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
-
Fair enough on the rest too. I'll never be anti vaccine but of course wary.
Good. Pays to be that way on all medication actually. Not just the one people have conspiracy theories about
Doctors often prescribe badly, or even unnecessarily, and it helps to always be wary and always check things yourself. And make a fuss if you are not happy. We all have to advocate for our own best health.
Be vigilant, nor paranoid. I think thats the catch phrase of one of the You Tube Doctors I follow, but now I am doubting myself Its something like that though.That's perhaps collectivisation not a democratic society ... A worrying road even if for vaccinations it's right. Surely we have a better way forward than discriminating against people who want liberty
Yet liberty should always have it's limits. While we should not squander it pointlessly, we should not cling to every aspect of it jealously either. I do not think for example you should have the liberty to drink heavily and drive a car. No amount of screaming for liberty and autonomy of personal choice and freedom will ever likely change my mind on that.
We give up SOME aspects of liberty when we enter pretty much ANY relationship. Be it with a child, a romantic partner, or a society.One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s already been suggested in the thread that it should be made mandatory contingent on those who are not vaccinated with a particular vaccine being denied public services!
That's just a suggestion of ONE possibility which is their opinion and no more fact than your conclusion making them mandatory will not work in this country. You are speculating it will not work based on nothing, they are speculating that it will be done that way based on nothing.
Nothing wrong with speculating for sure. But declarations by fiat that the whole enterprise of trying to make them mandatory will not work regardless..... thats the realm of fantasy from an anti vaxxer and little more.
Denying access to school to unvaccinated children is one very viable approach. But it too has to be mediated and done right. There are statistics showing this worked well in some areas of the US for example. There are statistics from OTHER areas of the US that SEEM to suggest it worked well.... but in fact they simply ignore the fact that in those areas there was a sudden massive increase in home schooling. So it can go either way, depending on the nuance and specifics of the execution and the environment.
There is no simplistic approach therefore that we can merely decree will or will not work. There is too much nuance and specifics we need to do it right.
But I can think of 100 other ways of doing it. Fines. Imprisonment. Negation of Medical Insurance. Social Welfare. Reward schemes. And much more. For example simply denying people kindergarten spaces outright is an approach. But not the only one. Another approach is the government can subsidise kindergartens that do demand it, and not ones that do not. If parents do not vaccinate, they can just go to the kindergartens with the MUCH higher premiums. Just like you suggested the Irish do not like being told what to do, I think another attribute of the Irish is they recognise a good financial offer when they see one Not saying thats the way to go. Just saying there are innumerable ideas we can work with.
But again, a simple legislation is as even your own initial link rightly pointed out, just a short term measure and it needs to be part of a holistic multi faceted approach to working on uptake.
Niehter you or I can say outside fantasy it does or does not work, will or will not work, given the current evidence. What I think we both CAN safely say, is that doing it in isolation and doing bugger all else.... is very likely to fail. As it does in many situations where we do nothing but throw legislation at an issue. Legislation should nearly always be a tool in the arsenal, not the entire plan of attack.
For example I think one of the most recognised issues with vaccination uptake is that they are a victim of their own success. Vaccinations are in fact SO good at what they do that many maybe most of us have the privilege of never having seen the diseases they prevent. So the public less and less see the point of them. A bit like the "Sure the lock down did nothing, we hardly had any infections at all" miss the point that possibly the lockdown is WHY we did not see many infections as we could have....... people who have never seen cases of the diseases vaccines prevent can be found saying "Sure whats the point, no one is getting these diseases anyway!". So one prong in our multipronged campaign should be to find a way to counter act that complacency. Who knows how? Maybe shock jock videos going through hospitals in places where those diseases are rampant, in a similar fashion to the shock aspect of anti drink driving videos is a way to go there.One eyed Jack wrote: »You appear to be attempting to have a different discussion entirely.
More fantasy from you.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
timmy_mallet wrote: »Whataboutery.
Hiw do you feel about know side effects, including death, for kids of certain vaccines?
I am not sure why "feelings" would come into that one. It is a decision we need to make on hard data alone. And I have empathy for both extremes of that debate.
Let's move away from vaccines if they trigger you and think of a different issue. A couple of years ago there was data suggesting that Simulated Child Sex Dolls reduced the tendency for pedophiles to offend, or reoffend, sexually against children.
Now imagine you were the leader of Ireland and someone told you based on the data "Look 10000 kids will be abused next year. If we do the doll program however only 6000 will be abused. This 6000 will be made up of 5900 from the original 10000.... in that the dolls will prevent 4100 crimes.... but 100 kids will be abused who would NOT have been but for our program."
Imagine having to make that decision??? It can not be easy. One extreme will say "6000 is much less than 10000, we absolutely need to do this" but the other extreme will say "100 innocents will be harmed, who otherwise will not be, due to our actions! We can not do this!!!".
And neither side there is really "wrong". Both of their concerns are legitimate.
So back to Vaccines. Yes.... if you roll out a vaccination program to a mass of people then SOME SMALL NUMBER of those people will be harmed who otherwise will not be. But many other would be saved, illness prevented, well being protected, and more.
So how do I "feel" about the harm that is caused that small number? I feel genuinely awful about it, and I am glad we do everything we can to minimise that number, and support those who need it. I hope/wish we could do more.
But I absolutely fall into category 1 above and do not see the small amount of harm, and even death, caused by this as negating the MASSIVE amount of good it does instead.
It's the same for anything. Example: Cancer treatment prolongs the lives of many. It shortens the lives of others however. However we do tat treatment knowing we will harm some, because we know it helps and even saves many others.CinemaGuy45 wrote: »It is always the sign of weak and morally bankrupt argument when one has to resort to name calling.
True! In fact I can show you at least one poster who did not just resort to it on this thread but LED with it as an opener. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am not sure why "feelings" would come into that one. It is a decision we need to make on hard data alone. And I have empathy for both extremes of that debate.
Let's move away from vaccines if they trigger you and think of a different issue. A couple of years ago there was data suggesting that Simulated Child Sex Dolls reduced the tendency for pedophiles to offend, or reoffend, sexually against children.
Now imagine you were the leader of Ireland and someone told you based on the data "Look 10000 kids will be abused next year. If we do the doll program however only 6000 will be abused. This 6000 will be made up of 5900 from the original 10000.... in that the dolls will prevent 4100 crimes.... but 100 kids will be abused who would NOT have been but for our program."
Imagine having to make that decision??? It can not be easy. One extreme will say "6000 is much less than 10000, we absolutely need to do this" but the other extreme will say "100 innocents will be harmed, who otherwise will not be, due to our actions! We can not do this!!!".
And neither side there is really "wrong". Both of their concerns are legitimate.
So back to Vaccines. Yes.... if you roll out a vaccination program to a mass of people then SOME SMALL NUMBER of those people will be harmed who otherwise will not be. But many other would be saved, illness prevented, well being protected, and more.
So how do I "feel" about the harm that is caused that small number? I feel genuinely awful about it, and I am glad we do everything we can to minimise that number, and support those who need it. I hope/wish we could do more.
But I absolutely fall into category 1 above and do not see the small amount of harm, and even death, caused by this as negating the MASSIVE amount of good it does instead.
It's the same for anything. Example: Cancer treatment prolongs the lives of many. It shortens the lives of others however. However we do tat treatment knowing we will harm some, because we know it helps and even saves many others.
True! In fact I can show you at least one poster who did not just resort to it on this thread but LED with it as an opener.
Jesus that is some imagination you have there.
My solution I would give pedos exploding dolls wait till they are out of range of everybody else and them bang.:D
PS mods that is a joke I am responding to a silly post.0 -
-
-
-
CinemaGuy45 wrote: »If I had my way all those kind of people would be rounded up and sent to one of Kims work camps.
Aren't you the same guy who thinks all these preventative measures are stupid regardless of who dies.CinemaGuy45 wrote: »It is always the sign of weak and morally bankrupt argument when one has to resort to name calling.
You both have likened my comments to communist regime and camps and yet you try and take the high ground and say i am name calling. Turn about is fair play as they say.
Secondly the reason why healthy people who have a choice should be limited from public services is that there are immuno compromised people who do not have a choice.
So why should we remove the choice from those who are vulnerable, let those who want to take a stand against vaccines live with the consequences of that decision.0 -
-
-
-
Sure they can eat.
Just dont go to a restaurant where your stuoidity endangers others.
you are they type of person that would have stood by and cheered as the church and government forced women into the laundries and stole their babies to be sold to wealthy Americans. a good little citizen who does what they are told,not able to think for yourself. well done.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »True! In fact I can show you at least one poster who did not just resort to it on this thread but LED with it as an opener.
You accused me of this earlier so I think it’s reasonable to assume you’re referring to me. I wasn’t name calling or anything like it. I was making a statement of fact -One eyed Jack wrote: »Ill-informed numbnuts are inevitably going to declare that vaccines should be compulsory, or mandatory on condition of depriving people of services. It’s the authoritarian wishful thinker coming out in them (no vaccine for that yet unfortunately).
And predictably as ever you appeared, to address my point about the possibility or otherwise of implementing mandatory vaccination, 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 -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.0 -
-
-
Wait
Do you think babies are the same as a virus?
Do you think you can sell a virus?
Do you know what basic science is or is education in general bad and you prefer "thinking for yourself"?
That was an amazing flipflop of a direction change.
hilarious:rolleyes: the best thing about this argument is I know people will never be denied services, education etc in Ireland because the didnt get a vaccine. so you can fantasize about it all you like. goodbye. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Ohhilarious:rolleyes: the best thing about this argument is I know people will never be denied services, education etc in Ireland because the didnt get a vaccine. so you can fantasize about it all you like. goodbye.
So you supported Hilter and the Holocaust like a good citizen. Its all clear now.
Your right its a hilarious style alright.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement