Should vaccines be mandatory?

    Would you like to know what’s going on in the Tournament 2017 Finals?
    Keep yourself updated by reading "The Corner"!

    • Ladies and gentlemen, while this thread has remained polite and on topic, I am starting to see some trolling. If the trolling continues, this thread will be closed and anyone who takes part in trolling will be dealt with in accordance to the rules.

      This has been a very enlightened thread and I would hate to have to see it closed.
      Forum User Guide
      Please contact in game Support for in game issues.
    • Hunter wrote:

      cdc.gov wrote:

      Q: Considering that rates of vaccine-preventable diseases are very low, my child is unlikely to get one of these diseases. Therefore, isn’t the benefit of vaccination also very low?

      A: That’s a reasonable question. Statistically, the chances of any particular child getting measles, pertussis, or another vaccine-preventable disease might be low.

      But you don’t wear a seatbelt because you expect to be in a serious accident; you wear it because you want to be protected in the unlikely event that you are. If you’re never in an accident, the benefit of wearing a seatbelt might be zero. But if you are, the consequences of not wearing it can be very high.

      It’s the same with vaccines. Your child might never need the protection they offer, but you don’t want him to be lacking that protection if he ever does need it.
      So vaccination is only for safety, It doesn't seem to be that serious!
      Unless you plan to travel to some countries (like south africa, india) they would recommend you to take vaccines, because you have higher probability of getting sick there.
      Those two types of vaccinations are worlds apart, since we don't vaccinate for EVERYTHING. And when you visit countries like that, you get vaccinated against malaria mostly. And some (to me) unknown diseases that infect your abdomen.

      Hunter wrote:

      Woden wrote:

      Hunter wrote:

      Vaccines prove to work most of the time, but they are not scientific facts!
      Not trying to be offensive here, but I think over the course of previous threads you've shown pretty thoroughly that either you're not being very serious in these sorts of discussions, or you don't have a good grasp of science.Besides which, your statement doesn't even make any sense. You're admitting that vaccines are proven to work most of the time, and yet simultaneously claiming that their effectiveness is not a fact? C'mon, that's a blatantly self-contradictory position.
      They question is, do all vaccinated people never get any disease from what they have been vaccinated against? Just one person have the vaccine not working would make that not a scientific fact. A fact is something that can never be broken (like the sun rises from the east)!
      A fact is something that can be verified as true. In science, most facts are true until new evidence (also facts) support a different truth.
      So 'never be broken', not always. Still it has proved to be working.

      Hunter wrote:

      rokchick wrote:

      Hunter, even I'm not sure if you are just trolling now. There is a lot of information around about vaccines. They are not 100% for anyone, but at a population level, if you don't want people to get sick and die unnecessarily, you vaccinate everyone possible. it's a very, very obvious and clear cost/benefit equation. Want to reduce the very real risk of dying from multiple dieases? Get vaccinated.
      I was not denying that it works, I was not denying that it works statistically. I just said it is not a scientific fact. If someone get vaccinated, they will never catch a disease that they got vaccinated for, or there is still a small probability that they would?

      Also, it is known that flu vaccination won't work against all flu viruses, since it would only protect you against most, but not all, flu viruses. However, it doesn't last as long as other vaccinations that you took as a child.
      That's because flu vaccination is always against a single string of the virus. And when you get the flu, it's always another string. You get vaccinated for Influenza B, and you contract Influenza A.
      The reason why these inoculations don't last that long, is that you haven't been vaccinated through a proper course to build up semi-permanent resistance. Once a year, and always for a different type of influenza.

      Mod/MH/SH (aug 2007 - feb 2010) // MH (sept 2015)
    • I'm not sure where you are from Muchacho, but most flu vacines here have 2, 3 or 4 strains, selected by monitoring whats happening elsewhere. In Australia it saves thousands of lives every year and usually runs at about 70% effectiveness for those vaccinated.
      Hunter what does 100% have to do with it? They work well enough to be close to the single most effective medical intervention around. If you take antibiotics they are not 100% either, but I'm pretty sure most will still take them if they get a serious infection.
      Or, you know, die instead.
      There are gods and goddesses. I stand before you as proof.
    • rokchick wrote:

      I'm not sure where you are from Muchacho, but most flu vacines here have 2, 3 or 4 strains, selected by monitoring whats happening elsewhere. In Australia it saves thousands of lives every year and usually runs at about 70% effectiveness for those vaccinated.
      Hunter what does 100% have to do with it? They work well enough to be close to the single most effective medical intervention around. If you take antibiotics they are not 100% either, but I'm pretty sure most will still take them if they get a serious infection.
      Or, you know, die instead.
      Flu vaccines lacks total effectiveness because they don't contain all the subtypes of flu viruses. Those who made the vaccines wouldn't include the viruses with the least probability to infect people, they just update vaccines based on previous flu season, and most common flu.

      I never said they don't work, neither I said don't take them. period.

      Avicenna wrote:

      That whose existence is necessary must necessarily be one essence.

      Rumi wrote:

      What you are seeking is also seeking you.
    • Hunter wrote:

      cdc.gov wrote:

      Q: Considering that rates of vaccine-preventable diseases are very low, my child is unlikely to get one of these diseases. Therefore, isn’t the benefit of vaccination also very low?

      A: That’s a reasonable question. Statistically, the chances of any particular child getting measles, pertussis, or another vaccine-preventable disease might be low.

      But you don’t wear a seatbelt because you expect to be in a serious accident; you wear it because you want to be protected in the unlikely event that you are. If you’re never in an accident, the benefit of wearing a seatbelt might be zero. But if you are, the consequences of not wearing it can be very high.

      It’s the same with vaccines. Your child might never need the protection they offer, but you don’t want him to be lacking that protection if he ever does need it.
      So vaccination is only for safety, It doesn't seem to be that serious!
      Unless you plan to travel to some countries (like south africa, india) they would recommend you to take vaccines, because you have higher probability of getting sick there.
      Except that the risk of infection greatly increases as more people stop getting vaccinations. Which is exactly why some areas of the U.S. have been seeing large outbreaks of preventable diseases that are routinely vaccinated against: when large groups of people suddenly stop getting vaccinated, it greatly increases the chances that not only will they get sick, but that others around them will also get sick. Science, especially medical science, deals with statistical observations like this all the time, so your insistence that it is "not a scientific fact" is nonsensical -- if the effectiveness of vaccines, of all things, is not considered "scientific fact," then nothing at all in medicine is "scientific fact." Hell, most prescription medications are approved on much weaker evidence than what we have showing the effectiveness of vaccinations.

      Hunter wrote:

      They question is, do all vaccinated people never get any disease from what they have been vaccinated against? Just one person have the vaccine not working would make that not a scientific fact. A fact is something that can never be broken (like the sun rises from the east)!
      That string of sentences is wrong on so many levels.

      A) Facts are not "something that can never be broken." They are things that are demonstrably true. For example, it is a fact that violent crime rates have been decreasing for several decades. Even if certain cities don't follow that trend, or if there is a bad year that is more violent than the previous one, that doesn't make the observation suddenly stop being a fact. Vaccines demonstrably reduce the rates of infection for the diseases they inoculate against.

      B) Vaccines sometimes, though rarely, fail to give a person immunity to a disease, or only give a lesser degree of resistance. This is not because of a flaw in the vaccine, but because of the way our immune systems work.



      As for the discussion on flu vaccines:
      There are three genuses of flu viruses, though each genus consists of only a single species of virus.

      Influenza A is the most dangerous one. While it is technically only one species, there are subgroups of the virus that have different antigens. These are given "serotype" names that consist of alternating letters and numbers, such as H1N1 ("Spanish flu" and "Swine flu"), H5N1 ("Bird flu"), and H3N2 ("Hong Kong flu"); there can still be multiple strains of a serotype that differ enough that a vaccine would not provide protection against both. This species mutates very rapidly, even faster than other flu viruses. These frequent mutations are what make it so difficult to inoculate against. Influenza A is responsible for the majority of known flu epidemics / pandemics.

      Influenza B is less dangerous than A, but more dangerous than C. Influenza B viruses mutate much more slowly than Influenza A viruses (about one-half to one-third of the rate), and there is only a single serotype at present. It still mutates rapidly enough to prevent permanent immunity.

      Influenza C is much less dangerous than the other two species of influenza, and additionally is less common.

      Flu vaccines typically consist of one Influenza B strain, one Influenza A H1N1 strain, and one Influenza A H3N2 strain. Sometimes a second Influenza B strain is added (the "quadrivalent" vaccines).

      The biggest reason that vaccinations against the flu are less "reliable" at preventing it, and give protection for a shorter period of time than other vaccines, is simply because the flu viruses themselves change so incredibly often.
    • Muchacho NL wrote:

      Those two types of vaccinations are worlds apart, since we don't vaccinate for EVERYTHING. And when you visit countries like that, you get vaccinated against malaria mostly. And some (to me) unknown diseases that infect your abdomen.
      Slightly unrelated:

      It's pretty uncommon to get vaccinated for malaria. Instead, people have to take travel medicine with them--antimalarial medicines like chloroquine or atovaquone proguanil, depending on the common strains in the local area. Another antimalarial called mefloquine used to be slightly more common, but then it became linked with reports of depression and aggression, which kind of got publicized after a soldier came back from an area with malaria risk and committed some sort of homicide whose details I can't remember. :^)
      "I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost." :love:
    • Problem with that has been underlined in the first few comments: Consent can not be given by infants and children.
      And most vaccine programs are working because you get all the shots before you turn 12.... first shot even a few days after birth.

      So parents are deciding this for them, so not the persons themselves.

      Mod/MH/SH (aug 2007 - feb 2010) // MH (sept 2015)
    • Seatbelts - Mandatory
      Helmets - Mandatory (Australia)
      Speed Limits - Mandatory
      Not leaving children in hot car while you go to the pub - illegal

      Vaccines - should be mandatory unless you have a proven medical reason to not do so. Everyone else is immunized, this also helps those who are NOT immunized to have less chance of getting sick etc.

      I have children. I would do anything to keep them alive and well. I make sure they wear seatbelts, helmets, don;t speed etc. Why the hell would I not give them medicine/vaccine/shot that COULD help prevent getting a deadly virus/disease?

      Free will? gtfo. You are dictated to every day in every situation by laws, codes and regulations. If you are going to buck the trend at something like this. Then why not break other rules and laws?

      Frankly, if you are anti-vax - I do admit to assuming you are in the same cadre of people that are flat-earthers, faked moon landing, contrails, and lizard men controlling the USA type people.

      That's my opinion anyway... I also have a lot of medical professionals in my family and friends. They all immunize their children, and frankly, they did university and lengthy studies (seriously, some over 12 years, psycho!) and are a hell of a lot more intelligent than I am. I sure trust them over someone like Jenny McCarthy, a washed up porn star and debunked reports that have been admitted to be falsified for financial gain...




      Completed 9 Servers (Most Recent)
      Average ally rank - 5th (2nd)
      Average pop - 30,625 (48,610)
      Average Conquer Rank - 14th (1st)
      Average Off rank - 15th (4th) - 541,000 (1,585,505)
      Average Def Rank - 16th (8th) - Kills: 551,000 (1,016,138)
    • Didn't think this warranted a new thread so I'll just say it here:

      Shingrix was approved this past month by the FDA and is now the preferred shingles vaccine as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (CDC). The currently established shingles vaccine, Zostavax, is notoriously unreliable AND live attenuated, which probably contributes the the anti-vax arsenal. Shingrix is not live, is approved for a wider population based on better data, and I believe there are some head to head studies in the works comparing it with Zostavax.

      So if there's anyone out there thinking they're still 50 years young and not eligible/have no need for Zostavax... they're now 50 years old-enough-to-be-covered-for-Shingrix (which is when risk for shingles becomes higher anyway).
      "I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost." :love: