This is an argumentative essay on the misguided ideas that vaccines are likely to cause serious health problems to people. Vaccination is a chemical procedure which entails the introduction of antigenic substances in the body to make the immune system develop adaptive immunity to specific diseases. The primary function of vaccination is to safeguard our bodies against illnesses and diseases.
There is no doubt that these are significant medical breakthroughs that have been used to control the spread of debilitating and fatal illnesses that were once very common. Although there is much medical and scientific evidence showing vaccination as the most successful public health tool which can be used to prevent diseases and associated afflictions, the procedure has been surrounded by many controversies. These, however, are just misleading ideas and perceptions that have continued to trigger mixed reactions about vaccines.
According to Bloom and Paul, Vaccination is categorized among the most significant and effective methods used in preventing infectious diseases in the contemporary world (12). As a matter of fact, better results have been realized in all those areas where vaccination has been applied. Ever since the vaccine for smallpox was successfully developed by Edward Jenner more than 200 years ago, vaccination has become a key element of medical research, and today there are vaccines that can be used to protect people from numerous diseases.
These diseases would include Polio, Measles, Tetanus, and Whooping Cough, among other debilitating illnesses. There have been many misleading claims from anti-vaccine activists who have always linked vaccines to threatening health problems and conditions.
For example, it has been alleged that vaccines can lead to autism, infertility, and sudden infant death syndrome, among other problems. These misconceptions have led to decreased rates of immunization in some parts of the world, thus putting peoples health at great risk. As a result, epidemics of fatal childhood diseases have been observed in most of these regions.
Many questions about the effects of vaccines originate from fears that the antigenic substances used to administer vaccines can bring more harm than good to people. These claims have been spread by some anti-vaccine individuals and organizations through interactive social media platforms such as blogs and twitter, among others. Meryl Dorey, the president of the Australian Vaccination Network, is one of those people who cannot be convinced that vaccination is safe and effective.
Dorey believes that vaccines can lead to diseases such as asthma and autism, among other serious health problems. In this regard, she observes that these medical procedures are becoming an emotive issue in the world and that there is a need for more public debates to be raised on their outcomes.
However, these claims have been completely discredited by researchers in the medical field, who have constantly argued that extensive study has been conducted over the years to ensure that immunizations are safe and effective for the treatment of diseases. The safety of vaccines has also been confirmed by the government and the medical department, who have come out to dismiss the claims that the same vaccines that are intended to protect people from diseases can lead to disease resurgence, among other serious effects (Nuland 26).
As it would be observed, the misguided beliefs and perceptions that vaccines can bring serious implications to people have continued to trigger adverse effects on communities all over the world. Apart from the claims that vaccines can trigger diseases, there have also been arguments by the anti-vaccine crowd that these procedures also tend to violate peoples rights and religious principles. Another common factor which has necessitated negative beliefs about vaccines is the lack of enough public awareness about the procedures.
Those communities who believe that vaccines are unfit due to the above factors have always advised people to rely on their faith and personal confidence instead. This anti-vaccine perceptions and fears have over the years made communities vulnerable to fatal illnesses, thus being a threat to public health. Even though there might be some flaws in the use of vaccines, their benefits far outweigh the shortfalls, as it has been verified by scientific data.
People should understand that most of these beliefs are based on mere observations and not a scientific study, which is likely to give concrete support on any claims raised. There is mounting evidence that vaccines are modern medicines biggest achievement, whose benefits are undeniable allover the world. For example, studies have revealed a prevalence of pandemic diseases among those communities that have been misinformed about these significant medical procedures, thus turning against them.
As it would be observed, there is a definite risk of unvaccinated children falling sick, and this has been confirmed by study findings that children who have skipped specific vaccinations are about 30 % to 35 % more likely to get diseases such as measles and polio than those children who have already been vaccinated against these diseases.
Many people across the world have come to see vaccines as effective and safe ways of preventing diseases, but those still in doubt are challenged to look back and see how devastating illnesses would be before vaccines were introduced into the world.
Atkinson and Jennifer observe that with an epidemic of autoimmune illnesses gradually crippling nations, it is time we changed our views about vaccination and fully embraced it for the benefit of the coming generations (72). In this regard, global communities should embrace the idea of using these significant medical procedures to save peoples lives from the menace of epidemics that stare the world in the face.
As it has been proven through studies, continued increased levels of vaccines in all regions of the world will be necessary in avoiding a resurgence of illnesses that have been nearly eradicated from the face of the world. People, especially those who have been misinformed about vaccines, should be made to realize that the many misconceptions surrounding the procedures are based on invalid precepts. As a matter of fact, many breakthroughs have been realized in the medical sector following the continued use of vaccines.
Moreover, there is a potential for these significant medical procedures to bring vast improvements to many of the diseases affecting humans today if the idea of mass vaccination was welcomed by all people in the world. To achieve this objective, anti-vaccine communities should be educated about the overall benefits of vaccines and the misguiding perceptions associated with them.
More importantly, the media, which has played a key role in misinforming people about vaccines, should devise its misleading ways and try to help the world see sense about vaccines being safe and effective in preventing fatal diseases.
Works Cited
Atkinson, William, and Jennifer Hamborsky. Epidemiology and prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases. Washington, DC: Public Health Foundation, 2011. Print.
Bloom, Barry, and Paul Henri. The vaccine book. Carolina: Academic Press, 2003. Print.
Nuland, Sherwin. The mysteries within: A surgeon reflects on medical myths. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Print.
As the human civilization has advanced over the centuries, better ways to ensure human health have been invented. Medical advances have led to the discovery of cures for most diseases and the life expectancy of man today is higher than it has ever been at any other point in human history. In addition to curative health care, policy makers and health care practitioners have advocated for preventive health care measures.
One of the ways through which preventive care has been achieved is by use of vaccines. The Immunize Australia Program asserts that over the decades, immunization has emerged as one of the most effective medical interventions to prevent disease (5). Governments have therefore embarked on intensive immunization programs for their citizens in an attempt to prevent diseases from inflicting healthy people.
However, this wide scale embrace of vaccinations as the ideal means of providing protection against several diseases has been questioned with vaccine opponents demonstrating that vaccinations may not be as integral to human health as most people have been led to believe. These issues have made vaccination a controversial topic eliciting different reactions from the society. This paper will argue that vaccinations are an activity that exposes human beings to unnecessary dangers without any justifiable reasons.
Arguments against Vaccinations
A major argument given against vaccinations is that they might compromise the health of a previously healthy individual. Vaccines are typically administered to healthy people as a measure of protection against diseases that might or might not afflict the individual in the future. It is therefore unacceptable when the vaccines end up posing health risks to the previously healthy person. Vaccine makers know this and they therefore endeavor to make vaccines that are safe for humans.
Lambert and Kobliner state that even the slightest amount of contamination in vaccine making facilities is grounds for closing down of operations (226). In spite of these stringent measures in place to ensure vaccine safety, administration of vaccinations exposes individuals to some risk. Even ardent advocates of immunization acknowledge that no vaccine is 100% safe and there is always some degree of risk associated with using any vaccination (Immunize Australia Program 9).
Vaccinations have made previously healthy people sick and even caused the deaths of others. Considering the fact that vaccinations are not necessary, the risks that vaccinations present to the individual, however small, unacceptable since vaccines are in most cases an unnecessary precaution. Prohibition of vaccination would ensure that nobody is exposed to these risks.
Vaccines contain harmful preservatives that may cause people to become sick or even die. Preservatives are a key ingredient of vaccines and they are used to prevent bacterial or fungal contamination (Offit and Jew 1394). Some of these preservatives used such as Thimerosal are considered harmful to humans.
The role of mercury has been the focus of most of the debate over vaccine safety. Many parents of vaccine injured children hold thimerosal (which is the mercury preservative in vaccines) responsible for damaging their children. Due to the widespread negative media attention that thimerosal has received over the past decades, most governments have restricted the use of mercury preservatives.
In the USA, an amendment to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act led to a removal of thimerosal from most childhood vaccines (Offit and Jew 1394). In spite of this radical change which led to a removal of the vast majority of mercury in childhood vaccines, Lambert and Kobliner reveal that a notable amount of mercury still exists in vaccines today (227).
In addition to the harmful preservatives, vaccines contain additives that may pose a risk to the health of the vaccination recipient. Offit and Jew reveal that most additives play a significant role in maintaining the integrity of vaccines by ensuring that they remain stable over time (1396). Intentional introduction of toxic substances into the bodies of healthy people through vaccines is irresponsible.
The current vaccination regimes, which are based on a one-size-fits-all immunization protocol, endanger the lives of some individuals who may react in an atypical manner to immunization. The generalized presumption that vaccines are safe is based on tests and monitoring conducted on an average segment of the population.
The Immunize Australia Program confirms that before being released to the general population, rigorous tests on thousands of subjects is carried out to ensure the safety of the vaccine (10). From the tests, conclusions are reached that the vaccine is safe for use on the average healthy individual. This assumption that all health individuals are immunocompetent or that every vaccine is appropriate for every seemingly healthy child is greatly flawed (Lambert and Kobliner 226).
The tests often fail to capture the marginal section of the population who react differently to the introduction of toxins in their bodies. For example, the measles and chickenpox vaccines involve the introduction of live viruses into the body of a healthy patient. While many patients receive such vaccines without serious adverse events, there are rare cases where patients are unable to kick out the viruses. Such patients end up having their immune system compromised due to vaccination.
Historically, vaccines have proven to be ineffective and this negates the need to have them administered to entire populations. The justification for engaging in vaccination efforts is to protect individuals from contracting the ailments for which they have been vaccinated against. In 1960, oral polio vaccinations were administered to the Israeli population. In spite of a wide range of vaccination coverage, big polio epidemics continued to occur in the West Bank and Gaza.
More recently, Omer et al. document an incident of measles outbreak in Washington State where out of the 19 people infected, one person had been vaccinated against measles (1985). Such incidents demonstrate that vaccines are not as effective in preventing diseases as their proponents suggest. Vaccination programs should therefore be stopped since vaccines are not always capable of offering the protection they promise.
Vaccinations compromise the immune system of young children therefore exposing them to adverse health conditions. The reality is that children are subjected to a battery of vaccinations by the time they are 3 years of age. Over the years, there has been a marked increase in the number of vaccines available on the market today.
In a period of 24 years, the number of diseases in the recommended immunization schedule of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has grown from six vaccines to 14 vaccines (Null and Feldman 1). An even more troubling reality is that these vaccines have to be administered before the child is 2 years old. Null and Feldman document that as of 2007, the CDC recommended immunization schedule included more than two dozen doses of vaccines targeting 14 diseases for children under the age of 2 (1).
Parents have to comply with these recommendations since there are laws in place dictating that children must receive a certain set of vaccines by the time they reach school going age. The children must show proof of vaccination before they are allowed entry into the school system, which effectively makes vaccinations mandatory for parents since they will want to take their children to school.
Use of vaccine causes one to be dependent on drugs to sustain their immunity. Some classes of vaccines e.g. the killed whole vaccines require multiple initial doses and booster doses to stimulate and maintain immunity (Null and Feldman 1).
Once the vaccine has been administered on an individual, he/she needs to periodically take other doses of the vaccine to ensure its effectiveness. The human body is capable of offering immunity on its own. Walene argues that the human body can heal and defend itself from invading organisms with remarkable efficiency (37).
The immune system is able to clear pathogens from the body and ensure that normal neurological functions return without the need for vaccinations. Lambert and Kobliner state that infectious diseases can be managed by focusing on improving nutrition and immune functions in children and adults (307). The unnecessary reliance on drugs that arises from using Vaccines can be avoided by prohibiting the use of vaccines all together.
A Case for Vaccinations
Some medical professionals argue that vaccinations are safe and helpful in the boosting of the immune system of the individual. For this group of medical practitioners, vaccines are considered safe since they do not cause any short-term problems to the patient.
The Immunize Australia Program asserts that vaccines are well tolerated by most individuals and only mild effects such as reddening of the skin area where the injection has pierced the skin are discernable (6). Such statements are used as proof that vaccinations are safe and helpful to the individual.
Lambert and Kobliner assert that a lack of immediate adverse event following the administration of a vaccine does not mean that the childs immune system is effectively managing the vaccination (225). This observation is supported by Null and Feldman who suggest that vaccine safety issues are sometimes ignored since the reactions are delayed which makes it hard to link the negative outcome to vaccination (2).
Arguably, the biggest proponents of vaccinations are pharmaceutical companies that deal in the development and production of vaccines. These actors declare that vaccines are safe to use and any potential side effect is extensively outweighed by the benefits that vaccinations accrues on human health. The statements made by pharmaceutical companies in support of vaccination cannot be taken as irrefutable proof of the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.
It is unlikely that vaccine manufacturers will own up to the potential damaging effects that their products may have on the population. Lambert and Kobliner rightfully observe that all pharmaceutical companies are keen to limit liability that they may face if the damaging effects of their vaccines are exposed (226). For this reason, the negative effects are likely to remain hidden from the public.
Vaccines have been given credit for the decline of infectious diseases over the decades. UNICEF declared that because of vaccination, the once deadly smallpox has been completely eradicated; an act that has saved up to 5 million lives that could otherwise have been lost to smallpox each year (1).
In addition to this, vaccinations have contributed to the tremendous decline in cases of polio and measles. This supposed effectiveness of vaccinations in decreasing diseases has been one of the greatest justification for the continued use of vaccines and even the mandatory imposition of some forms of vaccination by governments all over the world.
However, some infections are cyclical in nature and cases of infection drop without any intervention. Polio is one of the infections whose decline vaccines have taken huge credit for. A study in Australia showed that the polio vaccine in use at the time had no influence whatsoever on the polio epidemic and the decline in polio cases was because polio comes in cycles (Walene 37).
In spite of such revelations, vaccines continue to take credit and indefinite use of the vaccination is encouraged out of fear that the infection will return if the vaccinations are stopped. With these considerations, Walene suggests that vaccines are superfluous since most diseases die off naturally without the need for prolonged medical intervention (37).
Proponents of vaccination advance that vaccines strengthen immunity against specific diseases therefore increasing the health outcomes of the individual. Vaccines act by inducing protection against known diseases and promote the development of anti-bodies to help the body fight disease.
The body of the vaccinated person is therefore better equipped to fight against the vaccine-preventable ailments. Omer et al declare that vaccination has proven to be very effective in bolstering the immune system with high vaccination coverage often being followed by drastic declines in the occurrence of the disease for which the population has been vaccinated against (1981). In spite of these positive outcomes of vaccines, there have been recorded cases of vaccines suppressing the immune system.
Research on immune dysregulation following the administration of vaccines is currently incomplete. The lack of adequate research on the issue means that there is a large number of under recognized immune dysregulations especially for children. This might lead to severe consequences such as adverse reactions to vaccines demonstrating the disastrous consequences of vaccinations (Lambert and Kobliner 226).
While vaccinations might cause some side effects, these effects are negligible compared to the serious consequences that the diseases being vaccinated against might cause.
Opponents of vaccination believe that the body is able to provide protection against diseases on its own and for this reason, vaccinations are unnecessary. This belief is reinforced when the vaccination in question causes some side effects. Immunize Australia Program asserts that some vaccine-preventable diseases such as meningitis and tetanus can maim and kill the victim (1).
Vaccinating against these diseases will protect the individual from any dire consequences and avoid the complications that come along with letting the disease to develop. This argument by proponents of vaccines assumes that vaccinations are always as effective as their manufacturers claim. This is not the case for the effectiveness of vaccinations is not guaranteed and the side effects of vaccines are not always well reported on.
The supposed lack of a significant number of negative reports on the dangers of immunization can be explained by the influence that major advocates of vaccination hold in society. Null and Feldman agree that there has been a deep-seated practice of underreporting the negative impacts of vaccinations due to a collusion between the vaccine manufacturers and the federal government in an effort to limit liability and to protect the immunization programs (1).
If the public was aware of the potential damaging effects of vaccines, few would be willing to take part in the immunization programs and expose themselves to unnecessary risks. This point is corroborated by Omer et al who note that public concern about the perceived adverse events arising from vaccinations increase the incidents of vaccine refusal (1981).
Vaccinations are effective tools for the prevention and control of certain disease outbreaks that threaten the health of individuals. The preventative role of vaccines has been acknowledged by medical practitioners who hail these drugs as the most effective tools available for preventing infectious diseases and their complications and sequelae (Omer et al 1981).
This preventative role of vaccines has been proven historically with vaccination being used since the turn of the 19th century to contain smallpox outbreaks with positive health and economic consequences.
Vaccination of children increases their immunity and reduces their risk of acquiring the vaccine-preventable diseases. Most of the mandatory immunization is directed towards children. Opponents of vaccination assert that intensive vaccination of children exposes them to unnecessary risks. This assumption is refuted by studies, which reveal that young children are at greater risk of contracting illnesses if they do not receive vaccination in time.
One study found that children who were exempt from vaccinations were 35 times as likely to contract measles as nonexempt children (Omer 1983). In spite of these positive attributes of vaccines, they still expose people to unnecessary risk. Use of vaccine is also unnecessary since the body is equipped to defend itself from infections without the need for vaccination.
Vaccinations help to reduce the financial burden that medical care imposes on the society. Health care professionals agree that preventative health care services are preferable to curative health care services. For this reason, people are encouraged to engage in activities that prevent diseases from occurring in the first place as opposed to seeking health care services to cure the diseases.
While vaccines have the potential of reducing the economic burden on the society, they often end up increasing this load due to the prohibitive cost of developing vaccines and the numerous number of vaccinations that individuals have to go through.
Lambert and Kobliner quip that the full childhood immunization program includes vaccinations against disease transmitted sexually or through the use of dirty hypodermic needles (306). Less expensive and less risky public health initiatives can be used to control such infections instead of relying on vaccination.
Discussion
Vaccinations have become one of the most controversial medical topics addressed by medical practitioners, policy makers, and the public at large.
The debate on the topic has been hampered by a lack of extensive information on the subject. There is limited public awareness on the dangers of vaccination and most people have been socialized to believe that vaccination is a safe and effective means of preventing dangerous diseases. The big pharmaceutical companies engage in propaganda and misinformation in order to bias the publics perception of vaccination.
Health care providers play a major role in influencing the decision of individuals concerning vaccinations and they act as the most authoritative source of information when parents are deciding on what to vaccinate their children against. Proponents of vaccination are keen to emphasize the natural means such as healthy lifestyle and maternal antibodies provided to the child through breastfeeding are insufficient in protecting against infections.
The Immunize Australia Program which is a strong advocate for vaccination states that mothers pass on only minimal protection against infections leaving the infant vulnerable to infection if exposed to certain viruses (15). With such kind of information being disseminated to the public, people come to believe that without vaccination, their bodies do not have sufficient immunity and they are at greater risk of disability or even death. The fear of such dangers has caused many people to embrace vaccination without questioning.
This paper has demonstrated that most of the proponents of vaccinations are people who have a vested interest in promoting vaccines such as pharmaceutical companies that profit from the manufacture of the drug.
The very fact that the greatest advocates for mandatory vaccinations are big pharmaceutical companies, which make billions of dollars from the sale of vaccinations, should cause people to question the necessity of these vaccines. Vaccines are drugs developed to prevent certain infections or diseases from afflicting human beings.
The research and development of these vaccines are carried out by huge pharmaceutical companies that stand to gain enormous profits if their drugs are approved for use by the general population and even deemed mandatory for all individuals. While vaccine makers are keen to reassure consumers that the quantities of toxic material such as mercury contained in vaccines are likely to be harmless, this is still an unnecessary risk that people do not need to expose themselves to.
Conclusion
This paper set out to argue that vaccinations are dangerous and unnecessary procedures that people should not be subjected to. To buttress this assertion, the paper has engaged in a discussion on the various dangers that vaccinations pose to previously healthy individuals. It began by stating that vaccinations sometimes compromise the health of previously healthy individuals without any solid benefit to justify this risk.
Vaccines also contain harmful preservatives and additives, which are harmful to the body. The paper has highlighted that the effectiveness of vaccines is not always guaranteed and the immunization programs should therefore be stopped since they do not offer the protection they promise.
A review of the alleged benefits of vaccinations has also been engaged in to provide a balanced discussion on the topic. The paper has noted that some medical professionals argue that vaccinations are safe and provide protection to the individual from many infections. The pharmaceutical companies responsible for the production and sales of vaccines also hold such claims.
These arguments in favor of vaccinations are biased and they often ignore research evidence pointing to the dangers and the irrelevance of vaccines. The paper has highlighted the financial motivation of vaccinations and conclusively demonstrated that the major advocates of vaccinations, the big pharmaceutical companies, regard vaccination as an investment and they are therefore motivated to focus on the alleged usefulness of immunization regardless of any proof to the contrary.
Big corporations have the financial resources necessary to engage in widespread national publicity in support of vaccinations. Such campaigns make the public view vaccination favorably. Vaccinations have increased the dangers to human health and escalated the cost of health care significantly. Conceivably, a world without vaccinations would be much healthier and with health care at a fraction of its present cost.
Works Cited
Immunize Australia Program. Myths and Realities: Responding to Arguments against Immunization. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Aging, 2008. Print.
Lambert, Beth and Kobliner Victoria. A Compromised Generation: The Epidemic of Chronic Illness in Americas Children. Boston: Sentient Publications, 2010. Print.
Null, Gary and Feldman Martin. Vaccination: An Updated Analysis of the Health Risks. Oct. 2007. Web.
Offit, Paul and Jew Rita. Addressing Parents Concerns: Do Vaccines Contain Harmful Preservatives, Adjuvants, Additives, or Residuals? Pediatrics 112.6 (2003): 1394-1401. Web.
Omer, Saad, Salmon Daniel, Orenstein Walter, Patricia Hart, and Halsey, Neal. Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. The New England Journal of Medicine, 360.19 (2009): 1981-1988. Web.
The use of health information technology is associated with better health outcomes. With the aim of improving the efficiency and quality of healthcare organizations, the American government is stressing the importance of using health informatics including electronic health records to improve patient care (Yanamadala et al. 1). Public health informatics (PHI) is the field that optimizes the utilization of information with the purpose of improving individual and community health, health policy, health and biomedical services, and public health practices (Edmunds et al. 4). It operates the intersection of computer science and public health. The use of health informatics impacts population life expectancies in different ways.
PHI and Vaccination Coverage
One of the ways through which PHI impacts life expectancies is through its influence on childhood immunization. Au et al. explain that childhood vaccination rates are a significant determinant of pediatric care, which further determines the health of communities and mortality rates due to infections that can be prevented through immunizations (222). The use of health informatics in childhood vaccination has shown marked improvements in vaccination coverage, which is associated with reduced mortality rates and improved lifespan. Electronic immunization data facilitates the real-time or rapid identification of children requiring vaccines on a large scale compared to chart reviews (Stockwell and Fiks 1803). Additionally, most parents do not have complete records to reveal whether or not their children strictly receive vaccinations following the recommended guidelines, partly because of visiting more than one health care facility (Stockwell and Fiks 1803). The use of health informatics can eliminate the issue of having scanty records (Savel and Foldy 21). All the immunization data is put in one system that can be accessed in all care providing facilities. As a result, vaccination discrepancies are eliminated, and the immunization history of all children can be accessed by taking appropriate action.
PHI on Notifications and Health Information
Further, electronic records can be utilized in alerting both the parents, clinicians, and the general public to increase adherence to vaccinations, treatments, and healthy behaviors. Together with clinical alerts that are flexible and tailored, vaccination coverage in the United States has expanded to improve herd immunity against infections (Stockwell and Fiks 1804). Moreover, alerting clinicians, parents and the health system can help in identifying the level of adherence to vaccination in the society, which has facilitated public campaigns on the need to follow immunization schedules (Stockwell and Fiks 1804). The result is the improved immunity of the public against preventable infectious diseases resulting in improved lifespans and reduced mortality rates. Also, notifications and health information sharing through the use of emails, and smartphone calls and messages have reduced healthcare barriers, improved healthy lifestyles, and reduced emergency visits (Nyamawe and Seif 40). For instance, mobile technologies have been used in many countries to enhance effective communication between community members and the care providing institutions to promptly respond to emergency cases. PHI has further improved the sharing of health messages in communities, which is associated with better health outcomes such as the increase in life expectancies.
Conclusion
PHI is crucial in increasing life expectancies through the sharing of information to improve health outcomes. The increase of immunization coverage attributed to informatics improves herd immunity that, in turn, reduces the prevalence of preventable infections resulting in increased lifespan. Furthermore, health informatics has improved communication between care providers and the community. Such a thing has facilitated the sharing of health information and immediate responses to emergency care. All of the effects are associated with an increase in life expectancies.
Works Cited
Au, L., et al. Utilizing an Electronic Health Record System to Improve Vaccination Coverage in Children. Applied Clinical Informatics, vol. 1, no. 3, 2012, pp. 221-231.
Edmunds, Margo et al. The Future of Public Health Informatics: Alternative Scenarios and Recommended Strategies. eGEMs, vol. 2, no. 4, 2014, pp. 1-16.
