Vaccinations should NOT be forced, change my mind. - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

The best online Debate website -! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Vaccinations should NOT be forced, change my mind.
in Politics

My body, my choice.

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • piloteerpiloteer 273 Pts
    edited February 17

    I don't think it should be forced, but the public can disallow people who are known to not have been vaccinated into any public places, like schools and libraries. And the law shouldn't limit people from bringing law suits against people who've resisted vaccinations and caused an outbreak.
  • Vaccines are essential to stopping the spread of diseases, and without them, our life expectancies would be back to 40. The "my body, my choice" motto is great in some cases, but when your life is at enormous risk from catching diseases, then your life should be prioritized. There is no proof whatsoever that vaccinations cause autism, or whatever BS people come up with, but there IS data to back up the fact that life expectancies around the world have gone up drastically since we developed vaccines. If you want to use crappy medicinal oils or scented candles or any other pseudoscientific measures that don't work, fine, but along with your vaccinations, not instead of them. "My body, my choice" doesn't work when you're dead.
  • @Polaris95

    Oooo ya, that argument was not to ellegent. I agree with some of what you have to say, but however incomplete and emotionally driven YeshuaBoughts argument may be, I find yours to be equally reckless. I think just disregarding someone's feelings toward vaccinations is rather obtuse, and it is not in the medical sectors best interest to simply tell anti-vaxxers that their wrong and we don't care what you think, you're gonna get your vaccines whether you like it or not. What ever happened to the idea of convincing those who have come to their feelings of vaccinations by way of disinformation? Just asserting that those feelings are pseudo- science is not going to convince anybody that they should get vaccinated. If you believe that science is on your side, why didn't you post any of the information that would prove it. I know it's out there, but it's not in YOUR post. Besides, I think the point of this debate is to argue whether vaccinations are safe and effective. If your not gonna take the time to prove that vaccines are safe and beneficial, then all I can say is, thanks for your two cents!
  • @whiteflame

    You should be on this!!!
  • No medication should be forced on anyone in a modern society, for any reason, logical or not. Putting a needle into someone's arm against their will by force is pretty much torture by definition.

    That said, if there is a massive outbreak of a contagious disease, such as Black Death in Europe, then, I would say, the needs of survival will temporary outweigh the importance of such a minor right as the right not to be vaccinated, and then exceptions could be made. Human rights are supreme, but sometimes we are forced to do terrible things to survive. If the choice is between 60% of us being wiped out within 2 weeks, and putting a needle into every person's arm once, then I do not think many people will choose the former.
  • MayCaesar said:
    No medication should be forced on anyone in a modern society, for any reason, logical or not. Putting a needle into someone's arm against their will by force is pretty much torture by definition.

    That said, if there is a massive outbreak of a contagious disease, such as Black Death in Europe, then, I would say, the needs of survival will temporary outweigh the importance of such a minor right as the right not to be vaccinated, and then exceptions could be made. Human rights are supreme, but sometimes we are forced to do terrible things to survive. If the choice is between 60% of us being wiped out within 2 weeks, and putting a needle into every person's arm once, then I do not think many people will choose the former.
    I was somewhat struggling with contextualizing my post in a way that's different from what I've posted before, but I think you've given me a good context to start from. Let's say that we're dealing with a massive outbreak of a contagious disease, say Influenza. Before I get into this, let me just recognize that if there was such an outbreak, it's entirely possible that the flu vaccines that we make to combat it wont be effective, so it's also plausible that we could have a repeat of the 1918 pandemic even with widespread vaccines. However, for the sake of simplifying the argument, let's assume the effectiveness of the vaccine. Vaccines are, by their very nature, preventative. They can address an ongoing outbreak if and only if the people being inoculated were not already exposed to the virus. That sounds simple enough, even with the flu, until you realize that the rate of spread could be incredibly rapid. Our ability to stop the virus from spreading by vaccination would quickly dwindle as the population not infected by the virus also dwindles. The problem is made worse by what we experience as regular shortages in the amount of flu vaccines available, and that's when there's not a huge run on the stuff in an effort to stop a raging pandemic. Production would be time-consuming, leading to a wider spread of the virus before any substantial measures to combat it can be put into place. I recognize that this is an extreme scenario (to some degree - it has happened before), but it's not implausible that something like this could happen again.

    However, this is just a worst case scenario. It's not the only one we face. Consider a population of individuals who distrust western medicine in general, or at least vaccines in particular (there are many of both). It's one thing to say that those adults who make the active choice not to get these vaccines is accepting the potential harms they may face, but there are two problems with that characterization. First, adults aren't making this decision solely for themselves. They often make this decision for their families as well, in particular their children. Does putting a child at risk of infection endanger that child? I guess it would depend on your definition of "endanger," though it's clear that it does cause potential harm to that child. It exposes them to a risk they otherwise would not have, and does so without their consent because a child cannot consent. Second, an infectious disease isn't restricted to any single individual. A single person's choice is not the end of the chain of events. A person with an infectious disease does not always (or even usually) sequester themselves entirely from the outside world, preventing the spread of whatever they carry to other people. It doesn't help that there are many people around them who cannot be fully vaccinated, whether due to allergy, poor immune response, age or other factors that may affect the potency of a vaccine. All those people are put at risk by an individual who decides not to get vaccinated, as is anyone who simply cannot afford vaccination for certain diseases.

    As I see it, though, forced vaccination does not require forced injection. I know that sounds a little strange, but bear with me. A mandate requires that someone either take a certain action or be fined/jailed for failing to commit said action. I see no reason why individuals who knowingly endanger others around them should not be fined for that endangerment. If they do not wish to have the injection, they need not have it, but they need to pay the cost of that choice as well.
  • @whiteflame

    What you described is known in economics as a negative externality: one person choosing to or refusing to take a certain action affects other people's ability to make choices. There are many schools of thought on how to treat this subject, from "negative externalities are a natural state of affairs and, hence, should not be taken into account and acted upon", to "negative externalities upset the natural balance and have to always be paid in full by the party causing them", and even further all the way to "negative externalities should be prevented at any cost, with no regard to unintended consequences".
    Smoking is often used to illustrate the concept of negative externality (one person choosing to smoke poisons the air for everyone else), and the refusal to partake in vaccinations can be treated as one as well.

    I belong to the camp that sees negative externalities as a natural state of affairs, as something that we all should accept. There are multiple reasons for that, mostly stemming from my natural affection to the idea of individual freedom. I will list just a few problems with your reasoning:

    1) There is something that we should define as a "neutral state": the state in which nobody does anything that goes outside the norm, and the balance is not upset. The neutral state historically has been the one in which nobody took any vaccinations. As such, punishing people for choosing not to be vaccinated is, at the very least, illogical: you cannot punish someone for choosing NOT to do something. 
    When someone smokes, they take an active action that leads to poisoning of the air for everyone else. But when someone avoids vaccinations, they do not take any active action, they just go about their lives. Punishing people for NOT doing something is the best way to create a society full of stress and frustration, and that can result in consequences far more than the 1918 pandemic.

    2) Your reasoning, if continued logically, allows one to justify literally any possible action. For example, I can justify the proposal to execute all black people as follows: "There are racists in this world, some of which may exercise their racism in the most extreme ways. Someone might pull a machine gun out and shoot at a black person, killing a lot of bystanders. Hence, by not committing a suicide, every black person inflicts the danger on all people around them. The best solution is to issue an order directing all black people to commit suicide, and those who refuse should be killed by the governmental forces. This is the only way to remove this negative externality". I know, this is a satirical example, but it illustrates the "slippery slope" problem with your argument.

    3) Even assuming that it is okay to fine people for disobeying such, at the very least, questionable rules - I do not see what it would accomplish. Collecting fines from people who refuse to be vaccinated will not prevent a potential pandemic in case they are contaminated and contagious. I understand that the incentive is created for them to get vaccinated, but it does not resolve the problem as a whole. Even one person refusing to be vaccinated could lead to horrible consequences for millions people, in theory.
    At the very least, I would replace fines for people who refuse to be vaccinated with tax credits for people who choose to be vaccinated. The reasoning being that your choice to be vaccinated is one of the ways you fund the government, hence for your total contribution to remain unchanged, you should receive some of the taxes you have paid back.
    There is also strong evidence that such fines when ideologically controversial often lead to the opposite result. I read a survey made in Australia soon after they started fining people for refusing to participate in elections - and the results of that survey suggested that the number of people who chose to vote actually decreased, compared to the previous election. Why? Because many people who would have voted otherwise refused to vote for ideological reasons: "I would vote, but since they fine people for not voting, I will not vote out of principle. I will not support the government that violates people's freedoms this way."

    4) Frankly, I do not think the government should have the right to force people to do anything, in principle. The danger of a pandemic in modern times, in my view, is much lower than the danger of the government being allowed to fine people for not complying with arbitrary demands getting out of control.

    Rather than focusing on necessarily, at all costs, saving as many lives as possible, I think we should focus on something more creative. Perhaps, instead of forcing people to be vaccinated when they do not want to, the government could instead invest more in the private medical research, so we get to the point where pandemics are history sooner and no longer have to constantly make moral compromises.

