Should People Be Forced To Get The Vaccine?

[BiBottomBoy]

That's the only way to reach herd immunity but it seems like you'd have to violate a lot of people's rights.

[captainmick]

1 hour ago, BiBottomBoy said:

That's the only way to reach herd immunity but it seems like you'd have to violate a lot of people's rights.

Herd immunity doesn’t require 100% of people to be immune. Needs to be enough for virus not to be able to transmit exponentially. I’m no expert but have read that it may be around 70% to 80% for covid.

[BiBottomBoy]

yep. and we are going to be at 65% of people voluntarily getting the vaccine, so....

[floridarob]

2 hours ago, BiBottomBoy said:

That's the only way to reach herd immunity but it seems like you'd have to violate a lot of people's rights.

We already have required vaccinations , yellow fever if you want to travel to certain areas, schools require  Polio, Diphtheria, Pertussis,Tetanus, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Hepatitis B, and chickenpox.

Can't figure out why Trumpers want to give him credit for the vaccine, but don't want to get it, smh

[BiBottomBoy]

yep. it's bizzare to me. and they are acting like mandatory vaccinations would like put  chips in them or something

[spoon]

My country havent made it compulsory so far. And anti-vaccines have been scaring people off in certain states. Sooner or later, any relaxation of restriction such as interstate and international travelling will require you to show your vaccine certification, so hopefully those will encourage more people to vaccinated. Another obvious reason why its hard to achieve 80% is we have excluded a major chunk of population from being eligible to take the vaccines, those below 18 years old. Once vaccine trials or providers assure the publiv that these group can safely take the vaccine, those percentage should go up drastically. 

[BiBottomBoy]

here is france we have about 17% who have taken the vaccine. we are so fucking slow about it

[anddy]

5 hours ago, BiBottomBoy said:

That's the only way to reach herd immunity but it seems like you'd have to violate a lot of people's rights.

I don't know why this is so often framed as a "violation of rights", most loudly by Trump supporters of course. But the government is already violating everyone's rights by requiring people to wear a seat belt in a car (or wear a helmet on a motorcycle) and punishes those who don't even though these devices do ZERO to protect others from harm, only the wearer. And yet, everyone obliges and doesn't complain about the violation.

As comparisons go it might be not be a perfect one with mandating a vaccination, but the point is clear. With so much at stake for society as a whole that rather small violation is easily justifiable. Mandatory smallpox vaccination succeeded in eradicating that awful disease. Back then probably nobody complained about a "rights violation" and contributed to this major achievement. Maybe a handful of people even died directly from the vaccine, which is the ultimate violation of their rights, but this prevented the suffering and death of millions. That's the decision society took back then, and might as well take now, though the case for it is of course not as clear cut as then given the milder nature of Covid versus smallpox. 

[BiBottomBoy]

Because trump people are idiots.

[RockHardNYC]

When it comes to public health and safety, I'm all for mandatory requirements. This is the only way to protect non-infected people from the idiots of our world.

You can't step foot onto a film set without mandatory Covid testing. How about multiple tests. The union rules are astounding, all there to protect their members.

Unfortunately, Trump politicized the virus, which is the very worst thing any leader could do. Trump was never a leader. Just a liar and a manipulator. His followers will avoid getting the vaccine, which may end up keeping Covid around for a very long time for the rest of us to deal with. I view this behavior as a crime, and I wish he could be charged. All Trump has to do to fix the problem: go on Fox TV and tell his cult following to get vaccinated. But he won't do that, even though his entire family has been vaccinated. I wish Biden would privately and then publicly ask him anyway, just so his refusal would bury him further in the annals of history.

[BiBottomBoy]

Yep. The worst thing possible.

[fedssocr]

we do have mandatory vaccinations required for some travel already. But I think if people don't want to get it they should be able to not get it. But they shouldn't expect to be allowed to do everything and go everywhere vaccinated people can.

[Jez1980]

Yes, this is a deadly highly contagious disease.  Mandatory vaccination. People need to get over this violates my right, since when does anyone have the right to spread a highly deadly disease.

[RockHardNYC]

12 minutes ago, Jez1980 said:

since when does anyone have the right to spread a highly deadly disease

There were certainly plenty of gays in the early 80's willing to die for their right to spread HIV. Bath house closings were just one controversy that many gays foolishly fought against at the time. Nothing, not even AIDS, could keep a gay sex addict down. Until it did.

3 hours ago, fedssocr said:

we do have mandatory vaccinations required for some travel already

We sure do.

Speaking of mandatory, here's another fact most Trump voters don't know. If a production team wants to take a crew to Giuliani's offices to do an interview, the producer has to prove he has a multi-million-dollar insurance policy that protects every member of the guest production team before any member of the team can enter the building's service elevator. Proof of possessing the multi-million-dollar insurance policy is mandatory. If you can't prove you have it, you will not be allowed to enter the building to do your work.

There are many jobs that have mandatory requirements. I'm completely in favor of businesses telling their employees: If you aren't vaccinated for Covid, DO NOT come to work. I'm also in favor of vaccine travel passports. Just tell me where the line is to board First Class.

[Riobard]

It is highly unlikely there will be a legal mandate for obligatory vaccination even though it is the prerogative of authorities at many levels in Canada and USA to physically impose inoculation in certain contexts for the greater good of public health, all of course subject to mostly futile court challenges. However, there will probably be at most the appearance of a mandate based on privileges and restrictions that amount to the vaccine decliner being forced to cooperate for the sake of the same freedom, paradoxically, their insistence of which takes current vaccination refusal to the mat.

I would expect that there will be defined categories of people more subject to freedom limitations, based on a stratified hierarchy of transmission vector factors. This could play out to whatever arbitrary yet fluid definition of overall community immunity creates the right balance of health & safety, as well as some degree of grudging non-optional tolerance for a microbial entity that is not amenable to negotiation. 

It is somewhat silly at this juncture to extend the ‘all talk’ to ersatz active mandate since many folks that desire vaccination do not yet have access to it. Eventually, the supply chain will have eliminated the previous absurdity of enforcing a theoretical concept that is presently far from a uniformly concrete intervention. Again, the enforcement idea is figurative. 

[spoon]

Sometimes i wish that my country have had the covid cases high enough so people here (especially antivaks) will be begging to be vaccinated. Then maybe the registration for vaccines right now wont be as low. Currently vaccine registration is as low as 16% of the population is some states, with overall registration at 30% of total population. My own state and the capital each stands at slightly over 50%, and registration has been opened since end of february. Vaccine roll out has been slow initially as the roll out is by phase, but so far it has been on schedule, at 3% of population have received 2 doses of vaccine. 

Yes, vaccine supply is still an issue, and we have more people registered for vaccine than the vaccine doses so far, but it will comes to the point where we will have vaccine surplus and not enough people opted to take the vaccine, making achieving herd immunity impossible. Thats why i wish that my country will make it mandatory, through a blanket order or via relaxation of restriction. Our country have already compulsory vaccination program in place for kids though. I guess the main reason is due to current vaccines was still not a fully established vaccines, and there are still who prefer lockdown vs uncertainty of vaccine safety. Hopefully this will change as time goes and more and more vaccinated people shows that the vaccine is indeed safe. 

[BiBottomBoy]

yep. that's the thing. without vaccine mandates I don't see how we get to herd immunity

[RockHardNYC]

10 hours ago, Riobard said:

It is highly unlikely there will be a legal mandate for obligatory vaccination

Especially in America.

6 hours ago, BiBottomBoy said:

I don't see how we get to herd immunity

I definitely see a path. I know several researchers who work at the NIH. The path to herd immunity will take much longer than necessary, and a lot more people will need to get sick and die from the virus. Hospitals will taking necessary precautions for many years to come. Eventually, Covid will become one more deadly virus we will have to guard against, until enough vaccinations take place. Trump and his history related to the virus will eventually die. The politics around Covid will die, too. However, this complication is a serious mark against America. Our country is much too divided now, and the division does not bode well for the future.

[BiBottomBoy]

it's going to take forever and there is no reason for that

[Riobard]

We only see in the media vaccine efficacy expressed as relative risk reduction for study subjects able to benefit from vaccination. In contrast, absolute risk reduction considers the entire population and the infection attack rate based on the per capita background infection incidence over the same time period in which the research occurs. Absolute risk reduction tends to be ignored because the metrics appear to be unimpressive, all less than 2% for the currently predominant EUA product shortlist, and might de-incentivize vaccine uptake. It is much lower because the actual risk of infection without vaccination is quite low; the problem is the deleterious impact of a case. Moreover it is a moving target predicated on constantly changing infection incidence, whereas study efficacy has the illusory appearance of stability ... it doesn’t really have stability though, judging by the broad range of confidence intervals for the single-value efficacy metrics presented. 

Absolute risk reduction is utilized as the denominator, with the numerator held as a constant, the value 1, for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one more case of SARS-CoV-2. The difference in background infection incidence explains why the clinically less effective AstraZenecaOxford vaxx requires 78 persons vaccinated whereas PfizerBNT requires 119 vaccinated in order to offset each single new case. The former had a higher background population infection incidence. 

As community vaccination progresses, the background rate of infection will pivot from the entire population as denominator to the sub population of infection ‘susceptibles’ as denominator. In other words, although population incidence declines the new case incidence among those without natural or artificial immunity has the potential to peak at rates heretofore unseen for the general population throughout the pandemic. Much of this depends on the attack rate among the unvaccinated and assumes that they may generally tend to cluster together more (like seeks like). The subgroup number needed to vaccinate for new case prevention will shrink. By that time, the vaccine with greatest clinical efficacy will predominate on offer for the infection susceptibles, as simultaneously the number needed to vaccinate to prevent new cases will have declined within that specific subset. 

The greatest true effectiveness is based on the higher the relative risk reduction (ie, study efficacy) and the lower the number needed to treat to prevent each additional new case. These considerations will likely play a beneficial role for a potential second-wind surge towards the finish line for whatever the threshold of community immunity will be.

——

Coles Notes version: The greater one’s risk of infection, the greater the  personal and collective benefit of vaccination. Inoculation among those with high susceptibility to infection spills over preventively to the entire population at a greater level than for those vaccinated at an overall lower smoothed-out risk of infection. It’s shitty if early rollout vaccination is declined by essential workers, because their acceptance confers the greatest population collective benefit. But even a lower vaxx acceptance by them compared to a higher non-essential pop acceptance  can potentially yield a better overall protective benefit by the former for the overall public. Residual non-immune susceptibles, same idea, but there is at that point a much smaller proportion of the progressively immune population subject to infection risk posed by those that transmit infection, as vaccine breakthrough is low. 

[JKane]

While there's a lot of right-wing dipshits (redundant...) decrying vaccine passports as "show me your papers" it's well within the rights of private business to require. 

 

I've already signed up for a local vaccinated-only bar and there's some stuff in the state guidelines for re-opening specifically allowing far greater numbers at things like movies if the group is vaccinated.  

The pro-vaccination crowd has long missed out on the positive message of what all you can do again once vaccinated.  

[BiBottomBoy]

well they could be given a choice between being vaccinated and jail?

[Riobard]

You can have vaccine passports required for most activities or you can sustain ongoing vaccine research & development utilizing the robust trial modalities that have yielded the inoculation options in the first place ... rescue vaccine interventions for which the notion of substantial immunity has sprearheaded the basis for formal recipient certification that privileges such activities.

You cannot have both. The one paradoxically undermines the other. Short-term gratification is your agenda, or preservation of ‘gold standard’ research endeavours that may be continually required for a non-abating pathogen. Take your pick. Or use more common sense in determining alternatives prerequisite for actualizing privileged entry points into desired, renewed behaviour.

It is more feasible to apply an overarching and more flexible range of validation for immunity or non-infectivity, all of which are preventive but not without their own unique flaws. 

The observer and subject-blind trial recipients of neither vaccine nor placebo will qualify for vaccine certification, and why would they volunteer, altruism grinding up against sacrifice of privilege? Surely the risk of non-intervention arm assignment is enough to have to endure.

This is not Yellow Fever, the vaccination development and implementation strategy all laid out and stable. 

Without sufficiently longitudinal and solidly populated placebo-control randomized assignment research, the essential trial prospects that are left might include noninferiority SARS-CoV-2 vaccine comparison trials or challenge trials in which subjects are exposed to coronavirus infection following an experimental vaccine. The optimal structure for creating and testing vaccine candidates gets compromised. The essential foundations should be preserved. 

[BiBottomBoy]

you think there is a problem with the way the vaccine was tested?

[Riobard]

Au contraire ... it’s common knowledge that the vaccines are assessed using the correct stepped-up phase methodology that depends on a study subsample getting sick and with higher numbers getting the illness. If the group subjects not receiving the vaccine are spared infection the efficacy is zero-to-inadequate infection risk reduction. No vaccine approved. 

The effectiveness of first-line vaccines already reduces the volunteerism willingness of research subjects to stay with the defined protocol. Huge drop-outs of placebo controls. Add the disincentive of freedom limitations for research subjects when a majority of the population essentially lobbies for unique privilege that was facilitated by those volunteers but is not accessible to them, why not just go out and squeeze a deuce into your closest essential worker’s corn flakes?