Do you agree with mandatory vaccinations?

fishy_fishy

timsey tiger wrote: »

Good news, if it's eggs you are allergic to, any vaccine against the virus that causes covid-19 will not be grown in eggs.

Sadly not eggs, therefore further vaccines off table.

Billgirlylegs

i presume that because there have been 10 pages of arguments that there is a vaccine.
Otherwise the discussion was utterly pointless.

I do hope that when a vaccine is discovered, it isn't by the HSE.

you know - the people who were organising 10000 tests a day over a month ago.
It took them a long time to realise that taking swabs and samples is not "testing".

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it would likely be dodgy as fcuk, that’s why not

Same tosh from you again. The vaccines you cited were ineffective. Hardly "dodge as fcuk" which is just another phrase meant to make it sound more ominous than it actually was.

It is not "Likely" at all, at least not by the data you have offered so far. You would need a lot better data than that to suggest any such "likelihood" without it seeming like paranoia or fear mongering. You have shown a few hundred thousand cases which is 0.5% of a single years output, let alone what % it must be of all the output ever. You are probably more likely to eat metal in a frozen dinner if we look into the statistics on product recalls. And metal in ones dinner is at least "dodgy as fcuk" because the closest analogy to what you suggested is meals that simply do not contain all the nutrition claimed.

You seem to have on ongoing paranoia of injection, blood transfusion and other similar things. And you appear to be clinging to tiny statistics to project that paranoia into fear mongering. But 0.5% is not that likely at all even if it was the correct statistic, rather than just a % of a single years output.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Countries don’t develop vaccines though? Companies develop vaccines

Contradict yourself much? You cited small quantities of failed vaccines from two companies. Off the back of this you said you would be hesitant to take vaccines from China.

So it is in fact you taking the tiny error of two companies, and indicting the entire countries output as a result. Take your own advice. Countries do not make them, companies do. So your fear mongering move of citing the error of two companies and calling into question the output of the entire country is pretty crass.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not interested in having the State compel you to do anything. That’s China’s way of doing things, doesn’t really go down well in Western democracies.

Ehhh our State compels us to do, and not do, things all the time. Paying taxes if you work, and educating your children if you have them springs to mind as examples.

The issue is not whether the state compels us to do things or not, it is WHAT they compel us to do and WHY they choose to do so. The autocracy you seem to see everywhere people express an opinion is simply not actually being espoused by anyone in reality. Which makes your comments about people with different positions to you being out of touch with reality rather comical.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Same tosh from you again.

You’re trying too hard nozz, but I still love ya.

nozzferrahhtoo

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

How many so called PRO CHOICE yes voters will be screaming at people to take their vaccine.

I am not sure that is a fair comparison. Many Pro Choice people like myself were pro choice on abortion because there was only one sentient agent involved, the pregnant woman. The reason I believe in her choice to early term abortion therefore is that she as a sentient agent is choosing what to do with a non-sentient biological structure residing in her body.

With vaccination the discussion is not so clear cut. A choice not to vaccinate is affecting not just you but other actual people. The fetus is not an actual person. The people you could infect are.

Worse, vaccinations are not 100% effective. Their power resides in having enough people take it to achieve the "herd immunity" effect. Being vaccinated against a disease does NOT guarantee you immunity to that disease. So enough people refusing vaccination renders all the tax payers money thrown at the project ineffective. So that is an issue too.

So regardless of whether I come down on the side of mandatory vaccination or not, and currently I am open minded on it, any reference to the Abortion Debate would seem to be a complete red herring. I honestly do not know yet which side on this I fall on. But I recognise awful arguments about it when I hear them.

The first and most important question in the debate for me is the one OEJ rightly raised, even if he raised it really poorly. Which is the question of whether making it mandatory actually achieves what it should or not. Until that question is answered, I find it hard to pick sides on the matter.

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Funny his own children don't get the jabs.

Do you have access to his family medical records or something? Last time I heard from them on the matter was in April 2019 as world immunisation week approached when Melinda Gates released a statement that all three of her kids were fully up to date on vaccines in fact.

Of course only have her word for this that it is true, but I am questioning why I would take the word of a random forum user OVER hers in this matter either?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re trying too hard nozz, but I still love ya.

Run Forest, run!!

Telling people that a vaccine is likely, let alone very likely, to be dodgy is dangerous, malicious, scare mongering misinformation. I am glad to see you have no rebuttal or follow up or ACTUAL evidence to back up any of it. And I hope anyone here reading this who might have had their choices affected by your misinformation sees this too.

Rotweiler

@OP

Your attitude gave me two thoughts:

1) You have already decided and seem like you are not open to debate
2) IF people thought like you did, nobody could travel to Asia and other southern continents without having yellow fever and meningitis vaccine or worse die far from their homeland.

You should understand that this possible vaccine is not para flu so it can be optional. It is para corona. Therefore, if people like you decide, ver well! But you should be limited to travel anywhere but Ireland.

4068ac1elhodqr

At the same time, using a similar assumption in light of this severe respiratory based COVID.

Can/should we ban any smokers (a senseless form of self pleasure, harm and infliction) from ventilators, when other folks might be in need of them.
Or at least for others to be given a significant preference over them, this might also apply to other treatments too perhaps e.g. Lung cancers.

Courtney Weak Gazebo

Courtney Weak Gazebo wrote: »

At the same time, using a similar assumption in light of this severe respiratory based COVID.

Can/should we ban any smokers (a senseless form of self pleasure, harm and infliction) from ventilators, when other folks might be in need of them.
Or at least for others to be given a significant preference over them, this might also apply to other treatments too perhaps e.g. Lung cancers.

People are risk assessed on ward level before admission to ICU. Smoking status/ history of cancer would be taken into consideration here. It's a complex review.

nozzferrahhtoo

Courtney Weak Gazebo wrote: »

Can/should we ban any smokers (a senseless form of self pleasure, harm and infliction) from ventilators, when other folks might be in need of them.
Or at least for others to be given a significant preference over them, this might also apply to other treatments too perhaps e.g. Lung cancers.

I hope the latter will happen naturally without any formal rules or bans. If medical equipment becomes a severe bottle neck in the system then doctors on the front lines are likely going to have to make hard choices in the moment about whether to give a resource to patient A or patient B.

And I would like to think/hope that such doctors when confronted with one patient who is suffering from some kind of life long self abuse, and one who was merely unfortunate enough to meet an infected person, that they will choose the latter pretty much every time.

And I say that with a 50 year old Brother who has been a 40 a day since he was a teenager. He can barely walk without wheezing to death these days. I am pretty sure a C19 infection is a 95% sure death sentence for him. But I also know him well enough to know that he would likely make that decision before the doctor did and would hand over his equipment the moment someone else needed it too.

However I do not wish that choice on any doctor. Even when the right choice is clear, being the one who actually MAKES it will likely never not be hell for all but the most strong minded of people.

4068ac1elhodqr

Deleted User wrote: »

People are risk assessed on ward level before admission to ICU. Smoking status/ history of cancer would be taken into consideration here. It's a complex review.

So might as well take that as a (complex) yes then.

In light of the COVID19 severe pandemic, should this not be increased even further, and given a simpler 'yes'

e.g. Do you (choose) to smoke (self-harm your own respiratory system, and other health aspects, for addictive pleasure)? A.Yes
Then you are in the bottom of the pile for access to the ventilators, take a seat and wait for your number to be called (if called).

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The first and most important question in the debate for me is the one OEJ rightly raised, even if he raised it really poorly. Which is the question of whether making it mandatory actually achieves what it should or not. Until that question is answered, I find it hard to pick sides on the matter.

That’s not the question I raised. I know that an attempt to make vaccines mandatory in Ireland simply wouldn’t work. The point of vaccines being to eradicate disease, the objective of posters here who advocate mandatory vaccination seems to be an attempt to lord it over people they see as beneath them, that can therefore be denied public services if they don’t comply with mandatory vaccination.

You’re sitting on the fence, robinph is more interested in why I wouldn’t volunteer to be among the first to be vaccinated with a vaccine developed in China, when all I was actually looking for, is a simple yes or no from the people who are advocating “mandatory vaccination or else”. In reality they simply don’t have the power to implement the societal restrictions they dream of, that’s why I suggested they were detached from reality.

Courtney Weak Gazebo

Courtney Weak Gazebo wrote: »

So might as well take that as a (complex) yes then.

In light of the COVID19 severe pandemic, should this not be increased even further, and given a simpler 'yes'

e.g. Do you (choose) to smoke (self-harm your own respiratory system, and other health aspects, for addictive pleasure)? A.Yes
Then you are in the bottom of the pile for access to the ventilators, take a seat and wait for your number to be called (if called).

Not particularly. If we are to do this about smoking, I think it would be fair to include alcohol (which costs the HSE more than smoking).

endacl

timmy_mallet wrote: »

"Our"

Yep. We the rational.

4068ac1elhodqr

Deleted User wrote: »

Not particularly.

Don't understand, are you now saying instead smokers should be given equal access to ventilators, it's a yes/no question. Using "it's complex" is a cop-out.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not particularly.

If we are to do this about smoking, I think it would be fair to include alcohol (which costs the HSE more than smoking).[/QUOTE]


Perhaps so, e.g. if enforcing vaccines, no reason to enforce people away from smoking. Maybe an actual vaccine against nicotine?



Drinking is a bit more tricky as very small regular amounts can be good and also socially beneficial. Maybe some sort of limit would work. E.g. Once you exceed 20units in a week, there is severe penalty enforced.

pgj2015

JDMC2 wrote: »

I suppose it’s each to their own. I have an acquaintance who doesn’t believe in vaccines. We’re on a group chat together. I’ve asked her twice if she will get herself and her kids vaccinated when we get one for Covid-19......I’m still awaiting a response....not sure I’ll ever know

you asked her twice? it is none of your business, just worry about yourself and leave other people to parent the way they see fit.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not the question I raised. I know that an attempt to make vaccines mandatory in Ireland simply wouldn’t work.

No. You have DECIDED they won't work. You have offered zero evidence for this assertion however. And in fact the claim is so vague I do not think it is even POSSIBLE to substantiate the claim?

Why? Because as I said in the post you dodged/ignored you would have to know what form making it mandatory would take. What it would entail. How it would be enforced. What form punishment for noncompliance would take. And much more.

Until an actual program is suggested, no one can actually claim coherently or honestly it will or will not work.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point of vaccines being to eradicate disease

That is the ideal but by no means solely "the point" of them no. Quite often for example the "point" of a program against a disease is to mitigate it enough so that it does not overly impact our medical systems. That is for example the main agenda of the current lock down.

Ideally a vaccine will eradicate a disease yes, but it is by no means the sole point or goal.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the objective of posters here who advocate mandatory vaccination seems to be an attempt to lord it over people they see as beneath them

"seems" is the only word there that is all that valid, and "seem to me" would have made it more valid because it SEEMS TO ME you are pretending to be psychic and ascribing tones, motivations and agendas to people to suit yourself. Which you alas do often.

I would find it more useful and honest to ask the people who advocate for such a move, why THEY feel they advocate for such a move. I suspect asking you what THEIR motivations are is contraindicated as you seem to me likely to straw man rather than strong man their agendas to feed your obvious paranoia around injections of blood, medicines or other medical interventions of the sort.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

when all I was actually looking for, is a simple yes or no

It seems just as likely that "all you are looking for" is a chance to spread dangerous misinformation such as claiming tat a vaccines from that source will "likely be dodgy as fcuk" when in fact not one citation from you so far shows it to be anything but very unlikely that you will receive anything but on grade product.

There is a reason I do not post on threads about subjects I know nothing about. While I do not take myself too seriously, I still move to TREAT my words as seriously because I know someone MIGHT read them and take them on board.

Someone MIGHT read your unsubstantiated scare mongering misinformation and have their medical choices affected by it. Two people might. 100 people might. It is not just with great power comes responsibility. I think morally we have a responsibility not to espouse nonsense dangerous opinions that MIGHT impact others. While I might not take myself seriously, and others likely don't either, I still think it morally reprehensible to do anything but ACT like they do. So I take care with the information I spread.

Would that you would consider doing same.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In reality they simply don’t have the power to implement the societal restrictions they dream of, that’s why I suggested they were detached from reality.

I do not think they claim to have that power? Much like the guy who expressed his opinion and you accused him of thinking this was an autocracy, this is a forum where people express their ideals about how things SHOULD be. The thread title is "Do you agree with mandatory vaccinations" not "do you think you have the power to make mandatory vaccinations happen".

The question being what we agree with and why, not what we imagine we can or can not bring to pass. That would be a different thread with a different title.

Kilboor

If I don't get the vaccine and you have it then what worry is me carrying the virus to you?

Furthermore if I already had the virus and have antibodies why would I get a vaccine?

Furthermore why should I trust the long term effects of a vaccine developed quickly by a corporation (most likely J&J who have been responsible for cancer from talcum powder in babies) when it was developed within a year?

Also I'm 25 years old, statistically the chances of me getting seriously ill or even dying from Covid 19 are probably not far off the chances from the regular flu, why should I be forced to get a vaccine or treated differently for not getting one?

I'm not against vaccines especially those that have been tested over the long term amongst a large population base, especially for children. But mandatory vaccines for a flu, I'm alright thank you. I'll safeguard that ounce of liberty especially from corporations.

One eyed Jack

Courtney Weak Gazebo wrote: »

Don't understand, are you now saying instead smokers should be given equal access to ventilators, it's a yes/no question. Using "it's complex" is a cop-out.

...

Drinking is a bit more tricky as very small regular amounts can be good and also socially beneficial. Maybe some sort of limit would work. E.g. Once you exceed 20units in a week, there is severe penalty enforced.

I think the poster is stating for a fact that whether a patient is a smoker or not, is not the sole determining factor in the type of treatment they are given. Drinking isn’t any more tricky than smoking in terms of determining factors in the type of treatments patients receive. This is something that seems to be coming up a lot as though treating people for various conditions is somehow based upon the notion of how “deserving” they are according to that persons specific set of criteria.

mickdw

Question re vaccine. If there is no natural immunity in people who have got through this virus, can there be a vaccine at all.
I thought vaccines work by introducing an amount of the virus allowing us to fight that and therby build immunity.
Professor luke o neill last night seemed to be of the opinion also that if there is no immunity in those who have had the virus, a vaccine might be a complete non runner.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kilboor wrote: »

If I don't get the vaccine and you have it then what worry is me carrying the virus to you?

It is a good question, but thankfully the answer is simple.

It is a common misconception that a vaccine makes you immune to infection. It does not. You can have any vaccine and STILL get the infection. So there is still an issue with you carrying it to me.

What vaccination does it reduce the probability you will get infection. The reason you want others vaccinated too is that it reduces that probability further.

Put simply, a vaccination program is not to reduce the likelihood you will be infected, but the likelihood you will even become exposed to BE infected.

Finally the reason we try to get as many vaccinated as possible is that large numbers of vaccinated ACT like a vaccination for those people who themselves for many reasons can not get it. This is one aspect of the term "herd immunity" you hear often. You vaccinate not to keep you safe (not just anyway) but to keep safe all those who can not get that vaccine.

Kilboor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a good question, but thankfully the answer is simple.

It is a common misconception that a vaccine makes you immune to infection. It does not. You can have any vaccine and STILL get the infection. So there is still an issue with you carrying it to me.

What vaccination does it reduce the probability you will get infection. The reason you want others vaccinated too is that it reduces that probability further.

Put simply, a vaccination program is not to reduce the likelihood you will be infected, but the likelihood you will even become exposed to BE infected.

Finally the reason we try to get as many vaccinated as possible is that large numbers of vaccinated ACT like a vaccination for those people who themselves for many reasons can not get it. This is one aspect of the term "herd immunity" you hear often. You vaccinate not to keep you safe (not just anyway) but to keep safe all those who can not get that vaccine.

Interesting thank you, I actually may have had Covid-19, I know someone I live with had it and I had a relatively bad cough for a week and self isolated the required amount of time. However, this could mean in theory I have antibodies, would a vaccine still be required (if I have antibodies).


Also my other points regarding corporations and not great track records. I would be wary as someone in the age range whereby I'd be a statistical anomaly to get extremely sick from Covid 19.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kilboor wrote: »

Interesting thank you, I actually may have had Covid-19, I know someone I live with had it and I had a relatively bad cough for a week and self isolated the required amount of time. However, this could mean in theory I have antibodies, would a vaccine still be required (if I have antibodies).

Again the simple answer is we do not know yet. We are not even sure yet if the antibodies are ones that last forever, or a short time.

Our body reacts differently to different infections. SOME antibodies stay wit us for life. Others only for a period of time.

If we are very lucky, the infected will develop life long immunity. WE HOPE!

If we are a bit unlucky the infection will require a seasonal vaccine much like the flu does now. This is not TOO bad an outcome.

If we are horrendously unlucky, it'll be a virus that evades all of the above and we will simply have to live with it. Which means things like "lock down" will only defer the inevitable and we would be better off spending this time and money on increasing ICU and other ways to treat the people who are affected badly, and just get on with life!

Alas the simple answer to your question: Wait and see.

Here is a video on the matter if my presentation is too long and boring:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KBLtUBr1Os

Kilboor wrote: »

Also my other points regarding corporations and not great track records. I would be wary as someone in the age range whereby I'd be a statistical anomaly to get extremely sick from Covid 19.

Always good to be wary, but be sure you are being wary with good cause. For example it SOUNDED scarey when OEJ said one corporation put out 400,000 dodgy vaccines. That would scare me! But the reality is A) This was 0.5% of one year product, in other words hardly any % of all they ever produced and the only "dodgy" thing about it was it was ineffective. It did not actually do anything bad.

So by all means be wary! Read, learn, listen! But be sure when you make a final decision, it is based on actual worthwhile reasons and not the scare mongering of an anti vaxxer.

Downlinz

mickdw wrote: »

Question re vaccine. If there is no natural immunity in people who have got through this virus, can there be a vaccine at all.
I thought vaccines work by introducing an amount of the virus allowing us to fight that and therby build immunity.
Professor luke o neill last night seemed to be of the opinion also that if there is no immunity in those who have had the virus, a vaccine might be a complete non runner.

I think that's correct. There's also the possibility of the immunity window being very short to a degree where it's pointless to vaccinate.

CelticRambler

robinph wrote: »

I really can't see any country being allowed to get away with keeping it for themselves. There is also just as likely to be multiple versions developed simultaneously, but wherever it emerges from they will not be able to produce it in the numbers required for 7 billion people and so production will be farmed out around the world. Any country that happens to develop a vaccine first but then refuses to license it to other labs around the world might briefly find themselves ahead of the game economically, but the rest of the world will develop their own soon enough afterwards and will not be looking kindly on whoever was keeping it to themselves.

Assuming this thread is specifically about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and not anti-vaxxing in general, as a firm proponent (and giver) of vaccines I would vehemently oppose mandatory vaccination.

Just about all the popular discussion on this topic since "Covid-19" entered our daily vocabulary makes the comparison between coronaviruses and all the other viruses against which we have vaccines. But coronaviruses do not behave like the others, and they do not interact with our immune system like the others. Despite more than 50 years' worth of attempts to get a vaccine against any coronavirus infection in any species, none of them work, because either (a) the vaccine doesn't provoke immunity (antibodies, yes, but no meaningful immunity); or (b) it triggers an almighty, often fatal, immune response ... and still no long-last protection against future infections (if you survive).

So if any vaccine becomes available, I would want to see the research showing that it is effective at protecting those whose immune systems are most likely to go into overdrive when exposed to a real-world strain of SARS-CoV, and the socio-economic data showing that giving millions of doses to people who aren't going to respond at all to an injection is a good use of a health service's resources.

Given the kack-handed response of most countries to this pandemic, I wouldn't have any faith in getting a satisfactory answer to either of those demands, and would be inclined to think that any country with a government bringing in mandatory vaccination on the grounds of that kind of dodgy science was no place to live (or visit).

Zaph

Zaph wrote: »

I think it's impossible to enforce mandatory vaccinations, but anyone who refuses to get one should be banned from public transport and their children banned from schools and creches indefinitely. Your body, your choice, fair enough. But my body chooses not to be exposed to something that has a higher chance of killing me than most people due to a medical condition.

I would be very reluctant to have the vaccine. Mainly because it’ll be years before possible side effects are known.

Kilboor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again the simple answer is we do not know yet. We are not even sure yet if the antibodies are ones that last forever, or a short time.

Our body reacts differently to different infections. SOME antibodies stay wit us for life. Others only for a period of time.

If we are very lucky, the infected will develop life long immunity. WE HOPE!

If we are a bit unlucky the infection will require a seasonal vaccine much like the flu does now. This is not TOO bad an outcome.

If we are horrendously unlucky, it'll be a virus that evades all of the above and we will simply have to live with it. Which means things like "lock down" will only defer the inevitable and we would be better off spending this time and money on increasing ICU and other ways to treat the people who are affected badly, and just get on with life!

Alas the simple answer to your question: Wait and see.

Here is a video on the matter if my presentation is too long and boring:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KBLtUBr1Os



Always good to be wary, but be sure you are being wary with good cause. For example it SOUNDED scarey when OEJ said one corporation put out 400,000 dodgy vaccines. That would scare me! But the reality is A) This was 0.5% of one year product, in other words hardly any % of all they ever produced and the only "dodgy" thing about it was it was ineffective. It did not actually do anything bad.

So by all means be wary! Read, learn, listen! But be sure when you make a final decision, it is based on actual worthwhile reasons and not the scare mongering of an anti vaxxer.

Thanks appreciate your points a lot, you are reasonable with your approach as am I, however I would argue 0.5% is quite a high number, unacceptable even. It matches probably the statistical chance of me dying from covid 19.

Another thing as well and this is a little annoyance of mine, your capitalisation of certain words comes across as condescending, I see it a lot on Reddit. Don't know if this bothers anyone else but I've never been a fan.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. You have DECIDED they won't work.

Well yes, of course I decided that an attempt to make vaccines mandatory in Ireland wouldn’t work. The vaccines themselves offer little protection if there isn’t sufficient numbers to provide for herd immunity either way. Attempting to make vaccines mandatory would likely have the opposite effect in a society where people tend to value individual liberty over collective conformity.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kilboor wrote: »

Thanks appreciate your points a lot, you are reasonable with your approach as am I, however I would argue 0.5% is quite a high number, unacceptable even.

I should have been clearer here. It was 400k of dud product from their product line ever.

It is ME taking their output from one year and showing this is only 0.5% but that figure is pretty meaningless.

The more correct figure would be to take 400k as a % of their entire output ever! Which is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than 0.5% in reality.

So the quantity of dud product out of their entire output ever, is pretty infinitesimal in reality.

Further the "dud" aspect of it was simply that it did nothing. It's not like this harmed anyone. Compare this to.... for example.... product recall of frozen dinners because they were found to contain metal or something.

This is not the scandal it sounds like! But the company who made the error was still rightfully fined for millions, and this is a good thing. We need to keep standards high in this sector.

Kilboor wrote: »

Another thing as well and this is a little annoyance of mine, your capitalisation of certain words comes across as condescending, I see it a lot on Reddit. Don't know if this bothers anyone else but I've never been a fan.

I think you are.... the third person ever to mention it. Not enough for me to consider changing. It is not meant to be condescending. It is just my "voice" on here. Just like we all talk in different voices, we can type in them too. Consider by CAPS to be like my "accent" on here.

The reason for it though is I am old enough to be an early internet adopter. The very early days of things like IRC and Usenet. Back then we did not have Bold, Italics and Underline very often as people today are privileged to now. So adding tonal weight to words through the use of caps was just the "accent" I developed. And asking me to change it now at this late stage in my life (I am 41) is a bit like meeting a 41 year old Aussie and asking him to change his accent because you do not like it

He likely won't, but equally likely he probably feels he CANT even if he wanted to.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well yes, of course I decided that an attempt to make vaccines mandatory in Ireland wouldn’t work.

Great. But until you have any evidence for such a decision to offer, as none has been forthcoming yet, we should do nothing but take this to be your fantasy at this time.

Later the fantasy may be vindicated, I could not care less either way. I just want us to find the truth. And we are not going to get there by assertion alone.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Attempting to make vaccines mandatory would likely have the opposite effect in a society where people tend to value individual liberty over collective conformity.

Again, entirely depends how it is done. I am JUST old enough to remember the resistance people had to seat belts. But now most people use them as second nature without even thinking about it.

To decide if it will work or not I will have to wait and see HOW they plan to make it mandatory and WHO it will be mandatory for. Without that, declaring by fiat it will or will not work is just fantasy. And when it comes from someone who makes many of the same noises I hear from Anti Vaxxers, becomes even more questionable and suspect.

Kilboor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I should have been clearer here. It was 400k of dud product from their product line ever.

It is ME taking their output from one year and showing this is only 0.5% but that figure is pretty meaningless.

The more correct figure would be to take 400k as a % of their entire output ever! Which is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than 0.5% in reality.

So the quantity of dud product out of their entire output ever, is pretty infinitesimal in reality.

Further the "dud" aspect of it was simply that it did nothing. It's not like this harmed anyone. Compare this to.... for example.... product recall of frozen dinners because they were found to contain metal or something.

This is not the scandal it sounds like! But the company who made the error was still rightfully fined for millions, and this is a good thing. We need to keep standards high in this sector.



I think you are.... the third person ever to mention it. Not enough for me to consider changing. It is not meant to be condescending. It is just my "voice" on here. Just like we all talk in different voices, we can type in them too. Consider by CAPS to be like my "accent" on here.

The reason for it though is I am old enough to be an early internet adopter. The very early days of things like IRC and Usenet. Back then we did not have Bold, Italics and Underline very often as people today are privileged to now. So adding tonal weight to words through the use of caps was just the "accent" I developed. And asking me to change it now at this late stage in my life (I am 41) is a bit like meeting a 41 year old Aussie and asking him to change his accent because you do not like it

He likely won't, but equally likely he probably feels he CANT even if he wanted to.

Forget I mentioned it then that's a good analogy


Fair enough on the rest too. I'll never be anti vaccine but of course wary.