Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Do you agree with mandatory vaccinations?
Options
Comments
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »What’s this, an attempt to counter BS with even more BS?
People who do not wish to vaccinate either themselves or their children if they have any, are not causing anyone’s death. It’s the infection or illness or disease that could possibly cause a persons death, and that could be from an infinite number of possible causes (like licking a toilet seat).
Really because the increasing numbers of measles deaths because some parents are idiots would indicate that your on the wrong track there.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
RFID is now outdated (but still an available option if desired).CinemaGuy45 wrote: »
The very latest technology is something far less invasive, more advanced, azure-blockchain, universal, and simply 'next-generation' in it's nature.
"Quantum-dot tattoos hold vaccination record" (and all other personal data)
https://bioengineering.rice.edu/news/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
CinemaGuy45 wrote: »PS mods that is a joke I am responding to a silly post.
Nothing silly about it, but if calling something "silly" is all the response you can muster that says more about you than my post.
The point of it is that when we implement programs, like therapies or medicine, we do so knowing that it is likely.... nay almost guranteed.... to harm someone somewhere.
But we make that choice in light of the knowledge that the good far outweighs the bad.
Rolling out a particular medical intervention might prevent 1000s getting sick, or help 1000s who do get sick, and improve the well being and quality of life of 1000s more. But it will ALSO cause harm to a small few.
This is true of many, maybe even nearly all, medical interventions. Not just Vaccines.
The question asked was how do we "feel" about this fact. The answer is of course we feel bad about it. Why wouldn't we? But feeling bad about it does not change what we believe to be the right thing to do.One eyed Jack wrote: »I can say on the basis of current evidence that an attempt to introduce mandatory vaccination by way of depriving people public services who refuse to vaccinate would not have the effect of forcing people to vaccinate under threat of being deprived of public services.
Yet you have not offered any such evidence at all. So what "current evidence" you speak of remains a mystery to me. You appear to simply be making it up.
There are way too many details missing from how it would be done, policed, executed, and followed up on that we need to know before we could be sure at all.One eyed Jack wrote: »You’re just sitting on the fence with no opinion either way.
Oh I have an opinion. I just do not claim knowledge of how it will or will not pan out if we try it. Much different. I am entirely open minded on what the results will be given the low level of evidence, especially from you.
My OPINION on it is another matter and I would say my opinion would be that depending on the efficacy of the vaccine in question (still an unknown) I would like to see it tried but only if it is tried well, and tried as PART of an overall much larger multi faceted program of addressing the underlying reasons for lack of uptake. I would absolutely NOT like to see it tried in isolation as a "Throw legislation at it and hope for the best" kind of cop out move. And I see no evidence, least of all from you, to merely assume by fiat that it will be a failure. That is your fantasy, and I do not share it.One eyed Jack wrote: »You accused me of this earlier so I think it’s reasonable to assume you’re referring to me. I wasn’t name calling
"Ill informed numbnuts" is not name calling? Only in your fantasy world I think.One eyed Jack wrote: »when I wasn’t even the first poster to make the point that it wouldn’t work. You overlooked this one which also made claims they had no evidence for -
What has being "first" got to do with anything? Usually when I join a thread and the same position has been espoused by multiple people, I do not reply to ALL of them when merely replying to the most recent one is enough.
Further I overlook nothing. I choose which posts to reply to on more than simply the position they are espousing, but also how they espouse it and what they choose to say in support of their position. The post you cited merely asserted a position. Not much material there for me to reply to, so I CHOOSE not to.
Yours however included citations, quoted and links and there was much more material there to get the teeth into and a lot more error and misrepresentation and distortion there to clean up, rebut, and clarify.
The victim persecution complex is not a good look. Still a nice move to dodge responding to any of my actual on topic points, and merely rabbit hole the conversation into something else entirely. Why answer any point I addressed at you when you can dodge and merely talk about me addressing you at all instead?
0 -
blueythebear wrote: »As has already been pointed out, smokers and drinkers pay extra tax on those products. Some of those monies are ringfenced for research into the effects of both. Similarly a sugar tax is now imposed on some products.
Really the point is, that in a post corona world there may arise a requirement that everyone gets vaccinated. If they choose not to and in the absence of a medical condition preventing a vaccination, then something has to be done.
They cannot be forced to have it but not getting vaccinated by choice needs to have reasonable consequences put in place to protect everyone else from their poor or selfish choices.
Yes, the point is that those extra taxes are on products, they’re not income tax. Everyone pays the same for them no matter what the persons income, same as everyone pays the same for a public healthcare system and everyone has the same opportunity to avail of the public healthcare system, no matter what ails them. People who smoke, drink, etc do not pay more for their healthcare than someone who doesn’t drink or smoke (as it happens I also enjoy copious amounts coffee with my three spoons of sugar
). Look basically I’m incredibly unhealthy. My brother who’s a fitness freak has cost the State a considerable amount in terms of the number of injuries he’s been hospitalised for. My private healthcare insurance covered my hip replacement, his treatment was provided courtesy of the State.
Really the point is that if there is a requirement for everyone to be vaccinated, then there’s likely to be a huge amount of public money pissed down the drain on an ineffective vaccine programme, simply because there’s nothing Government can do apart from try to guilt trip and coerce and beg people to get vaccinated. They won’t put any consequences in place because that doesn’t endear people to trust in an organisation they don’t trust already, whether that be the HSE, Tusla or the Government of the day.
Put simply - you’ll have to come up with a better strategy for convincing anyone of the benefits of vaccination programmes while at the same time convincing them that they should trust someone they don’t.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement