This is what you want to believe. If you inform yourself more, which is now possible more then ever in history, then you find out, that this is just huge business with fear. I recommend book from Gerhard Buchwald - "Vaccination - A Business Based on Fear" (1994) if your are open to new research.
Remember... Scared and uninformed people are easy to be manipulated.
It is extremely concerning that this is most likely a mainstream position.
Mandatory medical procedure for the common good is a slipperly slope… and it has been made into a mainstream position with pharma marketing and PR working with politicians and “news” agencies for their short-term profits.
This could end up in someone coming to power and making high doses of copper cyanide mandatory to everyone who is pro-mandates, for the common good of course. Be careful what you wish for.
Superstition and idiocy being more important than the common good is a slippery slope... what if someone decides that putting out fires is against the will of their God?
That's a pretty quickly self-limiting population. As is the Antivax community, though the flareups of forgotten diseases will continue for a few more cycles before this group dies out naturally - So long as we don't fan the flames by actually persecuting them. More than a few will die of disease, most will learn better from seeing the results of their actions.
A significant portion of that population will develop natural immunity (mostly by natural selection) and will be the one to survive when at some point centralized supply chain is exausted out of resources and all the viruses that they had vaccines for come back with a bang.
you are being vaccinated thousands times a day by countless parasites, fungi and bacteria, yet when it's safely designed by tens of thousands of smartest people in the world it becomes... medical procedure..?
Then it's also not fine for you to leave your house because even if you are vaccinated you can still spread disease. With modern technology, there's no need to leave the home for anything but work and some essentials. So if you have this technological-integrationist view on vaccines then you might as well self-ban from any sort of outside recreation or public gatherings since you would be putting others at risk.
Between the two extremes of not getting vaccinated and self-isolating forever on the off chance you might have a virus is something called reasonable precaution. Getting vaccinated for something like Polio is just such a thing.
Who gets to draw that line? If one has the choice to self-isolate, and they are motivated by social obligation, then they should do so even if they are vaccinated because the morality of the issue doesn't scale with the severity of the virus. To knowingly risk giving others a disease for the sake of frivolity, even when the chances are relatively low, would nevertheless be an immoral act.
This is of course something I don't actually believe. Vaccines should be a personal choice because presumably they are effective enough that the argument for one's responsibility towards other people's health is greatly diminished to a point where we can decide what's a reasonable compromise. I more or less agree with what you're saying in actuality.
Well, the thing about reasonable precautions is that there's a fairly bright-line test: reasoned arguments behind those precautions. As for who should draw that line, I'd say that subject experts should have a very loud voice in the conversation. In this case, that would mean epidemiologists.
It's fine for vaccines to be a personal choice, but if epidemiologists think that an unvaccinated person is an undue risk to the general public, it's reasonable to limit that person's access to the public.
> Vaccines should be a personal choice because presumably they are effective enough that the argument for one's responsibility towards other people's health is greatly diminished to a point where we can decide what's a reasonable compromise.
Emphasis mine. Your presumption does not hold for all vaccines. Different vaccines and different strains of viruses have varying degrees of effectiveness. Epidemiologists take a data-driven approach to that decision where you're just making an assumption. Reasoned arguments must be backed by data, not just assumptions.
