4 ms·

Not my monkeys not my circus, but contra the headline: The Long History of Mandated Vaccines in the United States @ https://www.governing.com/now/the-long-hist

Not my monkeys not my circus, but contra the headline: The Long History of Mandated Vaccines in the United States @ https://www.governing.com/now/the-long-history-of-mandated-vaccines-in-the-united-states https://www.governing.com/now/the-long-history-of-mandated-v... When the Supreme Court Upheld a Compulsory Vaccination Law Infectious disease, public health, and the Constitution @ https://reason.com/2020/04/30/when-the-supreme-court-upheld-a-compulsory-vaccination-law/ https://reason.com/2020/04/30/when-the-supreme-court-upheld-... And “42 U.S. Code § 264, originally codified in 1944 and updated several times throughout the years, already grants the federal government authority to take necessary measures (including the apprehension of individuals) in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases…” plus other history @ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-forced-vaccinations/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-forced-vaccinations/ Drawn from the first page of DDG search “usa forced vaccination”

walterbell 5y ago
> in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases The CDC revised the definition of "vaccine" in Sept. 2021, to clarify that they are non-sterilizing, i.e. they do not prevent (only reduce) the spread of communicable diseases, but instead protect an individual from serious illness. Hopefully this will reset layperson expectations to match the science of intramuscular vaccines and observed data, e.g. infection and transmission have been shown by multiple studies to be present in Covid-vaccinated populations. There are nasal vaccines in trials which may offer sterilizing mucosal immunity from Covid.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- moistly 5y ago
  That’s orthogonal to the headline, isn’t it?
  - walterbell 5y ago
    It's a response to the general comment about legal precedent on vaccines. Since the definition of vaccine has changed to denote a new category, it remains to be seen how the precedent will be interpreted. Prior to this CDC revision, there has been widespread confusion about the relationship between immunity and Covid vaccination. "Prevention" is a bright legal and scientific line, which rapidly stops contagion. "Protection" is debatable, as we see from the many studies on efficacy.
    - moistly 5y ago
      Inoculation dates back longer than strictly sterilizing vaccination. I don’t think there’s a legal argument against mass vaccination. Apropos of nothing, today a group of anti vaccination lunatics terrorized several schools in an adjacent school districts. This, after disrupting a hospital that is at the bursting limits with mostly unvaccinated Delta victims. Public health interests have always had ultimate priority over personal health decisions.
      - walterbell 5y ago
        Fortunately, lawyers have monetary incentives to fund evidence collection, e.g. autopsies that would otherwise never take place, or expensive genome sequencing to identify which variant infected a vaccinated person, to quantify public health benefits, costs and risks. The fuzzier the claims, the happier the lawyers. Pharma manufacturers and governments may not have liability, but a range of individuals and organizations may be surprised to find themselves liable for "mandates" not encoded in legislation. OSHA has rules which require employers to track all adverse events from mandated vaccines, but these are not currently being enforced. That ambiguity should make lawyers happy, NSW in Australia has proposed that employers be liable for worker vaccine injuries when the vaccine is mandated by the government.
Fjolsvith 5y ago
Whatever happened to "My body, my choice!"?

walterbell 5y ago

> in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases The CDC revised the definition of "vaccine" in Sept. 2021, to clarify that they are non-sterilizing, i.e. they do not prevent (only reduce) the spread of communicable diseases, but instead protect an individual from serious illness. Hopefully this will reset layperson expectations to match the science of intramuscular vaccines and observed data, e.g. infection and transmission have been shown by multiple studies to be present in Covid-vaccinated populations. There are nasal vaccines in trials which may offer sterilizing mucosal immunity from Covid.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
moistly 5y ago
That’s orthogonal to the headline, isn’t it?
- walterbell 5y ago
  It's a response to the general comment about legal precedent on vaccines. Since the definition of vaccine has changed to denote a new category, it remains to be seen how the precedent will be interpreted. Prior to this CDC revision, there has been widespread confusion about the relationship between immunity and Covid vaccination. "Prevention" is a bright legal and scientific line, which rapidly stops contagion. "Protection" is debatable, as we see from the many studies on efficacy.
  - moistly 5y ago
    Inoculation dates back longer than strictly sterilizing vaccination. I don’t think there’s a legal argument against mass vaccination. Apropos of nothing, today a group of anti vaccination lunatics terrorized several schools in an adjacent school districts. This, after disrupting a hospital that is at the bursting limits with mostly unvaccinated Delta victims. Public health interests have always had ultimate priority over personal health decisions.
    - walterbell 5y ago
      Fortunately, lawyers have monetary incentives to fund evidence collection, e.g. autopsies that would otherwise never take place, or expensive genome sequencing to identify which variant infected a vaccinated person, to quantify public health benefits, costs and risks. The fuzzier the claims, the happier the lawyers. Pharma manufacturers and governments may not have liability, but a range of individuals and organizations may be surprised to find themselves liable for "mandates" not encoded in legislation. OSHA has rules which require employers to track all adverse events from mandated vaccines, but these are not currently being enforced. That ambiguity should make lawyers happy, NSW in Australia has proposed that employers be liable for worker vaccine injuries when the vaccine is mandated by the government.

Fjolsvith 5y ago

Whatever happened to "My body, my choice!"?