Often the sell is that those who do not vaccinate increase the risk to the collective. The only premise by which this makes any sense at all is an appeal to the effect of massing: a population that makes for a fertile breeding ground becomes a vector of approach for the disease. However history shows that vaccination does not keep you from contracting the disease, is not life-long as it was originally conceived to be (how convenient for the profiteer), is likely to have side effects which we often fumble clumsily trying to check and cause additional problems, is administered within an operating paradigm that cannot rightfully be claimed to be close to complete and is founded on a formation of chemistry that is horrifically out-dated … and to a precarious extent that convenience fails to shield it in justness from the consequences of its possible inaccuracy.
However, this is all circumstantial observation. The real blow to the argument is that it is completely inconsistent. If biomassing was of sufficient concern to the industry that it should amount to a just assault on citizens liberty then hospitals would only be an emergency room, and the majority of other treatment … especially of those most “contagious” would be managed as far from others as possible, including others with the same affliction. Despite the incredible sanitation efforts of hospitals (which because we live in a biocompetitive world has ultimately led to the survival and development of harder-to-kill organisms), nothing diffuses the propagation of influence nearly as well as distance. Understanding that such an organization would suffer from greater costs and communications complexity, our choice to consolidate to save expense rather than disperse to increase effectiveness is a further reflection of our promotion of profit over morality, and even over actual effectiveness… and again the capitalist profits from the functional conflict … he’s paid for the service rendered at the facility while virtually ensuring that those who gather there will in one form or another perpetuate the perception of its need or that of collateral services: there is no focal profit in cure.
BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE
A concept at odds with itself when we allow ourselves to be drawn into the “needs of the many” argument. In Star Trek, the notion is one of sacrifice and is noble in being voluntary. What people fail to realize is that sacrifice immediately looses any meaning when it is expected or forced in any way (consider the Soldier who is hailed by a Congress when in Service, disregarded as self-invited of his consequential injuries, and then abandoned when separated), be it by compulsion or by scorn. There are no acceptible losses. Period. It is unavoidable that everything will fail, in some time and some way. We must understand that when undertaking a course of action, some will be harmed. However this does not make it acceptible. What we do when we appeal to this curtailing of conscience is abandon responsibility for it, and therefor impetus to continue looking for alternative perspectives or approaches. This is, at times, a temporarily forgivable lapse by a fatigued citizenry, but an insidious and unforgivable condition to be fomented and exploited by those whose activities habitually consume the general well being in favor of their own.