    When, and if, we do get into a truly dire situation, where we should force some people to do something, or be wiped out - then we will obviously do it, regardless of whether this is legally allowed or not. But I do not see our current situation as being desperate in any way. We have not had any serious pandemics on the West in a century, and while we can never be certain that one does not arise tomorrow, there is a strong evidence that what we have been doing so far has worked well for us. As such, I do not see the need to suddenly change the rules.
  • We probably shouldn't allow anyone or any government to "force" someone to get a vaccine, because that would no doubt lead to a host of difficult questions, like the ones already posted above. However if you choose not to vaccinate your child, I believe public schools, and private schools if they so choose, should 100% be allowed to bar students who aren't vaccinated from attending their school. It's a simple matter of safety and weighing the costs and benefits of the situation, schools can not justify putting their students and staff at risk just because a handful of parents choose not to vaccinate their children. 
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 637 Pts
    edited February 17
    @MayCaesar ;

    That's an intriguing way of characterizing my argument, though I will say that my position likely falls somewhere between yours and the "negative externalities upset the natural balance and have to always be paid in full by the party causing them." If I did believe the latter, I would argue that anyone who sickens someone else as a result of their own infection must pay the medical bills of that other person, which is not my position. I suppose my position is better characterized by the statement "negative externalities upset the natural balance and, where possible, prevented." Even that seems to oversimplify my argument, as that stance would justify the slippery slope you argued in 2). To put it in a slightly more complex way, my position is that the cost of negative externalities must outweigh the harm to whatever natural state is affected by the effort to prevent them. In other words, we must balance the issues of how we negatively affect our society by taking a given action vs. the positive outcome of that action.

    I'll admit, that sounds simpler than it is. Determining precisely what kind of harm can befall our society without vaccinations is difficult, given that we can only base it on prior trends and not on some future infection. And we can reasonably argue that the imposition of vaccination on those who would otherwise not become vaccinated has a very broad effect, though determining what level of harm results is largely based on just how much you feel that lost liberty affects them (e.g. I can say how much it affects me, but not necessarily how much it affects you). 

    That being said, I do think it's important to clarify what distinguishes infections from other issues. For example, looking at smoking, I would say that the effect is always going to be somewhat localized, i.e. wherever the smoke reaches the effect is had. Regardless of how much an individual has smoked and how terrible they may smell as a result, when they get on a plane and stop smoking, they aren't transmitting any of the health hazards with them. An infection isn't so simple, nor is it nearly so obvious. A person carrying the infection brings it with them everywhere and, depending on the infection, may be transmitting it to others at all times. Also, while someone can usually see smoke coming from someone who is smoking, our ability to see someone who is infected is usually less clear. Symptoms can often be excused for something else (say, allergies) or simply not recognized before the person is already upon you, and even asymptomatic people can often transmit diseases. In this way, while both smoking and a refusal to vaccinate are negative externalities, they are very different in how they affect others around them. Moreover, the degree to which an individual is harmed is significantly different. Inhaling a small amount of smoke is unlikely to do any substantial harm to me - I would have to be exposed somewhat regularly over a long period of time to really feel the effects. An infection, on the other hand, usually requires a single exposure.

    I think this illustrates the degree to which negative externalities can differ, which is important because I do not think we can simply state that all negative externalities should be treated the same. So long as we accept that different levels and types of risk are incurred by different negative externalities, I think we have to look at them individually to determine whether they meet a threshold of significance that requires a response. That's true even within vaccinations, as I would not say that all diseases present a similar risk of transmission or harm. The question is, do any of them present a risk sufficient to warrant mandating vaccination? I think a few do (measles comes to mind as an obvious one), but certainly not all of them.

    But let's get into your stated problems.

    1) This is an argument I've heard before, and I have some trouble with it. I don't see how the active decision to not take a given action is structurally dissimilar from the active to decision to take said action. Both involve a choice, and, regardless of whether that choice brings about a subsequent action, both choices have consequences. I don't see how recognizing that a choice not to take a given action has consequences that move beyond that individual "create[s] a society full of stress and frustration" (truth be told, I'm not clear of what the consequences of this society are, so I'm unclear on its impact as well) because it merely recognizes that all choices have consequences, regardless of whether that choice is to act or do nothing. And this would not be the first time that a non-action was deemed to be illegal. Look at the duty to rescue, a concept in tort law where a party can be held liable for failing to come to rescue of someone they could have saved. Admittedly, this isn't always formalized as a legal transgression, but clearly there are standards that exist for treating non-action as consequential to the point that prosecution could be brought.
    Beyond that, the whole idea of a neutral state stands to me as a mischaracterization, largely because I don't see us as ever being in a truly neutral, unchanging state. Whatever balance exists, it is constantly being perturbed, whether by yourself or by outside forces. But even if we view all of that as background noise, I could say that a person who doesn't get a vaccine perturbs the neutral state of a person who they infect as a consequence of being unvaccinated. Why does the neutral state of the individual who refuses to vaccinate outstrip the neutral state of the individual who is infected as a result of that person's intransigence? Does the fact that this consequence is a step or two away from the decision fundamentally alter the reality of its effects?

    2) I think this oversimplifies my reasoning, and from your last sentence, you seem to get that. There’s more at play here than an argument of “action X is justified because it ends action Y, which harms others as well.” It’s reasonable to ask what the harm of action X is, and mass execution constitutes an unspeakable harm (just going on your example, most of these black people would not die to mass shootings in status quo, now they will all die by that same manner), whereas mandatory vaccination is quite a bit lower on the totem pole of “bad things to do to people.” It’s reasonable to ask whether action Y would happen even if action X occurred (e.g. racists would still exist, mass shootings would still occur). It’s reasonable to ask whether ending action Y has sufficient meaning to engage in action X. A slippery slope only works if you’re taking a very broad principle and applying it without any nuance whatsoever, and that wouldn’t be the case here. Each of these questions should inform the decision to take any given action X in response to action Y. 

    3) First off, I don't think the goal needs to be that we find a way to ensure that all people are vaccinated. Even if we don't reach herd immunity with most of these diseases, we can at the very least restrict their ability to be transmitted from person-to-person, and dramatically limit the spread of an epidemic or pandemic. Some may opt to pay the fine, but that doesn't mean that the problem of disease spread isn't meaningfully affected. Sure, it's possible that anyone who is unvaccinated could become a vector for a given disease and still cause problems, but reducing the number of unvaccinated individuals does still reduce the propensity for that harm.
    Second, I didn't get into this in my first post, but fines could be used towards a number of different purposes. Just off the top of my head, it could fund epidemiological efforts at the CDC aimed at locating infectious outbreaks early in their spread, leading to faster quarantines and more effective delivery of vaccines to surrounding areas. It could fund the production of more vaccines, leading to fewer shortages and improving access. It could be used to supplement costs for vaccination, increasing access for poorer populations. It could be used for improved training of hospital personnel or improved facilities at hospitals to handle an influx of infectious patients during an pandemic. All these would meaningfully affect a pandemic's spread, though I can see how fines could be used towards a variety of non-related purposes to benefit the country just the same.
    Third, I think we're quibbling if we're focusing on the differences between a tax credit and a fine, though I will point out that only the latter ensures that those who don't vaccinate are still contributing meaningfully to addressing the problem of epidemics and pandemics. I'd be interested to see if the circumstances you see in Australia would apply to vaccinations, mainly because, again, I perceive a pretty strong difference between the circumstances. Standing on principle against vaccinations when one would have gotten them before comes at a clear, personal cost (not being vaccinated), whereas standing on principle against voting comes at only a perceptual cost (not participating in an election). Maybe this would happen, but I have a hard time believing that people who actively seek to protect themselves from viral infections would refuse to do so based solely on the principle that a fine is a bridge too far.

    4) This sounds like it's largely an ideological difference between us, and I'm not going to challenge you here on that basis. I will say that I disagree rather strongly with you on the notion that a pandemic is not a substantial danger in modern times, and that this is an arbitrary demand, but I've already addressed the latter, and I'll get to the former shortly.

    As for your bottom points, I’ll address each of those individually.

    I don’t agree that this is aimed at “saving as many lives as possible… at all costs,” largely because I disagree that this is an “at all costs” measure. Vaccines will help, but they’re certainly not a panacea. Moreover, there are far more severe ways this could be imposed, and far more egregious measures we could take that would save more lives. Maybe this is just a difference of perspective, but I don’t see it the same way.

    Similarly, I don’t agree that “invest[ing] more in the private medical research” answers these same problems. Don’t get me wrong, private medical research has done a lot for medicine, but what you’re talking about is, effectively, bringing an end to pandemics. There’s an inherent conceit in that view, that all we must do is fund more research and deadly, dangerous diseases will become a thing of the past. I don’t see that happening, not in our lifetimes or for the foreseeable future. Viruses, bacteria and fungi simply evolve at a rate that eclipses any measures we could take, vaccines included. The beauty of vaccines is that they are preventative, meaning that the time these organisms have to get used to the problem they’re facing in infecting us is far shorter, reducing the probability that they will evolve countermeasures. That does not mean we won’t continually face new challenges to every form of medicine we throw at them.

    And, lastly, I agree that should a truly dire situation arise, a response will occur. My problem, as I stated before, is that I think it will be far too late to respond when it’s already upon us. A vaccine isn’t something we should necessarily be busting out in response to a given disease pandemic, it’s something that we should already have in us to prepare for a pandemic. Influenza became a pandemic within the span of a year, when most people didn’t travel by commercial airplanes, and the only reason that particular pandemic stopped was because it largely ran out of people to infect. Much as you trust the systems we have in place to respond to such an outbreak, what I’ve read leaves me a whole lot less hopeful. The CDC has run exercises aimed at testing whether our national systems are capable of handling an outbreak, and they have been largely disappointing. But that’s just on a national scale – internationally, the problem gets a lot worse, particularly when you’re dealing with countries that either don’t have the infrastructure to respond or are unwilling to cooperate with other countries. I’d honestly say it’s more luck than anything else that has prevented widespread outbreaks of diseases like the flu in more dangerous forms.

  • The debate around vaccinations mostly refers to children as they are a particularly at risk group and we have an especial obligation to look after children (not being able to look after themselves).

    Are you a child?

    If not, then the vaccination issue doesn't really touch you.

    If you are then it isn't your choice, someone else WILL make your choice for you. The only question is whether it's your parent/guardian or the state. Personally, not being a fan of dead children, I support vaccination and don't view an idiot's right to listen to propaganda and then make dumb choices  to be so unalienable that we should allow children to needlessly die. Both the parent and the state have a duty of care towards children and I consider vaccinations a basic part of fulfilling that duty.
  • @piloteer Religious discrimination is not a right, and I have the right to choose what to do with MY body. 
  • @Ampersand I have the right to choose what to do with MY body, and I have the right as a vegan to object to the use of animal products. Furthermore, when you are haunted by the sound of your own autistic screams, THEN you have the right to choose to forced me to be vaccinated. I will never change my mind, as this is MY body.
  • @Ampersand I have the right to choose what to do with MY body, and I have the right as a vegan to object to the use of animal products. Furthermore, when you are haunted by the sound of your own autistic screams, THEN you have the right to choose to forced me to be vaccinated. I will never change my mind, as this is MY body.

    If you will never change your mind then what's the point of a persuade me debate then?

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom
  • Furthermore, when you are haunted by the sound of your own autistic screams, THEN you have the right to choose to forced me to be vaccinated.
    If I said that I’m haunted by the sound of my own autistic screams, then I have this right? Ok, I’m super haunted. Guess you have to listen to me now?
  • @whiteflame

    I noticed in that in the response to MayCaesar that you mentioned several ways the money from fines could be used to help with preventive measures, but curiously you mentioned nothing about a public awareness initiative, even though we're obviously devoid of any such programs. I know I haven't seen any, and I wonder if anybody on this thread has. If you know of any, please let us know of it, but wouldn't we want that kind of thing to be FIRST on the list of preventive measures? What public modern public awareness initiatives are their to teach the public about the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations? If you can think of any within the last five years, that would be great. I see in your argument  a lot of well thought of reasoning why mandatory vaccinations are beneficial, but absolutely nothing in the way of teaching the public at large. This seems to be a new trend within the medical community, and it's difficult to deny that it's widening a disconnect between the medical community and weary members of society. This is especially concerning since those initiatives have proven to be very effective in the past. We have reached herd immunity before, and we even declared measles to be gone in the US in the year 2000. Slapping the public with a mandate doesn't seem like an effective measure of persuasion, it seems more like a knee jerk reactionary position aimed at opposing antivaxxers rather than teaching the public of the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations. How long will the medical community put us into only two categories, those who are up to date with their vaccinations, and those who willfully oppose it? One would think that doctors and nurses would have a more nuanced approach to this by realising that their are adults who are unaware that they actually need to be vaccinated. They're not antivaxxers, they just don't realize that they need to keep up to date with their vaccinations, I fail to see how a mandate will convince any of them. Understandably, me questioning whether a mandate will dissuade these people because it's never been tried before, so that puts my point into the realm of speculation, but that's just it, it's never been tried. Whatever argument you may have as a rebuttal to that point would equally be speculating. Why abandon public awareness initiatives that have proven to be highly effective in the past, and go straight for the jugular with a government mandate?

    Furthermore, how could we not expect some sort of backlash against vaccinations. We are three or four generations removed from a time when the public was begging for a cure to debilitating diseases. Polio is the first one that comes to mind. That was the big one that our Grandparents were all afraid of, and rightfully so because everyone knew someone who was effected, and anyone could be next. Then came a vaccine, and a public awareness program that were highly effective. Now, fast forward sixty odd years, and we find many of the gen-xers and millennials wondering what the purpose of vaccinations are because many are unaware of the threats. It obviously is the duty of the medical community to make the public aware of what the risks are for rejecting vaccinations, and what the benefits are for keeping up to date with their vaccinations, but that big ugly disconnect rears its big ugly head and now we've got a medical community who is totally unprepared, and in some cases unwilling to teach the public, and instead they focus on a mandate. Now there's a fun little trend of doctors refusing to let patients into their offices if they're not up to date with their vaccinations, and some in the medical are just shaking their heads at that and questioning why they aren't trying to convince these patients that it is safe, and it is beneficial to be vaccinated. How will a mandate fix this? It may raise some money that could be used for preventive measures, but it seems a little wiser to skip the knee jerk reactionary policy, and embrace public awareness.
  • @piloteer

    I’ll start by covering the broad claim regarding education, and then I’ll hit some of the more minor claims.

