Why make a vaccine mandatory?



Sino men were hearing that the Australian government is is trying to secure US supply of vaccine for strands. Once a vaccine is successful, which is great to hear, but we're also hearing from the peon that he wants to make it. As mandatory as possible that people would have to get it at, which is sort of interesting wording I thought given that the vast majority of Austrians have indicated this research showing that they've indicated that they would get it if they could and only a really small proportion say that they wouldn't. So what's the purpose of making a vaccine mandatory if people wanted anyway well, it is a risky strategy. Even, people that might be in favor of having the vaccine might say, well, you're going to force me to have it stuff you. I'M NOT GONNA have it and rebel against the idea just because you're forcing people to have it. So it is a is a difficult situation and you'd have to be pretty sure that the vaccine that you're offering is very, very safe. So that's that's the ethical side of it. There is there are two good scientific reasons for doing it although I'm not promoting the mandatory view I'm just giving you the argument here. So. There is one which is to do with the virus one reasons to do with the virus. So, the virus mutates all the time and by the play of Chen, some of the mutations will give that particular version of the virus an advantage. So we've got this virus that's one four G. that's dominant in Australia, and that's almost certainly dominant because two mutation on the spike protein that allows the virus to enter the body that six one, four g mutation almost certainly. Allows the virus to be transmitted more easily, and therefore that version of the virus will preferentially survive. There'll be more of it is doesn't seem to be a naseer form of the viruses just has more survival advantage. Now, the only selective pressure on the virus at the moment is social distancing. So by social distancing, we're making the harder for the virus to spread in the community. and. Therefore, the viruses that will tend to survive when your social distancing locking down will be those that transmit more easily. But as soon as you go to vaccine and vaccine is blocking a whole lot of mutants of the virus but there might be mutants of the virus which are resistant to the version of the viruses, the vaccine, and therefore those mutants might escape round and therefore it's a bit like antibiotic resistance and you've got a sense viruses that are resistant to antibiotics resistant to that particular form of the vaccine. Now if you mandate a vaccine and you try and get very quickly one hundred percent of the community or near it. Immunized there's almost no virus left in the community to mutate and spin around and get around the corner. That's a strong scientific reason for mandating it or trying to get almost one hundred percent coverage. The other reason is that you don't know yet how effective the new vaccines are going to be. It may be that the first versions are only fifty or sixty percent effective. So therefore, do the maths if only say seventy percent of the community gets immunized and it's only fifty percent effective. Then you've only got thirty thirty, five percent coverage that's not enough to give you large enough haired immunity to. Get the virus down to very low levels. I mean the other incentive is that you know if you WANNA go to Port Douglas for your holidays, you're GonNa need something like the old yellow fever vaccination certificate to show that you've had it before they'll let you in and that'll be a strong incentive to people to do that or if you want to go to the movies, you gotTa Show Your certificate but you've had it done robin mandating it you got to be immunized to get into certain environments right then that's what we have at the moment in the sense with child vaccinations. And being able to access childcare but there are problems with mandating a vaccine that on one hand is the individual side of it where you balancing someone's ability to have an individual choice against the greater. Good. But even on the greater good. If they were problems of the vaccine, because anything that we have is going to be brought out quite quickly if there were any sort of problems with it, then that really arrives that public trust and might make it even harder to get the sort of number of vaccinated people that we would need to get to get the reduction in transmissibility that is. What we need a vaccine full yeah and those are really good reasons. The reason that you can really push it hard particularly, which preschool children is that the vaccines we have given to hundreds of millions of kids, hundreds of millions of adults. We know the really safe. We know the site apart profile, really really rare and you can insist on it with a lot with a high degree of safety. In other words, you know what the risks of getting measles are, and you know what the risks getting polio are and the risks of the vaccine or infinitesimal highly almost non measurable comp-. In comparison. covid nineteen it's a little bit different because point six percent of people die from this although ten or fifteen percent maybe even more get quite unwell with it. So that's quite a large proportion of the community but you the you're right. That is the equation of the government is going to be very confident about. Okay. So let's say we do have a vaccine and one hundred percent of Australians get vaccinated what we still living on a planet with other people we can't. We can't guarantee vaccination for the whole globe. So there is there is an answer to that question and Garvey the global. Immunization Initiative not for profit initiative argues exactly that point is that there is no point and just having your own nation immunized because if you want International Border Open Up, you need the world to be immunised, which is why they've got this system through Sepe and Garvey of of funding vaccine so that low income countries get access to the to the

Coming up next