides if hypocrisy is to be avoided.

    Let us assume for a moment that all parties are respected for their choices, decisions and beliefs.

    Responsibility:
    The choice to be a Vegan is and has always meant taking responsibility for consequences of their choices and decisions. It is not up to the general public collective to take responsibility for those who choose to refuse vaccinations that are made from animal products.
    It is, however, up to the public collective to protect the majority of it's members from the increase failure of the vaccination regime due to lower participation rates.
    The more people who refuse vaccination the higher the risk for those who have vaccinated. This is because vaccination never offers 100% protection to the individual per see, but offers good protection to the individual as part of a vaccinated collective.

    It is worth noting that limited artificially generated herd immunity ( vaccines) is not as effective as long term acquired and evolved natural immunity.

    So the legitimate and historically common dilemma exists.
    Individual Ideology vs Collective need.
    or simplified:
    Want vs need

    Problem Reversed:

    If most members of the collective were strict Vegans ( found in India, Nepal, Tibet etc) then vaccinations generated from animal products would not be utilized. The minority of non-Vegans could be vaccinated but that vaccination would be less effective in protecting the non-vegan minority group from the choices the Vegan majority have made.
    ====
    So, assuming all members are being respected for their ideologies and subsequent choices:
    Addressed to the ideological Anti vaxer:
    How does a diverse collective prevent self destruction due to a deadly and debilitating viral pandemic?
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2020
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    People that have certain known conditions that may induce some form of bad reaction from vaccinations, can easily get a medical exemption.You know that don't you?
    Any other fool who rejects it and the overwhelming science supporting it, should be deprived of all governement welfare and placed in group isolation away from the rest of the population....In my country Australia, perhaps put them all on Christmas Island and let them fend for themselves.

    I was going to suggest the Islands further south of Australia called Heard and McDonald Islands, but those are generally pristine protected Australian territories and should be kept that way...same of course applies to the Australian Antarctic Territory.
     
  9. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,016
    Why do think I learned how to cook?
     
  10. domesticated om Stickler for details Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,277
    I can only agree with the part of this statement with a logical element t0 it (community isolation) and not the social welfare part since it doesn't directly correlate to stopping the spread of infectious disease. This was already being done to some extent in regards to measles (the OG of anti-vaxxing)
    But to add to the OPs original linked story, I wonder if the question we should really be asking ourselves is if vaccination in general should become a strict requirement for inclusion - not just against covid?
     

Share This Page