    First, I think the “education will solve!” response doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in general. Given that this information is readily available online through multiple reliable groups (e.g. CDC, HHS, WHO), given that both schools and doctors are commonly requesting or requiring certain immunizations, and given that flu seasons happen… well, literally every year and there are signs up basically everywhere suggesting that people get vaccinated… I really don’t think it’s possible to miss information, regardless of some larger program aimed at disseminating this information. You seem to acknowledge that any such effort won’t alter the way anti-vaxxers behave (largely because they are aware, but disbelieve the available evidence), but I’m not sure what this mythical population is that is somehow completely unaware of the vaccines they lack and their importance. The only way that seems possible is if they aren’t regularly seeing their doctors, in which case they have a larger problem than a lack of vaccination, and simply informing them via other means will not substantially alter their behavior.

    Second, assuming that this population does exist (and it’s unclear how large it is), let’s be clear about what this means. Some portion of this population must be actively avoiding information on the subject, and this group isn’t likely to view additional information presented to them in a novel form any differently. So, we are now down to a population that has passively avoided this information. What, exactly, would it take to engage these people? I’m honestly not sure because this may represent a diverse population with diverse reasons for their lack of understanding/engagement. At least with addressing this group, I can see your point – there’s reason to try to expand knowledge on this, and it’s entirely plausible that doctors and researchers have done a poor job accomplishing that. There’s no doubt that it’s worthwhile to try educating this population, but your claim is that this education should replace efforts to mandate vaccination. The fact remains that this is a small subset of the overall unvaccinated population, so I don’t see how this functions as a sufficient replacement.

    Third, from what I’ve read, outreach efforts do exist, though perhaps not in the form that you would find most effective.

    It’s mostly done through doctors using broadly available resources. I would say this is, generally, the best method. Having someone from some nebulous organization tell you that they should really take their vaccinations tends not to work as well as hearing it from a doctor who has regularly cared for you over the years. You’re right that some doctors do a poor job disseminating this information, but I don’t see how any other method can be viable replacement beyond, perhaps, better training for doctors to ensure that they do this. That much I would agree with, though again, I don’t see how it solves for the wider problems of refusal to vaccinate. Simply telling people that vaccines are safe and effective repeatedly doesn’t resolve the other issues.

    Fourth, I think you’ve actually done some of the work for me in your second paragraph. You point out that what’s at issue is a sense of distance in time that makes it difficult to see how problematic an outbreak can be, particularly one that can be controlled by vaccinations. I completely agree, but I don’t see how education solves for this. Simply being aware that this once happened doesn’t cover the gulf that exists in time, and while a history lesson might convince some, I don’t see how it’s fundamentally different from any of these other measures. Students still must understand the application of vaccines in an abstract fashion, which will always limit understanding.


    Finally, let’s go through some of these other claims.

    You argue that we’ve reached herd immunity before. That’s a bit of an overgeneralization, and only applies to certain diseases (measles is not one of them, largely because the threshold for herd immunity with that disease is so much higher – the reason it disappeared was because vaccination was widespread enough to prevent its spread despite the lack of herd immunity). I would say that the shift away from broad immunity had more to do with a rise in the population of anti-vaxxers and a decline in the temporal proximity of vaccine-preventable epidemics and pandemics, reducing any sense of urgency associated with vaccination. If you’ve got a means to get around these problems, I’m all ears, but I haven’t seen or heard any options that address these concerns.

    I’m still not seeing much of a reason to believe that a mandate will engender some kind of backlash. Sure, people are going to find it onerous, there’s no doubt about that. The problem is that I don’t see how anyone who currently is getting vaccinated, chiefly because they see the benefit or are required to do vaccinate their children for school, is going to alter the way they view vaccination because of a mandate. Others might, and they might challenge the decision, I don’t doubt that. However, unless they are staunchly opposed to vaccination, they will eventually be forced to learn about the vaccines they are now mandated to take. I think putting in a grace period, which includes a widespread effort among doctors and hospitals to inform patients about vaccination in more detail, and including sufficient subsidies to reduce costs, would largely solve for backlash among the majority of people who aren’t directly opposed to vaccination.

