• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should vaccines be mandatory?

Should vaccinations be mandatory

  • yes

    Votes: 32 55.2%

  • no

    Votes: 23 39.7%

  • not sure

    Votes: 3 5.2%
  • Total voters
    58
RAMOSS said:
As long as a certain percentage is immunized, there is something known as 'herd immunity' that lowers the risk to a very small level. HOWEVER, if too many people start taking exceptions, then, there is a greater risk.
Click to expand...

Yes and we see the result of the anti-vaccination crowd. An increase in communicable disease and a comeback by once eradicated diseases.
 
Russell797 said:
Let's make a distinction here. I am not for mandatory vaccinations. I am for the exclusion of those who are not vaccinated from participation in societies events. If not vaccinated stay home where you can't hurt anyone else with your reckless behaviour.
Click to expand...

so what are you going to do-have people carry papers or merely brand them?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Free society is what the Constitution allows and violations of these rights are illlegal.
Click to expand...

Go speeding down the city streets at 80mph and see what your freedom gets you. Some lunatic will argue that to do so is freedom of expression.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What stupidity. If others are vaccinated then nobody is hurt but those that can't or won't be vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Not true. Vaccinations are not 100% effective agents against disease. You call me stupid, but you are unaware of the science and I'll call that ignorance.
 
Russell797 said:
Let's make a distinction here. I am not for mandatory vaccinations. I am for the exclusion of those who are not vaccinated from participation in societies events. If not vaccinated stay home where you can't hurt anyone else with your reckless behaviour.
Click to expand...

Yep, just check their vaccination status on their national ID cards. ;)
 
TurtleDude said:
so what are you going to do-have people carry papers or merely brand them?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but when the next epidemic hits, and it will, we will be forced to do something like it or not. It's easy to argue against policy when the **** isn't hitting the fan.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What stupidity. If others are vaccinated then nobody is hurt but those that can't or won't be vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, the babies that are too young to get vaccinated are also at risk. That's not 'no one'.
 
Russell797 said:
It's not because the government says so, it's because it's common knowledge. It's common sense. It's the result of a few centuries of science.

No one will let me punch you in the face, but you're OK with my child potentially infecting other kids with communicable disease? A little logical consistency will go a long way toward resolving this issue.
Click to expand...

Unless your use of the phrase societies rules doesn't refer to government but instead some kind of social standard that is enforced by social pressure you were speaking towards government.
 
I voted "not sure", but my answer is really 'no' in an absolute sense. I think they should be "almost mandatory", if that makes sense. I would allow for legit religious exemptions, but the people would have to provide solid evidence of their beliefs. Just saying so wouldn't be enough.
 
Russell797 said:
Go speeding down the city streets at 80mph and see what your freedom gets you. Some lunatic will argue that to do so is freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

There is no right to drive...

There are rights to privacy, search, etc.
 
Russell797 said:
Not true. Vaccinations are not 100% effective agents against disease. You call me stupid, but you are unaware of the science and I'll call that ignorance.
Click to expand...

I called the argument stupid and you are arguing assumptions that you think you know like what I know and actually support .
 
Russell797 said:
I don't know, but when the next epidemic hits, and it will, we will be forced to do something like it or not. It's easy to argue against policy when the **** isn't hitting the fan.
Click to expand...

Do you actually think a few anti.vaxxers are going to cause the **** to hit the fan? Relax.
 
RAMOSS said:
Except, of course, the babies that are too young to get vaccinated are also at risk. That's not 'no one'.
Click to expand...

No one is not an absolute statement... of course.
 
radcen said:
I voted "not sure", but my answer is really 'no' in an absolute sense. I think they should be "almost mandatory", if that makes sense. I would allow for legit religious exemptions, but the people would have to provide solid evidence of their beliefs. Just saying so wouldn't be enough.
Click to expand...

What makes a religious beleif more valid or meaningful than a personal belief?
 
Bodhisattva said:
What makes a religious beleif more valid or meaningful than a personal belief?
Click to expand...

This may help clarify the religious aspect. With which I disagree using either of the above (Religious or personal beliefs)mentioned as good reason to be exempted. Only a medical condition qualifies in my view.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ccines-porcine-gelatine-2015-2P-A4-04-web.pdf
What is the view of the faith
communities?
Public Health England (PHE) has consulted
with the Kashrut and Medicines Information
Service, who said:
‘It should be noted that according to Jewish
laws, there is no problem with porcine or
other animal derived ingredients in non-oral
products. This includes vaccines, including
those administered via the nose, injections,
suppositories, creams and ointments.’
However, PHE acknowledges that there
is diversity within the British Muslim and
Jewish communities and they, and some
other groups, may consider medicines and
vaccines containing any porcine product to
be forbidden. In these circumstances, it is
likely that the individual would be unable to
accept many pharmaceutical products unless
there was no suitable alternative and / or the
product was considered life-saving.
Are there any suitable alternatives
to these vaccines?
•
MMR:
in the UK we have two types of MMR
vaccine – MMR VaxPro
®
and Priorix
®
. Priorix
®
does not contain gelatine and is as safe and
effective as MMR VaxPro
®
.
•
Shingles:
Zostavax
®
is the only shingles
vaccine currently available worldwide.
•
Flu:
For healthy children, there are no
suitable alternatives to Fluenz Tetra
®
. There
are injectable flu vaccines that do not
contain pork gelatine, but these are less
effective than Fluenz Tetra
®
in children. They
may also require two doses, and do less to
reduce the spread of flu in the community.
These vaccines are only recommended
as part of the programme for children
and adults who are at high risk of the
complications of flu.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom