I’m well aware of herd immunity but syncretic asked about the argument. I’m just asking him/her to elaborate… and I learn something every day
I think quite a few people would disagree with you there. I think part of the reason the Choice Community exists is that people feel that certain things are unreasonable and that the law has not addressed those things.
With regards to your next two paragraphs… I don’t disagree… as I said “we have laws and lawmakers to deal with that”.
That was a more general comment about what happens when someone challenges the status quo, I didn’t mean you personally
There have been many cases where vaccines have caused problems with peoples health and sometimes very serious problems. I don’t think we can blame people for being afraid that they, or their child, could be affected adversely. That deserves some respect one would think. I don’t think that most people who are against vaccinating are saying you shouldn’t do it… they just don’t believe they should have to.
Absolutely… but if only a minority of people weren’t vaccinated with the universal influenza vaccine then wouldn’t they be the people at risk?
Yes, exactly, the law prevails… not that we’ve had an outbreak in this country… but I admit, it could happen.
I suspect you are well aware that most vaccines are not 100% effective, some need recurrent boosters to stay effective, and some like the flu vaccine have quite varied results from year to year, roughly 30-70%. FWIW it appears most vaccines average around 90% effective with the exception of polio that is 99-100% IF all the recommended doses are taken.
That’s part of the problem that some people think they are the only ones at risk if they don’t vaccinate even after it has been made plain that it isn’t the case. There are some people in all communities who 1) cannot be vaccinated because of other health issues, 2) there are some who even when vaccinated are still able to be infected because the vaccines do not work as well for them, 3) there are some who cannot be vaccinated because of their age. All these people then rely on the benefits of herd immunity to help protect them from getting infected. Every person who chooses to not be vaccinated purely by choice is putting those more vulnerable people at risk. Once it reaches a level that Herd Immunity is very compromised then the incidence of larger outbreaks becomes more pronounced, and why things like Measles and Whooping Cough have started to reappear more regularly. Polio is again rearing it’s head as a big problem in communities where vaccination has not been adhered to eg India.
Influenza vaccines as among all the other types are not perfect and some people can become ill or die due to having a vaccine. But when the risk is assessed the risk of vaccine complications compared to the complications of the disease they are protecting against is very very much smaller. If you (by that I mean a person not you specifically) are affected adversely by a vaccine then it is important to you and those who are involved with you. Even as a Society we are impacted by the loss of even one life or the effect it can have on a life eg disability but compared to a disease that is many times more effective at causing those issues the risks are very small.
As to outbreaks, yes earlier in the 20th Century Australia like the rest of the World was suffering from a Worldwide outbreak of Polio. People from all walks of life were afflicted and affected. My Uncle was afflicted and my Mother’s parents & family were put into quarantine. Some people in their town were sent to a purpose built community and were surrounded by armed guards and barbed wired, if they died their remains were incinerated and dumped at sea. Leprosy sufferers had similar experiences being confined to remote areas or isolated on islands so they could not infect others. In the event of such large outbreaks of any deadly/dangerous disease you can be certain they will carry out the same types of actions even in our lawful communities in these days. Ebola in Africa was receiving the same treatment once people realised it could spread to other countries, not a disease we can currently vaccinate against but just to show what steps might happen.
This is great stuff I can see where you’re coming from and yes, vaccines have helped do fantastic things. I’m not denying it, I’m simply questioning the denial of others rights to question and choose.
And there’s the rub… it’s when people see things like this https://www.sbs.com.au/news/samoa-recalls-vaccine-after-baby-deaths in the news it’s hard to think about everyone else… parents taking their children in for MMR will likely think twice.
Like I said before I support the right to choose, I would never try to remove that right. At the same time I support the right for others to take action when that choice affects others. That consequence may involve incarceration or other forms of removal of freedom of movement or isolation, it might involve using armed and deadly force to stop the spread of disease (hopefully not but possible), it may involve the imposing of financial penalty, it may involve removal of certain other rights and it may involve forced treatment.
I understand people’s hesitancy but imagine the outcry for treatment & punishment if Measles or some other vaccine mostly preventable disease started decimating the population, the recriminations would be huge about Government inaction regarding people who infected others. I know this sounds harsh but we see the news you refer to because deaths from Measles because of vaccination has become so rare that the death from vaccines is more news worthy.
The news story indicates a possible link between the MMR and the two deaths, but the link has not been confirmed (in the new story). The reported link could be a coincidence.
I imagine that there could have been many other reasons for the deaths, poor medical hygiene, reuse of contaminated syringes, incorrectly stored vaccinations, contamination through use multidose vials (if used) etc etc.
I suspect that the nurses were removed for two reasons, the first to protect them agaist vigilantes and possibly the second, to ensure evidence is preserved/protected through the investigation.
I have to say - this is a great thread. I can see common ground, and I can see where there is great difference. None of us have to ‘own’ what another is saying, but we all learn from the experience. We might not agree, but we see that another has a different view, which might strengthen our opposing view or might moderate it, but we are all better for it in some way.
So does the flu shot make you sick? well … I had my first flu shot in years this year - and I’m in week 2 of the worst bug I’ve had in years. So yes it must do but some context? is context relevant? Sometimes context is everything. I won’t go into details, but the context here is big and I own some of that myself. Correlation yes. Causation no. Firstly I haven’t been diagnosed with ‘flu’ - bronchitis is the top billed item, but there’s other factors which come down to lifestyle … and context.
So as easy as it would be to ‘blame’ the flu shot based on correlation - there’s no smoking gun from what I know …
One benefit of the vaccination is that you have gained some residual resistence to next year’s versions. If each year you maintain getting vaccinated you will garner a bit more resistence to the non pandemic versions that haven’t strayed too much from the vaccine ones and some low to moderate protection against the Pandemic type versions. As mentioned further up older people generally don’t require the quad version as they have had sufficient prior exposure that confers reasonable immunity from the pandemic related ones and really mostly benefit from a higher dosage triple version that activates their immune systems better against the expected non pandemic related varieties.
The medical profession has often advised that herd immunity is an important part of the vaccination campaign.**
By raising levels above the threshold where herd immunity takes effect the chance of continuous re-transmission is much reduced and the benefit to those who cannot be vaccinated are increased. This benefit is beyond that given to the individuals who are immunised.
Do you think herd immunity is a real effect that confers additional benefit to society?
To some this suggested that we have a duty to the common good to be vaccinated and to have our dependants vaccinated. Some people object to that and in particular object to governments trying to enforce it. This is the argument. Most readers who have followed this thread would know that but now having explained it we are all on the same page.
People generally accept that in any society there is a compromise between maintaining the rights of the individual to do as they please and the right of the society to protect its members where the exercise of individual rights may do harm. The question in each case is where is the correct balance between the two.
What is your position on this particular case of individual rights?
** There is also heard immunity, where people are immune to hearing some messages.
I totally agree This is what discussion and debate is all about and I don’t really think we have enough of it considering the weight of some of these topics.
Well it makes sense according to the studies… when the herd does things together for good it generally has a positive outcome.
I absolutely believe in the rights of the individual as long as it does not encroach on the rights of others. So I believe when someone raises a question, the people who get upset with the question being raised and try to reduce that person, are actually creating more of a divide. There is a name for that… Suppression of dissent.
And also herd mentality, where people can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviours on a largely emotional, rather than rational, basis.
Please let us deal with this particular issue before moving on. I asked about a particular case and you answer a different question. You were the one who raised the issue of choice regarding vaccination.
O…K… so can you clarify your question then if my answer wasn’t acceptable to you?
My stance remains on this… there is nothing wrong in asking questions in order to be better informed. The fact that this particular post has generated so many emotional responses demonstrates that this topic NEEDS discussion.
That is the issue at hand, it invokes a emotional response in many, rather than a rational response based on proven science. When a emotional response is provoked, it doesn’t matter how rational an argument may be, it is not accepted/listened to.
In relation to participation, as we live in a democratic country and accept the norms assoicated with this democracy, then we all meed to be participants in the society we live. There will be many things we may not agree with, but we accept these to maintain the welfare, health and fabric of the society as a whole.
Vaccinations fits into this social participation.
There is no rule that I’m aware of that says you can not get to a rational response from an emotional one… we’re human beings so emotion is going to set us moving on many of these topics before rationalisation.
So how do we get to the point of communal acceptance without discussion? I’m sure you don’t just accept everything that is handed to you?
Social participation is also about communication… not just participating blindly.
NOTE: I’m getting a message coming up now asking that I “Let others join the conversation”… It’s not my intention to hog this but I’m getting a lot of responses.
I have said it twice. Your game is only slightly amusing and now getting repetitive.
I’m happy to have a discussion here but it goes two ways. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it right and to come back with that type of answer makes me wonder if I am just wasting time trying to have a conversation with you.
My point is that the vaccination debate is NOT a done deal (otherwise this post wouldn’t exist)… You may believe that it is, and that’s great, you’re entitled to that, but many people have differing views so if you can’t respect that then it’s going to be very difficult to move forward.
As mostly an observer on this thread of late, my take is ‘one side’ is presenting information and facts such as they can be understood and verified, and the ‘other side’ continues to present opinion and defend choice. Perhaps that is not how everyone sees it but I can only post for myself on that.
I suggest this discussion has reached a stalemate, nobody is going to change anyone’s mind on the topic, and the discussion is best left.
You say the matter is not a done deal well if so there must be plenty of material from your side. Where is it? Every question is answered with more questions. You waffle about being silenced but for round after round you haven’t said a thing. You point out (quite rightly) there is an ethical element to the issue but given two clear invitations to explain your position of the question of choice re vaccination you somehow don’t yet understand what I mean. You are playing, pure and simple.