NationStates

Only if necessary.

At first the most vulnerable (by health or occupation) are vaccinated, and I suppose any of those who refuse can be let be for now.

Then vaccinating the general population, just ignore any who refuse (and because the virus isn't very dangerous to children, let them also refuse on behalf of their children, for now). Tick the 'refused' box for them and direct efforts to someone else.

And it might never be necessary to force anyone. A few people, like nursing home workers, might have to be given a choice between losing their jobs, or getting vaccinated.

If herd immunity can be achieved without forcing anyone, great. Just leave the 10% or whatever, unvaccinated.

And if not? If even after vast adoption with insignificant bad outcomes, there's too much anti-vax sentiment and outbreaks of covid keep occurring? Then I guess target the people whose jobs or activities bring them into most contact with others (beauty and hairdressers, home care and nursing home workers) and make them choose between that risky activity and vaccination.

Just working through the whole population (by street address say) and vaccinating them whether they want it or not, would be the worst possible approach. Let people opt out of the first wave, and most will come over by the second wave. Forcing anyone, with restriction of employment, fines or even prison, will probably never be necessary.

Geneviev wrote:

Destyntine wrote:
I agree with this. If people do not want to get vaccinated then that is on them. It is their own life on the line. Parents do deserve authority over their children and should get them vaccinated, although I'm neutral towards children because of the lack of infection among anyone under 18. I honestly believe we should prioritize the elderly due to the high risk factor.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer or a pro-vaxxer, I just honestly believe people should have their own civil rights to refuse a vaccine even if science proves their information to be incorrect.

I believe this thread is about all vaccines.

I was trying to use covid as an example, I'm not the best at wording things. But yes, I stand neutral on vaccines, I believe they should be optional for everyone even if they are proven to save lives, kind of like a seat belt.

Destyntine wrote:

Geneviev wrote:I believe this thread is about all vaccines.

I was trying to use covid as an example, I'm not the best at wording things. But yes, I stand neutral on vaccines, I believe they should be optional for everyone even if they are proven to save lives, kind of like a seat belt.

Like a seat belt, only in that seat belts save a few lives outside the car. Vaccines are better at protecting everyone, and aren't actually that effective for a single person in a herd of unvaccinated people.

I believe people should have the right to refuse vaccines as much as educational institutions and workplaces have the right to refuse antivaxxers (not those who, due to medical issues, cannot get inoculated).

Save for those who cannot due to medical reasons, people should receive all their necessary vaccines. Even a margin as wide as 10% unvaccinated can lead to weakened herd immunity and allow for disastrous spread of disease towards those whom are most vulnerable. It boggles the mind to think of how gullible people are to believe in such fallacies as the autism-vaccine link.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Destyntine wrote:
I was trying to use covid as an example, I'm not the best at wording things. But yes, I stand neutral on vaccines, I believe they should be optional for everyone even if they are proven to save lives, kind of like a seat belt.

Like a seat belt, only in that seat belts save a few lives outside the car. Vaccines are better at protecting everyone, and aren't actually that effective for a single person in a herd of unvaccinated people.

But is it worth sacrificing civil rights to save a few people who refuse a vaccination? Personally I don't think so. I believe people have to make their own decisions, even if it means they are risking their own lives. Of course research should be out there publicly and the government should urge people to get vaccinated, but forcing them would be another story. I could imagine anti-vaxxers and conspiracists avoiding doctors all-together if vaccinations became mandatory.

Mandatory vaccination, with an exemption for people with genuine allergies to vaccines.

I would make it mandatory and with severe penalties. Among other things not having your shot should lead to you being disqualified from free public healthcare. And that's all after you are forced to get your shot at gunpoint if need be.

Destyntine wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Like a seat belt, only in that seat belts save a few lives outside the car. Vaccines are better at protecting everyone, and aren't actually that effective for a single person in a herd of unvaccinated people.

But is it worth sacrificing civil rights to save a few people who refuse a vaccination? Personally I don't think so.

It depends. If you frame it as a civil rights issue right from the start, you dignify refusers who probably have a worse reason. Like they believe vaccines cause autism. Or they don't like hurty needles.

However, I wouldn't force it on anyone at first. If acceptance goes up high enough (which will vary by country) that the virus dies out with only tracing and quarantine for the occasional outbreak, then "civil rights violations" may never be necessary.

If that's not enough, we need to start interviewing the refusers and finding out what their real reason is. See if offering money softens them up. But if we still can't get a high enough rate of vaccinations, people without a really good reason get told to accept the shot or if they won't, they get held down by a few big security guards and get the shot whether they like it or not.

If they're just cautious and want most other people vaccinated first, that's OK. If there are few enough of them, they might never get asked to accept vaccination, again. But if there are too many of them they have to be treated as criminals.

I believe people have to make their own decisions, even if it means they are risking their own lives.

It's not just their own life that is at risk. This disease spreads mostly before people know they have it. Even if we could rely on the sort of people who would refuse a vaccine for no good medical reason -- and I don't think we can -- they still wouldn't be able to protect other people by quarantining themselves at the first symptoms.

Of course research should be out there publicly and the government should urge people to get vaccinated, but forcing them would be another story. I could imagine anti-vaxxers and conspiracists avoiding doctors all-together if vaccinations became mandatory.

Anti-vaxxers put other people at risk -- and other people's children -- and they get no sympathy from me. For sure we are not going to have lockdowns on and off for the next five years, to respect those people's "right" to endanger others.

The basic thing you have to grasp is that refusing vaccination is not just a risk to the person who does it. It's a risk to everyone else, and why should we all cower in our homes for fear that they're out there?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:If that's not enough, we need to start interviewing the refusers and finding out what their real reason is. See if offering money softens them up. But if we still can't get a high enough rate of vaccinations, people without a really good reason get told to accept the shot or if they won't, they get held down by a few big security guards and get the shot whether they like it or not.

If they're just cautious and want most other people vaccinated first, that's OK. If there are few enough of them, they might never get asked to accept vaccination, again. But if there are too many of them they have to be treated as criminals.

If you go about bribing antivaxers to get their shots than what does that make the rest of us that do it voluntarily? Idiots? What motivations do we have than to not just collectively refuse until we get a check in the mail?
I for one would not want my tax money going toward bribing people who willfully endanger me to be nice and not do it.

Imagine if we did that with every other crime. If we gave out money to thieves and murderers and drug dealers to bribe them to not do their thing.

Purpelia wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:If that's not enough, we need to start interviewing the refusers and finding out what their real reason is. See if offering money softens them up. But if we still can't get a high enough rate of vaccinations, people without a really good reason get told to accept the shot or if they won't, they get held down by a few big security guards and get the shot whether they like it or not.

If they're just cautious and want most other people vaccinated first, that's OK. If there are few enough of them, they might never get asked to accept vaccination, again. But if there are too many of them they have to be treated as criminals.

If you go about bribing antivaxers to get their shots than what does that make the rest of us that do it voluntarily? Idiots? What motivations do we have than to not just collectively refuse until we get a check in the mail?
I for one would not want my tax money going toward bribing people who willfully endanger me to be nice and not do it.

Imagine if we did that with every other crime. If we gave out money to thieves and murderers and drug dealers to bribe them to not do their thing.

OK, give everyone money when they get vaccinated, not just the ones who refuse first time. No vax, no money.

No. They can be encouraged and offered for free but to make them mandatory is excessive government control. Do people want the government to have so much control over your body? I can't believe so many people support totalitarianism, but I shouldn't be surprised by now. After all, people also loved Stalin and Mao and now many love Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un.

"Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Freiheit Reich wrote:No. They can be encouraged and offered for free but to make them mandatory is excessive government control. Do people want the government to have so much control over your body? I can't believe so many people support totalitarianism, but I shouldn't be surprised by now. After all, people also loved Stalin and Mao and now many love Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un.

Your right to be infected with a deadly disease ends at your front door. What right do you have to share public spaces with other people, if you refuse the basic hygiene necessary to be sure you're not spreading disease. You don't. Stay on your own property if you want to live by your own rules!

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:OK, give everyone money when they get vaccinated, not just the ones who refuse first time. No vax, no money.

And where does that money come from? The budget. Where does that come from? Taxes. Congratulations, you just invented a way for the government to take my money, pass it through their bureaucracy and give what is left (as all systems are inherently inefficient) back to me. I still loose money and you just added yet more pointless layers of government on top of what already exists.

Accept it. Some times the stick is the only solution.

Freiheit Reich wrote:"Give me liberty, or give me death!"

We can work with that.

Yes For Mandatory Vaccinations!
(Although im a bit scared of needles)
fucc thos antivaxxers

Purpelia wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:OK, give everyone money when they get vaccinated, not just the ones who refuse first time. No vax, no money.

And where does that money come from? The budget. Where does that come from? Taxes. Congratulations, you just invented a way for the government to take my money, pass it through their bureaucracy and give what is left (as all systems are inherently inefficient) back to me.

If you don't like it, you don't have to take the money.
But we'll still be taking your taxes, and spending them on police and courts and prisons, the way you like.

I get my massive spending program which does nothing but make people happy.
You get your massive spending program, which only makes people miserable.
I'm happy with that compromise if you are!

Cereskia wrote:Yes For Mandatory Vaccinations!
(Although im a bit scared of needles)
fucc thos antivaxxers

Don't. You'll catch all sorts of stuff. I mean, you can't exactly expect them to keep their bodies STD free if they literally wont go to the effort of taking a couple shots once per lifetime.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Purpelia wrote:And where does that money come from? The budget. Where does that come from? Taxes. Congratulations, you just invented a way for the government to take my money, pass it through their bureaucracy and give what is left (as all systems are inherently inefficient) back to me.

If you don't like it, you don't have to take the money.
But we'll still be taking your taxes, and spending them on police and courts and prisons, the way you like.

I get my massive spending program which does nothing but make people happy.
You get your massive spending program, which only makes people miserable.
I'm happy with that compromise if you are!

The total costs of forcing a minority of people to get their shots is far less than those of giving everyone a bribe. Not to mention the fact that if you do things my way you can actually GAIN money both directly via fines and indirectly by denying them taxpayer funded services like public healthcare and education for the rest of their lives. And yes, some people will be miserable in my system. But that's their choice. And thus it is completely fair, just and good that they get to suffer the consequences of it.

Mandatory free vaccines but priority should be given to developing countries/Low income people (unless there’s quality universal healthcare)

Honeydewistania wrote:Mandatory free vaccines but priority should be given to developing countries/Low income people (unless there’s quality universal healthcare)

Why? Can't we just do the sensible thing and let them fend for them self. And if an outbreak happens just quarantine the whole country (cut off travel) and leave them to it.

Purpelia wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:Mandatory free vaccines but priority should be given to developing countries/Low income people (unless there’s quality universal healthcare)

Why? Can't we just do the sensible thing and let them fend for them self. And if an outbreak happens just quarantine the whole country (cut off travel) and leave them to it.

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.

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.

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.

Hey, I got the poll references!

Estanglia wrote:One of the most disgusting things about the "vaccines cause autism, therefore I'm not vaccinating" argument is that it acts like dying a preventable death is a better alternative to autism. That's a disgusting view to hold.

Pretty much, yeah.

Purpelia wrote:Why? Can't we just do the sensible thing and let them fend for them self. And if an outbreak happens just quarantine the whole country (cut off travel) and leave them to it.

As someone who lives in a third world country, I don’t think it should be that easy to say. Healthcare is crap here.

The Blaatschapen wrote: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.

Most governments aren't that lucky to have large supplies of nationalized oil or gas. Your case is an outlayer not the norm.
And either way my point stands that it's still a waste of money and a program that costs the people instead of gaining money by punishing the guilty.

Free Las Pinas wrote:As someone who lives in a third world country, I don’t think it should be that easy to say. Healthcare is crap here.

But that's your problem, not mine. Just as if say my country had a civil war or had a meteor fall on it that wouldn't be your problem and it would be incredibly pointless for you to do anything about it. Get nothing from others and give nothing to others.

Resilient Acceleration wrote: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.

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.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Freiheit Reich wrote:No. They can be encouraged and offered for free but to make them mandatory is excessive government control. Do people want the government to have so much control over your body? I can't believe so many people support totalitarianism, but I shouldn't be surprised by now. After all, people also loved Stalin and Mao and now many love Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un.

Your right to be infected with a deadly disease ends at your front door. What right do you have to share public spaces with other people, if you refuse the basic hygiene necessary to be sure you're not spreading disease. You don't. Stay on your own property if you want to live by your own rules!

Drivers kill pedestrians. Should cars be banned? Air pollution from factories kills plenty of non-factory workers, should factories be banned? If you are scared of getting the disease, you can avoid crowded places.

Freiheit Reich wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Your right to be infected with a deadly disease ends at your front door. What right do you have to share public spaces with other people, if you refuse the basic hygiene necessary to be sure you're not spreading disease. You don't. Stay on your own property if you want to live by your own rules!

Drivers kill pedestrians. Should cars be banned? Air pollution from factories kills plenty of non-factory workers, should factories be banned? If you are scared of getting the disease, you can avoid crowded places.

We do in fact ban driving into people and polluting near inhabited areas. At least over here in the civilized world.