When a vaccine is viable and available...should the government, either federal or state, mandate it's use?

It is my opinion that in times of crisis, war, and pandemic/epidemic that the government of each state should be able to require steps that are for the good of all people of that state. I may be wrong, but it is just my opinion.

I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN DISCUSSION ON THIS SUBJECT. LET’S NOT TURN THIS INTO A TRUMP THIS OBAMA THAT…BUT WHAT ABOUT HILLARY AND BIDEN SNIFFS HAIR OF KIDS KIND OF THREAD.
I only want to know what people think.

I normally would be against the state or federal government telling us anything. But here’s the deal. I think if flu shots were mandated, we’d see the effect of the flu greatly diminished.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/

There had never been any doubt that, subject to constitutional limitations, states had authority to legislate with respect to all matters within their geographic boundaries, or to police their internal affairs, which Chief Justice Marshall referred to as the “police power.”24–26 During the 1800s, the Supreme Court confirmed that this power included the power to pass laws that promote the “health, peace, morals, education and good order of the people.”27–29

ustice Harlan stated the question before the Court: “Is this statute . . . inconsistent with the liberty which the Constitution of the United States secures to every person against deprivation by the State?”2(p25) Harlan confirmed that the Constitution protects individual liberty and that liberty is not “an absolute right in each person to be, in all times and in all circumstances, wholly free from restraint”:

There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.2(p29)

No.

Would have made a great poll. Not too late.

It’s a fundamental philosophical question.

1 Like

How is it fundamental?

Individual rights vs. Greater good.

The fundamentalistest.

Flu shots can be encouraged for students in public schools by giving them lunch vouchers. Once they build up the habit, it should stick for the rest of their lives.

I’m cool with that. And a tax cut for people getting it.

I’m cool with making them free too.

1 Like

Jacobson v Massachusetts says yes. Personally I think so, but I understand the point of view of people who don’t.

1 Like

I ask this honestly: When the polio vaccine became available, was that a mandate by some level of government or was that “highly recommended” by doctors?

“Reasonable” there’s that word again.

Interesting case. There were exemptions, Jacobson was denied. The ruling also said the vaccination couldn’t be forced, just that he could be imprisoned for refusing. Kind of defeats the purpose.

They aren’t going to have to mandate its use.

The anti-vaxxers are a small group.

Loud and annoying, but small.

The problem will be keeping up with demand, and distributing it to developing world countries, who are going to get crushed by this pandemic, btw.

We got it as a condition of attending public schools.

I wouldn’t be so sure. Look at flu vaccine numbers. Memories fade.

We never shut down the whole world over flu.

You are correct over time memories will fade but I think this is enough of a traumatic event it’ll take a little longer to fade.

No, we haven’t. What’s the compliance rate? A little longer, no doubt.

I’m not sick, I don’t need sticking.

Yeah…that how I see it going down as well.

False dichotomy. Those who reject it for the sake of individual rights may also see rejecting it as for the greater good.

No, it’s not a false dichotomy. It is a fundamental philosophical dilemma.

No. It should not be compulsory to trust one particular section of the medical or governmental system over another.

What do you see as the fundamental philosophical dilemma?