Mandatory Vaccinations 「Yes or No」?

[Coradortodos]

I just want to have a normal life again!

[Vellandorra]

In very few actually. What about animals?

I'm not asking about what the law is, and obviously don't care if it's legal in Azerbaijan. It's a dangerous thing to do and should not be allowed.

And what about animals?

Why?

Animals don't vaccine and they don't all die.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Or we require vaccines, violating people's rights but not otherwise doing any harm. Why? To end the pandemic, saving lives.

THEN you bring up your nice idea of banning everything that causes pollution. And you get asked Why.

Well, why? To be consistent with what we did with vaccines? Does that actually sound like a good reason to you?

You want to shut down forestry, industry, electricity, and meat production. Oh and farm machinery. The first year is going to be miserable and then we'll start to starve. That's a big price you're asking us to pay, so I ask again: WHY?

Not doing any???
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/af ... story.html

Well that's terrible. Oral vaccines are such a good idea too.

But do you draw the conclusion from this happening in Sudan, that no-body should ever give their kids polio-vaccine?

[Vellandorra]

Not doing any???
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/af ... story.html

Well that's terrible. Oral vaccines are such a good idea too.

But do you draw the conclusion from this happening in Sudan, that no-body should ever give their kids polio-vaccine?

Weren't vaccines life-savers???

[Atheris]

Well that's terrible. Oral vaccines are such a good idea too.

But do you draw the conclusion from this happening in Sudan, that no-body should ever give their kids polio-vaccine?

Weren't vaccines life-savers???

Yeah, they are. They completely wiped out smallpox and rinderpest, and are 99% of the way there to wiping out polio.

[Freiheit Reich]

If we require vaccines, we also need to ban anything that causes pollution.

Or we require vaccines, violating people's rights but not otherwise doing any harm. Why? To end the pandemic, saving lives.

THEN you bring up your nice idea of banning everything that causes pollution. And you get asked Why.

Well, why? To be consistent with what we did with vaccines? Does that actually sound like a good reason to you?

You want to shut down forestry, industry, electricity, and meat production. Oh and farm machinery. The first year is going to be miserable and then we'll start to starve. That's a big price you're asking us to pay, so I ask again: WHY?

How do you know the vaccines will not have side effects? Also, I would rather have extra deaths and live in a free society.

Here is a good article that explains why mandatory vaccines are wrong better than I could. Surprisingly, it was written in a country that seems to be embracing a form of totalitarianism (New Zealand):

Why mandatory vaccination is unethical and immoral

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health ... nd-immoral

[Vellandorra]

Weren't vaccines life-savers???

Yeah, they are. They completely wiped out smallpox and rinderpest, and are 99% of the way there to wiping out polio.

Do you have actual proof of that?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm not asking about what the law is, and obviously don't care if it's legal in Azerbaijan. It's a dangerous thing to do and should not be allowed.

And what about animals?

Why?

Animals don't vaccine and they don't all die.

Zoo animals do, and farm animals do, because the farmers don't want to go through the century-long process of breeding an animal resistant to those diseases. Farm animals are sometimes given antibiotics, before they need them, which is bad but demonstrates how bad it is for business if farm animals catch a disease. The whole herd have to be killed, because it's illegal to sell meat that might have a disease.

I kept chickens for a few years. I always got them already vaccinated.

Wild animals get sick of course. Sometimes they all die, that's called extinction. If wild animals tried to live packed as close together as we do, they'd have much worse disease problems.

[Atheris]

Yeah, they are. They completely wiped out smallpox and rinderpest, and are 99% of the way there to wiping out polio.

Do you have actual proof of that?

Sure. Here are a few sources, two for each disease.

[Vellandorra]

Why?

Animals don't vaccine and they don't all die.

Zoo animals do, and farm animals do, because the farmers don't want to go through the century-long process of breeding an animal resistant to those diseases. Farm animals are sometimes given antibiotics, before they need them, which is bad but demonstrates how bad it is for business if farm animals catch a disease. The whole herd have to be killed, because it's illegal to sell meat that might have a disease.

I kept chickens for a few years. I always got them already vaccinated.

Wild animals get sick of course. Sometimes they all die, that's called extinction. If wild animals tried to live packed as close together as we do, they'd have much worse disease problems.