  • afaik you can refuse vaccines, however for children to enter into public school it is required, you have the option to either meet the requirements or home school.  Check Washington state's measles outbreak, or might have been something else people are normally vaccinated against.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Ampersand I have the right to choose what to do with MY body, and I have the right as a vegan to object to the use of animal products. Furthermore, when you are haunted by the sound of your own autistic screams, THEN you have the right to choose to forced me to be vaccinated. I will never change my mind, as this is MY body.
    Doesn't address my point.

    Are you a child?

    If Yes:Actually you don't have control over your body because you are too young to consent to important decisions so your guardians and the state will make decisions on your behalf.

    If No: Sure, you have the right, but nobody cares because children are the at risk group in need of vaccination but not in a position to consent themselves so whether an adult is allowed to say no to a vaccination is irrelevant to the overall vaccination debate..
  • @whiteflame Blocked.
  • @YeshuaBought

    Blocking me because I have autism!? How discriminatory!
  • @Ampersand I have the right to choose what to do with my body, and to religious liberty. Forced vaccinations and the unwanted use of my body IS ASSault. You don't have the right to know my age, as it's none of your business.
  • DeeDee 313 Pts
    edited February 19
    If you as an adult don’t wish to have it fine by me , your life your choice , but where I draw the line is where adults refuse to have their kids vaccinated all on account of their own lunacy for that there should be a severe penalty as the lunacy of the parents should not be visited on the children 
  • You get pissed off when you hear that dems are gonna legalize abortion after birth but at the same time you don’t vaccin ate yourself or your children? That’s the same thing except your a conspiracy theorist that has no brains to speak of.
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @YeshuaBought said "My body, my choice.

    I was dating when AIDS began to be an epidemic. In the U.S. the epidemic was traced to one man in NY. He was having sex with other men and telling them, afterwards, "I have "gay cancer" (as some called it earlier), and now YOU have it!. Having sex when it was dangerous and deadly, and he knew it, was "his body, his choice".

     If there has not been as many deaths from measles than from measles vaccine by now (I didn't check, there WILL be, and many more.
    Do you feel you have the right to send your child to school, endangering every child IN THE SCHOOL … is "your choice"?? If it's your choice do home schooling and keep him her (and yourself) at home. You may have the right to choose what goes into your body, you do NOT have the right to choose what YOU put into someone else' body.

    The people that spread the scare of vaccines are similar to the people that deny climate change. They see what they want to see, ignore overwhelming evidence, and make selfish decisions based on "my choice", not what is best for everyone. Your choice to believe in Jesus won't hurt anyone … your choice. Your choice to not be vaccinated, or have your children immunized for the sake of others is unfortunate at best. I wish I could believe that Jesus would keep you from harming others … I can't. Good luck to those around you, it's not "gay cancer", but, what she spreads COULD be deadly.
  • @whiteflame Blocked.

    Wait, I thought you were pro- free speech not pro-censorship you hypocrite

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom
  • DeeDee 313 Pts

    Thats her all over isn’t it ? A bully and a hypocrite 
  • @Ampersand I have the right to choose what to do with my body, and to religious liberty. Forced vaccinations and the unwanted use of my body IS ASSault. You don't have the right to know my age, as it's none of your business.
    If you are an adult, no-one is trying to force you to have vaccinations so your point is meaningless.

    If you're a child then you do not have final say on your body as the state and your guardians can place restrictions and requirements for how you need to be treated due to you being a child and therefore not in a position to give informed consent about what's best for you.

    I don't need to know your age as your argument falls into one of these categories so it's either irrelevant or you're wrong.
  • woahlolwoahlol 24 Pts
    edited February 22
    They shouldn’t be forced, but they should be encouraged. I mean, if they weren’t, there’d be so many diseases that would kill you. Nobody would live long. I get that it’s your body and stuff, but when it comes to protecting yourself against death, you just gotta do it. I mean, what do vaccinations harm? I think you should always get them when the age is appropriate. The only excuse to not get them is allergies.
  • @whiteflame

    Having information that's available for people to actively seek out, cannot be constituted as a public awareness program. There was an awareness program for hiv and aids. There are several for drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. There are awareness programs for hate speech, awareness for anti-gay sentiments, racism, child abuse, pollution, and recycling. Hell, there was a better awareness program warning against listening to your headphones to loud because of hearing loss than there ever has been for teaching adults of the threat posed by disease, and the benefit of vaccinations. What is it specifically that you think doesn't warrant an awareness program for vaccinations? Why is this topic not on the list of concerns that warrant an awareness program? Who among us can prove that an awareness program for adults wouldn't work, when it's never been done before? Or at least it hasn't been done in any of our lifetimes. And it seems that the conversation of persuasion has been totally circumvented, and in place there's a discussion about a mandate rather than a discussion meant to teach the public. And as far as a mythical population who is unaware, I assert that there absolutely is a population that is totally unaware. There are some adults who believe that their adult immune system can take whatever is thrown at them(which is obviously not true), or they think that they had all the vaccinations they need because they were vvaccinated when they were children, and they are totally unaware that they need to keep up to date with their vaccinations. How much of this "mythical population" are actively antivaxxers? Who knows for sure, but how many in the medical community are actively trying to find out and convince the ones who are just plainly unaware? Nobody seems to be embracing outreach. It's concerning to see that the one thing the medical community has embraced when it comes to the antivaxxers is there tactics, which is pretty much like sticking your fingers in your ears and going hmmm hmmm hmm hmmhm, I'm not liiiiiiiistening to yoooooooou. The vaccination discussion needs to be had, and a public awareness program is warranted.

    Now, I'm not saying that some of what you say isn't convincing, but trying to urgently inform us of a situation that we need to get on top of(which I don't disagree with you there), while dually tossing around the idea of a "grace period" seems a tad counterintuitive. (At first, that first sentence said conniving instead of convincing. Ya, that would not have been satisfactory. This goes to show that we should all proofread our posts, before we say something totally "ignint.)

    Perhaps there are doctors who aren't good at disseminating information, but I would never point the finger at those who try and fail, especially since I can't even peel the sticker off a bandaid without passing out. My gripe is with the doctors who forgo the "good or bad" at being persuasive, and opt out of the discussion altogether, and even take it one step further by refusing to see patients who aren't vaccinated. I think we can both agree that not being good at persuading, is vastly different than refusing to even assotiate with the people you should be trying to persuade. Better training won't make a doctor who refuses antivaxxers better at convincing them. The culture of discord with healthcare providers needs to be addressed. I readily agree that your personal physician would be the best person to tell you the inns and outs of vaccination refusal, but they have to see you to be able for them to do it. 

  • @piloteer

    I guess my major problem is that I don’t see how a public awareness campaign substantially alters perception of vaccines, at least not in any way that’s better than just taking the time to train doctors in providing this information. I get that not everyone sees their doctor on the regular, but doctor’s offices send emails. They can offer information as easily as anyone. Meanwhile, an awareness program isn’t necessarily going to have any teeth to it. You bring up a lot of examples of public awareness campaigns, but you don’t cite any successes of those campaigns. I’ll grant that some of these may, indeed, have successes to cite. The problem is that what you’re talking about here is not quite like the rest. In order to be successful, the people hearing the message can’t just comprehend and agree with the message – they have to actually go out and get vaccinated. All these examples involve people quitting or not engaging in a certain behavior, which can admittedly be difficult in its own right, but is still markedly different and requires that a person internalize and act (not passively agree) on that message. It doesn’t help that some of these campaigns (DARE comes to mind) actually did more harm than good in the long run. I could see how encouraging a public awareness program would be beneficial in that it would encourage more creative messaging campaigns to find something that may work, but I honestly don’t see how it outweighs the benefits of an information campaign aimed at doctors.

    As for who we’re convincing… First off, if we don’t know who these people are (and there’s no way to do so without having some access to medical records), we can’t target them specifically with this campaign. It has been widely established that campaigns have to be targeted to be successful, so this undercuts the value of such an effort.[] Second, looking at the two populations you’re discussing, the first one is composed of people who think they’re strong enough to take whatever is thrown at them. I don’t see how any vaccination campaign will dissuade them from that view. If they’re convinced of their personal invulnerability, no amount of general information can change that. The second population may be helped, but only if they are aware of their own vaccination history. A general campaign will only be able to inform them further about vaccines they know they’ve taken, so this would have to be simultaneously a very knowledgeable group with a long memory and unaware of the basic timelines for those same vaccinations. There may be some people who fit that description, but I don’t see it being a large subset of the population.

    I understand that there’s some pushback on outreach among individual doctors, but the problems with both of these subsets of patients are far better solved by the doctors themselves who know their patients’ histories. They can show patients who feel invulnerable that they are just as susceptible as anyone else, and they can track patient vaccination histories to find where updates are needed. I don’t think a public discussion of any sort solves for any substantial proportion of either of these groups. Sure, some doctors are really bad at this, and ones who make the situation actively worse by pushing out patients who aren’t vaccinated, but the latter represents a small minority of doctors and the former can be trained to improve. Meanwhile, the vaccination campaign would take a variety of forms depending on the region, and none of them are guaranteed to be effective at all. The choice seems pretty obvious to me, though I can see value in at least testing out these campaigns alongside physician training efforts.

    As for the grace period, recognizing that patients may need time to find a physician in their area to perform the task is largely the reason for this, as is ensuring that patients have sufficient time to see and respond to the message, regardless of their busy schedules. It’s an urgent issue, but recognizing that people shouldn’t be punished for factors outside of their control seems entirely reasonable to me.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch