this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
19 points (71.1% liked)

Ask Science

12876 readers
1 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.

Community Rules

Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.

Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.

Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.

Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.

Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.

Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.

Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.

Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.

Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.

By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
sabbah@lemmy.world
AradFort@lemmy.world
ken_cleanairsystems@lemmy.sdf.org
count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.world
19
Should Vaccines Ever be Mandated? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/askscience@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Antivax types are all anti pushing vaccine on to people but if they don't want to get vaccinated then it still won't affect vaccinated folks. From my rough understanding, getting vaccinated keeps you alive or get less severe symptoms, but you can still pass it on.

So if antivax people don't get it, then why not just let them die?

Edit: guys, I'm not antivax, I just don't understand how herd immunity works.

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.world 41 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

if they don't want to get vaccinated then it still won't affect vaccinated folks.

This is actually not true, since enough people being unvaccinated can prevent herd immunity from protecting everyone.

Herd immunity is an indirect protection from an infectious disease that occurs when enough of a population has immunity (either from vaccination or prior infection). When enough people are immune, infections are unable to spread and outbreaks naturally end. This protects people within the population who don’t have immunity (unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons, vaccinated but didn’t get complete immunity, too young for the vaccine, immunocompromised, etc). It also protects those with some immunity who might still have a less severe infection.

The vaccination rate required for herd immunity depends on how infectious a particular disease is. Measles is particularly infectious, and a 95% vaccination rate is considered necessary for herd immunity. Many parts of the US have rates lower than that, which is why measles outbreaks are becoming common after the disease had basically been eradicated for decades.

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Thanks for indulging my ignorance. However, wouldn't a 100% fully vaccinated and immunized community still be able to spread?

Say the flu shot, I'd like to say we have high rates of vaccinated people for that, however, if we walk in to a community that doesn't, won't it spread to them and kill them?

Edit: I read this article explaining more about the herd immunity you mentioned and it feels a bit missing to me

For example, if this person gets a case of the flu for example, they might still sneeze and cough, which someone will breath in if they're not wearing protective face coverings, and they will transmit it to more people until it hits a vulnerable person. These people have mild flu symptoms because they're vaccinated, but it still gets an immunocompromised person in the crossfire.

In the bbc article, it's as if it stops people from spreading the disease

https://www.bbc.com/news/57229390

[–] Eranziel@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It does depend on the disease and the vaccine.

Usually, yes, vaccinated people can still carry and transmit the disease. However, they're much more likely to have less severe or even no symptoms, and for many diseases they're also much less likely to transmit than an unvaccinated person.

The real answer to your question is: the more people that are vaccinated, the safer everyone is. It is the height of self-centered self-importance for anti-vaxers to consider their right to avoid minor side effects as more important than the health and safety - potentially even the life - of the immunocompromised people in their community.

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

I think herd immunity might work in a way by shortening the time each infected person has with infection and reducing the amount if variants, however, we need to combine this with quarantining and protective equipment to make it the most effective

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Lack of herd immunity doesn't make a vaccinated person unvaccinated. It just means the pathogen has enough population left to sustain itself.

[–] count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

That’s correct, but I wasn’t implying the opposite; I hope my comment doesn’t read that way.

A fraction of the vaccinated population will not have 100% immunity. Even among healthy, non-immunocompromised people vaccines generally don’t have a 100% efficacy. For example, annual flu vaccines vary in efficacy, but are often around 50%.

As I said in my comment, herd immunity is a form of indirect protection. Keeping a disease from being able to spread prevents people from being exposed at all, regardless of their immunity status. If enough people are unvaccinated and there is no herd immunity, then that increases the risk for the whole population - even those who were vaccinated since generally that doesn’t guarantee immunity.

There are certainly arguments to be made about bodily autonomy and weighing individual rights against those of society. However, the idea that “the decision to not be vaccinated is an individual choice that doesn’t harm others” is incorrect, and therefore not a great argument against vaccine mandates.

[–] cloudless@piefed.social 29 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Because some people have certain conditions preventing them to vaccines. For example, babies are too young for many vaccines. We still want herd immunity to protect those people. Vaccine effectiveness isn't 100%, so vaccinated people can still get affected by those irresponsible anti-vaxxers.

Antivax people don't just die, they overload hospitals. The more virus is spread, the more variants are created.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

For the first example, it seems that reasonable exemptions should exist, were vaccines ever mandated. If you're immunocompromised or too young, etc., seems sensible to exempt those people.

The problem is that most anti-vaxxers are not those categories. Their religion, their politics, or their ignorance are seen as acceptable reasons to skip vaccination, and none of those are based on an objective state of a person or have a rational basis for rejecting vaccines. Even if we throw in the prospect of someone having an unknown vaccine allergy, that only affects about one in a million people. You have a better chance to be struck by lightning.

And so, nobody should be subjected to Typhoid Mary just because their favorite god, celebrity, or politician promotes anti-vaxx conspiracy theories. Vaccines should absolutely be mandatory (and fully subsidized by the governing bodies). They save lives, and there's 230 years of documented history to prove it.

[–] cloudless@piefed.social 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

My point is that anti-vaxxers should be mandated for vaccines because there are some people who cannot be vaccinated for legit reasons.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 5 points 2 weeks ago

Ah, yes. I gotcha. (Also, most of what I wrote was just for general discussion, not aimed specifically at you.)

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

While vaccins are usually spread out over the first ten years of life, babies can and do get vaccinated. I don't know what you're talking about.

I'd say that it'd be fair to give vaccinated people priority of care above unvaccinated people.

Don't want to get vaccinated? Deal with the consequences.

[–] papertowels@mander.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

Newborns usually aren't vaccinated until at least a few months - even then, things get introduced over time.

An additional example, some folks can't get vaccinated due to being immunocompromised, resulting in most vaccine mechanisms not working.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Babies do get vaccinated starting at 2mo but their immune systems aren't super great until 6mo+.

A less than 6mo baby with a fever above 100.5 is likely going to the hospital.

Medical systems shouldn't have inbuilt favoritism, it leads to dehumanization and eugenics. Its already a problem for addicts v not, poor v rich, black v white, etc. We shouldn't add in another way to discriminate just because they're ignorant/stupid.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I dunno, not vaccinating is antisocial. I think vaccines must be provided for free and distributed widely.

And if some don't want to get vaccinated, then tough luck. We are not going to let kids die because of someone spreading nonsense conspiracies.

In fact, not vaccinating everyone is favouritism, as it creates a bigger rift between rich and poor, informed and uninformed people.

If someone A were on a hospital bed and had dutifully vaccinated, but another person B who's screaming and refuses vaccins (and consequently is more ill), then I think A deserves the care first. Person B chose a lie and harming people, over helping others. He can get fucked.

Ideally, I'd like for it to be voluntary too, but my solidarity ends at people not doing their part, be they oligarchs or antivaxxers.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm for mandatory vaccination to be clear but I'm not for using ignorance or stupidity as discrimination.

What do you do when person A or B is a kid who has or hasn't been vaccinated because of their parents? Do you still discriminate their care? If person B is on a ventilator do you take them off to put A on?

What do you do when they are afraid of government because of systemic discrimination experiences or even having a relative who was in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? Or just a needle phobia?

I would also just clarify that this antivax discrimination does exist to an extent, not vaccinating keeps you lower or off of most transplant lists and that makes sense because you want to keep the organ healthy. But it isn't going to change your ability to get regular care.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

In that case I would vaccinate the kid and not discriminate their care. They're the victim of antivax parents, and not to be affected by them. See more here.

If they're afraid of the government, then I'd support independent, local, decentralised vaccination campaigns. As long as it's transparent.

And for needle phobias, well, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ there's not really other ways. If there's another I'd be happy to support that, though.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

You can't or at least shouldn't vaccinate while ill. So the ethics question from before is still there.

Vaccines are governmentally approved and distributed. You're not getting around that by local campaigns (which already exist).

The point of the needle phobia is just to show that there are some legitimate possibilities for why someone may not be vaccinated rather than just pure ignorance/stupidity.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

If Ebola ever gained the infectious profile of Covid, and we had a functioning vaccine, yes it should be mandatory. And anyone that didn't like it could go live in Antarctica.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This ^.

COVID kinda perfectly straddled the line of extremely infections, moderately malicious, but not so dramatic (like Ebola) to provoke panic. And its vaccine just happens to make people feel kinda ill and feature a conspiracy fuel (“mRNA”).

It was a perfect storm for anti vax sentiment.

I like to think antivaxx folks would turn into pariahs in the face of the much more dramatic symptoms of, say, smallpox.

[–] Yankee_Self_Loader@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Woah woah woah as someone who is very deeply invested in the history of, the long term well being of, and would also kill to live in Antarctica let’s not be too hasty and send them there. Might I suggest Siberia or perhaps a desert island? Hell, even the sun would be a great option

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

That's not fair to all the brilliant researchers in Antarctica

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think mandatory vaccines won’t work. Especially in the US.

…But organizations should be allowed to discriminate against antivaxxers.

For example, want to fly? The airlines should be allowed (if not mandated) to screen for vaccines in a pandemic, and aggressively kick violators off.

Restaurants want proof, to protect their staff and avoid infecting customers? Great. Give them the legal right to discriminate. Perhaps grocery stores should segment certain hours for antivaxxers.

Look, people do things for all sorts of reasons and that’s fine. But anti vaxxers can either have their cake, or eat it. They aren’t some special protected class that gets to put others at risk. They don’t get to dictate other people’s lives if they don’t want to be dictated to.

And all this would be just fine with the immunocompromised and their caregivers, I think.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

better give hazard pay for those working those special grocery hours. Might need special prices.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

Because they break herd immunity. Just because someone is dumb enough to be antivax doesn't mean they deserve to die.

[–] Flyontgewall@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 weeks ago

Yes they should be mandated. Id be fine for the antivaxer to die off. But, it's the children not the vaccined parents who suffer from the diseases.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes.

Not mandating them will also harm the people affected by the antivax types. Think for example antivax parents who would rather let their kids die than vaccinate. It'll also harm the immunocompressed, who due to lack of herd immunity, will have a high chance of suffering due to these antivaxxers.

I'd also add that there be a yearly checkup of whether the kids at school/daycares/home education are vaccinated or not. The one to do the checkup is prohibited from being a member of an antivaxx movement, and must be medically qualified.

And the following consequences for not vaccinating:

  1. 500 hours community time for not vaccinating.

  2. 500 hours community service on top of that if spreading antivax ideology or supporting antivax groups, whether fiscally or nonfiscally. They also will be required to follow a course on how vaccination actually works, and take an exam for that.

1,000 hours community time would amount to 25 workweeks (8 hr, 5 days a week).

  1. On top of that, a hefty fine of 5% of yearly net disposable income (stocks and non-material wealth included). Kid will be vaccinated also.

  2. If the parents/caretakers lied about the kid being vaccinated, kept the person absent for the checkup, or didn't register the kid (so services knows there's a kid that needs to be vaccinated), they will be called to court for abuse. If they still register and vaccinate the kid after that note, the consequences are 1/3rd less. This all also applies for if the people themselves are not vaccinated; they'll be called to court for endangering other peoples' safety.

They are killing people. I say that that deserves a vaccine mandate with enforced consequences.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Figure out what percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated to keep the transmission rate below 1. See how many people are willing to vaccinate voluntarily, or accept quarantine as an alternative; if that's not enough, then start mandatory vaccinations beginning with those most at risk.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Throwing statistics at reality rarely goes well. There's a reason that every building, bridge, airplane, etc. has a "factor of safety".

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, if you have complete control of the process. But when you’re dealing with the public, erring too far on the side of apparent safety can spark a backlash that has the opposite effect.

[–] savvywolf@pawb.social 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

So a question to everyone in favour of mandatory vaccinations: Are you happy with RFK Jr mandating you inject yourself with whatever he says?

I'm in favour of vaccines. I think everyone who can get them, should get them.

However, we can't overlook the fact that many governments have overlooked human safety and rights in favour of political plays. If injecting bleach into people to cure autism gets votes, what makes you assume that that won't fall under the same mandatory vaccine rules?

And even if you do trust the government to act properly, not everyone is able to receive vaccines. Sure you can be exempt from them if you show proof, but can the government bureaucracy fairly, accurately and quickly roll out a program for that?

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh I don't think that fucking idiot should be able to hold any type of office, I'm just curious how all these viruses and vaccines work. Because I thought that you can still pass on viruses even if your community is 100% vaccinated.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

A 100% vaccinated population would cause the virus to go extinct. This is likely even at very high rates of vaccination. Viruses have to reproduce at massive levels to infect someone. Many will die just trying to escape the body and a vaccinated peoples immune system will make that very tough. If any do escape many will die in the environment before reaching somone to infect inside them enough to start replicating. A vaccinated person will already have antibodies and the virus will be snuffed out before it can replicate much and leave the body. 100% vaccination is essentially impossible. All medical interventions are stressful on a body and there will always be some people that cannot have certain interventions as it will do more harm than good or the risk is to high vs the risk of the disease. Elderly, babies, immunocompromised, etc. They rely on herd immunity which is an vaccination level so high it causes the extinction event of the disease. For smallpox it was something like 80% but measeles was like 95% but measeles is know as an insanely contagious disease.

[–] ChetManly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Not all vaccinations are effective or can be given to everyone. I should get to know when someone chooses to put my life at risk. This was never a problem until a bunch of proudly ignorant fascists decided to make it a political identity.

[–] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yes. All the time.

The side effects are a triggered immune response, which is desirable. The time to get them is negligible.

Vaccines do reduce transmission in every case, if you have less severe symptoms you will spread less pathogens. Less people need hospitalization, so there's less contact to spread the pathogen.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thats a hard thing to do in the us. I could see universal vaccinations. Vaccinations being paid by the government and free to get. The cost to benefit would likely exceed anything else the government funds. To take if further in a country that has single payer universal healthcare you could mandate that if you don't get vaccinated for a particular disease where one is available the coverage would not apply to that disease. You and your primary care doctor would get notifications around it and you would have something like a year to get it with reminders every month or something. Then folks would not have to get it but may risk bankruptcy with their medical bills from catching a pandemic.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

Reading some replies I think I missed the boat on what you were saying. Not everyone who catches a machine dies. Some die, some live but have medical issues for the rest of their lives, some live but will have issues for an extended period, some don't die but have a severe bout that is close, and some are fine. If they survive they will have immunity akin to a vaccine but its always behind. I have heard way more of folks getting covid multiple times than getting it while vaccinated. The main reason for this is the vaccines get updated. So person alpha never gets vaccines and person beta always gets them. Alpha catches covidA and beta does not. Alpha catches covidB and beta does not. Alpha and beta catch covidC because beta was exposed before the updated vaccine came out and they don't mask and had to be in office. Alpha catches covidD and beta does not because they got the latest updated vax before exposure. So the person catching covid is spreading is incubating and spreading covid around more. Morally as well we just don't let people die in any society I know I would like to live in. Ironically allowing death when the person wants it is more a society I would want to live in.

[–] hanrahan@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

Herd immunity

New borns cant be vaccinated against whooping cough (for.example) so you need.to be.

Amd if they're parents and their kid dies ahaisnt medocal.advice (vaccination) shouldn't it be manslaughter ? You can't pray mealses, whooping cough etal away

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 0 points 2 weeks ago

No, because medicine needs to be personalised to the individual. There can be no right thing for everyone. People can have allergies, auto-immune conditions, or other conditions which make the application of a treatment dangerous or ineffectual.

And then you have the principle of bodily autonomy. Nobody has the right to make medical decisions about your body except you (or whoever is your legal guardian).