Timeline for Does having antibodies completely protect against reinfection?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 15, 2020 at 12:41 | comment | added | cal | We could move this discussion to "chat" if you want. | |
| Aug 15, 2020 at 12:07 | comment | added | cal | I understand. But if I were convinced, through my own study, that this vaccine posed a risk to my health...then whose health takes priority? Whose knowledge is deemed correct? The establishment's? Established medicine isn't perfect...they used to believe that blood letting made you well. We have to have the freedom to choose for ourselves. If you sell your freedom to buy your safety, you're ultimately putting your life in someone else's hands...and it's usually not safe to always assume that this "someone else" has your best interest in mind. This is why freedom is key. | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 22:47 | comment | added | JBH | @cal You're really missing a point. When it comes to my health, your freedom to not take a vaccination is out the window. You do not have the right to put me at risk. Ever. | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 15:45 | comment | added | cal | (continued) I do understand herd immunity, and the role of vaccines in creating it. But again, I think the question boils down to "What's more important?" What do you value more -- the most safety you can possibly get (at the cost of certain freedoms), or your right to decide what doesn't enter your body (at the possible cost of your health)? I'll also add, that the health risks may not be so dire. Doesn't it seem likely that the vaccinated will be sufficiently protected against the unvaccinated? It seems to me that nature and freedom will provide balance. | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 15:35 | comment | added | cal | I agree with your reasoning. But I don't agree with all of your premises. Even though the idea of vaccination works, this doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to take a vaccine. Restrictions on certain actions (drunk driving) is not comparable to forced action (a mandated vaccine). This is not the same issue. People have a right to say what does and doesn't enter their body. Yes, government has the right to restrict unsafe drug consumption if it affects others. But does government have the right to force you to consume a drug? That is the question. | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 12:29 | comment | added | JBH | Remember, the choice is not "life-saving to me" but "life-saving to us all." If anti-vaxers were only a threat to themselves, no one else would care. But because their actions are a threat to others, they do not have the intrinsic right to make that choice. No one does about anything that affects others. That's why you can't legally drink as much alcohol as you want and then drive. Indeed, the effort in some states to lower their state's blood-alcohol level for legal driving is based on the reality that personal choice should be very restricted when it threatens the well-being of someone else. | |
| Aug 14, 2020 at 12:27 | comment | added | JBH | @cal No individual has the right to put another at risk. That's why it's illegal to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater or drive on the wrong side of the road. The governed give that authority to the government (whose only method of solving problems is through threat of violence, great and small). There is well-documented proof that vaccination works (the lack of polio...) and most complaints of individual vaccination risk are dubious (like Autism, which has been proven completely false). Educating the ignorant only works when the ignorant want to be educated. (*continued*) | |
| Aug 13, 2020 at 18:46 | comment | added | cal | I'll also add (I ran out of room!) that when it comes to the good of mankind, it's arguable that just as many have died under oppression as they have from disease. Our human rights are as fragile and valuable as our health. Maybe even more so. | |
| Aug 13, 2020 at 18:39 | comment | added | cal | I understand you, but I'm not convinced. But if it's the poorly educated who think the issue is complex, then why would mandated vaccinations be so important? Wouldn't a fair stance be to simply educate those who have doubts about vaccinations? And if, after such an offer of education, they still turn down something that is claimed to be life-saving, then their group would just have to face the natural consequences of their decision. Meanwhile, those in favor of vaccinations would get vaccinated. This is merely covering the area regarding our rights...which is no small area to consider. | |
| Aug 13, 2020 at 4:53 | comment | added | JBH | @cal Only poorly educated people think the issue is complex. Every study that's ever been performed has proven beyond every reasonable doubt that the benefits of mandated vaccinations so vastly outstrip the rare side effects of individual vaccination that only the politically-driven would believe there's a sensible, personal choice. There are always individual sacrifices to be made to enjoy the benefits of society - and a never-ending stream of people who believe they should have the right to strip the cream off the top without having to be responsible for that sacrifice. I've said my piece. | |
| Aug 12, 2020 at 15:22 | comment | added | cal | I understand what you're saying. I also agree that terrible diseases such as polio have vaccines to thank for their near eradication. But it's also imperative that we are educated on when it's completely necessary to get a vaccine and when the side-effects don't make a certain shot worth it. Imposed vaccinations can be the edge of a very slippery slope. This is a complicated topic, though, which can't be covered in a short discussion. Thanks for you input. | |
| Aug 12, 2020 at 14:52 | history | answered | JBH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |