argument top image

Should vaccines be mandatory?
Back to question

Mandates will keep the immunocompromised safe

Community immunity can be developed when vaccines are made mandatory. When enough people are vaccinated, the entire community is less likely to get the disease. This is important to help keep immunocompromised as safe as possible.

The Argument

Vaccines should be made mandatory for those who can safely get vaccinated. There are those who are immunocompromised and can not safely be vaccinated.[1] The government would have to absolve these individuals from vaccination; this increases the need for the rest of the public to be vaccinated. Those who have an impaired immune system must be protected. The way to do this is to ensure that the rest of the public is vaccinated so they don’t pass on contagious diseases that the immunocompromised are more susceptible to. Mandating vaccination helps to protect the health of vulnerable populations, children who are too young to be vaccinated, and the small proportion of people who don’t respond to particular vaccinations.[2] Vaccine mandates are for the common good.

Counter arguments

Vaccines should not be mandatory for anybody. The government should not have the authority to decide which groups of people have to be vaccinated and which groups do not. Vaccine mandates are unfair. If vulnerable and immunocompromised populations do not have to get vaccinated because vaccinations could harm them, the same should apply to those who are not vulnerable or immunocompromised. Vaccines are not 100% safe; there is always some risk. [3] The government can not selectively choose which individuals get to retain their freedom of choice and which individuals do not.



Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Tuesday, 17 Nov 2020 at 17:26 UTC

Explore related arguments