Nyamawe, Ally S., and Hassan Seif. The Role of ICT in Reducing Maternal and Neonatal Mortality Rate in Tanzania. International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 95, no. 13, 2014, pp. 39-42.
Savel, Thomas G., and Seth Foldy. The Role of Public Health Informatics in Enhancing Public Health Surveillance. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summary, vol. 61, no. 2012, 2012, pp. 20-24.
Stockwell, Melissa S., and Alexander G. Fiks. Utilizing Health Information Technology to Improve Vaccine Communication and Coverage. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, vol. 9, no. 8, 2013, pp. 1802-1811.
Yanamadala, Swati et al. Electronic Health Records and Quality of Care: An Observational Study Modeling Impact on Mortality, Readmissions, and Complications. Medicine, vol. 95, no. 19, 2016, pp. 1-6.
One of the most notable aspects of todays living in the West, is the fact that, even though the level of educational attainment among people continues to increase rather exponentially, a considerable number of citizens nevertheless cannot help remaining perceptually arrogant especially when their attitudes to the various healthcare practices/policies are being concerned. The validity of this statement can be illustrated, in regards to the fact that, as practice indicates, a good half of practicing Christians in the U.S. opposes the policy of vaccination.
Nevertheless, there is a good reason to believe that their stance is not being of a strictly theological (rational) nature rather it reflects these peoples deep-seated unconscious anxieties. In its turn, this presupposes the legitimacy of the psychological intervention, as the method of helping the concerned individuals to grow more positive about the policy in question.
Interest in Experiment
Many of my religious friends and relatives happened to hold highly negative attitudes towards the very idea of vaccination, as such that in their view is being inconsistent with the word of God. Nevertheless, even though I used to apply a great effort, while trying to educate them about the fact that this simply could not be the case (Bible was written before the concept of vaccination came into being), this did not seem to have any effect on them, whatsoever. In its turn, this prompted me to consider the possibility that the reason, as to why this was the case, had to do with my failure to rely on the discursively appropriate mediums of channeling information, within the context of how I went about popularizing the practice of vaccination.
Hypothesis
As it was pointed out earlier, many religious individuals do tend to rationalize their negative attitude towards vaccination. However, such their tendency can be well hypothesized as the extrapolation of these peoples unconscious fear of pollution. That is, those who oppose vaccination happened to be psychologically uncomfortable with the idea of a vaccine being injected into their bodies, which in turn causes them to believe that vaccination poses a great threat to their health.
What it means is that, while promoting the policy of vaccination among religiously minded individuals, one should be much better off deploying the emotionally-charged approach to doing it such as exposing them to the appropriately designed poster, which would encourage these individuals to associate the practice in question with the notion of healthiness.
Social Experiment
Four selected participants (the members of the Baptist Church) will be presented with the vaccination-promoting poster and asked to reflect upon what kind of effect did it have on their perception of the concerned policy.
Predicted Outcomes
It is predicted that the participants exposure to the poster will cause them to experience the sensation of a cognitive dissonance (as the consequence of this posters motifs being utterly inconsistent with the concerned individuals rational outlook on the practice of vaccination). Moreover, there should be a number of the behavioral indications (exhibited by the participants) that this indeed was the case.
Purpose
To test the validity of the hypothesis that peoples acceptance of vaccination extrapolates their largely unconscious fear of a foreign substance being injected into their bodies. The experiment will also seek to confirm/disconfirm the validity of the idea that the factor of a peer pressure affects the participants perception of the practice in question.
Methodology
The experiments methodology is concerned with exposing the selected participants to the vaccination-promoting poster, observing their emotional reactions to what it being presented to them and interpreting what may account for the induced reactions discursive significance.
Measurement
The researchers will measure the intensity of the participants emotional responses to the applied external stimuli (poster).
Data collection
The instruments for collecting the empirical data will be pulse monitors and questionnaires, distributed among the participants, in order to allow the latter to articulate their rational reaction to the posters themes and motifs.
Limitation
The fact that the proposed methodology to collecting data presupposes that the would-be received interpretative insights are going to be highly subjective.
Improvement
The proposed experiment could be improved by the mean of increasing the extent of its cross-sectional integrity (the more there participants, the better).
Possible flaws
Among the possible flaws will be considered with the possibility for the would-be deployed equipment to malfunction, and the fact that the proposed research-methodology presupposes that the participants will be in the position to misrepresent what happened to be their true emotional responses to the poster.
Vaccination of children is a standard health precaution recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as a method to prevent outbreaks of deadly illnesses. My personal position states that vaccination should be required as a scientifically-based medical procedure that protects personal and social health. Currently, no federal laws in the US require vaccination. However, most educational institutions and programs establish guidelines on their own (ProCon, 2017). The following premises are used to justify that vaccination of children should not be mandatory.
Main body
Vaccinations can result in severe and possibly fatal side-effects, such as an allergic reaction. This position is helpful in understanding the fear that parents may have of vaccinating their children. It is interesting since there is a provided scientific basis for the choice to abstain. If I believed this view, I would notice a significant amount of studies noting that vaccination may unpredictably result in anaphylaxis, mental illnesses, or the death of a child.
Since such premises appeal directly to fear, it is easy to gain supporters from parents who are either reluctant or attempting to find a reason for a tragedy that already occurred. This idea is exemplified in reality by government health organizations reporting that vaccines may cause a variety of health problems for practically every type of immunization. Although, serious issues are rare and carefully monitored, a minuscule percentage of children experiences severe infections, brain reaction, or death (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017). The fact that this information is official and not based on inaccurate perceptions worries many parents.
Several religious congregations maintain that mandatory vaccination infringes constitutionally protected rights to religious freedom. As vaccines are opposed by the religious dogma of specific groups, any requirement to obtain them essentially forces members to violate spiritual beliefs. This perspective is interesting as it helps to establish a philosophical or religious basis for people opposing vaccination.
Since many groups hold the spiritual law in high regard, any action to violate it can jeopardize the salvation or holiness of a person in that specific religion. A follower of this belief may take notice and choose to protest numerous policies that require vaccination for children in order to participate in public education. This idea becomes a reality when examining the U.S. Constitution which mandates that persons be given the right to religious freedom and practices.
The First Amendment has often been used as the basis for allowing a religious exemption clause. However, a continuous abuse of the exemption and the recent case law has resulted in states severely limiting or eliminating this procedure. Since there are no federal laws or Supreme Court decisions on the matter, proponents are citing a violation of Constitutional rights (Greendyk, 2016). The argument essentially centers around government intervention.
