Should vaccines be mandatory?

theinfectedmaster

Argument Topic: They should absolutely.

I think vaccines absolutely need to be mandatory or else, everyone's life is put at risk.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Elephants protect their calves. Humans as social beings have moral obligation to protect their young with compulsory vaccine passports.

I agree theinfectedmaster. We need school, employer, doctor's office, and mass gathering vaccine passports for MMR, flu, and covid-19 at the minimum.

"Findings  Among children and young people aged 0 to 19 years in the US, COVID-19 ranked eighth among all causes of deaths, fifth in disease-related causes of deaths"

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800816

Children are not supposed to die.

ZeusAres42

This question is dependent on the specificity of a multitude of different circumstances. 

Generally speaking, In a democratic world while I agree with the medical experts about being up to date with your vaccines I also agree that you should not be forced either.

Funnily enough, the irony of it is that if there are serious discussions about mandatory vaccination people are more likely to rebel and not take them. 

MichaelElpers

@ZeusAres42

"Funnily enough, the irony of it is that if there are serious discussions about mandatory vaccination people are more likely to rebel and not take them."

Not really ironic, when you bring a topic to the forefront more people are going to be vocal about it.
I would highly expect more rebellion on rights to free speech if government started seriously discussing pulling it off thd table.
There are those who are just against the vaccines period and then those who just respect freedom.

I guess to your point there may be a few that would not get vaccine just off principle to be against authority.

MayCaesar

theinfectedmaster said:

I think vaccines absolutely need to be mandatory or else, everyone's life is put at risk.

Everyone's life is also put at risk when vaccines are mandatory. Does this imply that vaccines absolutely cannot be mandatory?

See, theinfectedmaster, this kind of simplistic reasoning can be used to justify any position in the Universe. If you want to get to somewhat solid positions, you should dig quite a bit deeper than that.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: At least you agree with medical experts that we should be up to date with vaccines.

@ZeusAres42

 I am sad that you are against mandatory vaccines.If you look at the history of the anti-vaccine movement which I went already into detail in another thread people were vaccine hesitant first. 

Then, came the vaccine mandates for smallpox. Next, the anti-vaccine movement was formed and they rioted. Yet, many people due to the behavior intention gap got vaccines. In conclusion, vaccine mandates work if only to get lazy people vaccinated.

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer

You misunderstood my point. It's essential to note that the effectiveness and ethics of vaccine mandates are complex issues with multiple facets and can vary based on cultural, societal, and individual factors. It's not as simple as binary. 

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

I agree theinfectedmaster. We need school, employer, doctor's office, and mass gathering vaccine passports for MMR, flu, and covid-19 at the minimum.

"Findings  Among children and young people aged 0 to 19 years in the US, COVID-19 ranked eighth among all causes of deaths, fifth in disease-related causes of deaths"

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800816

Children are not supposed to die.

You aren't even aware of the hypocrisy of  your argument that you can violate someone's bodily autonomy for the benefit of someone else do you?  Like you said 'children are not supposed to die'.  You would force someone to get a vaccine even though the odds that they may die or cause someone else to die are very small, but you support allowing someone to kill an unborn baby, which you know results in death virtually 100 percent of the time.  And all of this under the guise of ''bodily autonomy'.  Its not the  woman's body that dies from an abortion, its the child's.  

Not everyone can take vaccines.  I have a friend who has a brain condition that makes him have seizures if given certain types of vaccines.  He had a serious seizure when made to get one in school that resulted in motor control issues for him.  You would force people to engage in a behavior that will cause harm to some.  They would take away their choice in the matter.  

To learn more about how what you support will harm some people please read:

COVID-19 Vaccination and Neurological Manifestations: A Review of Case Reports and Case Series

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Yes, we need medical exceptions for vaccines, I thought was a truism by now.

"Not everyone can take vaccines." Just_Sayin

Thank you for bringing this up this actually helps my argument quite a bit. This is why it is so important to establish herd immunity for those that are immune compromised, have contradictions, or are too young to take the vaccine. Otherwise, we are effectively putting people who cannot get vaccinated in apartheid. The part about abortion is a red herring and off topic.

ZuesAres42

What are you talking about? My best guess is your talking about the polio vaccine in the middle east. If we have polio vaccine in the middle east and United States forces try to exploit the situation, the vaccine will fail. Yet, that has nothing to do with mandates.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60900-4/fulltext

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/05/20/314231260/cia-says-it-will-no-longer-use-vaccine-programs-as-cover

I don't see just giving up, rolling over, and letting the anti-vaxxers win as an option. 

just_sayin

@Dreamer

"Not everyone can take vaccines." Just_Sayin
Thank you for bringing this up this actually helps my argument quite a bit. This is why it is so important to establish herd immunity for those that are immune compromised, have contradictions, or are too young to take the vaccine. Otherwise, we are effectively putting people who cannot get vaccinated in apartheid. The part about abortion is a red herring and off topic.

So to paraphrase you, its OK to force someone with a compromised immune system to take a vaccine that could kill or severally impair their cognitive ability, because once those immune deficient people die off, not as many people will die off in the future.  Tell me how that differs from what you said in basic intent or application.  For someone who says they support 'choice', 'bodily autonomy', and 'letting medical decisions be decided between a doctor and the individual' your statement sure does come across as hypocritical on the vaccine issue.  

Just remember that the odds that someone will die as a result of you not getting a COVID shot are small, the odds that an innocent human life will die from an abortion are about 100 percent.  Yet you reserve you 'bodily autonomy' argument for the case that you know results in the death of a child.  A lot of dissonance there.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

ZuesAres42

What are you talking about? My best guess is your talking about the polio vaccine in the middle east. If we have polio vaccine in the middle east and United States forces try to exploit the situation, the vaccine will fail. Yet, that has nothing to do with mandates.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60900-4/fulltext

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/05/20/314231260/cia-says-it-will-no-longer-use-vaccine-programs-as-cover

I don't see just giving up, rolling over, and letting the anti-vaxxers win as an option. 

Buddy... This is a conversation, not a war. Your argument seems to be "We cannot allow opinion X to be heard because it helps group Y promote its nefarious agenda", while a proper logical argument would be, "Opinion X is wrong, because this, this and this, regardless of who it being heard helps or hurts".

In general, you engage not in a logical, but in tribal thinking. To you the main gauge of validity of an opinion is what groups its promotion benefits. If there was a religious group that promoted the idea that 2+2=4, therefore all Asian people must die, you would probably say, "I am sad to hear that you agree that 2+2=4. You are giving firepower to the murderous group".

Dreamer

Argument Topic: That's why there is medical exemptions for vaccines.

@just_sayin

"So to paraphrase you, its OK to force someone with a compromised immune system to take a vaccine that could kill"

Your argument is a straw-person. Light a straw-man on fire and kick it around the stage.

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

@just_sayin

"So to paraphrase you, its OK to force someone with a compromised immune system to take a vaccine that could kill"

Your argument is a straw-person. Light a straw-man on fire and kick it around the stage.

You are dodging the logical conclusion of the mandate that you want to put on people.  If you want to take away from people their right to choose and their right to their bodily autonomy, then you are in essence deciding that it is OK to knowingly force someone who is at risk for having a strong reaction to the vaccine to be given a shot that may kill them.  That's a very autocratic move, deciding for others what is best for them, even if it kills them.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Straw person read about vaccine mandates from Rebecca Watson.

@just_sayin

You just reiterated the straw person argument. Do you not know how vaccine mandates work?

https://www.thoughtco.com/straw-man-fallacy-1692144

https://skepchick.org/2021/09/a-brief-history-of-vaccine-mandates-and-how-to-do-it-right/

To reiterate your argument is a straw man fallacy. Nobody is arguing for a lack of medical exemptions.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

To reiterate your argument is a straw man fallacy. Nobody is arguing for a lack of medical exemptions.

You seem to be under the delusion that everyone knows that they have a weakened immune system to the vaccine.  How would someone who does not know they will have seizure if they have the vaccine, get an exception?  The answer is they do not.  So, we are back to where we started.  You will undoubtedly kill some people by imposing your mandate.  And you are comfortable with that.  You are comfortable with taking away their bodily autonomy and sentencing them to death.  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: That type of reaction is extremely rare. This could happen with someone who takes the vaccine voluntarily. Seat belts kill but are required by law.

@just_sayin

Vaccines are seat belts. There is a reason why we have seat belt laws.

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/can-seatbelts-kill-you.htm

Dreamer

Argument Topic: You haven't responded, no links, I assume you are just making a dumb joke.

@ZeusAres42

Sciencebased medicine, skepchick, and scientificamerican all agree vaccine mandates work.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-are-lawful-effective-and-based-on-rock-solid-science/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-activists-attack-vaccine-mandates/

https://skepchick.org/2021/09/a-brief-history-of-vaccine-mandates-and-how-to-do-it-right/

Enough said, we already had this discussion in a different thread. You offer nothing of substance while I have hard scientific facts on my side.

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer ;

Please stop putting words into my mouth. I will clarify my argument later even though I think it was pretty explicit myself.

Fyi, if people don't respond immediately it's either because they are busy, agree or just don't care. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I am passionate about this subject.

@ZeusAres42

I am looking forward to your response, take your time. Meanwhile, I took the trouble to copy and paste my best arguments from the previous thread.

Pro vaccine mandate links and quotes:

"Of all the preventative treatments ever developed through science- and evidence-based medicine, vaccines have arguably saved more lives, prevented more illness and disability, and in general alleviated more suffering than any single class of treatments or preventative measures throughout history." David Gorski

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-activists-attack-vaccine-mandates/

"All 50 states currently require schoolchildren to be immunized for polio, MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), and varicella." NPR

""5. Since 1979, Mississippi has banned religious and personal belief exemptions to school vaccine mandates, and the state has the highest rate of childhood vaccinations in the U.S." NPR

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1056568867/should-schools-mandate-covid-vaccine-for-children"

https://skepchick.org/2021/09/a-brief-history-of-vaccine-mandates-and-how-to-do-it-right/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-are-lawful-effective-and-based-on-rock-solid-science/

"I’ve long said that, if you scratch an “anti-mandate” activist, nine times out of ten (at least!) you’ll find an antivaxxer." David Gorski

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-does-antivaccine-really-mean-since-the-pandemic-hit/

https://bigthink.com/health/future-vaccine-technology/

just_sayin

@Dreamer
I don't disagree that vaccines, in general, are good things that reduce overall deaths.  You seem to have just ignored some of the arguments that others have presented so allow me to summarize some of the arguments for you:

1) It's inconsistent.  If your argument is 'if it saves lives, we must force it on people', well then we know that drunk driving kills people so we should outlaw alcohol.  Alcohol causes a lot of deaths each year - drunk driving, damaged organs, violence, etc.  If you were consistent you would be arguing we should get rid of alcohol.  If you don't like the alcohol illustration, know that if we reduced the speed limit to 10 miles an hour, the number of highway deaths would drop dramatically.  You could enforce this by having every vehicle programmed so it can only go 10 miles an hour maximum.  Yet, you aren't suggesting this.  It is evident that you are not truly interested in 'saving all lives' by forcing people to obey your mandates.  You seem to think not getting a vaccine is much more of a 'sin' than killing someone because you got behind the wheel of a car drunk.  You would prohibit choice in the vaccine, but allow it for drinking.  Your autocratic policies seem to be governed by your own whims.  So to summarize this point: vaping, and not getting a vaccine - bad and we must prevent people from doing them, but killing people on the road by drunk driving and driving too fast is a personal choice so we won't take away people's choice.

2) It's hypocritical.  When people call for forced vaccine mandates they are arguing against a) choice, b) bodily autonomy, and c) allowing these decisions to be made by the individual and their doctor.  Those 3 arguments are often made by the same people pushing vaccine mandates, for justifying the killing of an innocent unborn baby.  This is incredibly hypocritical.  The odds that someone will die as a result of someone not getting a vaccine are very small, however, the likelihood that an innocent human life dies from abortion is about 100 percent.  Its more than just inconsistent, it is blatantly hypocritical because it devalues the humanity of pre-born children, treating them as less than human.  So to summarize your point of view - if you are intentionally killing an innocent baby - then choice and bodily autonomy matter, if you aren't intentionally trying to kill anyone, knowing that your decision will likely not harm anyone, you must be denied bodily autonomy and choice.  That's just a hypocritical and illogical stance.

3) Its dictatorial.  When people want to force people, some of whom will have immune deficiencies, to get a vaccine, knowing that statistically a certain percentage of people will either die or suffer serious health consequences from taking the vaccine they have decided other's fate for them.  People who think that they know better how someone else should live her life than she does, are not just vain, or self-righteous,  but are just like comic book villains.  Marvel villain, Thanos, sought the infinity gauntlet, which when he snapped his fingers with it on, killed half the population, ensuring a better future for the other half, in his mind.  He believed that killing all those people was the logical conclusion.  They had no choice in his decision, but had to suffer the consequences of it.  In case you haven't figured it out, you are like Thanos.  No, I'm not saying you are purple.  I'm saying that you are willing to impose your will on others, without their consent, even though you know some will die because of your actions.  You, like Thanos, think you are the hero.  But you are mistaken.  Avengers Assemble!

Phite

@Dreamer

You speak as if you believe the experimental injection prevents infection and transmission.

Is that what you believe?

MichaelElpers

@just_sayin

The issue is they have a scewed view of rights.  First off they believe in forced provision of anything they deem a right not understanding that can turn them into slaves.  Second they believe they can be changed or violated at as long as they see an overall group benefit.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: At least we agree on vaccines, in general, are good things that reduce overall deaths.

@just_sayin

You do raise some legitimate concerns about freedom. Here's the problem, people tend to have cognitive cohesion if I remember the exact term from the book Thinking Fast and Slow. People that are anti-lockdown also tend to be anti-mask, anti-vaccine mandates, and anti-vaxx. The opposite tends to be true due to the way the human brain works with a web of ideas. 

 The most vocal anti-mandate tend to be anti-vaxx like Phite. Rarely do people say I am anti-mandate, but I really hate the anti-vaxx movement and am sure to get all my vaccines and encourage family and friends. Btw, I spread info sheets, prebunk, and debunk anti-vaxx arguments in my spare time. Anti-mandate people want the freedom without the responsibility.

Also, the sheer effort in changing somebody's mind. Especially when faced with Chinese and Russian troll farms that spread anti-vaxx disinformation. In other words communists are spreading a firehose of falsehoods about covid-19 vaccines.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-covid-disinformation-idUSKBN2B0016

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russia-china-sow-disinformation-undermine-trust-western-vaccines-eu-report-says-2021-04-28/

This is why I find your anti-mandate stance very very naive.

Phite

@Dreamer

If you're going to mention me, the least you could do is answer my question to you.

Try again.

Do you believe that the experimental injection prevents infection and transmission?

Actually, I apologize for calling you out on your beliefs concerning the experimental injection in this thread.

I've already proven my point in this thread: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/7323/should-covid-19-vaccines-be-mandated/p5

However, if you believe you have anything to refute what I've said there, feel free to engage.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Hmmm, do you mean all vaccines or just covid-19?

@Phite

If your saying all vaccines are experimental including the polio vaccine which can be taken orally then you are very incorrect, there has been decades proving the effectiveness on the general public.

Else, you are talking about covid-19 vaccines understand now at the tail of 2023 there is more evidence and testing than most drugs. There's nothing experimental about the covid-19 vaccines in the USA. Understand the disinformation dozen and bad political actors have enveloped us in a tidal wave of disinformation. I am worried about you.  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I want to have my cake and eat it too. To be free and everyone to get their vaccines. That has not happened.

@MichaelElpers

Therefore, we have a choice we let the virus rip and watch as poor people die 4.5x more than rich, as the immune compromised die, and even children which really lowers overall life expectancy.

"death rates were four and a half times higher in the poorest counties than those with the highest median incomes." Ed Pilkington 2022

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/04/us-covid-devastating-toll-poor-low-income-communities

Even worse, when left unchallenged anti-vaxxers tend to push for more. For example, anti-mandate laws interfering with capitalism not allowing businesses in the private sector to require individuals to have vaccines.

Or, we could push for mandates many of which are well within laissez faire and save the people mentioned ahead. No, what anti-mandate people want is control over others. 

Anti-mandate want to pass pro-quack laws that interfere with legitimate businesses. Meanwhile the army of grifters chiropractors, acupuncturist, various energy healing reiki, and many push these quack laws and are all led by quack tycoons, true believers, and foreign disinformation agents with their troll farms and bots.

MichaelElpers you have come to the exact opposite conclusion of what is true.

Phite

@Dreamer

Well now see, this is where we find out who is spreading disinformation.  As far as the experimental injection, do you believe that it prevents infection and transmission?  Cuz ya know, in the beginning of all this, Biden and Fauci said that the "vaccine" was a roadblock to the virus, and that you can't get covid if you get the shot.

Do you believe that the experimental injection prevents infection and transmission?

You seem awfully reluctant to answer that question; so much so that I'm . . . worried about you.  Why are you answer hesitant? What are you afraid of saying?

MichaelElpers

@Dreamer

"Argument Topic: I want to have my cake and eat it too. To be free and everyone to get their vaccines"

Nope I just want people to be free, said nothing everyone needing to get a vaccine.  If an effective vaccine is available anyone who wants it can get it and they should have no issues.

If anyone wants have cake and eat it to it is you. You want freedom and rights but are ok with eliminating them if you see a perceived benefit.
I.e.  You may believe in bodily autonomy as a right, but then want to be able to remove it.
You want a right to a vaccine even though that would infringe on other rights.
Lets say their are 1000 people and only 100 vaccines. Youve made a free for all because its everyones right to get and therefore they can attack/defend it.


"Therefore, we have a choice we let the virus rip and watch as poor people die 4.5x"

Im trying to figure out whether you think the virus targets poor people or maybe the rich paid the virus off.
One with a critical mind wonders what are living conditions, overcrowding, could the rich be more likely to isolate themselves?

MayCaesar

There is that interesting phenomenon: consistent behaviors produce long-term benefits, while inconsistent behaviors produce short-term benefits and long-term failures. For example, being honest can sometimes be extremely unpleasant and uncomfortable and can make some social interactions more painful than they would be otherwise - however, being honest consistently leads to people trusting you, and in the long run you form strong connections with people and can utilize it to your advantage. On the other hand, lies can often give you some immediate benefits ("I skipped the class yesterday because I had a headache!"), but in the long run people start thinking of you as a social chameleon that says whatever pleases their surroundings, and when push comes to shovel, no one will trust you and make big impact deals with you.

It is the same with freedom. Freedom is painful, difficult, uncomfortable, and some people will abuse it - but in the long run it produces great, powerful and flexible societies. Often authoritarian measures such as extreme lockdowns or vaccine mandates can improve some short-term metrics, but getting in the habit of implementing those measures whenever something unpleasant happens leads down the North-Korean road. And no, it is impossible to overall move towards freedom, but make an exception once or twice when it is "really" needed: just like with lying, doing it once makes it easier to justify doing it next time, after which it is even easier to justify it again...

Principles matter. Systems matter. If you want to run a sub-3 hour marathon, you have to stick to your training program religiously. It does not matter if there is a thunderstorm and tsunami outside: you go out there and work out. Skip one session - 90% chance it is going to go downhill from there. Skip three - and you might as well forget about your goal and come back to your easy and comfortable, but unfulfilling life.

If you think that freedom is just some currency that can be traded off for statistical indicators whenever convenient, you will not have freedom. You will have a temporary allowance that will be taken away eventually. And I am not even talking about purely political freedom on the societal scale... No, I am talking about your personal freedom. You make a compromise with yourself, you take an easy path and involve an authority and have it tackle everything for you in exchange for your ability to choose how to live your life - you are screwed. Look at any couple in which one of the partners have given up their autonomy and started relying on the other one in everything... These are relationships from hell.

You, @Dreamer, have very little idea just how hard you are crippling yourself with your reliance on others to tell you what the truth is, to protect you from virus carriers around you. I remember in a different thread you mentioned something like this: "I will never have a good career with a decent income; I have accepted that". You just committed a suicide, buddy. Just threw your life out like that. It is very sad and painful to see.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Arguing with three people going to focus on speed.

@Phite

Even arguing with one person can be difficult due to Brandolini's Law. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

First, science is updated as more evidence comes forward and logical flaws are found. One theory supplanting another. You seem to be replying upon old quotes from Biden and Fauci. Much misinformation is simply obsolete info.

Second, the covid-19 vaccine reduces chances of becoming infected and spreading the virus. Most importantly it drastically reduces the symptoms helping alleviate the overburden health care system.

Michael

"If an effective vaccine is available anyone who wants it can get it and they should have no issues."

That is the crux of the problem there has been an effective vaccine available since April 2021. Yet people are not getting it and this pandemic/endemic goes on and on because we can't reach herd immunity as the virus continues to mutate sometimes via co-infection.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35585202/

We have plenty of vaccines, vaccines went to waste because people aren't getting them due to disinformation and misinformation. Poor people tend to be front-line works in critical areas like supermarkets and restaurants. While also living in overcrowded conditions and more likely to have co-comorbidities like diabetes and asthma then rich people.

MayCaesar

Again, the freedumb of misinformed consent argument. As if forcing people to get their school age children vaccinated will lead us straight into the world of Big Brother. Let's try a Reductio ad absurdum to expose the flaws of your reasoning without any outside links nor evidence.

Mandates impose upon freedom, ban all vaccine mandates! Seat-belts too, seat-belts laws led to Stalin's rise. Get rid of all the stop signs and red lights. Assault rifle vending machines. Same with underage drinking, lets let all the 8 years get super-drunk and drive! Eliminate the age requirement for driving. Age requirements for driving led to Nazi Germany!!!!  Any restriction on any of the above will lead us straight into Nazi, Mao, and Islam theocracy. Freedumb FREEDUMB!

Never-mind how the immune-compromised, old, and too young to be vaccinated are greatly restricted in their freedom. As for the last part that is an irrelevant red herring ad hominem attack on my character. Upwards social mobility is rare.

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

First, science is updated as more evidence comes forward and logical flaws are found. One theory supplanting another. You seem to be replying upon old quotes from Biden and Fauci. Much misinformation is simply obsolete info.

Second, the covid-19 vaccine reduces chances of becoming infected and spreading the virus. Most importantly it drastically reduces the symptoms helping alleviate the overburden health care system.

So, you believe that biden and fauci had been told that the experimental injection will prevent infection and transmission because that was the prevailing wisdom at the time. 

You must also believe that the FDA recommended a PCR-test cycle-threshold of 40 because they didn't know that anything over 35 would make the test meaningless.

As to your first belief, this is from 2020:
 
At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-key-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-first-covid-19

Fauci claimed that the experimental injection was a roadblock to the virus in 2021.  Nothing changed between the time the FDA said that there is no evidence that the experimental injection prevents transmission and the time of fauci's misinformation concerning the experimental injection's capacity to prevent transmission and infection.

You seem genuinely uninformed about the fact that Pfizer never tested their experimental injection for transmission.  The nature of belief often dictates that we turn a blind eye to that which threatens our belief . . . like you're doing right now.

As to your second belief, fauci has already claimed that a PCR-test cycle-threshold of anything over 40 would be meaningless.  So what's your best guess as to why the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40 to labs around the world?  And why didn't fauci correct them?

"From the covid-test package insert:

10. This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen.
11. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for monitoring treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
12. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for the screening of blood or blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
14. Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.

https://www.fda.gov/media/139832/download"

So, why did you take the test?

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer

and @everyone else in this thread

The question asks "should vaccines be mandatory?" The OP didn't state what, which, why, how, etc, and hence for my general response: 

This question is dependent on the specificity of a multitude of different circumstances. 

Generally speaking, In a democratic world while I agree with the medical experts about being up to date with your vaccines I also agree that you should not be forced either.

Now, if the question was "should covid vaccines me mandatory?" then we have a debate that is much more sensible to explore. Quite, frankly, the question "should vaccines be mandatory" is akin to asking "should medication be mandatory?"


I really cannot make that any more simpler. 

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

MayCaesar

Again, the freedumb of misinformed consent argument. As if forcing people to get their school age children vaccinated will lead us straight into the world of Big Brother. Let's try a Reductio ad absurdum to expose the flaws of your reasoning without any outside links nor evidence.

Mandates impose upon freedom, ban all vaccine mandates! Seat-belts too, seat-belts laws led to Stalin's rise. Get rid of all the stop signs and red lights. Assault rifle vending machines. Same with underage drinking, lets let all the 8 years get super-drunk and drive! Eliminate the age requirement for driving. Age requirements for driving led to Nazi Germany!!!!  Any restriction on any of the above will lead us straight into Nazi, Mao, and Islam theocracy. Freedumb FREEDUMB!

Never-mind how the immune-compromised, old, and too young to be vaccinated are greatly restricted in their freedom. As for the last part that is an irrelevant red herring ad hominem attack on my character. Upwards social mobility is rare.

This is a very sad comment. Instead of trying to understand where I am coming from and what my argument entails, you chose to interpret it in the least benevolent way possible, attributing to me strange views that "age requirements for driving led to Nazi Germany"... And my attempt to show you the error of your ways for your own benefit you chose to interpret as "an irrelevant red herring ad hominem attack on your character" - which is a mumbo-jumbo of cool-sounding words that have nothing to do with my intent.

I cannot pull you out of this kind of thinking. Maybe 5-10-15-20 years later, when you see where it has led you in your life, you will recall this conversation.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Vaccines are tested more than other drugs.

@Phite

"Vaccines in general have perhaps the overall best risk vs benefit ratio of any type of medical intervention."

 " More than 298 million doses of mRNA vaccines have been given in the US alone, and this represents a massive collection of data we can use to monitor the safety of these vaccines." Novella

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-study-mrna-vaccines-safe/

Can you say that 298 million doses of other drugs on the market to field test safety? No you can't. I'd be much more worried about  unregulated homeopathy and supplements.

Zeus, I see what you mean, hepatitis c vaccine has failed testing. I certainly wouldn't recommend every vaccine. Another example is a lyme vaccine for dogs this really depends upon the prevalence of Lyme disease in the area.

MayCasesar

I grow tired of the ad nausea appeal to freedom argument made by deniers. Let's not do anything about smoking, in fact we should praise industry front groups that promote smoker's rights.

https://theconversation.com/tobacco-killed-500-000-americans-in-2020-is-it-time-to-control-cigarette-makers-153611

Same with climate change, I agree that climate change exists, but good heavens no we won't build any renewables. Of course, the opposite is to declare everything a denier doesn't like as totalitarian of some sort. This is not an argument it is just an appeal to emotion or affect heuristic. Often coupled with downplaying the benefits of vaccines and understating the burden of disease from covid.

Let alone the hypocrisy of not prebunking anti-vaxx arguments. Or the entire mass incarceration. Freedumb only when it is convenient with ideas you already agree with.

In the end the appeal to freedom is callousness and indifference only.

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

"Vaccines in general have perhaps the overall best risk vs benefit ratio of any type of medical intervention."

 " More than 298 million doses of mRNA vaccines have been given in the US alone, and this represents a massive collection of data we can use to monitor the safety of these vaccines." Novella

You're not addressing anything I've shown you.  In fact, you  speak as if you don't even understand the difference between actual vaccines and the experimental injection.  That's how out of touch you are.

Let's see if we can get you to address it this time.

At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-key-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-first-covid-19

Fauci claimed that the experimental injection was a roadblock to the virus in 2021.  Nothing changed between the time the FDA said that there is no evidence that the experimental injection prevents transmission and the time of fauci's misinformation concerning the experimental injection's capacity to prevent transmission and infection.

You seem genuinely ignorant of the fact that Pfizer never tested their experimental injection for transmission.  The nature of belief often dictates that we turn a blind eye to that which threatens our belief . . . like you're doing right now.

As to your second belief, fauci has already claimed that a PCR-test cycle-threshold of anything over 40 would be meaningless.  So what's your best guess as to why the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40 to labs around the world?  And why didn't fauci correct them?

"From the covid-test package insert:

10. This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen.
11. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for monitoring treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
12. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for the screening of blood or blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
14. Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.

https://www.fda.gov/media/139832/download"

So, why did you take the test?

Are you going to continue pretending you don't see what you're being asked to explain?

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

MayCasesar

I grow tired of the ad nausea appeal to freedom argument made by deniers. Let's not do anything about smoking, in fact we should praise industry front groups that promote smoker's rights.

https://theconversation.com/tobacco-killed-500-000-americans-in-2020-is-it-time-to-control-cigarette-makers-153611

Same with climate change, I agree that climate change exists, but good heavens no we won't build any renewables. Of course, the opposite is to declare everything a denier doesn't like as totalitarian of some sort. This is not an argument it is just an appeal to emotion or affect heuristic. Often coupled with downplaying the benefits of vaccines and understating the burden of disease from covid.

Let alone the hypocrisy of not prebunking anti-vaxx arguments. Or the entire mass incarceration. Freedumb only when it is convenient with ideas you already agree with.

In the end the appeal to freedom is callousness and indifference only.

You would do better by growing tired of cheap labels such as "deniers" that give you an excuse to avoid wrestling with actual arguments. I did not say anything about not building any renewables, for instance - but because you have assigned a lazy label to me, nuances of my position become irrelevant to you. You are not talking to me, but to a spherical horse in a vacuum with generic views that you find easy to criticize.

Your thinking is so deeply corrupt and self-defeating, it is almost painful to read. I have no idea how you are going to connect with any person in this world on a deep level, when your thinking is so ridden with stereotypes, templates and placeholders. And more so, how you are going to get anywhere in this life yourself when, wherever you look, you see obstacles that only a nanny can help you overcome.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Are we talking about vaccines or covid-19 test kits?

@Phite

The FDA link is from Dec 2020, almost three years ago a lot has changed. The spoon and the egg race comes to mind. With a global pandemic quality and speed were balanced.

I look forward to your response.

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

The FDA link is from Dec 2020, almost three years ago a lot has changed.

You're being answer-hesitant again.

You need to do more than just say that things have changed.  For instance, you obviously need to explain what it was that changed the fact that a PCR-test cycle-threshold of 40 will produce meaningless results.  You don't want to be answer-hesitant at this point; it gives the impression that you're stalling for one reason or another . . . or both!

Ya know?  Like what is it you believe changed that changed the following:

10. This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen.
11. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for monitoring treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
12. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for the screening of blood or blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
14. Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.

And what about this:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

“PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.” — Andrew N. Cohen, Ph.D.1*, Bruce Kessel, M.D.2, Michael G. Milgroom, Ph.D.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf

“…all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.” — Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer

“…false positive results will occur regularly, despite high specificity, causing unnecessary community isolation and contact tracing, and nosocomial infection if inpatients with false positive tests are cohorted with infectious patients.” — The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30614-5/fulltext

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

https://maskoffmn.org/#kary

“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.” — Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer

“…up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.” — The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid” — Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

“Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person” — The World Health Organization

“Caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus. PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” — The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19

Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste
“The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…” — Dominic Raab – First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-covid-19-testing-tragic-waste/5729700

“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.” — FDA

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“…no single gold standard assay exists. The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.” — Dr. Elena Surkova; Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy – Public Health Englamd; Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College.

What changed that makes all that go away?

Also, you're not responding to the question of why you took an experimental injection that does not confer immunity.  Where did you learn that the experimental injection prevents transmission?  What did you hear that contradicts the manufacturer's admission that they have no evidence that their experimental injection prevents transmission?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: That's a lot of claims.

@Phite

I sometimes shut down when there is a long argument that I don't understand. I think I've been distracted by the other users and now plan to take your premises more seriously.  Take care Phite I didn't realize it at the time but some of the other users are very racist. I didn't realize how extreme their points of view were to recently. I plan to starve them out and respond to you instead.

Testing can save lives because people can self-quarantine and get medical attention earlier. I am out of time but will respond further tomorrow.

Phite

Dreamer said:

@Phite

Testing can save lives because people can self-quarantine and get medical attention earlier. I am out of time but will respond further tomorrow.

From the test-package insert:

10. This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen.
11. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for monitoring treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
12. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for the screening of blood or blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
14. Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You and I interpret that much differently.  I believe what it says.  Why don't you?

Also, this is the first time in medical history that the prescribed treatment for an illness was to do nothing; that is, until you're so sick that you're having trouble breathing, and THAT'S when they wanted you to go to emergency.  So, there was no early medical treatment; just a wait-and-see recommendation from Fauci,  So, what treatment are you talking about?

In the interest of honest debate, I'm claiming that the test did not tell you what you needed to know.  As evidence for that claim, I've shown you a segment from the test-package insert stating as much.

As evidence that early treatments were withheld , I offer fauci & company's recommended treatment of isolating and waiting until it's bad enough to go to the hospital.  So, do you have anything to show that doing nothing at all was not the treatment recommended by the medical establishment?

Dreamer

@Phite

Early detection means more time to use anti-viral that can reduce hospitalization. Self-quarantining can help flatten the curve so the hospitals are not overwhelmed.

"Merck’s drug, meanwhile, was shown to have a 50% reduction in hospitalization" 2021

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/two-new-antivirals-targeting-covid-19/

Note, this article is a little dated 2021, there may be more relevant information available.

Phite

@Dreamer

Are you denying that people were told to isolate and just wait? If you believe I'm wrong about that, just tell me what that treatment you're referring to was.

Also, I'm asking why you took a test that will not tell you what you need to know.

Respond to this:

From the test-package insert:

10. This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen.
11. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for monitoring treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
12. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for the screening of blood or blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
14. Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please paraphrase that so I can be sure you understand what it is telling you about the test.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Many drugs have long disclaimers.

@Phite

During a drug test it is often difficult to differentiate between correlation and causation. To be safe any symptom somebody suffers is recorded whether relevant or not.

In brief, they are just protecting their-selves against liabilities. No test nor treatment is 100% safe nor effective. According to this article, there is 80% and 95% accuracy for at home and PCR tests. This is why more accurate that a coin toss.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/are-at-home-covid-tests-accurate-enough-5210762

"13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens."

I think what they are referring to is the possibility for false negatives and positives. That this test is not 100% accurate. 

I have general knowledge about quackery and how to spot it, but the details are often lost to me. I can see the forest but often miss the trees.  

Thank you for staying topic, unlike some of the other users who thread-jack about abortion.

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer

Ok, it seems like the OP is a coward and would rather just make sweeping statments and not answer specific questions. So, let me present the same questions to you: 

"What vaccines should be mandatory?" 

• All vaccines? 
• Some vaccines
• Untested vaccines? 
• Vaccines currently in trial?
• Anything other to be more specific? 

Oh, And what grounds? What probabl cause, etc? 

21CenturyIconoclast

@theinfectedmaster

The dumbfounded pseudo-christians don't need vaccines, or any healthcare for that matter, because all of these primitive thinking Christians have to do is just pray that they will not get Covid19 or any other malady that will endanger their life, as shown herewith:

JESUS STATED:  “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” (Matthew 21:22)  Key word: “believing,” which triggers the prayer in a direct and absolute manner in receiving your prayer request of healing! The unfortunate position is that if a pseudo-christian isn't healed from their sickness after their prayer, then they didn't truly BELIEVE enough in Jesus!.  LOL!

In return, subjectively the Atheist should use the 21st century science of any vaccine to cover them to live long enough in possibly seeing ALL RELIGIONS are not existing anymore in our lifetime remaining!  BUT, there are too many inept thinking minds that have swallowed the primitive thinking Bronze and Iron Age religions.  

.

Phite

@Dreamer

The pandemic was predicated on the number of cases; the number of cases was predicated on the results of the PCR-test; the PCR-test did not include clinical presentation or observation; the PCR-test does not distinguish between Covid and influenza or other pathogens; the PCR-test does not tell you whether a virus is dead or alive; the PCR-test does not tell you that someone is sick or how sick they are. Thus, the PCR-test was the worst choice among the available alternatives. Therefore, the authorities to which you must necessarily appeal were either ignorant of that fact, or they knowingly allowed a fraudulent test to be used.

Further, The PCR test that was used to detect coronavirus was set at a 40-cycle threshold of amplification/replication as per the FDA's recommendation. However, even infectious disease "expert" Fauci himself is on record stating that an amplification/replication cycle above 35 is going to spit out almost all false-positives; others say anything above 30 cycles is meaningless. There was even a New York Times article stating that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives. It takes almost zero critical thinking skills to draw the obvious conclusion. Ninety percent false positives means no pandemic.

So, why did the FDA recommend a cycle-threshold of 40? That's a rhetorical question; they obviously wanted to create the illusion of a pandemic. Also, why didn't Tony bother to speak up concerning what can only be described as a deliberate and gross misapplication of a test? We'll never know because, thanks to a complicit media, Mr. Fauci is not required to publicly answer even one challenge to his dire predictions which are based on 90% false positive returns from a PCR test that was knowingly set too high.

Unfortunately, unless some talking head comes on tv and tells people it's okay to apply their own critical thinking skills to those factual numbers, they won't do it. They think they need permission to make the obvious inference and then respond to the falsehood they've been fed. And the real kicker is that the only ones they'll accept permission from are the same ones who neglected to inform them of the reason for all the false positives in the first place.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I will try to answer your questions.

@ZeusAres42

"

• All vaccines? 
• Some vaccines
• Untested vaccines? 
• Vaccines currently in trial?
• Anything other to be more specific? 

Oh, And what grounds? What probabl cause, etc? "

• No, not all vaccines.
• Yes, some vaccines.
• No, Sputnik V vaccine was untested in Aug 2020 and shouldn't be used by anyone.
• No, but exceptions should be considered if late in trials, passed 2 out 3 trials and a deadly pandemic is raging. Egg and spoon race.
  
•  MMR, flu, and covid-19 vaccines school mandates with medical exemptions.  Rabies vaccine for cats and dogs.
  

Vaccines save lives. Not vaccinating is objectively immoral. See previous comment:

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/168516/#Comment_168516

Dreamer

@Phite

"dire predictions which are based on 90% false positive returns from a PCR test that was knowingly set too high."

Where are you getting the 90% number?

Phite

Dreamer said:

Not vaccinating is objectively immoral.

Unless the injection doesn't prevent infection or transmission.

Phite

@Dreamer

The FDA recommended a PCR-test cycle-threshold of 40.  Tony Fauci has clearly stated that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results.

Which one do you believe?