Should Vaccination be Mandatory

[gourimoko]

This is a wholly incorrect, and frankly, dangerous viewpoint when referring to contagious diseases - which are the ones we are most concerned about. Widespread vaccination is the primary reason that we have such low infection rates for many fatal diseases. There are people who can't get them, and people who won't get them, that are protected almost exclusively by the people who do get them. This concept is called herd immunity, and I suggest reading up on it.

Ohdang, you're not making any sense.. At all...

"Herd immunity or herd effect, also called community immunity, describes a form of immunity[1] that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a populationprovides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity.[2] Herd immunity theory proposes that, in contagious diseases that are transmitted from individual to individual, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted when large numbers of a population are immune or less susceptible to the disease."

This has nothing to do with the logical statement I made earlier.

Nothing.

You're obviously throwing out a strawman.

The point of my argument is that a vaccinated person isn't likely to get sick from an unvaccinated person; not that the unvaccinated are somehow protected from disease by the majority being vaccinated. That's neither implied or entailed in my argument.

The fewer carriers there are walking around, the safer everyone is.

Maybe you know something I don't, but let me try to understand you better by way of a thought experiment.

If 5 people are in a room, 3 are vaccinated against chickenpox, 2 are not, 1 is infected. How many people are endangered by the infected?

If the answer is greater than 1, then I must be missing something here. If it isn't, you don't really have a point.

We should be striving to get as close to 100% immunization as we possibly can because that's the only hope of actually eradicating these diseases.

Which is great, I agree.

You're an intelligent guy, just thinking about it logically ought to be enough to convince you of the truth of this. But if it isn't, studies on it are pretty plentiful, you don't have to take my word for it, though that would certainly be easier.

Why would I take your word for it?

I've reviewed the studies (I'm the only person in this thread to cite them) and they are not conclusive with respect to the issues being brought up (by me at least). Unless, again, we're talking about MMR and autism - which I've already addressed.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

@IWantAKouki , also, you specifically said not being vaccinated is "endangering others."

If everyone is vaccinated, then no one is at risk.
If no one is vaccinated, everyone is at risk.

If some are vaccinated and others choose not to be, only those who made the choice not to vaccinate are at risk; they are not endangering anyone who isn't obviously already aware and has consciously made the decision to forgo vaccination.

As Ohdang pointed out, it's not always a matter of "choice" for people. There are those who because of some other condition, either cannot be vaccinated or for whom the vaccination would not be effective. All of those people are "at risk" from the unvaccinated, and really don't have any choice in the matter.

And I'm most emphatically not an expert, but it is my lay understanding that there is always the possibility that a disease will mutate into a more dangerous form, and that this possibility increases every time it is transmitted to another person. So even if the unvaccinated are only putting themselves at risk, they are in fact increasing the risk of a mutation that could put other people at risk as well.

Again, this last bit was just "spitballin' an idea, but the part about those individuals who cannot be vaccinated isn't.

 

[gourimoko]

As Ohdang pointed out, it's not always a matter of "choice" for people. There are those who because of some other condition, either cannot be vaccinated or for whom the vaccination would not be effective. All of those people are "at risk" from the unvaccinated, and really don't have any choice in the matter.

Granted.

But that's not my responsibility. Sorry.

And I'm most emphatically not an expert, but it is my lay understanding that there is always the possibility that a disease will mutate into a more dangerous form, and that this possibility increases every time it is transmitted to another person. So even if the unvaccinated are only putting themselves at risk, they are in fact increasing the risk of a mutation that could put other people at risk as well.

Lol....

Again, this last bit was just "spitballin' an idea, but the part about those individuals who cannot be vaccinated isn't.

Cool.

 

[Kouki]

I think the problem in this thread right now is that gouri is focused on infant/newborn/fetus vaccination while others (including myself) are just talking about vaccination in general, not even touching the infant/newborn/fetus debate.

I don't think there is necessarilly all that much disagreement...at least on my behalf, I don't know anything about infant/newborn/fetus vaccination or the safety thereof, and I am not disagreeing or trying to counter any of the points you are making in those regards, gouri.

 

[bigfoot5415]

@gouri

Can you send me some of those studies? Hard to weed out the BS from google. I would love to share those with my retarded sister-in-law law who is putting my 3 beautiful nieces and nephews at risk so that she as a parent could have a choice.

 

[Sebastian]

It should be known that a person that has been vaccinated can still get one of the MMR diseases thanks to mutation, lack of a booster for weaker individuals or weaker immunity (for whatever reason). It isn't just the immunocompromised or unvaccinated at risk. It's a large segment of the population. It's happening right now in California.

Herd immunity not only protects those who can't get vaccinated, but it also guards against mutation that renders the older vaccines obsolete.

99.9% vaccination rates prevent diseases from gaining purchase in a community in the first place, preventing the risk of mutation or exposure of any kind. A virus can't mutate if it doesn't have hosts.

 

[The Oi]

@gouri

Can you send me some of those studies? Hard to weed out the BS from google. I would love to share those with my retarded sister-in-law law who is putting my 3 beautiful nieces and nephews at risk so that she as a parent could have a choice.

She won't care.

The only thing that will get her to change her mind is one of her kids catching one of the diseases and the symptoms getting scary enough to set her straight.

Send it anyways just because she deserves to be bothered about it, but she's as confident vaccines are dangerous as you are that not vaccinating is dangerous.

 

[gourimoko]

@gouri

Can you send me some of those studies? Hard to weed out the BS from google. I would love to share those with my retarded sister-in-law law who is putting my 3 beautiful nieces and nephews at risk so that she as a parent could have a choice.

Studies showing there is no link between MMR and autism? Sure, I will repost some pretty comprehensive ones tonight. The most compelling is the 2008 study of Japanese children (where there is no triple-shot MMR) who are more than 2x more likely to be in the autism spectrum.

 

[gourimoko]

It should be known that a person that has been vaccinated can still get one of the MMR diseases thanks to mutation, lack of a booster for weaker individuals or weaker immunity (for whatever reason). It isn't just the immunocompromised or unvaccinated at risk. It's a large segment of the population. It's happening right now in California.

Herd immunity not only protects those who can't get vaccinated, but it also guards against mutation that renders the older vaccines obsolete.

99.9% vaccination rates prevent diseases from gaining purchase in a community in the first place, preventing the risk of mutation or exposure of any kind. A virus can't mutate if it doesn't have hosts.

I agree with all of this.

I think the original question is different though.

The original question is should these vaccinations be mandatory?

 

[Sebastian]

I agree with all of this.

I think the original question is different though.

The original question is should these vaccinations be mandatory?

Maybe.

 

[gourimoko]

Maybe.

Lol!

 

[Kouki]

gouri, ignoring any potential snowball effect, and ignoring any seedy doctors who would cheat the law, would you agree with a law that states that children much receive their vaccinations say by the age of 5, so long as they are determined by the doctor to be healthy enough to receive them?

 

[Otsego Mar]

Absolutely not.

 

[gourimoko]

gouri, ignoring any potential snowball effect, and ignoring any seedy doctors who would cheat the law, would you agree with a law that states that children much receive their vaccinations say by the age of 5, so long as they are determined by the doctor to be healthy enough to receive them?

I appreciate the way you worded this question... it's very clear and to the point, and I get what you're asking.

But my honest answer is, no; absolutely not.

It's unconstitutional, and I'd even go so far as saying it's completely unethical.

 

[Kouki]

damn gouri why did you change your handle