Thoughts on mandatory vaccination?

[IllGetTheNextRound]

I'm a healthcare professional and I've heard from both colleagues and patients that vaccinations should be mandatory.

This to me is concerning for a few reasons. One of the main reasons is that I think as a public health policy this is really problematic because we are mandating a healthcare intervention on an individual level which takes away their autonomy. And what about children? Compared to many other countries our vaccination uptake is generally excellent. Indeed there is definitely room for improvement, but I worry that mandating this would deter people who otherwise would consider it.

Having said that I'm very pro vaccination and I want as many people to be vaccinated as possible. I have educated many patients and advocated for greater uptake of childhood vaccinations.

If you're passionate about one side of the debate I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I am against compulsory Covid vaccination in this country (UK). We have a very high take up and have managed to massively reduce severe cases and deaths.
Mandatory jabs might be appropriate in countries where refusal and deaths are very high, but even then it would probably backfire as it would give conspiracy theorists their "I told you so" argument. In the end those populations will acquire natural immunity, in the process losing a lot of people who'd have otherwise lived a bit longer.
The rush to get boosters for everyone puts me off right now. Whilst I agree elderly and ill will need or want this, I am not convinced it is necessary for all adults. I think it is just a numbers game at this point from a societal point of view with probably marginal or no benefit to most healthy and younger individuals. If it is correct that protection from mRNA jabs fades quickly then why not try other vaccines next year, whatever happened with Novavax and Valneva? Many folks currently tarred as "anti-vaxx" would probably be swayed the other way by a more traditional inactivated virus vaccine such as Valneva.

I've had both Pfizer jabs in the summer but I am not comfortable with the push and need for boosters or the vaccination of children. I would like to know when this ends really, after this booster, after 6, 10, 15 jabs or never? Is there a cumulative ill effect to healthy people from taking multiple, possibly unnecessary jabs which don't completely eliminate transmission to the vulnerable parts of the population? Before anyone says " annual flu jab" these are not given on NHS to everyone and are certainly not needed in order to travel freely or access events.

I’m totally against it.
Reassurance and education - yes
Enforcement, loss of liberty and coercion through threats of losing jobs - no
It always needs to be a choice.

@PAFMO

I don't know who Kingsworth is and I'm not particularly interested. As I said another poster linked to the article on another thread and I read it and I thought it was well written. It sums up how I feel right now about the socio-political side of the pandemeic.

You don't have to read it of course. But sneering at it and me for posting it because you consider it "antivaxx" (whatever that means - it has lost all meaning for me currently as it is thrown around so much) is behaviour which is (ironically) mentioned in the article as being unhelpful and divisive. And I agree that it is.

Posts like yours above which are just argumentum ad hominem don't really move discussions forward IMO.

Absolutely not. How can you mandate a vaccine that has death as a potential side effect? That's murder in my mind

I don’t believe in compelling vaccinations as choice over what happens to your own body is a sacred right. That said, with rights come responsibility so with that choice I feel there should be a requirement to present proof of vaccinations to go to school, shops, restaurants, events, basically any public place. I went to school abroad & it was very much a matter of no jabs / no admission which is fair enough.

My right to choose doesn’t give me the right to spread infection that impacts the lives of others negatively.

@custardcreme

What principle?

I don't understand.

Is the principle that a different vaccine has been mandated before for a different disease in a different context?

If so, I'm not sure that that is a principle as such. It is just a historical fact of limited relevance.

@Pinkyxx

I don’t believe in compelling vaccinations as choice over what happens to your own body is a sacred right. That said, with rights come responsibility so with that choice I feel there should be a requirement to present proof of vaccinations to go to school, shops, restaurants, events, basically any public place. I went to school abroad & it was very much a matter of no jabs / no admission which is fair enough.

My right to choose doesn’t give me the right to spread infection that impacts the lives of others negatively.

You don’t believe in compelling vaccination but in restriction on essential living?

@AliceA2021 You actually think you are one of the good ones don't you?

"I'm strongly against it on the grounds of liberty and bodily autonomy. I've had two doses and then declined a booster because I'm not presently comfortable with mRNA vaccines. I'd consider a booster of a different type.
*
I look at it this way. If you think it should be mandatory because you think the vaccines are great and were delighted to get yours, you're failing to respect the fact that others have different views. You think they're wrong? Okay, but imagine another health intervention that the government and the majority of the population were happy with but you believed was potentially dangerous, or were phobic of, or really didn't want for any other reason. Should they be able to force you to have it? You don't have to agree with a belief to acknowledge that others feel strongly about it.

It doesn't matter whether you think they're completely wrong. It's still their choice to make about their own bodies. The idea of setting a precedent for disregarding that is quite frightening.*"

I completely agree with this too.

I'm pro vaccination but completely against mandating vaccination and taking away bodily autonomy.

@custardcreme

I don’t think the comparison is irrelevant or uninteresting. The Austrians were early with the smallpox vaccination, and there was enormous resistance for the same reasons as today. People worried about the risks, or it not being effective, they preferred to rely on their immune systems or natural treatments.

There is certainly precedent for vaccine mandates, all around the world, whatever the details are. And if the problem with a particular vaccine - because it’s too new, or whatever - then the objection isn’t one of principle/bodily autonomy etc.

If we’re objecting in principle and defending our right to refuse, then the details of the vaccine are immaterial - the individual defends the right to say no, for whatever reason.

That's not how medical ethics work thankfully.

The details of any vaccine, drug or medication are not immaterial as the principle that is being defended is the right to informed consent (and therefore refusal). And that principle of informed consent is inextricably linked to the principle of risk benefit - the details of the vaccine are absolutely not immaterial here either.

Otherwise we are just doing pointless thought experiments.

Mandating a vaccine is a big step to take and it has to be (IMO) based on excellent, rigorous and comprehensive scientific information combined with solid arguments about individual risk benefit. In last place we come to arguments about public health / saving the NHS / protecting others - none of which are terribly compelling at the moment because the vaccines do not prevent transmission and we have issues with both waning immunity and virus mutation.

The current argument for mandatory vaccination seems to be "we wish the vaccines worked better than they actually do and that they had turned out to be the solution to the pandemic that we hoped they would be".

It's very difficult to justify removing informed consent for a vaccine that isn't very good and which we don't know have a long term perspective on.

I am against mandatory vaccination.

Having had Covid in the first wave and still suffering the after effects of long Covid 20 months on, plus sustaining heart damage from Covid itself I went for 2 x pfizer vaccines over the summer believing they would protect me 'forever' or at least long term. With each dose I have experienced a return of the heart symptoms plus 4-6 weeks of moderate-severe side effects. I accepted this because I wanted to feel 'protected' and it was my personal choice. But now we know I am not protected or at least not for long enough apparently...I won't be having a booster jab for now. If alternative vaccines come out that appear safer (for me personally) then I will most likely have one next year but if someone tried to force me to have it I would resist. In my opinion I have done my 'bit' for heard immunity and although I may be taking a risk by not keeping my antibodies super high I can't put my body through having boosters every 3-6 months which seriously affect my ability to actually live what life I have left after long Covid / myocardits.

I completely understand why people choose to take all the boosters / doses and why people want to vaccinate their children. I am pro vaccination but I am also pro choice for each individual because we are all different.

Friends have mentioned that i 'should seek advice' over whether a 3rd vaccine is safe. So I have asked my GP and cardiologist (who is a professor of Cardiology) and neither know. So the decision is left to me to make because nobody is willing to advise on whether a vaccine may or may not exacerbate the symptoms I have already been left with since Covid. It's my body and for now it seems 'safer' to wait.

Here is an example of what informed consent may look like for the Covid 19 vaccines

www.pandata.org/informed-consent/

[quote hamstersarse]Here is an example of what informed consent may look like for the Covid 19 vaccines

www.pandata.org/informed-consent/[/quote]
They are not experimental, they are approved.

People need to stop with The Nuremburg Code when it's totally irrelevant.

The issues with the PANDA group have been discussed before however, so it's unsuprising they're trying this.

Strongly against - sets an extremely worrying precedent. Bodily autonomy must be upheld.

@IllGetTheNextRound

I'm a healthcare professional and I've heard from both colleagues and patients that vaccinations should be mandatory.

This to me is concerning for a few reasons. One of the main reasons is that I think as a public health policy this is really problematic because we are mandating a healthcare intervention on an individual level which takes away their autonomy. And what about children? Compared to many other countries our vaccination uptake is generally excellent. Indeed there is definitely room for improvement, but I worry that mandating this would deter people who otherwise would consider it.

Having said that I'm very pro vaccination and I want as many people to be vaccinated as possible. I have educated many patients and advocated for greater uptake of childhood vaccinations.

If you're passionate about one side of the debate I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Nope, definitely don't agree with it. Especially for the UK when we have good levels of vaccination.

Austria etc are in an extremely difficult place with their current rates of vaccination, but making it mandatory isn't the way to go about it - it just fuels vaccine hesitancy and conspiracy theories.

I would like to see better public engagement and information campaigns, and a stronger stance on disinformation groups (like the one posted above). It is everyone's individual choice as to whether they get vaccinated or not, but so many are turning it down based on false claims regarding vaccine safety or efficacy, or about coronavirus itself.

Good work in care homes showing many changed their mind about turning down the vaccine once they'd had a chance to have questions answered and mistruths cleared up.

If they make the vaccine mandatory I would like to see sterilisation mandatory for all alcoholics and drug addicts, and anyone who has had a child removed from their care due to neglect or violence.
And what exactly are they going to do to people is it does become mandatory and there are hundreds, or even thousands of people refusing to get it?

I am very pro vaccine, have had all of mine, but I don't agree that people should be forced to have the vaccine. Seems to breach a fairly basic human right.

That said, people can't have it both ways: if they maintain the right not to be vaccinated, they have to accept that there will be consequences such as certain jobs not being available to them: not being able to attend certain events; tighter travel restrictions etc. People who are being vaccinated are not just reducing the risk of catching the vaccine themselves, but also reducing the risk of transferring to other people.
Those who are unvaccinated aren't reducing the risk through the vaccine, therefore should have to be subject to tighter restrictions in certain high risk situations.

(Should have said.... I mean people who are unvaccinated by choice, not those who have been advised not to take the vaccine for medical reasons)

@RockingMyFiftiesNot

(Should have said.... I mean people who are unvaccinated by choice, not those who have been advised not to take the vaccine for medical reasons)

But those unvaccinated are still unvaccinated regardless of the reason and present the same risk?

@ollyollyoxenfree

I read the form that hamstersarse linked to and I think it is very thought provoking.

Do you know if it the following is true?

"the following groups were excluded from the clinical trials: pregnant women, Covid-19 recovered individuals, people with immunodeficiency disorders, people allergic to one of the components of the vaccines or who have had a prior allergic reaction to any vaccine. Thus there is currently no safety or efficacy data for these subgroups.

Australia here, we already have a no jab, no play policy for kids going to school, now there is an adult version. If you don't want it, you don't have to, but your ability to work and shop non essentially is curtailed. Most industries have to be vaccinated here, and it's been done. I think countries who don't already have mandatory childhood vaccinations, probably struggle more with the concept of mandatory ones than places like here do as it's been going on for years with kids.

[quote Beachcomber]@ollyollyoxenfree

I read the form that hamstersarse linked to and I think it is very thought provoking.

Do you know if it the following is true?

"the following groups were excluded from the clinical trials: pregnant women, Covid-19 recovered individuals, people with immunodeficiency disorders, people allergic to one of the components of the vaccines or who have had a prior allergic reaction to any vaccine. Thus there is currently no safety or efficacy data for these subgroups.[/quote]
Well yes - you're not going to put people allergic to the vaccine in trials, nor is it ethical to trial on pregnant women. Including people with previous immunity is also not helpful as it will artificially increase vaccine efficacy (i.e., make it look better than it actually is). There's a logical reason as to why all the groups listed were not included.

Fortunately, we have now rolled out billions of doses, thus gathering data on most of these people.

I'm not sure really sure what they are trying to prove with that statement - trials happened a long time ago and the evidence has moved on from then.

@Beachcomber

I'm totally against it for any vaccine but in particular for covid vaccines.

The reason being that currently the risk benefit ratio is unknown. We don't know how long the vaccine protects for (due to both waning and virus mutation). We don't have enough data on who is ar risk of an adverse effect of the vaccines.

Also we appear to now have accepted that the vaccines do not prevent transmission.

The vaccines are currently being used in Europe under special status due to the pandemic and they are reviewed yearly. The manufacturers are therefore required to provide additional data to the European Medicines Agency in order to retain that status. One of the criteria is the efficacity. If that continues to drop as the virus mutates then the vaccine will be in danger of not meeting its current licensing status.

So even before we get on to arguments about ethics and bodily autonomy I think it would be outrageous to mandate these vaccines.

I also have a big ethical issue with mandating a product (which is far from perfect) which makes a lot of money for private businesses.

This.

There have been many supporting comments for mandatory vaccines on this post, stating that the unvaccinated are directly hurting those who are vaccinated. - How?

I am confused by the contradiction.

If the vaccine is as effective as those who want mandatory vaccines believe it is, then the 31.2% of unvaccinated population shouldn't have any effect on those who are vaccinated.

Which brings the point up of the vaccinations are not doing what the government hoped or expected them too, they are not as effective.
So, by the logic of many, until they have developed a vaccine in which is effective to its purpose, and has the lasting side effects tested and evaluted - it makes no sense to make someone mandatory that is not completely effective.

And as far as the 'Your right to swing your arm ends when your fist hits my face' analogy - that is so subjective to how and when you want to use it.

There are 95,000 alcohol related deaths per year for example. 39% of the most violent crimes committed in the UK in 2021, consumed alcohol before the crime was committed.

Are we looking to ban alcohol - no. Because that wouldn't be ideal, for either the government or the consumer, nevermind the statistics and the relief it would provide the NHS.

For context, i haven't had the vaccination, but i am not anti-vax by any means.