3 ms·

Not to mention, agency over one's corporeal self essentially dictates the right to abortion. I uncompromisingly assert the right to decide what happens to my b

Not to mention, agency over one's corporeal self essentially dictates the right to abortion. I uncompromisingly assert the right to decide what happens to my body and decide what medical procedures to undergo.

kingstoned 3y ago
[flagged]
- amatecha 3y ago
  They sure can. It's their right[0]. It might be a bad choice, but it's theirs to make. There are enough sensible people to attain a good % of vaccination for whatever transmissible illness. We can avoid trampling on others' rights by ensuring a high standard of education -- the problem solves itself when people understand how/why things work the way they do. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/... (article 3)
- orwin 3y ago
  Yes! I think its fair though to have schools refusing to accept unvaccinated people if immunodeficient kids are present (and refuse non-vaccinated nurses in immunology and cancer wards), but absolutely, you should decide by yourself.
  - jMyles 3y ago
    Even those requirements need to be underpinned by clear evidence of a sterilizing effect of the vaccine in question. (And I'm curious: by your logic, do you support re-adoption of the oral polio vaccine? Some interesting developments: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-generation-oral-polio-vaccine https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-gener...)
- jMyles 3y ago
  ...of... course. Particularly following the shoddy rollouts of the past few years, and the Gruber and Krause resignations, and the general limelight shown on VRBPAC and the FDA processes, it's pretty obvious that coercive uptake creates a set of horrible incentives. I'd think that's one of the lessons enjoying consensus henceforth. Good vaccines are sufficiently awesome to drive adoption by dint of their effects. The most palpable effect of coercion is the presence of subpar vaccines on the market, tarnishing the reputation vaccination as a concept - which of course is dangerous for public health.

kingstoned 3y ago

[flagged]

amatecha 3y ago
They sure can. It's their right[0]. It might be a bad choice, but it's theirs to make. There are enough sensible people to attain a good % of vaccination for whatever transmissible illness. We can avoid trampling on others' rights by ensuring a high standard of education -- the problem solves itself when people understand how/why things work the way they do. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/... (article 3)
orwin 3y ago
Yes! I think its fair though to have schools refusing to accept unvaccinated people if immunodeficient kids are present (and refuse non-vaccinated nurses in immunology and cancer wards), but absolutely, you should decide by yourself.
- jMyles 3y ago
  Even those requirements need to be underpinned by clear evidence of a sterilizing effect of the vaccine in question. (And I'm curious: by your logic, do you support re-adoption of the oral polio vaccine? Some interesting developments: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-generation-oral-polio-vaccine https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-gener...)
jMyles 3y ago
...of... course. Particularly following the shoddy rollouts of the past few years, and the Gruber and Krause resignations, and the general limelight shown on VRBPAC and the FDA processes, it's pretty obvious that coercive uptake creates a set of horrible incentives. I'd think that's one of the lessons enjoying consensus henceforth. Good vaccines are sufficiently awesome to drive adoption by dint of their effects. The most palpable effect of coercion is the presence of subpar vaccines on the market, tarnishing the reputation vaccination as a concept - which of course is dangerous for public health.