Forced Vaccination

Sludge Factory

Shit like this is why I think forced vaccinations are a bad idea.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... erica.html

Claireack

As I understand it the flu vaccine is only effective on the particular flu they are guessing at being around this year.

As a health care worker I get offered it every year but haven't had it yet.

Not sure about the swine flu vaccine, it's going to be really pushed come October when they are expecting there to be a big wave of it. I already know people who have been told they have swine flu and given Tamiflu, which is perculiar as they didn't see a doctor and weren't tested.

I am always a bit wary about vaccinations as I was really ill as I child following them. But it's a tough one, when my son was small I tried to prevent him from having the MMR jab due to the autism concerns. I felt I was bullied and pressurised into getting it with tales of death from the measles etc etc.

Guess at some point I will have to decide what I'm going to do.

_

This topic was raised in my public health class yesterday by a nurse in an HIV clinic where some of the nurses under her supervision don't want to be vaccinated. The bottom line, however, is that when healthcare providers aren't vaccinated, they put their patients at risk. While an individual does have a right to refuse vaccination and take that risk for themselves, but they do not have a right to then make the decision to increase the risk of others by working with sick people.

Sludge Factory

scb wrote:

This topic was raised in my public health class yesterday by a nurse in an HIV clinic where some of the nurses under her supervision don't want to be vaccinated. The bottom line, however, is that when healthcare providers aren't vaccinated, they put their patients at risk. While an individual does have a right to refuse vaccination and take that risk for themselves, but they do not have a right to then make the decision to increase the risk of others by working with sick people.

You can't tell me that health care providers not getting a flu vaccine for what the supposed experts "guess" is going to be the correct strain of flu vaccine is putting their patients at risk. I do not believe it. I think there is just as much chance that the experts are wrong about the strain used in the vaccines as there is a health care provider who didn't get the vaccine putting someone at risk.

arthurdent

Sludge Factory wrote:

I do not believe it.

And THAT is why you fail.


Do you use a condom?

Sludge Factory

arthurdent wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

I do not believe it.

And THAT is why you fail.


Do you use a condom?

Wow, what excellent debating skills you have there!

_

Sludge Factory wrote:

scb wrote:

This topic was raised in my public health class yesterday by a nurse in an HIV clinic where some of the nurses under her supervision don't want to be vaccinated. The bottom line, however, is that when healthcare providers aren't vaccinated, they put their patients at risk. While an individual does have a right to refuse vaccination and take that risk for themselves, but they do not have a right to then make the decision to increase the risk of others by working with sick people.

You can't tell me that health care providers not getting a flu vaccine for what the supposed experts "guess" is going to be the correct strain of flu vaccine is putting their patients at risk. I do not believe it. I think there is just as much chance that the experts are wrong about the strain used in the vaccines as there is a health care provider who didn't get the vaccine putting someone at risk.

Hell yeah, I can tell you that! Healthcare providers go around from one patient to another picking up and spreading all kinds of germs. Saying they shouldn't take precautions like getting vaccinated is like saying they shouldn't have to wash their hands. You can say all you want that handwashing sometimes doesn't work, but that doesn't change the fact that it lowers the overall risk.

We know for a fact that it puts patients at risk when healthcare providers don't take precautions to not spread illness to their patients. That is a fact. If you don't believe it, I'd like to see you agree to be stuck with a dirty needle. To say that we shouldn't take these precautions merely because there's a chance that, on occassion, they might not work is totally unreasonable.

Now, if someone has a personal argument about why they don't want to put these chemicals into their body, that at least has merit as an argument and I don't believe they should be forced to; but of course there will be consequences to that decision.

_

Sludge Factory wrote:

arthurdent wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

I do not believe it.

And THAT is why you fail.


Do you use a condom?

Wow, what excellent debating skills you have there!

Actually, I think it really is an excellent analogy/question. Are you going to answer it?

Sludge Factory

scb wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

scb wrote:

This topic was raised in my public health class yesterday by a nurse in an HIV clinic where some of the nurses under her supervision don't want to be vaccinated. The bottom line, however, is that when healthcare providers aren't vaccinated, they put their patients at risk. While an individual does have a right to refuse vaccination and take that risk for themselves, but they do not have a right to then make the decision to increase the risk of others by working with sick people.

You can't tell me that health care providers not getting a flu vaccine for what the supposed experts "guess" is going to be the correct strain of flu vaccine is putting their patients at risk. I do not believe it. I think there is just as much chance that the experts are wrong about the strain used in the vaccines as there is a health care provider who didn't get the vaccine putting someone at risk.

Hell yeah, I can tell you that! Healthcare providers go around from one patient to another picking up and spreading all kinds of germs. Saying they shouldn't take precautions like getting vaccinated is like saying they shouldn't have to wash their hands. You can say all you want that handwashing sometimes doesn't work, but that doesn't change the fact that it lowers the overall risk.

We know for a fact that it puts patients at risk when healthcare providers don't take precautions to not spread illness to their patients. That is a fact. If you don't believe it, I'd like to see you agree to be stuck with a dirty needle. To say that we shouldn't take these precautions merely because there's a chance that, on occassion, they might not work is totally unreasonable.

Now, if someone has a personal argument about why they don't want to put these chemicals into their body, that at least has merit as an argument and I don't believe they should be forced to; but of course there will be consequences to that decision.

You are assuming that the flu vaccine is actually going to be for the purported seasonal flu outbreak. The past several years they haven't quite gotten the correct strain down so, yeah, I don't see the need for making something mandatory that actually isn't 100% effective like many people try to make it seem.

Here's an example for you: Up until this year, I would get the flu shot every fall just like a great majority of the people, and guess what? That's right, I would still get the flu. Two years ago it was pretty fucking bad too. I basically had to spend several nights in the bathroom next to the toilet. Another example: every year when we get the shots at work, some of the people request that they are done on a Monday simply for the fact that they know from past experience that they get sick from the shot and they don't like being sick over the weekend. A final example: I roomed with a guy who never would get the flu shot and claimed to never have had the flu since he was a child and I can say for certain he never had it the three years I lived with him despite me having it during that time.

These examples are just several that bring to light the fact that not every single person is the same and forcing vaccines for everyone is too broad a stroke to be painted and that includes health care professionals in my opinion.

Sludge Factory

scb wrote:

Actually, I think it really is an excellent analogy/question. Are you going to answer it?

No I am not going to answer it. I don't think it is an excellent analogy/question.

_

Sludge Factory wrote:

You are assuming that the flu vaccine is actually going to be for the purported seasonal flu outbreak. The past several years they haven't quite gotten the correct strain down so, yeah, I don't see the need for making something mandatory that actually isn't 100% effective like many people try to make it seem.

Here's an example for you: Up until this year, I would get the flu shot every fall just like a great majority of the people, and guess what? That's right, I would still get the flu. Two years ago it was pretty fucking bad too. I basically had to spend several nights in the bathroom next to the toilet. Another example: every year when we get the shots at work, some of the people request that they are done on a Monday simply for the fact that they know from past experience that they get sick from the shot and they don't like being sick over the weekend. A final example: I roomed with a guy who never would get the flu shot and claimed to never have had the flu since he was a child and I can say for certain he never had it the three years I lived with him despite me having it during that time.

These examples are just several that bring to light the fact that not every single person is the same and forcing vaccines for everyone is too broad a stroke to be painted and that includes health care professionals in my opinion.

Your anecdotal "evidence" seems to be missing the point. For one thing, no one (in any position of authority over these things) claims or believes it's 100% effective. But it doesn't have to be 100% effective to save lives. Secondly, the examples you give are irrelevant since we're talking about the health of an entire population here... not just some guy who doesn't want his weekend to be ruined by the sniffles.

_

Sludge Factory wrote:

scb wrote:

Actually, I think it really is an excellent analogy/question. Are you going to answer it?

No I am not going to answer it. I don't think it is an excellent analogy/question.

That's kind of a cop-out, don't ya think?

I believe at least part of the point is that preventative measures don't have to be 100% effective in order to be considered successful and worthwhile. Do you disagree?

arthurdent

Sludge Factory wrote:

arthurdent wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

I do not believe it.

And THAT is why you fail.


Do you use a condom?

Wow, what excellent debating skills you have there!

the object of the game isn't to change your mind. The goal is to change the audience's mind. I went quad-ruby in National Forensics League back in the day. :ugeek:

arthurdent

Sludge Factory wrote:

Shit like this is why I think forced vaccinations are a bad idea.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... erica.html

isn't the daily mail the UK's equivalent of Fox News/The National Enquirer. I mean, there's a reason they call it "The Daily Fail."

arthurdent

scb wrote:

I believe at least part of the point is that preventative measures don't have to be 100% effective in order to be considered successful and worthwhile. Do you disagree?

+1


It's also about "bad science" being foisted upon an ignorant populace. The anti-vaccination crowd is no better than the global warming deniers. If the science doesn't agree with your worldview, deny it. This is how science has become overly politicized in recent years. And they can always find some crank who is more than willing to feed into their delusions.

