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 peopleās 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 āownā 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 ā¦ I had my first flu shot in years this year - and Iām in week 2 of the worst bug Iāve had in years. So yes it must do but some context? is context relevant? Sometimes context is everything. I wonāt go into details, but the context here is big and I own some of that myself. Correlation yes. Causation no. Firstly I havenāt been diagnosed with āfluā - bronchitis is the top billed item, but thereās other factors which come down to lifestyle ā¦ and context.
So as easy as it would be to āblameā the flu shot based on correlation - thereās no smoking gun from what I know ā¦
One benefit of the vaccination is that you have gained some residual resistence to next yearās versions. If each year you maintain getting vaccinated you will garner a bit more resistence to the non pandemic versions that havenāt 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 donāt 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 donāt really think we have enough of it considering the weight of some of these topics.
Well it makes sense according to the studiesā¦ 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 thatā¦ 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.
Oā¦Kā¦ so can you clarify your question then if my answer wasnāt acceptable to you?
My stance remains on thisā¦ 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 doesnāt 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.
There is no rule that Iām aware of that says you can not get to a rational response from an emotional oneā¦ weāre 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? Iām sure you donāt just accept everything that is handed to you?
Social participation is also about communicationā¦ not just participating blindly.
NOTE: Iām getting a message coming up now asking that I āLet others join the conversationāā¦ Itās not my intention to hog this but Iām getting a lot of responses.
Really?
Iām happy to have a discussion here but it goes two ways. Just because you believe something doesnāt 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 wouldnāt exist)ā¦ You may believe that it is, and thatās great, youāre entitled to that, but many people have differing views so if you canāt respect that then itās going to be very difficult to move forward.
As mostly an observer on this thread of late, my take is āone sideā is presenting information and facts such as they can be understood and verified, and the āother sideā 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 anyoneās 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 havenāt 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 donāt yet understand what I mean. You are playing, pure and simple.
Thanks for the excellent discussion everyone. Thereās a lot here for people interested in the subject to consider, but for now weāll close the topic.
but some context? is context relevant? Sometimes context is everything. I wonāt go into details, but the context here is big and I own some of that myself. Correlation yes. Causation no. Firstly I havenāt been diagnosed with āfluā - bronchitis is the top billed item, but thereās other factors which come down to lifestyle ā¦ and context.
This is what discussion and debate is all about and I donāt really think we have enough of it considering the weight of some of these topics.
