I realise that Len has issues not based on the science but on civil liberties reasons but I find it hard to see the argument when there are such obvious and massive health benefits.
@LenGlover Sorry to bombard you with questions but what about smoking. Should people be banned from smoking in areas where others are ?
I’m willing to bet that those parents that deny their children the protection of MMR won’t be quite so hesitant when they get offered a jab for COVID-19 when it’s available.
I’m willing to bet that those parents that deny their children the protection of MMR won’t be quite so hesitant when they get offered a jab for COVID-19 when it’s available.
There are still parents linking MMR to autism despite Wakefield being discredited years ago - all a bit depressing.
The MMR vaccine another reason to hate the Daily Mail. Even when presented with facts they said they stand by their journalist and his research despite neither having any worthwhile scientific knowledge.
As someone with a science background, I watch this unfold like someone with a computer background watches 90% of the population when laptop upgrades. Through their fingers.
As someone with a science background, I watch this unfold like someone with a computer background watches 90% of the population when laptop upgrades. Through their fingers.
I've spoken to a number of religious people who don't believe in genetics and have some strange views re disability.
I realise that Len has issues not based on the science but on civil liberties reasons but I find it hard to see the argument when there are such obvious and massive health benefits.
@LenGloverSorry to bombard you with questions but what about smoking. Should people be banned from smoking in areas where others are ?
Yes because passive smoking is harmful to others which makes smoking an effective assault on those others around the smoker.
The rights of the individual smoker are trumped by the rights of those harmed by his or her passive smoking.
I realise that Len has issues not based on the science but on civil liberties reasons but I find it hard to see the argument when there are such obvious and massive health benefits.
@LenGloverSorry to bombard you with questions but what about smoking. Should people be banned from smoking in areas where others are ?
Yes because passive smoking is harmful to others which makes smoking an effective assault on those others around the smoker.
The rights of the individual smoker are trumped by the rights of those harmed by his or her passive smoking.
So surely that’s exactly like a vaccine, if someone decides not to vaccinate their child they are endangering those around them.
It should absolutely be compulsory to vaccinate your children.
I think there's a strong difference between being an anti vaxxer, who I have very little time for, and someone worried about something rushed to market.
Can a vaccine be "dangerous" the same way that a drug to treat something can be? I know they're obviously for different purposes.
Vaccines can have various problems associated with them. Firstly, the recipient can have a strong, sometimes lethal, allergic reaction to them (or one of the excipients in the vaccine formulation) or be injured by incorrect application of the vaccine (e.g. if it's injected) or it could simply be useless and not work. No vaccine is 100% safe or effective. This needs to be weighed up against the illness it is trying to treat.
Most antivax arguments I've encountered, generally on Facebook, are nonsense incidentally. I'm not surprised some are wavering now because the arguments are spread by those privileged enough to be born at a time when illnesses such as smallpox, diphtheria, tuberculosis are all but extinct
I think a vaccination history should be required before a child is allowed to register for school. No history, no school. These anti vaccine freaks are literally a health hazard.
no 1 tennis player in the world a health hazard? lol.
Do you not understand how vaccines work? Genuine question.
haha! i knew i shouldn't have bitten!
no mate i know how they work and of course i know how useful they can be in stopping certain diseases. I also know that there are a lot of other ways to combat disease than a vacine, especially an unproven one
I realise that Len has issues not based on the science but on civil liberties reasons but I find it hard to see the argument when there are such obvious and massive health benefits.
@LenGloverSorry to bombard you with questions but what about smoking. Should people be banned from smoking in areas where others are ?
Yes because passive smoking is harmful to others which makes smoking an effective assault on those others around the smoker.
The rights of the individual smoker are trumped by the rights of those harmed by his or her passive smoking.
Beaten to the punch by Stu. Vaccination Hesitancy does impact in the “herd” by allowing diseases that could be eradicated or statistically irrelevant to still be a danger.
I realise that Len has issues not based on the science but on civil liberties reasons but I find it hard to see the argument when there are such obvious and massive health benefits.
@LenGloverSorry to bombard you with questions but what about smoking. Should people be banned from smoking in areas where others are ?
Yes because passive smoking is harmful to others which makes smoking an effective assault on those others around the smoker.
The rights of the individual smoker are trumped by the rights of those harmed by his or her passive smoking.
So surely that’s exactly like a vaccine, if someone decides not to vaccinate their child they are endangering those around them.
It should absolutely be compulsory to vaccinate your children.
No, I would draw a distinction.
There is overwhelming evidence that both smoking and passive smoking are harmful. As I said in my answer to the crash helmet and seat belt question higher up the thread, ideally the choice would lie with the individual but where evidence is overwhelming then compulsion can be justified on pragmatic grounds in the interests of protecting others.
On the other hand nobody can know the longterm effects, or even the shorterm effects, of a new vaccine. The evidence simply isn't there yet. Therefore, in a free society, I don't think compulsory vaccination can or should be imposed.
Where evidence is lacking it should be individual choice to weigh up whether or not risks from the vaccine outweigh the risks of catching and dying from the disease. Most people would probably take their chances with the vaccine but it should be THEIR choice where evidence is lacking.
I think a vaccination history should be required before a child is allowed to register for school. No history, no school. These anti vaccine freaks are literally a health hazard.
no 1 tennis player in the world a health hazard? lol.
Do you not understand how vaccines work? Genuine question.
haha! i knew i shouldn't have bitten!
no mate i know how they work and of course i know how useful they can be in stopping certain diseases. I also know that there are a lot of other ways to combat disease than a vacine, especially an unproven one
Agree that a vaccine that has been “rushed” even for very good reason as in the case of COVID-19 should be both welcomed and viewed with a little trepidation. There’s nothing wrong with that. The wider argument about vaccination as a whole though is far more clear cut. Many of the world’s biggest viral killers have now disappeared from the health equation. That is purely down to worldwide uptake of vaccination programmes. People who baulk against vaccination leave the door open to these awful diseases to get back into the community.
I realise that Len has issues not based on the science but on civil liberties reasons but I find it hard to see the argument when there are such obvious and massive health benefits.
@LenGloverSorry to bombard you with questions but what about smoking. Should people be banned from smoking in areas where others are ?
Yes because passive smoking is harmful to others which makes smoking an effective assault on those others around the smoker.
The rights of the individual smoker are trumped by the rights of those harmed by his or her passive smoking.
So surely that’s exactly like a vaccine, if someone decides not to vaccinate their child they are endangering those around them.
It should absolutely be compulsory to vaccinate your children.
No, I would draw a distinction.
There is overwhelming evidence that both smoking and passive smoking are harmful. As I said in my answer to the crash helmet and seat belt question higher up the thread, ideally the choice would lie with the individual but where evidence is overwhelming then compulsion can be justified on pragmatic grounds in the interests of protecting others.
On the other hand nobody can know the longterm effects, or even the shorterm effects, of a new vaccine. The evidence simply isn't there yet. Therefore, in a free society, I don't think compulsory vaccination can or should be imposed.
Where evidence is lacking it should be individual choice to weigh up whether or not risks from the vaccine outweigh the risks of catching and dying from the disease. Most people would probably take their chances with the vaccine but it should be THEIR choice where evidence is lacking.
The long term effect on the virus smallpox was to completely eradicate it. Making the world a much safer place. A tiny percentage of people receiving vaccines do have side effects. The balance is between that risk and allowing horrendous diseases to reappear. My own view is that vaccine hesitancy is incredibly selfish and dangerous. I’d be happy to give people the right to refuse vaccination as long as they realise that their children won’t receive a state education. You do understand how vaccines work in the larger context ?
I realise that Len has issues not based on the science but on civil liberties reasons but I find it hard to see the argument when there are such obvious and massive health benefits.
@LenGloverSorry to bombard you with questions but what about smoking. Should people be banned from smoking in areas where others are ?
Yes because passive smoking is harmful to others which makes smoking an effective assault on those others around the smoker.
The rights of the individual smoker are trumped by the rights of those harmed by his or her passive smoking.
So surely that’s exactly like a vaccine, if someone decides not to vaccinate their child they are endangering those around them.
It should absolutely be compulsory to vaccinate your children.
No, I would draw a distinction.
There is overwhelming evidence that both smoking and passive smoking are harmful. As I said in my answer to the crash helmet and seat belt question higher up the thread, ideally the choice would lie with the individual but where evidence is overwhelming then compulsion can be justified on pragmatic grounds in the interests of protecting others.
On the other hand nobody can know the longterm effects, or even the shorterm effects, of a new vaccine. The evidence simply isn't there yet. Therefore, in a free society, I don't think compulsory vaccination can or should be imposed.
Where evidence is lacking it should be individual choice to weigh up whether or not risks from the vaccine outweigh the risks of catching and dying from the disease. Most people would probably take their chances with the vaccine but it should be THEIR choice where evidence is lacking.
for a new untested vaccine I do have some sympathy with that view, for some like MMR I don’t believe there should be any leeway given.
Two thousand years ago the herd mentality to any family crisis, or illness, was to go to the local temple and pay the priest to sacrifice some poor animal. If you were rich it would be a heifer or goat and if poor a turtle-dove would get killed.
At least these poor creatures had a quick death because in modern times many hundreds of thousands of creatures are being slowly tortured in the vivisection laboratories suffering untold misery sacrificed for a ‘healthy’ vaccine - which doesn’t always work.
As a special needs teacher I have taught several children who have suffered badly after receiving vaccination jabs but you rarely hear about these cases because the drug industry settles them out of court.
The real option to having vaccinations is to live a healthy lifestyle, clean up the environment and air and avoid going to places where you are more likely to catch a disease, such as a leaking sewerage pipe.
(i had a few beers yesterday so was being a bit facetious - apologies) but I do still stand by the jist of what I said.
Vaccines have their place (I am fully vaccinated, my kid is fully vaccinated) and they have eradicated a number of horrific diseases. This is not in doubt. Anti vax people are allowing these diseases back in, again not in doubt.
Are vaccines the be all and end all? In my view nope. Stress related illness is rife in our society and if we could lower the amount of stress on the body/mind then the conditions for alot of diseases to grow would diminish in turn reducing overall numbers. I think this is the jist of what Novak is all about and i agree with it.
To not be allowed to travel or play sport because you won't accept an untried vaccine is utterly ridiculous in my opinion and a total fringe on civil liberties. Where does it end?
Two thousand years ago the herd mentality to any family crisis, or illness, was to go to the local temple and pay the priest to sacrifice some poor animal. If you were rich it would be a heifer or goat and if poor a turtle-dove would get killed.
At least these poor creatures had a quick death because in modern times many hundreds of thousands of creatures are being slowly tortured in the vivisection laboratories suffering untold misery sacrificed for a ‘healthy’ vaccine - which doesn’t always work.
As a special needs teacher I have taught several children who have suffered badly after receiving vaccination jabs but you rarely hear about these cases because the drug industry settles them out of court.
The real option to having vaccinations is to live a healthy lifestyle, clean up the environment and air and avoid going to places where you are more likely to catch a disease, such as a leaking sewerage pipe.
I realise that Len has issues not based on the science but on civil liberties reasons but I find it hard to see the argument when there are such obvious and massive health benefits.
@LenGloverSorry to bombard you with questions but what about smoking. Should people be banned from smoking in areas where others are ?
Yes because passive smoking is harmful to others which makes smoking an effective assault on those others around the smoker.
The rights of the individual smoker are trumped by the rights of those harmed by his or her passive smoking.
So surely that’s exactly like a vaccine, if someone decides not to vaccinate their child they are endangering those around them.
It should absolutely be compulsory to vaccinate your children.
No, I would draw a distinction.
There is overwhelming evidence that both smoking and passive smoking are harmful. As I said in my answer to the crash helmet and seat belt question higher up the thread, ideally the choice would lie with the individual but where evidence is overwhelming then compulsion can be justified on pragmatic grounds in the interests of protecting others.
On the other hand nobody can know the longterm effects, or even the shorterm effects, of a new vaccine. The evidence simply isn't there yet. Therefore, in a free society, I don't think compulsory vaccination can or should be imposed.
Where evidence is lacking it should be individual choice to weigh up whether or not risks from the vaccine outweigh the risks of catching and dying from the disease. Most people would probably take their chances with the vaccine but it should be THEIR choice where evidence is lacking.
The long term effect on the virus smallpox was to completely eradicate it. Making the world a much safer place. A tiny percentage of people receiving vaccines do have side effects. The balance is between that risk and allowing horrendous diseases to reappear. My own view is that vaccine hesitancy is incredibly selfish and dangerous. I’d be happy to give people the right to refuse vaccination as long as they realise that their children won’t receive a state education. You do understand how vaccines work in the larger context ?
Yes, I understand that 'herd immunity' is essentially the thing with vaccination. Where do we draw the line though? What about immigration and tourism for example? If people arrive from abroad without having been vaccinated does that not have exactly the same effect on 'the herd' as an individual indigenous to this country exercising a right to choose? I cannot answer for you obviously but I suspect that you would rail against stopping immigration and tourism to this country yet you are apparently quite happy to stop indigenous children having a state education if they are not vaccinated as you have suggested this twice now.
Look, as you acknowledged higher up the thread, our differences are essentially philosophical in that you appear to be rather more authoritarian in approach to me.
I'll state again that I would probably choose to take my chances with the vaccine, but I respect and defend the right of others to think and choose differently in the absence of reliable evidence.
(i had a few beers yesterday so was being a bit facetious - apologies) but I do still stand by the jist of what I said.
Vaccines have their place (I am fully vaccinated, my kid is fully vaccinated) and they have eradicated a number of horrific diseases. This is not in doubt. Anti vax people are allowing these diseases back in, again not in doubt.
Are vaccines the be all and end all? In my view nope. Stress related illness is rife in our society and if we could lower the amount of stress on the body/mind then the conditions for alot of diseases to grow would diminish in turn reducing overall numbers. I think this is the jist of what Novak is all about and i agree with it.
To not be allowed to travel or play sport because you won't accept an untried vaccine is utterly ridiculous in my opinion and a total fringe on civil liberties. Where does it end?
I thought he said he was not happy with vaccinations in general. Agree if he is referring to an untried covid vaccine
(i had a few beers yesterday so was being a bit facetious - apologies) but I do still stand by the jist of what I said.
Vaccines have their place (I am fully vaccinated, my kid is fully vaccinated) and they have eradicated a number of horrific diseases. This is not in doubt. Anti vax people are allowing these diseases back in, again not in doubt.
Are vaccines the be all and end all? In my view nope. Stress related illness is rife in our society and if we could lower the amount of stress on the body/mind then the conditions for alot of diseases to grow would diminish in turn reducing overall numbers. I think this is the jist of what Novak is all about and i agree with it.
To not be allowed to travel or play sport because you won't accept an untried vaccine is utterly ridiculous in my opinion and a total fringe on civil liberties. Where does it end?
I thought he said he was not happy with vaccinations in general. Agree if he is referring to an untried covid vaccine
We're having a debate about a vaccine that hasn't been developed and tested yet which seems bizarre. I'm unclear now why some are so concerned about vaccines unless they have proof that they haven't been tested. We seem to be falling under the spell of conspiracy theorists and the ill informed.
(i had a few beers yesterday so was being a bit facetious - apologies) but I do still stand by the jist of what I said.
Vaccines have their place (I am fully vaccinated, my kid is fully vaccinated) and they have eradicated a number of horrific diseases. This is not in doubt. Anti vax people are allowing these diseases back in, again not in doubt.
Are vaccines the be all and end all? In my view nope. Stress related illness is rife in our society and if we could lower the amount of stress on the body/mind then the conditions for alot of diseases to grow would diminish in turn reducing overall numbers. I think this is the jist of what Novak is all about and i agree with it.
To not be allowed to travel or play sport because you won't accept an untried vaccine is utterly ridiculous in my opinion and a total fringe on civil liberties. Where does it end?
Where is this 'untried' vaccine that you refer to? Presumably Novak knows more than trained virologists and he can advise them on their approach.
Two thousand years ago the herd mentality to any family crisis, or illness, was to go to the local temple and pay the priest to sacrifice some poor animal. If you were rich it would be a heifer or goat and if poor a turtle-dove would get killed.
At least these poor creatures had a quick death because in modern times many hundreds of thousands of creatures are being slowly tortured in the vivisection laboratories suffering untold misery sacrificed for a ‘healthy’ vaccine - which doesn’t always work.
As a special needs teacher I have taught several children who have suffered badly after receiving vaccination jabs but you rarely hear about these cases because the drug industry settles them out of court.
The real option to having vaccinations is to live a healthy lifestyle, clean up the environment and air and avoid going to places where you are more likely to catch a disease, such as a leaking sewerage pipe.
Which vaccination jabs are you referring to? If you work in a special needs school and have pupils with poor immunity I'm sure you'd be aware of the importance of pupils being vaccinated. Vaccines are either given in 'live' form or 'killed' form and this depends on the immune status of the child.
Comments
Celebs have a history of stupidity when it comes to vaccines - sadly they influence people.
The rights of the individual smoker are trumped by the rights of those harmed by his or her passive smoking.
It should absolutely be compulsory to vaccinate your children.
Some anti-vaxxers appear to be wavering over Covid 19 vaccine.
Can a vaccine be "dangerous" the same way that a drug to treat something can be? I know they're obviously for different purposes.
Most antivax arguments I've encountered, generally on Facebook, are nonsense incidentally. I'm not surprised some are wavering now because the arguments are spread by those privileged enough to be born at a time when illnesses such as smallpox, diphtheria, tuberculosis are all but extinct
There is overwhelming evidence that both smoking and passive smoking are harmful. As I said in my answer to the crash helmet and seat belt question higher up the thread, ideally the choice would lie with the individual but where evidence is overwhelming then compulsion can be justified on pragmatic grounds in the interests of protecting others.
On the other hand nobody can know the longterm effects, or even the shorterm effects, of a new vaccine. The evidence simply isn't there yet. Therefore, in a free society, I don't think compulsory vaccination can or should be imposed.
Where evidence is lacking it should be individual choice to weigh up whether or not risks from the vaccine outweigh the risks of catching and dying from the disease. Most people would probably take their chances with the vaccine but it should be THEIR choice where evidence is lacking.
Well. bravo Novac Djokovic!
Two thousand years ago the herd mentality to any family crisis, or illness, was to go to the local temple and pay the priest to sacrifice some poor animal. If you were rich it would be a heifer or goat and if poor a turtle-dove would get killed.
At least these poor creatures had a quick death because in modern times many hundreds of thousands of creatures are being slowly tortured in the vivisection laboratories suffering untold misery sacrificed for a ‘healthy’ vaccine - which doesn’t always work.
As a special needs teacher I have taught several children who have suffered badly after receiving vaccination jabs but you rarely hear about these cases because the drug industry settles them out of court.
The real option to having vaccinations is to live a healthy lifestyle, clean up the environment and air and avoid going to places where you are more likely to catch a disease, such as a leaking sewerage pipe.
(i had a few beers yesterday so was being a bit facetious - apologies) but I do still stand by the jist of what I said.
Vaccines have their place (I am fully vaccinated, my kid is fully vaccinated) and they have eradicated a number of horrific diseases. This is not in doubt. Anti vax people are allowing these diseases back in, again not in doubt.
Are vaccines the be all and end all? In my view nope. Stress related illness is rife in our society and if we could lower the amount of stress on the body/mind then the conditions for alot of diseases to grow would diminish in turn reducing overall numbers. I think this is the jist of what Novak is all about and i agree with it.
To not be allowed to travel or play sport because you won't accept an untried vaccine is utterly ridiculous in my opinion and a total fringe on civil liberties. Where does it end?
Look, as you acknowledged higher up the thread, our differences are essentially philosophical in that you appear to be rather more authoritarian in approach to me.
I'll state again that I would probably choose to take my chances with the vaccine, but I respect and defend the right of others to think and choose differently in the absence of reliable evidence.
Agree if he is referring to an untried covid vaccine