Sludge Factory

scb wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

You are assuming that the flu vaccine is actually going to be for the purported seasonal flu outbreak. The past several years they haven't quite gotten the correct strain down so, yeah, I don't see the need for making something mandatory that actually isn't 100% effective like many people try to make it seem.

Here's an example for you: Up until this year, I would get the flu shot every fall just like a great majority of the people, and guess what? That's right, I would still get the flu. Two years ago it was pretty fucking bad too. I basically had to spend several nights in the bathroom next to the toilet. Another example: every year when we get the shots at work, some of the people request that they are done on a Monday simply for the fact that they know from past experience that they get sick from the shot and they don't like being sick over the weekend. A final example: I roomed with a guy who never would get the flu shot and claimed to never have had the flu since he was a child and I can say for certain he never had it the three years I lived with him despite me having it during that time.

These examples are just several that bring to light the fact that not every single person is the same and forcing vaccines for everyone is too broad a stroke to be painted and that includes health care professionals in my opinion.

Your anecdotal "evidence" seems to be missing the point. For one thing, no one (in any position of authority over these things) claims or believes it's 100% effective. But it doesn't have to be 100% effective to save lives. Secondly, the examples you give are irrelevant since we're talking about the health of an entire population here... not just some guy who doesn't want his weekend to be ruined by the sniffles.

And you are missing my point in that if there are a few examples going on like this for people I know, you can bet there are many other people that are in similar situations. So, no, my examples are not irrelevant.

You can be degrading to me all you want, but even that guy who doesn't want his weekend ruined by the sniffles still gets immunized, but here's the thing, it's his choice even though he still gets sick from it and then gets others sick from it. My point as I just stated, is that people do get sick from the shot, and it isn't hard to believe that some of those very health care professionals you want to force to get immunized will get sick as well and then you defeat the purpose of preventing them from getting their patients sick.

Sludge Factory

scb wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

scb wrote:

Actually, I think it really is an excellent analogy/question. Are you going to answer it?

No I am not going to answer it. I don't think it is an excellent analogy/question.

That's kind of a cop-out, don't ya think?

I believe at least part of the point is that preventative measures don't have to be 100% effective in order to be considered successful and worthwhile. Do you disagree?

No, it is not a cop-out. Too many people try to make their arguments personal on this board and I view that questions as no different.

I do agree with what your last statement, however.

Sludge Factory

arthurdent wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

Shit like this is why I think forced vaccinations are a bad idea.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... erica.html

isn't the daily mail the UK's equivalent of Fox News/The National Enquirer. I mean, there's a reason they call it "The Daily Fail."

Could be, I'm not certain on that. If so I'm all ears on how what was posted there was a bunch of falsities and lies.

_

arthurdent wrote:

+1


It's also about "bad science" being foisted upon an ignorant populace. The anti-vaccination crowd is no better than the global warming deniers. If the science doesn't agree with your worldview, deny it. This is how science has become overly politicized in recent years. And they can always find some crank who is more than willing to feed into their delusions.

Exactly! Well said.

_

Sludge Factory wrote:

And you are missing my point in that if there are a few examples going on like this for people I know, you can bet there are many other people that are in similar situations. So, no, my examples are not irrelevant.

You can be degrading to me all you want, but even that guy who doesn't want his weekend ruined by the sniffles still gets immunized, but here's the thing, it's his choice even though he still gets sick from it and then gets others sick from it. My point as I just stated, is that people do get sick from the shot, and it isn't hard to believe that some of those very health care professionals you want to force to get immunized will get sick as well and then you defeat the purpose of preventing them from getting their patients sick.

First of all, I'm sorry if you thought I was being degrading to you. That wasn't my intention or my sentiment.

My point is not to deny that there are individuals for whom the flu vaccine doesn't work or who get somewhat sick after getting vaccinated. I'm sure you're right about this. My point is that these people have been already been calculated into the risk/benefit analysis of the value of vaccination on the population as a whole, and the fact still remains that vaccination significantly reduces the number of people who die from the flu.

I believe you are saying that mass vaccination of healthcare workers isn't worth it because some people may get sick from the vaccine and then pass that on to their patients, right? But I see two important problems with this argument: 1. WAY fewer people get sick from the vaccine than would have gotten sick without it. 2. For the ones who do get sick, they get a much milder case of the flu that is less likely to kill their patients if they pass it on. As I said, these concerns have already been factored in to the analysis of whether or not vaccination is worthwhile.