Depending on the country, it might be banned, and that’s one obvious example I came with.
And, in my opinion, it must be, no matter what you smoke, tobacco or weed or something else. Why the hell should others inhale terrible chemicals just because you chose to?
Same, why should they be exposed to dangerous microbes just because you are reckless?
No one argues with that. But you know what also has side effects that are orders of magnitude more likely? Diseases.
Forcing people to is where I have the issue
I understand that mandatory policies are to be reviewed with caution, and forcing people to do something that has inherent risks should normally be avoided. But here, by not taking a vaccine, you simply multiply and outsource the risk elsewhere, putting others in danger. If your decisions around vaccination would only hurt you, government would have no business dictating you what to do - yet, someone’s refusal to vaccinate has killed someone else - say, immunodeficient person or a child who couldn’t get vaccinated.
Sometimes we desperately need collective action, so much so that it may be mandated. This is one of such cases. Yes, it would be cool to have more time and do even more testing, to refine the preparations, etc. But when people die by millions, you’re on a short timer.
COVID-19 has demonstrated a level of deadly disorganization in the face of a global crisis. People “mind their own business” so much that it kills others, with governments struggling to keep everyone looking in the same productive direction.
That would be good, yes. A more relaxed approach to vaccination has caused plethora of public health problems.
Side effects tend to get less likely when we get more experience working with vaccines of a certain type. Modern coronavirus vaccines are better and safer than the first ones already, and flu ones have been around for so long that making a new vaccine very safe is no issue.
Meanwhile, side effects caused by repeated exposure to the disease may compound very badly.
deleted by creator
Depending on the country, it might be banned, and that’s one obvious example I came with.
And, in my opinion, it must be, no matter what you smoke, tobacco or weed or something else. Why the hell should others inhale terrible chemicals just because you chose to?
Same, why should they be exposed to dangerous microbes just because you are reckless?
deleted by creator
No one argues with that. But you know what also has side effects that are orders of magnitude more likely? Diseases.
I understand that mandatory policies are to be reviewed with caution, and forcing people to do something that has inherent risks should normally be avoided. But here, by not taking a vaccine, you simply multiply and outsource the risk elsewhere, putting others in danger. If your decisions around vaccination would only hurt you, government would have no business dictating you what to do - yet, someone’s refusal to vaccinate has killed someone else - say, immunodeficient person or a child who couldn’t get vaccinated.
Sometimes we desperately need collective action, so much so that it may be mandated. This is one of such cases. Yes, it would be cool to have more time and do even more testing, to refine the preparations, etc. But when people die by millions, you’re on a short timer.
COVID-19 has demonstrated a level of deadly disorganization in the face of a global crisis. People “mind their own business” so much that it kills others, with governments struggling to keep everyone looking in the same productive direction.
deleted by creator
That would be good, yes. A more relaxed approach to vaccination has caused plethora of public health problems.
Side effects tend to get less likely when we get more experience working with vaccines of a certain type. Modern coronavirus vaccines are better and safer than the first ones already, and flu ones have been around for so long that making a new vaccine very safe is no issue.
Meanwhile, side effects caused by repeated exposure to the disease may compound very badly.