The final argument states that the government has no authority to interfere in personal medical choices, including those that parents choose to make for their children. This view represents a more political side to the argument as proponents feel that individual freedoms are violated when the state can control citizens in making decisions about their physical health. A follower of this belief may be more aware of various personal freedoms that the government chooses to violate through policy as this can set a precedent for abuse of power by the state.
This becomes a reality when governments choose to implement other restrictions based on the defense of protecting public health. Even there is a substantial benefit to vaccination of children; the government should rely on public trust and education rather than forced coercion (Olson, 2013).
Conclusion
It is evident that this side of the argument seeks to justify avoiding vaccination of children as a method of protection from harmful substances and government intervention in personal freedoms. The premises are based on ideology and interpretation of religious beliefs. When analyzing the issue, it is difficult to consider the logic of such arguments as they are inherently fallacious. However, the freedom of choice and religious beliefs that supporters of this position choose to preserve should be respected.
References
Greendyk, H. (2016). Mandatory vaccination: First amendment considerations. Web.
Olson, M. (2013). Should the government mandate vaccinations? Web.
ProCon. (2017). Should any vaccines be required for children? Web.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2017). Possible side-effects from vaccines. Web.
Immunization rates are significantly decreasing in many countries, causing an increase in mortality and morbidity from vaccination-controlled illnesses. Giubilini (2020) defines vaccination as an effective, simple, and safe way of protecting individuals against harmful diseases before they experience them. It uses a persons natural defense to create resistance against a particular infection, therefore, strengthening the body. Immunizations protect against approximately twenty illnesses and save around three million individuals yearly (Giubilini, 2020). However, individuals have distinct views about vaccination, with some accepting it and others refusing.
Every person has a right to refuse vaccination and should not be condemned. Therefore, the school board should listen to the parents concerns and determine if their reasons are valid. There are various reasons why guardians reject their children to be vaccinated, including religious beliefs, philosophical or personal perspectives, safety issues, and the desire to get informed by healthcare professionals (Giubilini, 2020). The most significant problem is childrens safety, but this can be reversed by involving healthcare providers or other acquaintances. Caregivers fear that the immunization will do more harm than good, for example, lowering their childrens immunity and exposing them to severe illnesses. These guardians can assume that the injection will not benefit the child if they contact a preventable disease (Giubilini, 2020). Additionally, some believe that natural immunity is better than the vaccinated one. Religious parents might assume that immunization interferes with their faith that God protects people more than the vaccination (Arora et al., 2018). Consequently, people can be unsure about the essentiality of immunization, therefore, require clarification about its pros and cons from healthcare providers.
The school board could decide to educate parents about the vaccination if they raised uninformed concerns. Giubilini (2020) asserts that explaining the importance of immunization to the parents might minimize their fears and they will eventually accept it. Caregivers should be told that diseases such as measles, tetanus, or influenza kill about twenty million individuals annually (Arora et al., 2018). Therefore, immunization protects people and those around them, for example, those with severe diseases (Giubilini, 2020). Vaccination helps the body produce antibodies to fight illnesses after recognizing a germ, such as bacteria or viruses. Individuals should understand that vaccines contain weakened or killed germs and do not cause diseases or put them at risk of complications.
Vaccination helps the immune system fight and destroy a germ in the future before a person becomes unwell. Giubilini (2020) explains that people remain protected against illnesses for years, decades, or the entire life when the body is exposed to one or more vaccine doses. Caregivers should understand that immunization is effective because instead of treating an illness after it happens, they prevent individuals from getting sick in the first instance (Arora et al., 2018). Vaccination minimizes peoples risk of infection and their ability to transmit bacteria or viruses to others (Giubilini, 2020). Therefore, lowering the circulation of pathogens in the community protects individuals who cannot be immunized because of health issues such as the aged or those with allergies.
In conclusion, the school board should engage parents and determine why they might refuse their childrens immunization because every person has the right to decide what they want. Vaccination protects individuals and society against the adverse effects of diseases such as measles. The board can involve healthcare professionals to educate guardians about the benefits and effectiveness of immunization because safety concerns are the primary reasons for refusing vaccination.
References
Arora, K. S., Morris, J., & Jacobs, A. J. (2018). Refusal of vaccination: A test to balance societal and individual interests. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 29(3), 206. Web.
Giubilini, A. (2020). An argument for compulsory vaccination: The taxation analogy. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 37(3), 446-466. Web.
It has been acknowledged that vaccination is instrumental in preventing diverse serious health issues. Influenza vaccination is an effective tool to prevent influenza development or avoid associated complications. However, people are rather reluctant to comply with vaccination recommendations. Numerous educational interventions to increase this compliance exist, but they tend to have limited success. Technology can help in addressing the issue and motivating people to receive their vaccines (see Table 1). The use of social media is increasing at a high pace, so this platform can be utilized to improve the situation. An intervention that encompassed direct communication with the target population with a clear offer to get vaccinated proved to be effective (Brewer et al., 2018). Adolescents who visit a hospital for other purposes or accompanied their siblings were offered to be vaccinated, and two-thirds of the participants agreed to receive the vaccine. Hence, a direct invitation can have a positive impact on vaccination rates.
Table 1. Empirical Statement.
Reminders from a social media bot
Influenza vaccination rate
Patients aged between 19 and 70 years old
Increase of 30%
Reminders sent through major social media networks and some other platforms by a social media bot increase the influenza vaccination rate by 30%.
Do reminders sent through major social media networks and some other platforms by a social media bot increase the influenza vaccination rate?
The suggested program will be conducted mainly through social media networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Whats Up, and Instagram. It is necessary to create a social media bot who will send a direct invitation to vaccinate oneself or a family member. People who have visited a hospital (but have not had their regular influenza vaccination) will be contacted by the bot through the media mentioned above. The bot can be represented by an account of a young female nurse who is smiling and attractive. The bot will be able to produce a number of simple phrases related to influenza vaccination with the focus on direct reminders and instructions regarding the exact places to be vaccinated.
In addition to this interaction, those who use Google Maps or similar applications will see certain symbols or some tags at the healthcare unit participating in the project where they can be vaccinated. These can be such symbols as a heart, a flower, a star. This can also be a phrase (influenza vaccine, influenza free, and similar) or the bot icon. Since this intervention will require the use of quite advanced technology, IT specialists will be involved in the project. The intervention will not require considerable funding as the messages sent by the bot can be easily developed by the medical staff and are quite similar to rather common text messages sent through mobile devices. The PICOT questions of the present project can be formulated in the following way:
Patients aged between 19 and 70 years old, who have not received their influenza vaccine in an outpatient setting, will receive a set of reminders from the social media bot to increase the rate of influenza vaccine uptake by 30% percent compared to patients who will not be informed within three months.
In conclusion, it is necessary to note that the use of social media has become a daily routine for millions of people irrespective of their backgrounds. Direct communication with patients can have a positive effect on their compliance with vaccination recommendations. The number of social media users is growing exponentially, so it is possible to reach many people within a short period of time. Quick reminders regarding peoples or their close ones health can motivate patients to receive their influenza vaccines.
Reference
Brewer, L., Belton, A., Heydinger, E., & Provyn, J. (2018). An innovative approach to increasing vaccination rates in a primary care clinic. Pediatrics, 141(1). Web.
In my research paper, I am investigating racial disparities related to COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. According to multiple pieces of researches, racial minorities were disproportionately affected by the coronavirus due to multiple factors, including structural racism, limited access to health care, multiple comorbidities, poor income, and the unavailability of distant work. At the same time, I am arguing that disparities on the basis of race still exist, and they may be observed in relation to vaccination as well. I aim to prepare an in-depth analysis of this issue, and in my search for reliable literature, I found a peer-reviewed scientific article written by Agarwal et al. (2021) entitled Socioeconomic privilege and political ideology are associated with racial disparity in COVID-19 vaccination. As a matter of fact, I found it to be a highly reliable and useful source for my work due to its information relevance and accuracy, the scope of research, and valid findings.
First of all, there are multiple facts that determine the credibility of this article. It was edited, approved, and published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), one of the most-cited and renowned multidisciplinary scientific journals in the world. In addition, the authors of this article are competent and experienced scientists in the field of social sciences who published a considerable number of other articles in peer-reviewed journals. The article was published this year, and all data are from this year as well these facts demonstrate information actuality as, by this time, almost half of US adult citizens had been fully or partly vaccinated. The scope of this research is another factor that contributes to the articles credibility. According to the authors, their analysis has covered more than 170.6 million lives from 756 US counties thus, data of almost 52% of the population were considered (Agarwal et al., 2021). All information related to COVID-19 vaccination was collected from the websites of public health departments.
The usefulness of this article for my research is explained by its authors thorough examination of factors that may cause racial disparities in COVID-19 vaccination. They estimated the impact of health care quality and access, education quality and access, economic stability, neighborhood environment, and community and social context on COVID-19 vaccination rates and associated disparities. According to the results of the research, disparities are mostly associated with education, median income, and political ideology, while vaccine hesitancy, home IT rate, and vehicle ownership rate have the smallest impact (Agarwal et al., 2021). In addition, counties with a greater proportion of Black residents have less disparity in COVID-19 vaccination rates (Agarwal et al., 2021, p. 3). Finally, political preferences affect disparities as well as according to a February 2021 poll, Republicans had a lower willingness to be vaccinated in comparison with Democrats (Agarwal et al., 2021). Additional factors included individual attitudes to vaccination, racism, and medical mistrust.
In conclusion, I should say that this source may be regarded as highly credible and useful for my research. Its general expediency is determined by the fact that the risk of the coronavirus-related pandemic will still be high in the future. Thus, it is essential to identify factors that contribute to disparities for their minimization. I will definitely use this source to add information concerning the connection between race and these factors.
Reflection Questions
What types of questions did you ask yourself when evaluating the credibility and usefulness of your source? When evaluating my source, I asked myself where this source was published and whether it is scientific or not. In addition, I evaluated how this source corresponded with the topic of my research.
How do you feel this evaluation practice will help you as you continue to move through the research process? As a matter of fact, the research process requires additional sources of information. At the same time, this evaluation helps to elaborate on a particular algorithm that may be applied to other sources to determine their credibility and usefulness.
There are many debates and disagreements in every society, especially on the topics concerning controversial issues and problems. The COVID-19 pandemic has been the main topic in media over the past year and a half, and it continues to attract the attention of people. One of the most controversial points related to the pandemic is the introduction of mandatory vaccination. There are generally two sides in the case of mandatory vaccination, one supporting such an initiative and the other opposing it. It is interesting to explore these two views in detail and analyze them from the perspectives of ethical egoism and social contract ethics.
Position for Mandatory Vaccination
The first moral reasoning used in the support of mandatory vaccination implies that such measures will help the entire country reduce the number of deaths from the disease. In other words, introducing mandatory vaccination is morally right because it saves numerous people from becoming victims of the deadly virus. Thus, getting vaccinated is a moral duty of every citizen in the country because it reduces the overall risk of contracting the disease for all of their fellow compatriots.
The second reason in support of mandatory vaccination is the claim that such action is moral because it will expand citizens freedoms by removing various government restrictions which prevent people from engaging in different activities. For instance, there are still travel restrictions and limitations, including social distancing for businesses that cannot operate at their full capacity. There is evidence that shutdown policies introduced as a result of the pandemic lead to higher rates of unemployment (Kong & Prinz, 2019). Therefore, it would be morally correct to utilize mandatory vaccination to accelerate the provision of more freedoms to citizens enabling them to do what they want.
Position Against Mandatory Vaccination
There are also arguments against the implementation of mandatory vaccination; one of the states that it is morally correct to let people be free in their choice to engage in certain activities. Essentially, every person must be the only one in charge of what they deem appropriate to inject into their body. Forcing people to inoculate against their will would be immoral and would violate their human rights.
Additionally, another reason why it is ethical to avoid mandatory vaccination is the prevention of various negative health effects such as anaphylaxis reported by those who took COVID-19 vaccines ( Safety of COVID-19 vaccines, 2021). In other words, there is no guarantee that the vaccines will be safe and effective for everyone and will not cause dangerous side effects. Thus, discarding the option of mandatory vaccination is morally right conduct because it does not imply subjecting people to experimental treatment, which can cause severe health-related effects.
Ethical Egoist Position
Ethical egoism is a popular theoretical framework that is often employed by numerous people, even unconsciously. Ethical egoism implies securing personal interests and deriving the maximum amount of benefit from every situation while neglecting the interests of others (Khansari & Sadeghi, 2020). It would be reasonable to assume that an ethical egoist would oppose mandatory vaccination.
To justify their position, they would say that vaccination should be a personal choice since they would not want to be forced to take the vaccine if they refused to do it voluntarily. For an ethical egoist, there is no conflict between self-loyalty and community because they think only about themselves. I believe that embracing the ethical egoism approach and avoiding mandatory vaccination is the worst course of action since it does not benefit the entire society.
Social Contract Ethicist Position
Social contract ethics involve following universal rules accepted as a norm in a certain society. Essentially, entering a social contract implies abiding by a law that benefits the society in which it is followed (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). As a result, a social contract ethicist would fully support the introduction of mandatory vaccination. Such a person would say that compulsory vaccination would facilitate the return to normal life and would reduce the number of unnecessary deaths due to the virus. Yet, there could be a collision between personal and national obligations if the social contract ethicist would be against vaccination whatsoever. I believe that embracing social contract ethics and implementing mandatory vaccination is the best course of action because it will quickly resolve the pandemic.
Mandatory Vaccination and Professional Code of Ethics of Nurses
If the mandatory vaccination order is introduced, nurses will be the primary actors responsible for conducting inoculation, yet they may face certain moral challenges. According to the ANA code for nurses, nursing professionals must respect the dignity of their clients (Olson & Stokes, 2016). Nevertheless, if a nurse is forced to vaccinate a person who does not want to receive the vaccine, it can lead to an ethical problem. Mandatory vaccination also can provoke a conflict between professional and familial duties if the nurse has to vaccinate a relative who does not want to do it.
Conclusion
The issue of mandatory inoculation is a topical one considering the fact that the current vaccination rates are still low. There can be two approaches to the issue, one supporting it and the one opposing the implementation of mandatory vaccination. Ethical egoists would be more in favor of discarding the option of compulsory vaccination, while social contract ethicists would be willing to make taking the vaccine obligatory.
References
Khansari, M., & Sadeghi, H. (2020). Feasibility study of altruistic ethical responsibility in ethical egoism. Religious Anthropology, 16(42), 127142. Web.
Olson, L. L., & Stokes, F. (2016). The ANA code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements: Resource for nursing regulation. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 7(2), 920. Web.
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.
Controversial issues regarding collective security during the COVID-19 pandemic often include discussions of if a sanitary mask fulfills the functions assigned to it or not. In particular, one of the ambiguous topics is the question of whether it is necessary to wear a mask after vaccination. Human resource managers should understand that after employees are vaccinated, wearing a mask is unnecessary and an overprotective measure. Forcing subordinates to resort to additional personal protective steps is pointless, and any liability for the non-observance of the mask regime should be removed at the organizational level.
After full vaccination, a person does not need to wear a mask when in contact with other people. According to Shriver (2021), antibodies build up in the body in sufficient quantity to fight off the disease, which is the essence of vaccination. In addition, Adjodah et al. (2021) argue that today, the rate of vaccination has improved, which indicates the imminent acquisition of herd immunity and a decrease in the incidence of the coronavirus infection. The main argument that West (2021) also makes is that vaccination protects vulnerable citizens and provides an opportunity to curb the growth of disease cases. Therefore, wearing a mask is an optional measure that is perceived rather as a habit than a real protection tool.
This information is relevant not only to employees but also to managers working with personnel. The current policies to monitor employee health compliance should be reviewed because vaccination is a step towards overcoming the pandemic, and collective safety principles need to be transformed. Therefore, the problem concerns the heads of structural divisions primarily. At the same time, despite the arguments presented, challenges may arise with the delivery of this information to supervisors and team leaders. People who do not understand the principles of vaccination can resist change, which, in turn, will make it difficult to optimize the workflow. For many of them, masks have become an essential attribute, and it may seem to them wrong to abandon these protection tools, despite the illogicality of such behavior.
The key goal is to convey to the target audience that vaccination is an objective driver to reduce the level of existing sanitary standards due to the principles of impact on public health. The gradual transition to mass vaccination and the abandonment of personal protective equipment as useless tools are important tasks to be implemented in the near future. To achieve this, an appropriate evidence base is needed, which includes not only general reasoning but also accurate scientific justification. Communicating the necessary data to team leaders and human resource managers can help convince them that they should not follow outdated health safety practices.
As a rationale for the proposed argument for avoiding masks for vaccinated employees, relevant resources can be utilized. For instance, the article by Adjodah et al. (2021) considers how avoiding mask mandate could affect COVID-19 outcomes. The authors note that tightening vaccination controls rather than personal protective equipment may be a better practice to address the pandemic (Adjodah et al., 2021). The research by Shriver (2021) cites similar theses, and the author draws attention to the fact that gradual vaccination of a large part of the population is inevitable, which can reduce new disease cases significantly.
As a result, the need for masks is eliminated because people acquire the necessary antibodies and immunity to the coronavirus infection. Finally, West (2021) argues that most policymakers and health managers agree on the benefits of masks but, at the same time, confirm that vaccination is a reliable means of protecting the population. Thus, authoritative sources confirm the relevance of the thesis about the safety of mask-free social contacts in the context of mass vaccination.
As a result of the proposed evidence, the argument about the uselessness of using masks in interactions between vaccinated employees can be supported by specific arguments. Firstly, human resource managers have information on the number of vaccinated employees, and this is not difficult for them to identify who has the right not to wear a mask in the workplace. Secondly, social distance becomes irrelevant since, as Shriver (2021) states, for a vaccinated person, even an unvaccinated interlocutor does not pose a threat. Thirdly, vaccination control is a sufficient measure to do by human resource managers because, according to Adjodah et al. (2021), vaccination is progressing rapidly. Therefore, the original argument has ample reasons to propose for consideration.
While taking into account the evidence presented, the safety of mask-free social contacts for vaccinated employees is easy to prove. The aforementioned research shows that wearing a mask is meaningless if a person is immune to the disease. In addition, based on vaccination statistics, the number of vaccinated citizens is growing rapidly. Since human resource managers are aware of the vaccination status, avoiding mask mandate can be an objective and reasonable solution in organizations with a sufficient number of vaccinated employees. As a result, given such explanations, one can justify the position about the possibility of abandoning masks.
References
Adjodah, D., Dinakar, K., Chinazzi, M., Fraiberger, S. P., Pentland, A., & Bates, S. (2021). Association between COVID-19 outcomes and mask mandates, adherence, and attitudes. PLOS ONE, 16(6), e0252315. Web.
Shriver, L. (2021). Its time to face the truth about masks. The Spectator, 346(10056), 23.