The rights of anti-vaccines

It is, without a doubt, one of the biggest mistakes that we are making as a society: recognizing supposed inalienable rights to those who refuse to abide by what society has agreed upon as duties.

Those who decide not to get vaccinated when technology has demonstrated not only its safety, but also its efficiency in containing a pandemic they are not exercising a right. The human species is social by nature, and the balanced functioning of societies requires not only that we all claim our fundamental rights, but also that we accept a series of duties.

Those who do not agree to abide by those obligations that emerge from a very clear social consensus should only have one right: to leave that society, to be excluded from it. Because society cannot accept that there are individuals benefiting from living in it thanks to the fact that they decide to exercise all their rights, including those that they invent, but pretend not to comply with any of their duties.

The anti-vaccines, as the analysis of the data from the different countries is clearly demonstrating, are a social danger. The statement that “the problem is yours” is completely false: vaccines enhance the immune response – in fact, to a much greater extent than other types of vaccine do – but they are not magicnor can they prevent an infection with absolute probability.

Hence, what the data from the different countries is showing is unequivocal: the greater the number of unvaccinated, the greater the probability of having to decree confinement measures again, which represent an enormous loss for the entire society.

The anti-vaccines, as the analysis of the data from the different countries is clearly demonstrating, are a social danger

That is the dilemma: since a few unsupportive people want defend some rights that have been invented, now we have to confine and restrict the rights of the whole society. As some do not accept being discriminated against when, logically, they should be for being potentially infectious (there is no more justified reason to discriminate against someone), now hoteliers have to accept enormous losses derived from restrictions that are imposed, in a completely unjustified and arbitrary, everyone. No, the anti-vaccines have no right to demonstrate for anything: those of us who should demonstrate are the vaccinated, asking that they be vaccinated compulsorily.

The countries that are experiencing a new wave of infections are doing so for one reason only: their tolerance for anti-vaccines. It is, clearly, a false dilemma. Tolerating the intolerant, the one who breaks the social consensus without caring about the welfare of all and disregarding the consequences is something that, in an evolved society, is a tremendous mistake.

No, the anti-vaccines have no right to demonstrate for anything: those of us who should demonstrate are the vaccinated

In practice, those who insist on not being vaccinated while being able to receive the vaccine -logically, I am not among those who, due to incompatibilities or other health reasons, cannot do so- should be excluded from society.

Going to work, when you have decided to be a potential vector of a serious disease? Yeah, of course… and the employer, and your colleagues are the ones who have to take the risk of you infecting them, because you simply don’t feel like getting a vaccine of absolutely proven safety.

Take your children to school, when they live with an unvaccinated? No, I’m sorry: you are a risk, and you must be treated as such. Actually, the logical thing would be, given the influence you have over these children, to withdraw your parental rights. Treat you in a hospital when you get infected? Why should society dedicate resources to treating someone who has contracted a disease of their own free will? And no, the comparison with smoking or obesity does not hold up. No one, ever, has tried to withdraw their right to universal healthcare. But another very different thing is how those who decide, freely, not to collaborate to stop a pandemic, and cause it to continue expanding, are treated. To that, no water.

The person who freely decides not to be vaccinated should meet all hospital expenses out of pocket arising from your decision. In practice, the only thing that can be done with an anti-vaccine is to obligatorily administer the vaccine, because receiving it is part of a social consensus and an obligation for those who want to live in society. In a time of crisis and emergency, nonsense, just: everything that weakens the social consensus is a threat, and we must fight against it. Any way at all.

As long as we allow certain unsupportive people to continue inventing rights, we will continue to have a problem of social unsustainability. Societies are sustained by rights, but also by obligations.

In the same way that we cannot accept that someone does not obey certain laws, that someone decides that killing or stealing is his right, or that he thinks that driving without a seat belt is something that he is going to do for his holy nose, we cannot accept that someone decide that you are not going to get vaccinated because you have no damn idea of ​​immunology, or because you decide to read irresponsible people who spread nonsense without scientific basis.

The harshness with the anti-vaccines is part of the exercise that we have to do as a society to put them in their place, to prevent anyone from thinking that everything is allowed, and that there are no duties associated with the benefits obtained from living in society. The compulsory vaccination by government decree and the persecution of the unvaccinated is not an option in a pandemic: it is simply a matter of logic.

The pterosaur specimen whose auction has been suspended.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.