You can't prove that. Did humans all die when there were no vaccines?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Or we require vaccines, violating people's rights but not otherwise doing any harm. Why? To end the pandemic, saving lives.

THEN you bring up your nice idea of banning everything that causes pollution. And you get asked Why.

Well, why? To be consistent with what we did with vaccines? Does that actually sound like a good reason to you?

You want to shut down forestry, industry, electricity, and meat production. Oh and farm machinery. The first year is going to be miserable and then we'll start to starve. That's a big price you're asking us to pay, so I ask again: WHY?

How do you know the vaccines will not have side effects? Also, I would rather have extra deaths and live in a free society.

Well there you have it. You can give no reason besides "it's my freedom" yet you expect to still be allowed in society when you pose a risk to other people's LIVES.

No. People who pose too high a risk to other people's lives don't belong in society. They belong in jail. Now tell me about your "freedom"

Here is a good article that explains why mandatory vaccines are wrong better than I could. Surprisingly, it was written in a country that seems to be embracing a form of totalitarianism (New Zealand):

Why mandatory vaccination is unethical and immoral

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health ... nd-immoral

I might get around to reading your source, but let it be noted that you could not bring any argument but "I'm free!"

[Atheris]

Zoo animals do, and farm animals do, because the farmers don't want to go through the century-long process of breeding an animal resistant to those diseases. Farm animals are sometimes given antibiotics, before they need them, which is bad but demonstrates how bad it is for business if farm animals catch a disease. The whole herd have to be killed, because it's illegal to sell meat that might have a disease.

I kept chickens for a few years. I always got them already vaccinated.

Wild animals get sick of course. Sometimes they all die, that's called extinction. If wild animals tried to live packed as close together as we do, they'd have much worse disease problems.

You can't prove that. Did humans all die when there were no vaccines?

No, but the Spanish Flu, Cholera, the Black Death, COVID-19, and large cities and population centers didn't exist before the 1300s, when urbanization and modernization began entering a much wider scheme over Eurasia.

Vaccines were first developed in 1796, but inoculation has existed for about a millennium.

[Plzen]

New Zealand is apparently "embracing a form of totalitarianism" now, which is just one more sign that terminology in politics are increasingly devoid of any substantive meaning. Maybe Nineteen Eighty-Four had a point and in the end all we really need to carry on political discourse to the standard that seems to be dominant today is one word that just means "ideas we agree with" and one word for "ideas of our enemies". Who needs proper definitions for ideological terms anyways?

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

No, people should not be forced to take vaccines. That's such a fascistic and authoritarian thing to do. It is a personal choice, is it smart to not take a vaccine? No, it isn't, but it's the choice of the person.
Let us also not forget who is encouraging people to not take a vaccine... cough Democrats cough

[Vellandorra]

Do you have actual proof of that?

Sure. Here are a few sources, two for each disease.

Which does not mean the reduction has been caused by vaccination.

The reduction could also be caused by improvements on hygiene.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

scrap and start again

[Vellandorra]

You can't prove that. Did humans all die when there were no vaccines?

No, but the Spanish Flu, Cholera, the Black Death, COVID-19, and large cities and population centers didn't exist before the 1300s, when urbanization and modernization began entering a much wider scheme over Eurasia.

Vaccines were first developed in 1796, but inoculation has existed for about a millennium.

So what about 1300-1796? Not counting people weren't vaccined until much later...

[Vellandorra]

You can't prove that.

Again with the "all". Of course humans didn't ALL die, or you and I wouldn't be here.

This is idiotic, I'll be talking to Freiheit Reich who at least has half a clue.

Neither most. Otherwise why population has grown?

[Atheris]

Sure. Here are a few sources, two for each disease.

Which does not mean the reduction has been caused by vaccination.

The reduction could also be caused by improvements on hygiene.

Did you even read those?

"Polio vaccine, given multiple times, can protect a child for life."

"The modern eradication campaign began in 1945, when the Food and Agriculture Organization was founded. But it became feasible only as vaccines improved. An 1893 version made from the bile of convalescent animals was replaced by vaccines grown in goats and rabbits and finally in laboratory cell lines; a heat-stable version was developed in the 1980s."

"Currently, the smallpox vaccine is not recommended for the general public because smallpox has been eradicated. If there were a smallpox outbreak, health officials would use a smallpox vaccine to control it. [...]Currently, the smallpox vaccine is not available to the general public because smallpox has been eradicated, and the virus no longer exists in nature. However, there is enough smallpox vaccine to vaccinate every person in the United States if a smallpox outbreak were to occur."

"In the early 1950s – 150 years after the introduction of vaccination – an estimated 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the world each year, a figure which fell to around 10–15 million by 1967 because of vaccination.

In 1967, when WHO launched an intensified plan to eradicate smallpox, the "ancient scourge" threatened 60% of the world's population, killed every fourth victim, scarred or blinded most survivors, and eluded any form of treatment.

Through the success of the global eradication campaign, smallpox was finally pushed back to the horn of Africa and then to a single last natural case, which occurred in Somalia in 1977."

[Freiheit Reich]

How do you know the vaccines will not have side effects? Also, I would rather have extra deaths and live in a free society.

Well there you have it. You can give no reason besides "it's my freedom" yet you expect to still be allowed in society when you pose a risk to other people's LIVES.

No. People who pose too high a risk to other people's lives don't belong in society. They belong in jail. Now tell me about your "freedom"

Here is a good article that explains why mandatory vaccines are wrong better than I could. Surprisingly, it was written in a country that seems to be embracing a form of totalitarianism (New Zealand):

Why mandatory vaccination is unethical and immoral

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health ... nd-immoral

I might get around to reading your source, but let it be noted that you could not bring any argument but "I'm free!"

Freedom means a lot to me and it should mean a lot to you as well. Thousands of soldiers died to ensure freedom. Allow the government to require you to get a vaccine and tomorrow they will ban you from criticizing them. I don't want to live in the next North Korea.

[Resilient Acceleration]

The idea that the government only makes money through taxes is a laughable one.

For years the Dutch government made money by selling gas. Of course, the initial investment to pump the gas was done by taxes, but it is/was basically a government owned company. And rather than some private investors, the shareholder is the government, and the revenue went to the government rather than the private investor.

Isn't this the origin of the term "Dutch Disease"?

The "priority" clause might be unnecessary, I agree. But the bigger the outbreak, the exponentially bigger the chances it spreads to your pristine developed countries. Ebola for example is a sweeping success story when we consider the far worse possibilities.

Which is why we must act quickly and decisively to cut them off completely. No half measures. No humanity. No pity.

Ignoring the part that makes me grateful people like you aren't in office anytime soon, the thing about pandemics is that don't really care about border and transmission can easily spread through various routes. Underdeveloped -> developing -> almost developed -> developed route is a thing. Heck, pandemics don't necessarily originate in third world hellholes either, as China has shown. And meanwhile, letting viruses spread to billions makes it certain for thise viruses to stay there in deadly pockets of doom and mutate, ready to explode again, meaning that the crisis won't end.

Combined with the reversal of economic progress that it will cause, which will contribute to the refugee crisis, the situation is just gonna get so uncontrollable and more and more problem will just stack up at an accelerating rate. There's a reason why Obama created the Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense (filled with those who actually know about the most efficient strategies for the US against bio threat concerns) and included it in the National Security Council.

Overall, in this times of age, such position is a completely idiotic, ignorant, and self-sabotaging position when you realize the alternative is already far cheaper, and more efficient, and far more sustainable, monetarily and politically. Not to mention the warm and fuzzy feeling you get for living as a contributor to the human civilization.

Also "let them fend for them self" is kinda hard to do when healthcare infrastructure is poor to nonexistent, health human resources is scarce, etc.

How so? I mean, what difference does their ability to live vs die make in the equation? On the extremes if they all get cured than I won't get the plague and if they all die I also can't catch the plague.

This might surprise you, but literally almost all big shot viruses are not "extremes". Mutations and seasonal viruses are a thing, and the only way to prevent the global economy from collapsing every 3-5 years is through continuous global effort that can keep up with future threats.

[Vellandorra]

Which does not mean the reduction has been caused by vaccination.

The reduction could also be caused by improvements on hygiene.

Did you even read those?

"Polio vaccine, given multiple times, can protect a child for life."

"The modern eradication campaign began in 1945, when the Food and Agriculture Organization was founded. But it became feasible only as vaccines improved. An 1893 version made from the bile of convalescent animals was replaced by vaccines grown in goats and rabbits and finally in laboratory cell lines; a heat-stable version was developed in the 1980s."

