Compulsory vaccination

[andrewas]

I don't see how a well informed person could be against vaccination.

People are not generally well informed. And the behavior of the media during the Wakefield scandal was near criminal. Tell someone something often enough and they'll start to believe it. The newspapers mentioned it every other day and published anecdotal evidence all the time, mainstream science was marginalized and reported on page 26 while Wakefield's supporters were getting the front page. Everyone was saying there was a link and the media weren't giving responsible voices a platform. Yes, plenty of scientists tried, but the people they needed to reach were the ones who were reading the paper and taking it at face value, not the ones who would look at medical journals or scientist's blogs.

[RuBisCO]

Yes. If there was a global pandemic I would want look into other options. There would be no guarantee of having accesses to a vaccine if there was one.

I never said I wouldn't take the vaccine just that I would like to see that it works before taking it. By people reacting I mean if it was a global situation there would be more going on than just people getting sick.

Explain "see that it works before taking it", what would you need to see? I would take it without knowing if it works or not if people around me were spewing blood out of ever orifice, curling up and dying. Exactly what alternatives are there?

[Capt.Joseph Kerbertson]

Honestly. Seriously... The reason for vaccinations is to prevent outbreaks. Un-vaccinated are going to spread diseases faster and further. There are certain reasons to not get a particular vaccine (people in northern climates are not going to get the yellow fever vaccine on a yearly basis, unless of course they happen to visit tropical locations where the virus is present). Other than a real medical reason, there is no excuse not to vaccinate yourself or your family.

[Napaeozapus]

Explain "see that it works before taking it", what would you need to see? I would take it without knowing if it works or not if people around me were spewing blood out of ever orifice, curling up and dying. Exactly what alternatives are there?

I would just like to see how other people are reacting to it before taking it myself given the chance. I am that way with most things though. It isn't specific to vaccines. If I was likely already infected and had no sure way of mitigating the effects of the disease I doubt I would have a problem with just taking it.

[Dodgey]

What would you hope to accomplish by doing that though. You can already find out about the side effects of it, and people react to it differently. All you are doing is increasing the risk of infection and transmission.

[RuBisCO]

I would just like to see how other people are reacting to it before taking it myself given the chance. I am that way with most things though. It isn't specific to vaccines. If I was likely already infected and had no sure way of mitigating the effects of the disease I doubt I would have a problem with just taking it.

If you were already infected, a vaccine would not help you. Vaccines are not likely to have any harmful effects in general so I mystified as to why you would wait, What do you would be viable observation on other people reacting? Do you consider statistical studies viable? Such studies show the chance of serious side effects to be 1 in tens of thousands, while the chances of death from the disease they protect to be much MUCH higher.

[Master Tao]

If I was likely already infected and had no sure way of mitigating the effects of the disease I doubt I would have a problem with just taking it.

If you're already infected, it's too late for a vaccine. Vaccines protect you by helping your immune system recognize the real infection.

What would you hope to accomplish by doing that though. You can already find out about the side effects of it, and people react to it differently. All you are doing is increasing the risk of infection and transmission.

Napaeozapus was specifically talking about untrialed vaccines. In almost all cases, doctors can't provide untested treatment without informed consent. This is because the treatment's effects, good or bad, are unknown until after trials. While vaccines are typically very safe, the strength and dosage need to be extensively tested. How much the delivery mechanism needs to be tested depends on whether it's been used before.

That's one of the reasons the Ebola treatments have been mostly restricted to medical staff – they're among the few people who can give informed consent for a treatment that's only been lightly trialed on monkeys.

[cpast]

Napaeozapus was specifically talking about untrialed vaccines. In almost all cases, doctors can't provide untested treatment without informed consent.

I was under the impression this was almost always the case for tested treatments, as well, with a few exceptions (children [for which you need parental consent in most cases, but not necessarily all], court-ordered psychiatric treatment, and emergency lifesaving treatment for a patient who is incapable of consent and hasn't taken steps [like a DNR order] to indicate lack of consent; the last one isn't actually a case of "can treat without consent", it's a case of "consent is implied unless they specifically refused consent at a time when they were physically capable of doing so"). Basically, I'm not aware of any case except court-ordered treatment of a person who is legally insane in which it is permissible for anyone to give medical care to an adult when the adult explicitly refuses said medical care. While not so relevant for most vaccinations (which are given to children, and where you have the conflict between a parent's right to make decisions on behalf of the child and the child's right to life), it is relevant for a few, including any vaccines designed to confront an epidemic (in which case adults wouldn't have been vaccinated as children).

[Idobox]

If you had bothered to be honest in your summarizing of that article I would be more inclined to take you seriously. First of all, ONE of those 14 people that died, was from a car crash. If you want to say vaccines cause car crashes now you're going to have a hard time justifying much else. Additionally, 9 of the remaining 13 people had "serious underlying conditions" that had an effect. If these 9 with such serious conditions were at risk of death from the vaccine. I think it likely that they were even at higher risk from contracting the disease themselves. So, without researching any further onto these 14 people that leaves us with 4 people, who you claim, died(likely from pneumonia or heart disease, as stated by your source) from the vaccine. That leaves us with a .08 in 10,000 chance for death. Of the total 500,000 people( 430,000 really) that's a .000008, or eight millionths of a percent chance of death. Next time you use a source, please read it thoroughly and understand the numbers for what they mean. The article even says 13 people died following vaccination and 1 person died of a car crash after leaving the clinic. You deliberately added the extra person to cook your already small numbers. This is the science forum, try not to use whatever feels "right" for evidence.

Ok, I read the article too fast.

I didn't try to manipulate the data, I tried to answer quickly and didn't spend enough effort.

Anyway, I'm pro vaccination for most things. I just think avoiding by all cost to catch any disease is a bad policy.

Assuming 1 death per 500 000 persons by the vaccine, it still doesn't make much sense for a healthy adult to get it. What are the chances of catching the flu in any given year? multiply by the risk for a healthy adult (the 1 in 10 000 doesn't discriminate for prior condition), and the advantage, if you get one, is not very big. And that's why the flu vaccine is not mandatory.

About herd immunity, I'm not sure how much that would work with something like the flu, given that some other mammals can carry it. I suppose it would work pretty well in rich cities.

[Dodgey]

Ok, I read the article too fast.

I didn't try to manipulate the data, I tried to answer quickly and didn't spend enough effort.

Anyway, I'm pro vaccination for most things. I just think avoiding by all cost to catch any disease is a bad policy.

Assuming 1 death per 500 000 persons by the vaccine, it still doesn't make much sense for a healthy adult to get it. What are the chances of catching the flu in any given year? multiply by the risk for a healthy adult (the 1 in 10 000 doesn't discriminate for prior condition), and the advantage, if you get one, is not very big. And that's why the flu vaccine is not mandatory.

About herd immunity, I'm not sure how much that would work with something like the flu, given that some other mammals can carry it. I suppose it would work pretty well in rich cities.

Yes but the death rate is one in 800'000'000. Not one on 500'000. So a 36% percent chance that someone will die from it in all of Australia if every person took the vaccine if I did my maths correctly. With regards to your chance of catching the flu in a year, is that if you are vaccinated? What about unvaccinated communities, that would certainly increase your risk. So what if oer mammals can carry the desease? The interaction between people is far, far, far greater than that of other mammals. For interspecies spread that is. I honestly don't understand why herd immunity wouldn't work.