Flu jab and viral illness

[onewheeldave]

No, you suggested that one action would lead to another. The only connection that linked the two actions was 'using the same reasoning'.

 

That's the slippery slope fallacy.

Here's what I said, with reasons in bold

 

It shows that some Health authorities in the US are now sacking employees for refusing to have the flu jab.

 

It sets a precedent.

 

It means that Health authorities over here who share the same view that it's fine to force employees to have a flu jab (by sacking those who don't), will be more likely to push for it.

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2017 at 18:13 ----------

 

From the BMJ (British Medical Journal)

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4146

 

'last years Flu jab ineffective for over 65 year olds'

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2017 at 18:19 ----------

 

Also from the BMJ

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4766

 

"NHS staff who refuse flu vaccine this winter will have to give reasons"

 

Increasing the pressure for staff to comply.

 

This will very likely be a slippery slope to the requirement for all NHS to have the jab, then, using the same reasoning, there will be pressure for everyone to have it, with those resisting being accused of being selfish by not contributing to 'herd immunity'.

 

As this progresses, those who refuse will be, if employed, sacked, and those are are unemployed, will lose benefits.

 

That is where things are headed.

[SnailyBoy]

Here's what I said, with reasons in bold

 

I read what you said.

 

This is no different from your 'forced to have vaccines' narrative earlier in the thread. Which was found to be incorrect by the regional NHS guidance.

[onewheeldave]

I read what you said.

 

This is no different from your 'forced to have vaccines' narrative earlier in the thread. Which was found to be incorrect by the regional NHS guidance.

 

The point is, it contains reasons, therefore it's not a 'slippery slope' fallacy.

[SnailyBoy]

The point is, it contains reasons, therefore it's not a 'slippery slope' fallacy.

 

Only if the reasons are justified, they aren't.

[petemcewan]

Onewheeldave,

 

 

Herd immunity is the additional protection provided to both unvaccinated and vaccinated people in a population, and results from the inability of successfully vaccinated people to spread the infection.

Surely such an outcome can be used to overcome individual choice -not to receive the vaccination- in favour of protection for the group?

Edited November 27, 2017 by petemcewan

[onewheeldave]

Only if the reasons are justified, they aren't.

 

As I said earlier-

This will very likely be a slippery slope to the requirement for all NHS to have the jab, then, using the same reasoning, there will be pressure for everyone to have it, with those resisting being accused of being selfish by not contributing to 'herd immunity'.

 

And, lo and behold-

 

Onewheeldave,

 

 

Herd immunity is the additional protection provided to both unvaccinated and vaccinated people in a population, and results from the inability of successfully vaccinated people to spread the infection.

Surely such an outcome can be used to overcome individual choice -not to receive the vaccination- in favour of protection for the group?

 

i.e. 'overcoming individual choice' (to not receive a flu vaccine) on the grounds that it is not contributing to 'herd immunity'.

 

---------- Post added 27-11-2017 at 11:17 ----------

 

Onewheeldave,

 

 

Herd immunity is the additional protection provided to both unvaccinated and vaccinated people in a population, and results from the inability of successfully vaccinated people to spread the infection.

Surely such an outcome can be used to overcome individual choice -not to receive the vaccination- in favour of protection for the group?

 

I uphold personal choice in this matter. If people want to get vaccinated, that's their choice. I oppose compulsory vaccinations for adults.

[SnailyBoy]

As I said earlier-

 

 

And, lo and behold-

 

 

 

i.e. 'overcoming individual choice' (to not receive a flu vaccine) on the grounds that it is not contributing to 'herd immunity'.

 

---------- Post added 27-11-2017 at 11:17 ----------

 

 

I uphold personal choice in this matter. If people want to get vaccinated, that's their choice. I oppose compulsory vaccinations for adults.

 

The argument there was a justification of herd immunity, not a accusation of those of aren't vaccinated as being selfish.

[petemcewan]

Onewheeldave,

 

Thank you for your reply. This is exactly where we divide. I'm not suggesting any compulsory campaign of vaccination. It's a community thing for me. I'll make it quite a pointed position that I adopt. If my vaccination contributes to a degree of protection for the: very young,vulnerable , immune compromised and elderly. Then I will put aside my individual choice in favour of the herd and the attenuation of infection.

Edited November 27, 2017 by petemcewan

[Annie Bynnol]

Onewheeldave,

 

 

Herd immunity is the additional protection provided to both unvaccinated and vaccinated people in a population, and results from the inability of successfully vaccinated people to spread the infection.

Surely such an outcome can be used to overcome individual choice -not to receive the vaccination- in favour of protection for the group?

 

Relying on "Herd immunity" does not protect the non-vaccinated and is a danger to many.

 

Some people cannot be vaccinated on medical grounds.

Some people are prevented by their guardians from being protected.

Some people fall through societies net and are unable to make decisions.

Some people are not protected by vaccination.

People in these categories die every year.

They rely on "herd immunity" and so are endangered by the non-vaccinated.

 

Assuming "herd immunity" applies to airports, cinemas, football grounds, other countries is medically very wrong.

[SnailyBoy]

Relying on "Herd immunity" does not protect the non-vaccinated and is a danger to many.

 

Some people cannot be vaccinated on medical grounds.

Some people are prevented by their guardians from being protected.

Some people fall through societies net and are unable to make decisions.

Some people are not protected by vaccination.

People in these categories die every year.

They rely on "herd immunity" and so are endangered by the non-vaccinated.

 

Assuming "herd immunity" applies to airports, cinemas, football grounds, other countries is medically very wrong.

 

How do you explain the eradication of smallpox if it wasn't for Herd Immunity?