"Currently, the smallpox vaccine is not recommended for the general public because smallpox has been eradicated. If there were a smallpox outbreak, health officials would use a smallpox vaccine to control it. [...]Currently, the smallpox vaccine is not available to the general public because smallpox has been eradicated, and the virus no longer exists in nature. However, there is enough smallpox vaccine to vaccinate every person in the United States if a smallpox outbreak were to occur."

"In the early 1950s – 150 years after the introduction of vaccination – an estimated 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the world each year, a figure which fell to around 10–15 million by 1967 because of vaccination.

In 1967, when WHO launched an intensified plan to eradicate smallpox, the "ancient scourge" threatened 60% of the world's population, killed every fourth victim, scarred or blinded most survivors, and eluded any form of treatment.

Through the success of the global eradication campaign, smallpox was finally pushed back to the horn of Africa and then to a single last natural case, which occurred in Somalia in 1977."

The WHO saying "vaccines are safe" doesn't mean anything, everyone shall be questioned and searched for actual proof. The WHO isn't God.

Againnn, correlation does NOT equal causality.

[Plzen]

It has been less than half a century since humanity eradicated smallpox, a disease which killed a third of a billion people in the 20th Century, through mass vaccination campaigns organised through monumental international effort. It was no less a triumph of science than the moon landings or the internet.

How quickly we forget.

People seem to have terminally short memories when it comes to remembering how awful life used to be before we had all this nifty technology. I mean, the statistics and the analysis are right there, for free on the internet.

[Atheris]

No, but the Spanish Flu, Cholera, the Black Death, COVID-19, and large cities and population centers didn't exist before the 1300s, when urbanization and modernization began entering a much wider scheme over Eurasia.

Vaccines were first developed in 1796, but inoculation has existed for about a millennium.

So what about 1300-1796? Not counting people weren't vaccined until much later...

The Black Death, which wiped out 2/3s of Europe, approximately 6% of the estimated global population at that time. The Columbian Exchange, which drove the Amerindians to near-extinction. The Great Plague of London, which killed 20% of its population in 1665. The cholera vaccine didn't exist until 1885, and between its first emergence in 1817 and that time it killed approximately 2,423,536 people (using estimates on Wikipedia).

Did you even read those?

"Polio vaccine, given multiple times, can protect a child for life."

"The modern eradication campaign began in 1945, when the Food and Agriculture Organization was founded. But it became feasible only as vaccines improved. An 1893 version made from the bile of convalescent animals was replaced by vaccines grown in goats and rabbits and finally in laboratory cell lines; a heat-stable version was developed in the 1980s."

"Currently, the smallpox vaccine is not recommended for the general public because smallpox has been eradicated. If there were a smallpox outbreak, health officials would use a smallpox vaccine to control it. [...]Currently, the smallpox vaccine is not available to the general public because smallpox has been eradicated, and the virus no longer exists in nature. However, there is enough smallpox vaccine to vaccinate every person in the United States if a smallpox outbreak were to occur."

"In the early 1950s – 150 years after the introduction of vaccination – an estimated 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the world each year, a figure which fell to around 10–15 million by 1967 because of vaccination.

In 1967, when WHO launched an intensified plan to eradicate smallpox, the "ancient scourge" threatened 60% of the world's population, killed every fourth victim, scarred or blinded most survivors, and eluded any form of treatment.

Through the success of the global eradication campaign, smallpox was finally pushed back to the horn of Africa and then to a single last natural case, which occurred in Somalia in 1977."

The WHO saying "vaccines are safe" doesn't mean anything, everyone shall be questioned and searched for actual proof. The WHO isn't God.

Againnn, correlation does NOT equal causality.

Yes, you did not read those. That's not just the WHO. That's the CDC, the DOI, the GPEI, and the WHO.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, yes, but that's irrelevant here.

Edit: I misremembered - it was 6% of the global population, not 11%.

[Vellandorra]

It has been less than half a century since humanity eradicated smallpox, a disease which killed a third of a billion people in the 20th Century, through mass vaccination campaigns organised through monumental international effort. It was no less a triumph of science than the moon landings or the internet.

How quickly we forget.

People seem to have terminally short memories when it comes to remembering how awful life used to be before we had all this nifty technology. I mean, the statistics and the analysis are right there, for free on the internet.

What part don't you understand of correlation does NOT equal causality?