Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

I'll address my opponent's case and then move on to my own. First of all, in his observation my opponent is claiming that voluntary immunizations consistently reach herd immunity and then gives the examples of Norway and Sweden. What you have to look at here is that Norway and Sweden are not third world countries like some countries in Africa are. So of course, the healthcare in Norway and Sweden will be better so people will be healthier, live longer, etc. Countries in Africa aren't as fortunate. What you have to look at is that compulsory immunizations are a much better solution in a global context (look at the smallpox eradication). Moreover, his examples of Norway and Sweden show that people value a good quality of life, hence they're taking the vaccinations. How would these people then object to compulsory immunizations? On to my opponents value of justice which is defined as giving each his or her due. Once again, what you have to look at is that you're not giving others their due of a good quality of life, when you deny compulsory vaccinations. This is because voluntary immunizations do not always reach herd immunity, so by denying vaccinations your directly threatening other people's rights of safety and good quality of life. This brings me to his value criterion of upholding individual rights. He says "when someone's rights are infringed upon, justice is not enabled". Once again, by denying compulsory immunizations you are infringing upon other people's rights of safety and good quality of life (see above). During the smallpox program, we limited the rights of people for the safety of all. Small pox had killed about 300 million people in just the 20th century. Therefore, I ask you isn't stopping such a deadly disease worth the infringement on a person's autonomy? Now on to his first contention. He says "by issuing compulsory vaccines, the government issuing the vaccine is acting unjustly because they do not allow the public to decide whether or not they want to get a vaccine". Then he gives an example surgery. Surgery is different from compulsory immunizations because the former doesn't affect the safety and wellbeing of the society, while the latter can (by stopping disease). He goes on to say that vaccines have a potential negative effect, and that we have a right to decide whether we want to take the risk. First of all, cross apply my first contention that the risk of disease is so rare, that it can't be assessed statistically. Second of all, you can get an exemption if you have an underlying health condition. On his Subpoint B, my opponent gives the examples of deaths in a nursing home caused by a flu vaccine. He says "Red Cross Nurse Pamela Jordin said, "I used to work in a private nursing home, we would not give flu shots because the one time we did, it made everyone sick and three people died. All other years, no shots, only a couple of people would get the flu and no one died from it. We heard the same story from other elder care faculties. I would not want to be in a state or federal institution."" Clearly, according to this, when flu shots were given to everyone one year, everyone got sick and three people died. Then it goes on to say that other years, only a couple people would take the flu shots, But no one died from it. This clearly shows that the problem wasn't with the vaccines themselves, but the people who had the shots were just likely to have underlying condition that made them react that way to the vaccines. On to his second contention, he says that issuing compulsory immunization intervene with religious beliefs, and can become violent. If my opponent looked at observation in my constructive, he would see that compulsory and universal are not the same thing. Compulsory still allows exemptions for underlying health conditions and religious objections. So my opponent's second contention should not extend. Now on to my side of the flow Against my value my opponent states my value shouldn't be used because he's been sick and he's had a good quality of life. Once again compulsory immunizations can prevent deadly diseases from out breaking. How can you enjoy a good quality of life if your dead? Against my criterion my opponent said that his criterion is more important than mine. He says that "If the government had to choose between the two, it is quite obvious that the government would protect their citizen's rights and trust that they will make the best choices for themselves. Furthermore, the state does not need to issue compulsory immunizations to protect their people from disease because as long as the herd immunity threshold is achieved the community is protected". First of all, if a deadly disease breaks out and people die, what rights would there be left to protect? Second of all, by protecting their citizens by enforcing compulsory immunizations wouldn't governments be protecting the most important right of all, right to life? Third, not all countries have good healthcare, and cannot herd immunity (third world countries). He agrees with my point that immunizations do not cause adverse effects such as autism. He says that vaccinations can still cause unexpected harm, and gives example of his subpoint b under contention A. I've already refuted this, look above. Against, my C2 he says that "If a vaccine comes out, and someone does not have a medical, religious, or philosophical reason to not get the vaccine, that person will get the vaccine." Cross apply my C2 where I state the reason for a person not be able to get economic sanctions is because they cannot afford voluntary vaccinations which unlike compulsory vaccines can be quite expensive. He says that voluntary vaccinations can reach illegal immigrants. Can you warrant this please? Voluntary immunizations do not reach herd immunity because the many minority groups cannot afford them see my (C2). Here is one example of voluntary immunizations not actually working. Dr. Richard Daines, state health commissioner of NY, said, "Years of voluntary vaccines for flu led to vaccination levels of between 30% and 50% of health-care workers, which is not high enough to provide herd immunity — protection to the remaining unvaccinated population".