Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 10

I have an old friend from years ago who I now keep in touch with on Facebook. Her posts are fascinating in the amazing variety of conspiracy theories, some outrageous, some maybe partially true.... Read More

  1. by   FolksBtrippin
    The anti-vaxxers get upset because there is a question of whether or not we ought to force them to comply. Forcing people to do things they don't want to do, especially with regards to what goes in their bodies absolutely sucks for us morally and we should avoid it whenever we can.

    Force takes many forms. Threatening to cut off a person's employment or income counts as force. As does prohibiting school.

    Using force is justified only when you are very certain that it will benefit the community and also very certain that it will not cause harm to the individual. Then you have moral grounds with which to use force.

    My problem with using force on the flu shot is that we don't know what getting it 80 times over the course of a lifetime will do to people and we do know that flu doesn't usually kill healthy people. It does kill sick people, so maybe it is justifiable to use force for healthcare workers-- as in take your shot or don't come to work, don't get paid.

    But for folks not working in healthcare I don't think force is justified with regards to the flu shot. It's a vaccine people are expected to get every year. We don't know what effect, if any that has over a lifetime yet.

    In 100 years when we have evidence that giving flu shots to a person every year from ages 3 to 100 did not cause undue harm to that person, then we will have moral grounds to use force.

    I think gardasil is also one where using force is not justified for similar reasons. It hasn't been around long enough. Gardasil is a weaker case against force then the flu shot, because we aren't expected to get it every year.

    With proven, older vaccines that prevent devastating illness like polio, I think we are justified in straight up forcing people to comply. Not like, hold a person down and put a needle in him, but definitely keeping kids out of school, and maybe even cutting off income.

    And I say that as a quasi-anarchist who vaccinates her children and gets her required annual flu shot. And also as a psych nurse, who sometimes really does have to hold people down and give them a needle. It breaks my heart every time and I don't do it unless it is really, really necessary.
    Last edit by FolksBtrippin on Oct 26, '17
  2. by   klone
    Quote from FolksBtrippin
    But for folks not working in healthcare I don't think force is justified with regards to the flu shot. It's a vaccine people are expected to get every year. We don't know what effect, if any that has over a lifetime yet.
    Outside of healthcare, I know of no entity that "forces" anyone to get the flu shot.

    I think gardasil is also one where using force is not justified for similar reasons. It hasn't been around long enough. Gardasil is a weaker case against force then the flu shot, because we aren't expected to get it every year.
    Ditto Gardasil. It's not compulsory. It's recommended. No states have included Gardasil in the list of required vaccines for public school attendance (thank the Conservative Christian Right for that, good or bad).
  3. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from FolksBtrippin
    The anti-vaxxers get upset because there is a question of whether or not we ought to force them to comply. Forcing people to do things they don't want to do, especially with regards to what goes in their bodies absolutely sucks for us morally and we should avoid it whenever we can.

    Force takes many forms. Threatening to cut off a person's employment or income counts as force. As does prohibiting school.

    Using force is justified only when you are very certain that it will benefit the community and also very certain that it will not cause harm to the individual. Then you have moral grounds with which to use force.

    My problem with using force on the flu shot is that we don't know what getting it 80 times over the course of a lifetime will do to people and we do know that flu doesn't usually kill healthy people. It does kill sick people, so maybe it is justifiable to use force for healthcare workers-- as in take your shot or don't come to work, don't get paid.

    But for folks not working in healthcare I don't think force is justified with regards to the flu shot. It's a vaccine people are expected to get every year. We don't know what effect, if any that has over a lifetime yet.

    In 100 years when we have evidence that giving flu shots to a person every year from ages 3 to 100 did not cause undue harm to that person, then we will have moral grounds to use force.

    I think gardasil is also one where using force is not justified for similar reasons. It hasn't been around long enough. Gardasil is a weaker case against force then the flu shot, because we aren't expected to get it every year.

    With proven, older vaccines that prevent devastating illness like polio, I think we are justified in straight up forcing people to comply. Not like, hold a person down and put a needle in him, but definitely keeping kids out of school, and maybe even cutting off income.

    And I say that as a quasi-anarchist who vaccinates her children and gets her required annual flu shot. And also as a psych nurse, who sometimes really does have to hold people down and give them a needle. It breaks my heart every time and I don't do it unless it is really, really necessary.
    The only significant way that has been found to improve vaccine rates is to make them mandatory. You can see this in states with mandatory vaccine laws versus states without strict mandatory vaccine laws.

    Actually, we have a pretty good idea what mandatory flu vaccines and other vaccines do when given over 80 years. It makes people live longer. The flu vaccine has been around for 80 years. The flu vacccine has an extremely high safety profile just like most vaccines. Your analogy of waiting 100 years to mandate vaccines is ridiculous. That is equilavent of saying lets not give ACE Inhibitors as a first line drug treatment until we have a 100 years of studies. It already takes almost 2 decades for research to come into practice. The flu vaccine outside of the military wasn't even mandatory for several decades well after the safety profile was well established with long term studies, cohort studies, retrospective studies etc.

    The HPV vacccine can be 100% effective against most HPV strains that cause cervical cancer. It has been around for 11 years now, and every asinine antivaxxer complaint about its safety or that its going to cause promiscuiity has been debunked. In the USA men on average have 7 sexual partners and women 4 in their lifetimes. It makes sense to have a vaccine that can essentially get rid of most HPV infections, prevent the majority of cervical cancers, eliminate HCPs and infants accidental HPV exposure. The question is why wouldn't there be a mandatory HPV vaccine for girls and boys knowing that the safety profile is consistent with the literature and it has all these health benefits.
  4. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from klone
    Outside of healthcare, I know of no entity that "forces" anyone to get the flu shot.



    Ditto Gardasil. It's not compulsory. It's recommended. No states have included Gardasil in the list of required vaccines for public school attendance (thank the Conservative Christian Right for that, good or bad).
    Two states and D.C. require the HPV vaccine for public school.
    Why Public Schools Should Require the HPV Vaccine - Harvard Health Blog - Harvard Health Publishing
  5. by   klone
    Quote from wtbcrna
    Wow, I'm quite surprised! The way the Christian right has a such stronghold on our government, that frankly shocks me that this passed. Thanks for clarifying/correcting me.
  6. by   wtbcrna
    Quote from klone
    Outside of healthcare, I know of no entity that "forces" anyone to get the flu shot
    FYI: The military does and the punishment is a little more severe than just losing your job if you refuse it..
  7. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from Horseshoe
    Frankly, I'm wondering why it wasn't taught to you as part of your nursing education.

    ARE you a nurse?
    I am. Why do you ask? If it's because I have a different view than most of you on here, that doesn't mean I'm not a nurse.

    Although I have heard it recently, I don't recall hearing the term back in the Dark Ages when I was in school.
    Last edit by Kooky Korky on Oct 26, '17
  8. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from klone
    Wow, I'm quite surprised! The way the Christian right has a such stronghold on our government, that frankly shocks me that this passed. Thanks for clarifying/correcting me.
    If the Christian Right had a stronghold on our government, do you think abortions by choice would be the law of the land?
  9. by   LibraSunCNM
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    I am. Why do you ask? If it's because I have a different view than most of you on here, that doesn't mean I'm not a nurse.
    No, it's because you clearly have not grasped and/or accepted basic foundational concepts of science, and throw random straw man arguments about your religious beliefs into the discussion in order to try to distract us from this.
  10. by   kcochrane
    Quote from wtbcrna
    FYI: The military does and the punishment is a little more severe than just losing your job if you refuse it..
    Yes! You don't get the option of wearing a mask.
  11. by   klone
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    If the Christian Right had a stronghold on our government, do you think abortions by choice would be the law of the land?
    It's much harder to overturn Supreme Court decisions than it is to create new legislation.
  12. by   FolksBtrippin
    Quote from klone
    Outside of healthcare, I know of no entity that "forces" anyone to get the flu shot.





    Ditto Gardasil. It's not compulsory. It's recommended. No states have included Gardasil in the list of required vaccines for public school attendance (thank the Conservative Christian Right for that, good or bad).
    In my state, preschool children are required to get a flu shot, or they are excluded from school.
  13. by   FolksBtrippin
    Quote from wtbcrna
    The only significant way that has been found to improve vaccine rates is to make them mandatory. You can see this in states with mandatory vaccine laws versus states without strict mandatory vaccine laws.

    Actually, we have a pretty good idea what mandatory flu vaccines and other vaccines do when given over 80 years. It makes people live longer. The flu vaccine has been around for 80 years. The flu vacccine has an extremely high safety profile just like most vaccines. Your analogy of waiting 100 years to mandate vaccines is ridiculous. That is equilavent of saying lets not give ACE Inhibitors as a first line drug treatment until we have a 100 years of studies. It already takes almost 2 decades for research to come into practice. The flu vaccine outside of the military wasn't even mandatory for several decades well after the safety profile was well established with long term studies, cohort studies, retrospective studies etc.

    The HPV vacccine can be 100% effective against most HPV strains that cause cervical cancer. It has been around for 11 years now, and every asinine antivaxxer complaint about its safety or that its going to cause promiscuiity has been debunked. In the USA men on average have 7 sexual partners and women 4 in their lifetimes. It makes sense to have a vaccine that can essentially get rid of most HPV infections, prevent the majority of cervical cancers, eliminate HCPs and infants accidental HPV exposure. The question is why wouldn't there be a mandatory HPV vaccine for girls and boys knowing that the safety profile is consistent with the literature and it has all these health benefits.
    I'm going to forgive you for using the word ridiculous when attempting to counter my points because you clearly did not understand me, but if it happens again, our discussion will end.

    I didn't make an analogy.

    My discussion points are not about efficacy or even about safety.

    My discussion points are not about whether or not we have ample evidence to advocate for flu shots for everyone.

    My discussion points are about what I think is required morally and ethically to override an individual's decision on what goes into his/her body.

    On that topic, my point is: The benefit to the community and certainty of benefit must be overwhelmingly great and the certainty of safety to the individual must be overwhelmingly great to justify overriding a person's decision on what goes into his/her body.

    And I don't think we are meeting that, or that we're even close when it comes to the flu shot.

close