Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mounce574]

To me, they can only refuse it when they are not infected by the virus. If they are infected, they should take it. And many people have different perspectives on why vaccines can be potentially harmful to the human system. True?

The vaccine wouldn't work if the person already has the disease. This is a fact.

Since I work with animals, I am not certain if humans could do something like thi:. At the clinic, we would run blood "titers" that would tell whether the animal has a sufficient amount of antibodies against diseases that have vaccines in them. An average dog, if it has gotten its normal vaccines at 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 6 months, and a year (on schedule) generally will not need to have another vaccine for the rest of its life. Every time you inject a disease (live or dead) into your body, it causes your immune system to react- compromising its ability to fight as effectively until it has destroyed/neutralized that disease.

[Mounce574]

I didn't get the vaccine and refuse to ever to be vaccinated. The fact that all of the test animals for the vaccine died is a big issue for me.
Another reason I refuse the vaccine is that mRNA has never been considered effective.
To solve the pandemic issue, I think basic hygiene might have worked better. Stay home if you are sick unless you need medical attention. Wash your hands- you would be surprised how few people wash their hands in a bathroom. Oh, and that little item that most of the population carries around (smartphone) carries the germs from the bathroom since it seems many people take them into the bathroom.
Increase your immune system's strength. I still have not gotten COVID-19 or any of its any variants.
People lost their jobs because of the senseless mandates. I was one of those people.
I believe my right to choose what is injected into my body is paramount. My parents received the shots and still became infected. My father had a heart attack 41 days after his shot, and he has never had heart problems nor has anyone in his family. My mother has inoperable lung cancer, the shot seems responsible for causing it to grow.

The propaganda causing the public to fear getting COVID-19 caused the masses to get the shots. However, the companies not being forthcoming with the possible adverse effects and the fact that the vaccine would not stop the spread of the virus, are all factors I considered. My personal choice would always have the same end result of taking the vaccine, even if it didn't physically didn't alter anything negatively. It was a useless vaccine from the start, and still is.

Thank you for sharing your perspective so openly. The decision to get vaccinated, or not, certainly has been a deeply personal one for many, and your points highlight several critical issues in the broader conversation about public health and individual rights.

You raise a valid concern about the rapid development and deployment of the mRNA vaccines. Indeed, mRNA technology was relatively new to the public health scene, and the speed at which the COVID-19 vaccines were developed did spark apprehension. However, it’s important to note that while mRNA vaccines were new, the underlying research had been in development for decades (Sahin et al., 2014). Additionally, the clinical trials, though expedited, followed rigorous protocols to ensure safety and efficacy (Polack et al., 2020).

Regarding the test animals, it’s crucial to clarify that while there were instances of animals dying in early trials for different vaccines and treatments, the COVID-19 vaccines passed the necessary stages of testing before being approved for emergency use. The data from these trials are available for review (FDA, 2020).

Your points about basic hygiene and boosting the immune system are well-taken. These are foundational aspects of public health that were indeed emphasized alongside vaccination. Personal hygiene and immune health are crucial in combating the spread of infectious diseases. However, the challenge with COVID-19 was its high transmission rate, even from asymptomatic carriers, making broader measures like vaccination essential in reducing spread (Gandhi et al., 2020).

I’m deeply sorry to hear about your father’s heart attack and your mother’s lung cancer. It’s distressing to link such severe health issues to the vaccine, though establishing causation can be complex. The CDC and other health organizations continue to investigate such cases to provide clearer guidance (CDC, 2021).

You also mentioned the economic impact of mandates. The loss of jobs due to vaccine mandates has indeed been a significant and contentious issue. Balancing public health needs with economic stability and personal freedoms has proven incredibly challenging during the pandemic.

It’s true that initial messaging about the vaccine's ability to prevent infection completely was later clarified as more was learned about its effectiveness primarily in preventing severe illness and death rather than stopping transmission entirely (CDC, 2021).

Given the complexity of these issues, how do you think public health authorities could better handle such situations in the future to balance public health needs with individual rights? What measures do you believe could help build trust and ensure more informed consent without causing undue panic or coercion?

References:
- Sahin, U., Karikó, K., & Türeci, Ö. (2014). mRNA-based therapeutics—developing a new class of drugs. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 13(10), 759-780.
- Polack, F. P., Thomas, S. J., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., ... & Gruber, W. C. (2020). Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(27), 2603-2615.
- FDA. (2020). Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Letter of Authorization.
- Gandhi, M., Yokoe, D. S., & Havlir, D. V. (2020). Asymptomatic transmission, the Achilles’ heel of current strategies to control Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(22), 2158-2160.
- CDC. (2021). Ensuring COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in the US.

I think they could have been more transparent about the disease. I have read that the COVID-19 is a modified SARS virus. The fact it could still be transmitted after the vaccine should have been made public long before it was. Treatment for infected individuals should not have been restricted (Florida encountered this when they stopped following federal mandates). Being able to give the public all the information that you quoted would have been nice, but it wasn't available when the virus occurred. At the time of the pandemic sweeping across other countries, we could have prepared mandatory testing of anyone who had traveled to another country upon their return. If they tested positive, treatment should have been available. If they tested negative, information about possible symptoms could have been given.

I guess what I am most upset about regarding the vaccine is that the lack of information for people to make a decision about their life wasn't provided.

[Sushan]

To me, they can only refuse it when they are not infected by the virus. If they are infected, they should take it. And many people have different perspectives on why vaccines can be potentially harmful to the human system. True?

The vaccine wouldn't work if the person already has the disease. This is a fact.

Since I work with animals, I am not certain if humans could do something like thi:. At the clinic, we would run blood "titers" that would tell whether the animal has a sufficient amount of antibodies against diseases that have vaccines in them. An average dog, if it has gotten its normal vaccines at 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 6 months, and a year (on schedule) generally will not need to have another vaccine for the rest of its life. Every time you inject a disease (live or dead) into your body, it causes your immune system to react- compromising its ability to fight as effectively until it has destroyed/neutralized that disease.

Antibody titers are an important aspect of human healthcare, as they are frequently used to determine the quantity of certain antibodies in the blood. These tests are used for a variety of objectives, including identifying whether someone has obtained immunity to certain diseases after vaccination, analyzing the efficacy of a vaccine, and diagnosing whether an individual has previously been exposed to a specific pathogen. For example, after receiving the Hepatitis B vaccine, healthcare workers or those at high risk of infection should (ideally) have their antibody levels checked to ensure they have adequate immunity. Similarly, antibody titers can be used for diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) or varicella (chickenpox) to verify immunity, especially in instances when vaccination history is uncertain or when confirming immunity before potential exposure.

However, there were a number of reasons why using antibody titers broadly during the COVID-19 pandemic was not feasible. First, because the unique SARS-CoV-2 virus that gave COVID-19 was unknown at first, it was difficult to determine what antibody levels would be necessary to provide adequate protection. This was in sharp contrast to recognized diseases, for which immunity thresholds had long been identified. Moreover, it would have been extremely difficult to coordinate the logistics of testing antibody titers on billions of individuals either before or after vaccination. Vaccinating as many people as possible as soon as possible was the main goal during a worldwide pandemic, not postponing the process with extensive antibody testing.

Another important issue was the introduction of new varieties of the virus. As SARS-CoV-2 changed, new variants made existing antibodies less effective, making it difficult to create a consistent antibody titer threshold that could be used to assess immunity. Furthermore, the immune response to COVID-19 is complicated, comprising not only antibodies but also T-cell-mediated immunity, which is difficult to quantify and complicates the use of antibody titers as a definitive measure of protection.

These difficulties explain why, despite their usefulness in certain situations, antibody titer tests were not the go-to option during the global COVID-19 problem.

[Sushan]

I didn't get the vaccine and refuse to ever to be vaccinated. The fact that all of the test animals for the vaccine died is a big issue for me.
Another reason I refuse the vaccine is that mRNA has never been considered effective.
To solve the pandemic issue, I think basic hygiene might have worked better. Stay home if you are sick unless you need medical attention. Wash your hands- you would be surprised how few people wash their hands in a bathroom. Oh, and that little item that most of the population carries around (smartphone) carries the germs from the bathroom since it seems many people take them into the bathroom.
Increase your immune system's strength. I still have not gotten COVID-19 or any of its any variants.
People lost their jobs because of the senseless mandates. I was one of those people.
I believe my right to choose what is injected into my body is paramount. My parents received the shots and still became infected. My father had a heart attack 41 days after his shot, and he has never had heart problems nor has anyone in his family. My mother has inoperable lung cancer, the shot seems responsible for causing it to grow.

The propaganda causing the public to fear getting COVID-19 caused the masses to get the shots. However, the companies not being forthcoming with the possible adverse effects and the fact that the vaccine would not stop the spread of the virus, are all factors I considered. My personal choice would always have the same end result of taking the vaccine, even if it didn't physically didn't alter anything negatively. It was a useless vaccine from the start, and still is.

Thank you for sharing your perspective so openly. The decision to get vaccinated, or not, certainly has been a deeply personal one for many, and your points highlight several critical issues in the broader conversation about public health and individual rights.

You raise a valid concern about the rapid development and deployment of the mRNA vaccines. Indeed, mRNA technology was relatively new to the public health scene, and the speed at which the COVID-19 vaccines were developed did spark apprehension. However, it’s important to note that while mRNA vaccines were new, the underlying research had been in development for decades (Sahin et al., 2014). Additionally, the clinical trials, though expedited, followed rigorous protocols to ensure safety and efficacy (Polack et al., 2020).

Regarding the test animals, it’s crucial to clarify that while there were instances of animals dying in early trials for different vaccines and treatments, the COVID-19 vaccines passed the necessary stages of testing before being approved for emergency use. The data from these trials are available for review (FDA, 2020).

Your points about basic hygiene and boosting the immune system are well-taken. These are foundational aspects of public health that were indeed emphasized alongside vaccination. Personal hygiene and immune health are crucial in combating the spread of infectious diseases. However, the challenge with COVID-19 was its high transmission rate, even from asymptomatic carriers, making broader measures like vaccination essential in reducing spread (Gandhi et al., 2020).

I’m deeply sorry to hear about your father’s heart attack and your mother’s lung cancer. It’s distressing to link such severe health issues to the vaccine, though establishing causation can be complex. The CDC and other health organizations continue to investigate such cases to provide clearer guidance (CDC, 2021).

You also mentioned the economic impact of mandates. The loss of jobs due to vaccine mandates has indeed been a significant and contentious issue. Balancing public health needs with economic stability and personal freedoms has proven incredibly challenging during the pandemic.

It’s true that initial messaging about the vaccine's ability to prevent infection completely was later clarified as more was learned about its effectiveness primarily in preventing severe illness and death rather than stopping transmission entirely (CDC, 2021).

Given the complexity of these issues, how do you think public health authorities could better handle such situations in the future to balance public health needs with individual rights? What measures do you believe could help build trust and ensure more informed consent without causing undue panic or coercion?

References:
- Sahin, U., Karikó, K., & Türeci, Ö. (2014). mRNA-based therapeutics—developing a new class of drugs. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 13(10), 759-780.
- Polack, F. P., Thomas, S. J., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., ... & Gruber, W. C. (2020). Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(27), 2603-2615.
- FDA. (2020). Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Letter of Authorization.
- Gandhi, M., Yokoe, D. S., & Havlir, D. V. (2020). Asymptomatic transmission, the Achilles’ heel of current strategies to control Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(22), 2158-2160.
- CDC. (2021). Ensuring COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in the US.

I think they could have been more transparent about the disease. I have read that the COVID-19 is a modified SARS virus. The fact it could still be transmitted after the vaccine should have been made public long before it was. Treatment for infected individuals should not have been restricted (Florida encountered this when they stopped following federal mandates). Being able to give the public all the information that you quoted would have been nice, but it wasn't available when the virus occurred. At the time of the pandemic sweeping across other countries, we could have prepared mandatory testing of anyone who had traveled to another country upon their return. If they tested positive, treatment should have been available. If they tested negative, information about possible symptoms could have been given.

I guess what I am most upset about regarding the vaccine is that the lack of information for people to make a decision about their life wasn't provided.

Regarding the openness and handling of information during the COVID-19 pandemic, I share your worries. It is obvious that more might have been done to inform people about the hazards, especially with regard to the possibility of the virus spreading even after vaccination. As you pointed out, it is concerning when some therapies are restricted. Restricting treatment options can lead to avoidable damage, and everyone has the right to use all the tools at their disposal to take care of their health.

But I believe that the insufficiency of knowledge about the virus at the time was a major problem. Add to the chaos: even the authorities were having difficulty comprehending COVID-19. The public was left feeling scared and confused as a result of the fast dissemination of false information that made matters more complicated. It can be quite intimidating to be faced with a new and poorly understood condition, and the dread of the unknown can lead people to feel deceived or make unreasonable decisions.

It's normal to be angry about the insufficiency of knowledge needed to make wise choices, particularly when it comes to something as important as one's health. I hope that this experience will improve communication and readiness for similar situations in the future.

[John Judah]

This is a very tough question to answer. when we consider individual right and community instruction on issue of health, then we will see clearly that the purpose of the issue on ground must prevail. individual have right now doubt. However, if the right threatened the security of other people then we have to say no right for individual here.

[Sushan]

This is a very tough question to answer. when we consider individual right and community instruction on issue of health, then we will see clearly that the purpose of the issue on ground must prevail. individual have right now doubt. However, if the right threatened the security of other people then we have to say no right for individual here.

I understand where you're coming from. Balancing individual rights with the larger interests of public health is a difficult subject. On the one hand, preserving personal autonomy is critical; people should be able to make decisions about their own bodies. However, when those actions have the potential to hurt others, particularly during a public health emergency, the situation becomes more complicated.

It is true that public health interventions frequently require people to make sacrifices for the greater good. However, any limitations on individual rights must be justifiable, transparent, and fair. What do you think?

[Sushan]

In my view, people should only refuse the vaccine if they aren't already infected by the virus. If they do have the virus, then they should get vaccinated. However, many people have different opinions about why vaccines might be harmful to the human body

It seems there's a bit of misunderstanding about how vaccines work in relation to viral infections. Vaccines are primarily designed as preventive measures, not treatments. They work by training the immune system to recognize and combat a virus before someone gets infected.

If a person is already infected with a virus, receiving a vaccine won't cure them or help fight off that current infection. Instead, other treatments, such as antiviral medications, are typically used. Vaccines are most effective when given to people who are not yet infected, to help prevent them from contracting the disease in the first place.

So, when discussing vaccines, it's important to keep in mind that they are intended to prevent illness, not treat it after infection has occurred. This common misunderstanding can sometimes lead to confusion about when and why vaccines are administered.

[Tush4Christ]

Individuals should have the right to decide whether they want medical treatment or not during a public health crisis. This is a crucial topic, and each person should have the autonomy to make such personal decisions, especially since such decisions might determine whether they live or die. However, for public safety, the government then reserves the right to permit access to public spaces or restrict movement for safety reasons. Unless the government can guarantee zero side effects from any treatment, it should not be enforced.
Another approach will be to sell this treatment to people transparently. Tell people the side effects of the treatment. The pros and Cons of getting the treatment and not getting it. This way people can make informed decisions and help the government in ensuring a safe community.

[Sushan]

Individuals should have the right to decide whether they want medical treatment or not during a public health crisis. This is a crucial topic, and each person should have the autonomy to make such personal decisions, especially since such decisions might determine whether they live or die. However, for public safety, the government then reserves the right to permit access to public spaces or restrict movement for safety reasons. Unless the government can guarantee zero side effects from any treatment, it should not be enforced.
Another approach will be to sell this treatment to people transparently. Tell people the side effects of the treatment. The pros and Cons of getting the treatment and not getting it. This way people can make informed decisions and help the government in ensuring a safe community.

I agree. Information is necessary for medical decisions and patient autonomy is of utmost importance. Yet, there are no drugs with zero side effects, and no one can tell all the side effects of any drug because there are side effects that occur only in certain people. But, by chance, if these rare symptoms were severe ones, they will get all the media attention and deter the ones who are willing to take treatments from taking the treatment. And then the government, or any other responsible body will have to take the responsibility, and ultimately people will loose trust in the that responsible body, which is far more dangerous.