No they don’t. Or at least insofar as they do, it is not accomplished the way being talked about.
Queermunist is not being antivaxx by pointing out that the American government has a bad history when it comes to being empowered to disregard medical consent, and it is disingenuous to say so.
So is your argument bounded by your American context? What are some present day states you think are competent to administer universal vaccine programmes? and some which like the US have not yet earned that power?
infectious disease is a collectivized global issue. I have a difficult time to imagine a coherent framework based on trying to allocate vaccinations to people based on the most nefarious actions taken by any government with jurisdiction over them.
I am not American, but America is what was discussed.
And I think given the history of that country it is valid to be skeptical of any enforced medical program.
infectious disease is a collectivized global issue
I assume you mean that it is a collective, global issue, not that it is collectivised. Because the fact that it is precisely not collectivised is why we have such disparate outcomes.
No one is suggesting that vaccines be banned in countries with bad human rights records, merely that trusting a state with the power to enforce medical treatment is a broad power.
There are a very small number of vaccines that would even be considered for such a program. About a dozen common ones and add maybe another dozen of epidemic or regional concerns. Vaccine manufacture is subject to high levels of scrutiny everywhere. There is nothing nefarious that can be done with a tdap or MMR vaccine when delivered via a comprehensive standardized programme. All examples I know of where bad actors used the cover of vaccines to do something else that was bad were outside those contexts. Having a known, published schedule that everyone adheres to rather than an alacarte pick n choose, is actually protective. Not as you are imagining, the perfect place to hide in plain sight. Having mass vaccine distribution and administration
campaigns where everyone gets vaccines from the same source creates substantial logistical issues in doing whatever targeted mischief it is you are imagining could take place via the small number of injections over the course of a person’s life.
Your argument is like saying that because police have used excuse of traffic enforcement to wreak violence on people they don’t like, it ought not to be mandatory to build motor vehicles with seat belts.
No they don’t. Or at least insofar as they do, it is not accomplished the way being talked about. Queermunist is not being antivaxx by pointing out that the American government has a bad history when it comes to being empowered to disregard medical consent, and it is disingenuous to say so.
So is your argument bounded by your American context? What are some present day states you think are competent to administer universal vaccine programmes? and some which like the US have not yet earned that power?
infectious disease is a collectivized global issue. I have a difficult time to imagine a coherent framework based on trying to allocate vaccinations to people based on the most nefarious actions taken by any government with jurisdiction over them.
I am not American, but America is what was discussed. And I think given the history of that country it is valid to be skeptical of any enforced medical program.
I assume you mean that it is a collective, global issue, not that it is collectivised. Because the fact that it is precisely not collectivised is why we have such disparate outcomes.
No one is suggesting that vaccines be banned in countries with bad human rights records, merely that trusting a state with the power to enforce medical treatment is a broad power.
There are a very small number of vaccines that would even be considered for such a program. About a dozen common ones and add maybe another dozen of epidemic or regional concerns. Vaccine manufacture is subject to high levels of scrutiny everywhere. There is nothing nefarious that can be done with a tdap or MMR vaccine when delivered via a comprehensive standardized programme. All examples I know of where bad actors used the cover of vaccines to do something else that was bad were outside those contexts. Having a known, published schedule that everyone adheres to rather than an alacarte pick n choose, is actually protective. Not as you are imagining, the perfect place to hide in plain sight. Having mass vaccine distribution and administration campaigns where everyone gets vaccines from the same source creates substantial logistical issues in doing whatever targeted mischief it is you are imagining could take place via the small number of injections over the course of a person’s life.
Your argument is like saying that because police have used excuse of traffic enforcement to wreak violence on people they don’t like, it ought not to be mandatory to build motor vehicles with seat belts.