Question for the Pro-Vaccinate Crowd

[Thor]

Yes.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Evidence from who?

Sounds like hooey to me.

just some links, no evidence on the benefits of it over the flu shots but lots of evidence on it being helpful at least. decent sources too if that is what your worried about.

cambridge journal

american journal of clinic nutrition (don't know how good this journal is)

new england (not about the flu, but should take vit D for other benefits)

one on spanish flu

others

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Absolutely not.

Instead, people who refuse vaccines should be harvested for their precious organs.

[Yakbutter]

People should not be required to be vaccinated against their will. Not because vaccinations have negative health consequences, only because I believe that people have a right to determine what goes into their bodies. People should have sovereignty over their body in a free society.

However vaccinations should be freely offered to people and people should have easy access to them.

[jeffman]

I think the government should send in teams of special forces ninjas that run around poking people with vaccination needles

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by jeffman

I think the government should send in teams of special forces ninjas that run around poking people with vaccination needles

Blow dart guns would be cool.

[strombad]

I would say "no" to making vaccinations mandatory, but I would certainly severely limit the education and job opportunities for those without vaccinations.

I believe in at least a couple states (Mississippi for one, might have to fact check) vaccinations are not mandatory, but you must home-school your children if they aren't vaccinated. That, to me, seems like a remarkably fair and balanced alternative to keep everyone happy. Don't have vaccinations? Then you can't work in healthcare, customer service, any "front of the line" hands-on people-to-people type jobs where you physically interact with countless people on any given day.

To me, that sounds like a great solution.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by strombad

I would say "no" to making vaccinations mandatory, but I would certainly severely limit the education and job opportunities for those without vaccinations.

I believe in at least a couple states (Mississippi for one, might have to fact check) vaccinations are not mandatory, but you must home-school your children if they aren't vaccinated. That, to me, seems like a remarkably fair and balanced alternative to keep everyone happy. Don't have vaccinations? Then you can't work in healthcare, customer service, any "front of the line" hands-on people-to-people type jobs where you physically interact with countless people on any given day.

To me, that sounds like a great solution.

And do not get the benefit of health care related to the vaccine you chose to avoid getting a shot for. No point in burdening the tax payers. You'll have to pay for it if you want that type of care.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

And do not get the benefit of health care related to the vaccine you chose to avoid getting a shot for. No point in burdening the tax payers. You'll have to pay for it if you want that type of care.

I don't think you can go that far as there are other segments of society that could fall into that category as well.....smokers etc.

I would hate to think that we had become so black and white that we refused health care to someone in our country.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by redforever

I don't think you can go that far as there are other segments of society that could fall into that category as well.....smokers etc.

I would hate to think that we had become so black and white that we refused health care to someone in our country.

Not all healthcare, just related to the vaccine. Say if you opted out of getting measles shots (and you have no pre-exiting conditions not to get one), and you develop measles, then you should pay for the bill instead of having the government pay for it. I think that's fair.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Tiger

just some links, no evidence on the benefits of it over the flu shots but lots of evidence on it being helpful at least. decent sources too if that is what your worried about.

Oh, I have no doubts whatsoever about the benefits of vitamin D. And now that I have bought the chocolate flavoured, I really look forward to my dose every day. And I won't doubt that it does help promote a better immune system. But saying it is better than a vaccine, I can't find any documented proof of that outside of the typical tin-foil-hats "big-pharma=bad" sites.

Again, several people are citing individual rights ("I should have the right to decide what goes into my body or not"). And usually I am fine with that. I'm not totally sold on seat belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws. You want to be an idiot? Fine by me. The problem is what you decide to put your body can have severe medical impacts on another person and there is no way to hold you accountable for that action (or lack thereof).

I am a utilitarianist. The good that comes out of having everyone forced to be vaccinated against the measles means that measles should be effectively eliminated, nobody gets sick, nobody dies of measles, and no tax cost to the Canadian public to deal with these illnesses. The bad we have to balance against? Your individual right to be an idiot gets trampled on. To me, it's no contest. I think you would have a MUCH easier time convincing me about getting rid of seatbelt laws where the only person you are harming is yourself.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

Not all healthcare, just related to the vaccine. Say if you opted out of getting measles shots (and you have no pre-exiting conditions not to get one), and you develop measles, then you should pay for the bill instead of having the government pay for it. I think that's fair.

I still don't agree. Then anybody with any condition that perhaps might have been preventable would have to pay for treatment of that condition.

I still say that the best thing about health care in Canada is that it is universally available to all, no matter the condition, no matter the financial position or anything else in life.

When we lose that compassion, then I think we become like too many in the USA...where many of those who have insurance just don't seem to give a damn if their fellow citizens do not have adequate or any insurance at all.

No matter what our position is about vaccinations, or anything else health related, we still need compassion for our fellow man. We all have warts and what goes around, comes around.

Rather than denying health care, or forcing them to pay for health care, which I think is just plain mean spirited, those who think outside of the mainstream regarding vaccinations or whatever should face other consequences as a result of their actions.

[Devils'Advocate]

I'm still hung up on:
- if you smoke you (primarily) are harming only yourself
- if you overeat you are harming only yourself
- if you do hard drugs you are harming only yourself
- if you don't wear a motorcycle or bicycle helmet you are harming only yourself

On the other hand:
- if you drink and drive, you are likely to hurt someone else and yourself
- if you street race you are likely to hurt someone else and yourself

I have far less sympathy for your stupidity if it causes harm to another innocent person.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by redforever

I still don't agree. Then anybody with any condition that perhaps might have been preventable would have to pay for treatment of that condition.

I still say that the best thing about health care in Canada is that it is universally available to all, no matter the condition, no matter the financial position or anything else in life.

When we lose that compassion, then I think we become like too many in the USA...where many of those who have insurance just don't seem to give a damn if their fellow citizens do not have adequate or any insurance at all.

No matter what our position is about vaccinations, or anything else health related, we still need compassion for our fellow man. We all have warts and what goes around, comes around.

Rather than denying health care, or forcing them to pay for health care, which I think is just plain mean spirited, those who think outside of the mainstream regarding vaccinations or whatever should face other consequences as a result of their actions.

But what about the compassion for people who aren't able to take a vaccine shot due to an illness or complication? Those people have no choice and shouldn't have to be exposed to the consequence of someone's decision on avoiding vaccines. I think by burdening the healthcare system with a decision deliberately made is unfair.

Also, I should point out that it is only uncompassionate if they are denied healthcare outright. Paying for healthcare in canada isn't foreign, as not everything is covered.

[ae118]

People who choose not to vaccinate drive me completely insane (I spent time recently with a nurse dealing with the recent measles cases). However, the way I look at it is that most of the unvaccinated are children, and I wouldn't want to punish them for choices made by their parents, like giving them fewer opportunities before they're old enough to consent to vaccines themselves.

I also see the argument about not making anything invasive mandatory because I think that's a whole other ball of wax. (And vaccines do have some small amount of risk in terms of reactions and how they're administered - I have a friend who has not had full mobility in her arm since getting an incorrectly administered flu shot).

I would like a major education offensive for the general public. And I might support a mandatory education session and written/signed acknowledgment of risk by anyone declining major vaccines (for themselves or their kids). I don't think I'd force anyone to homeschool because the parents might not have the financial means and might be crap at teaching, which affects the kid. But I can see telling them that they have to sign off on knowing that their child risks getting this disease that can kill them, and passing said disease on to other kids who aren't able to get the shots. Basically, signing off on selfishness. And acknowledging that they may have to pull their child from school when there is a health scare and that they'd be responsible for any costs of child care when this happens and keeping up with school work.

Once the unvaccinated kid is old enough to consent, I'm more okay with actual sanctions. Definitely with being involved in healthcare as a practitioner in any capacity - I'm not sure if that's the case already.

I'd never deny healthcare to anyone, least of all a child who didn't make the vaccination decision. But maybe the parents could sign off in the risk agreement that they'd have to pay the full cost of care back to the system if their child gets any illness a vaccine would have prevented?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[redforever]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

But what about the compassion for people who aren't able to take a vaccine shot due to an illness or complication? Those people have no choice and shouldn't have to be exposed to the consequence of someone's decision on avoiding vaccines. I think by burdening the healthcare system with a decision deliberately made is unfair.

Also, I should point out that it is only uncompassionate if they are denied healthcare outright. Paying for healthcare in canada isn't foreign, as not everything is covered.

I am well aware of all of what you are saying...but then isn't what you are saying just about the same as someone who was killed by a negligent driver?

And yes, we do pay for some health care in Canada, but not primary health care...and I think health problems from something like contracting measles, whatever, falls under primary health care.

Life is never perfect. We have seat belt laws...but is there 100% compliance?

We have laws against drinking and driving...but is there 100% compliance?

We have laws against speeding....way too many laws some would say...but you never get 100% compliance.

Life just ain't perfect.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

I agree with ae118 that children are under the care of the parents and unable to make these decisions on their own until such a time comes. I am speaking about the ones who deliberately avoid vaccinations because of some belief that vaccines can harm them (either by government conspiracy or some other Jenny McCarthy like science).

redforever, I don't see your position as a solution either. We have checks in place for negligent/drunk drivers, and if they choose to continue with that sort of decision, they suffer consequences. You're right, life isn't perfect, but it would be far worse if we didn't have these checks in place. And maybe that's where ae118's suggestion makes the most sense...Mount a strong offensive to educate the public first, set up session for new parents about the benefits of immunization, give them all the information they need and have them make a decision. Likewise, educate those that have chosen to avoid vaccination. If they are still resistant, then they will have to pay for the cost of the care they would receive if they become ill. I understand this would fall into primary health care, but primary health care is provided to people not because they opted out on a life saving treatment.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

Primary health care is provided to people not because they opted out on a life saving treatment.

No but it is often given to people consequent to poor life choices. Obesity, smoking, alcohol, drugs... These all result from people who have failed to pay heed to scientific evidence and cost the healthcare system billions of dollars. I don't see anyone saying that we should make people with COPD from smoking 40 years pay for their treatment.

As I said I agree with vaccines, I think that they are amazing in nearly every single way and have helped prevent countless diseases and deaths. However the approach of people is one of alienation and ridicule, which doesn't help, it makes things worse by getting people defensive.

The fact that likely half of the people on this board don't get their flu vaccine is pretty hilarious by the way, if someone got influenza without the vaccine, should they pay for that treatment?

[redforever]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

I agree with ae118 that children are under the care of the parents and unable to make these decisions on their own until such a time comes. I am speaking about the ones who deliberately avoid vaccinations because of some belief that vaccines can harm them (either by government conspiracy or some other Jenny McCarthy like science).

redforever, I don't see your position as a solution either. We have checks in place for negligent/drunk drivers, and if they choose to continue with that sort of decision, they suffer consequences. You're right, life isn't perfect, but it would be far worse if we didn't have these checks in place. And maybe that's where ae118's suggestion makes the most sense...Mount a strong offensive to educate the public first, set up session for new parents about the benefits of immunization, give them all the information they need and have them make a decision. Likewise, educate those that have chosen to avoid vaccination. If they are still resistant, then they will have to pay for the cost of the care they would receive if they become ill. I understand this would fall into primary health care, but primary health care is provided to people not because they opted out on a life saving treatment.

That is what I have been saying all along. They should be subject to consequence...and unfortunately, children will also be subject to consequences because of irresponsible parenting.

But to deny health care to someone who is suffering from a primary health problem? Come on!!! And if as you propose, they should now have to pay for that health care...well then, are you willing to let someone die because they were perhaps irresponsible in a life style choice but now are unable to pay for primary health care?

I am not.

I am in total agreement with those people being denied entry to school, being denied employment etc but I will never be in agreement with denying someone primary health care. I simply don't have the stomach for that.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

No but it is often given to people consequent to poor life choices. Obesity, smoking, alcohol, drugs... These all result from people who have failed to pay heed to scientific evidence and cost the healthcare system billions of dollars. I don't see anyone saying that we should make people with COPD from smoking 40 years pay for their treatment.

As I said I agree with vaccines, I think that they are amazing in nearly every single way and have helped prevent countless diseases and deaths. However the approach of people is one of alienation and ridicule, which doesn't help, it makes things worse by getting people defensive.

The fact that likely half of the people on this board don't get their flu vaccine is pretty hilarious by the way, if someone got influenza without the vaccine, should they pay for that treatment?

But the people you are referencing above, though they may have made bad choices, continue those life choices sometimes through addiction, genetics, and less prominently depression. I think those situations are very different from making a choice on a measles vaccine.

And I don't believe we have to alienate or ridicule those who have opted out. I certainly won't. However, I also don't want to see our health care situation descend further into financial deficit, like the crisis now in France and England.

I can see we have our opinions on how to approach this issue. I'm pretty sure I won't change your minds, nor will you change mine (and that was probably not the intention of this conversation anyway). So maybe if I am more capable of empathy instead of being a sociopath, I might see your point of view.