golodhendil
Active Member
I agree with you on the hysteria issue. Hysteria generated by the media, quacks and antivaxxers, and the trust that certain segments of the society or the world place on them, has and continues to lead to disastrous consequences. Many of us recognize that many scientists are doing less than optimal jobs in communicating science to the general public (on epidemics and many other issues) in a world where our voice is increasingly being drowned out by conspiracy theorists, quacks and fadists on both the left and right, and indeed many are also falling into the unhelpful trend of overhyping our results. In recent years there have been a lot of discussions about this and it is currently one of the things that we are trying very hard to improve.
As you have acknowledged this is possible really only for certain sectors in certain situations, and is basically useless if it were to be applied generally. Trying to restrict or discourage the "freedom of movement" of people who refuse to take vaccines is every bit as difficult/impossible, if not more, than having them take the vaccines.With regards to whether or not receiving a vaccination is a personal choice issue; it most certainly is as the individual should always have the right to decide what they place within their own body. What is not a personal choice issue is whether or not an unvaccinated individual should be permitted to interact with other individuals. This is were the rights of others should take presidence. This already exists within the health sector of Canada with healthcare workers being required to be inoculated against various conditions prior to entry into the Faculty of Nursing.
Last edited: