NationStates Jolt Archive

The @@NAME@@ Government has considered getting flu shots mandatory.

[option]"It should be mandatory!" says your advisor, "People who get the flu spread it to other people! We don't want that now do we?!""
[effect]flu shots are mandatory during flu season
[stats]?

[option]"No! You can't force me to get a sho.. Sho..." @@RANDOMNAME@@ was cut off as s/he sneezed into her tissue. "To get a shot... Every time I get the shot I get sicker than sick! The government should let the people decide if they want to get the shot or not."
[effect]hundreds of people die from the flu each year
[stats]population decreases (maybe not a good idea)?

[option]"We should go farther than mandatory shots!" says your advisor, "We should kill anyone who has the flu! They are a threat to our community!"
[effect]people who have the flu are executed
[stats]?










So, how is it? What should I put instead of the "?"s?

[option]"It should be mandatory!" says your advisor, "People who get the flu spread it to other people! We don't want that now do we?!""
[effect]flu shots are mandatory during flu season
[stats]?

Stats should be-

1. Health rises
2. Taxes rise

And the effect should be this-

People are rounded up every year to be forcefully injected with anti-flu medication

In response to option 2, you can't decreace the population without breaking the mechanics of the game. Health though should decreace, slight tax decreace, medical/health funding should decreace as well, though civil freedoms would increace.

And maybe change the flavor text to "A recent infuenza outbreak in @@NAMES@@s larger cities has sparked a heated debate on vaccinations."

A suggestion, only make it valid for the months of November -> January as I believe that that is the time of year when flu shots are administered (at least in the US).


http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling
PGP: 0x0604DF3E

Salusa:

Why? I can tell you right now nations aren't based off of the US. And some might have their winter at different months.

Then there is the entire liquid time thing, and yeah...

*shrug*

I am not sure what the schedules around the rest of the world are . . . they might be similar. It was only an idea to consider.

My suggestions:

The @@NAME@@ Government has considered getting flu shots mandatory.

[option]"It should be mandatory!" says your advisor, "People who get the flu spread it to other people! We don't want that now do we?!""
[effect]flu shots are mandatory during flu season
[stats]?

Stats: taxes increase slightly, rights are tanked, health goes down---fact is, flu shots are more dangerous than the flu. Study a few years back in the New England Journal of Medicine came to that conclusion. Too many people are allergic to one or another of the ingredients, too many of the "bugs" aren't killed enough.
I can't think of a single positive to this option.


[option]"No! You can't force me to get a sho.. Sho..." @@RANDOMNAME@@ was cut off as s/he sneezed into her tissue. "To get a shot... Every time I get the shot I get sicker than sick! The government should let the people decide if they want to get the shot or not."
[effect]hundreds of people die from the flu each year
[stats]population decreases (maybe not a good idea)?

It'd take more than "hundreds" of deaths to decrease the population.
Stats: rights increase slightly.
I can't think of a single downside to this option.


[option]"We should go farther than mandatory shots!" says your advisor, "We should kill anyone who has the flu! They are a threat to our community!"
[effect]people who have the flu are executed
[stats]?

stats: rights are tanked.
No upside to this option.

Upside to the last one: Less money is spent on healthcare, thus economy slightly benifits.

Salusa:

Meh, like I said, liquid time *winks*

[option]"We should go farther than mandatory shots!" says your advisor, "We should kill anyone who has the flu! They are a threat to our community!"
[effect]people who have the flu are executed
[stats]?

I think this option should be rephrased. This is a bit too extreme even for NS.

Perhaps it should be something like...

[option]"We should go farther than mandatory shots!" says your minister of health, "We should quarentine anyone who has the flu! They are a threat to our community!"
[effect]people are ushered into communes to suffer together
[stats]civil rights go down, government increases

Who would like that?

How about something like this, only with HIV/AIDS, instead of the Flu? Just an idea.

In Moontian, we already kill those people found to have HIV/AIDS as soon as is practicable. That way, the virus can be controlled, somewhat. If no one's infected, it can't spread, provided no one with the virus enters the country.

:shock: Wow, much more responses than I thought I would get.

Here is my new version :

A recent influenza outbreak in @@NAMES@@'s larger cities has sparked sparked a heated debate on vaccinations.

[option]"It should be mandatory!" says your advisor, "People who get the flu spread it to other people! We don't want that now do we?!""
[effect]People are rounded up every year to be forcefully injected with anti-flu medication
[stats]health rises, taxes rise

[option]"No! You can't force me to get a sho.. Sho..." @@RANDOMNAME@@ was cut off as s/he sneezed into her tissue. "To get a shot... Every time I get the shot I get sicker than sick! The government should let the people decide if they want to get the shot or not."
[effect]hundreds of people die from the flu each year
[stats]health decrease, slight tax decrease, health funding decrease, civil rights increase

[option]"We should go farther than mandatory shots!" says your minister of health, "We should quarentine anyone who has the flu! They are a threat to our community!"
[effect]people with the flu are ushered into communes to suffer together
[stats]civil rights decrease, government increases




How about now? Once I get enough "Yep, its good"s Ill submit it.

Hmmm... For the third option, I guess you can also add a ticker for increased health for citizens.

- Sovy K.

Hmmm... For the third option, I guess you can also add a ticker for increased health for citizens.

- Sovy K.

Would that really work?

Give them a choice, but if they get the flu, they won't be covered for health care, they have to pay for themselves (and their funeral)

The @@NAME@@ Government has considered getting flu shots mandatory.


[option]"No! You can't force me to get a sho.. Sho..." @@RANDOMNAME@@ was cut off as s/he sneezed into her tissue. "To get a shot... Every time I get the shot I get sicker than sick! The government should let the people decide if they want to get the shot or not."
[effect]hundreds of people die from the flu each year
[stats]population decreases (maybe not a good idea)?










So, how is it? What should I put instead of the "?"s?

I don't see why Quarentining people wouldn't raise the health of the nation in question. Fewer exposers means fewer people will end up getting sick. Overall, a healthy nation.

Now, the robustness of that health, that is another thing entirely.

- Sovy K.

Here I go again...

A recent influenza outbreak in @@NAMES@@'s larger cities has sparked sparked a heated debate on vaccinations.

[option]"It should be mandatory!" says your advisor, "People who get the flu spread it to other people! We don't want that now do we?!""
[effect]People are rounded up every year to be forcefully injected with anti-flu medication
[stats]health rises, taxes rise

[option]"No! You can't force me to get a sho.. Sho..." @@RANDOMNAME@@ was cut off as s/he sneezed into her tissue. "To get a shot... Every time I get the shot I get sicker than sick! The government should let the people decide if they want to get the shot or not."
[effect]hundreds of people die from the flu each year
[stats]health decrease, slight tax decrease, health funding decrease, civil rights increase

[option]"We should go farther than mandatory shots!" says your minister of health, "We should quarentine anyone who has the flu! They are a threat to our community!"
[effect]people with the flu are ushered into communes to suffer together
[stats]civil rights decrease, government increases, health increases

I like it :D :D but of course it won't see the light of day for a while but then most won't be seen for even longer depends when you submit it

Emperor Matthuis

Upside to the last one: Less money is spent on healthcare, thus economy slightly benifits.

Nope. Money spent on rounding people up, cost of executing them, plus loss of workers.

Indeed, thinking about it, I should have said:
Rights are tanked, economy goes down sharply. No upside.

Here I go again...

A recent influenza outbreak in @@NAMES@@'s larger cities has sparked sparked a heated debate on vaccinations.

[option]"It should be mandatory!" says your advisor, "People who get the flu spread it to other people! We don't want that now do we?!""
[effect]People are rounded up every year to be forcefully injected with anti-flu medication
[stats]health rises, taxes rise

Again---proven fact, accepted by the world's leading medical journal---flu shots cause more illness than flu.
At least, given modern treatment, fewer work hours are lost to flu than to flue shots, on a per-person basis.

[option]"No! You can't force me to get a sho.. Sho..." @@RANDOMNAME@@ was cut off as s/he sneezed into her tissue. "To get a shot... Every time I get the shot I get sicker than sick! The government should let the people decide if they want to get the shot or not."
[effect]hundreds of people die from the flu each year
[stats]health decrease, slight tax decrease, health funding decrease, civil rights increase

Health should be unchanged. After all, this issue clearly presupposes that flu shots are voluntary now, so keeping them voluntary changes nothing. And why any change to health funding?

[option]"We should go farther than mandatory shots!" says your minister of health, "We should quarentine anyone who has the flu! They are a threat to our community!"
[effect]people with the flu are ushered into communes to suffer together
[stats]civil rights decrease, government increases, health increases
Health would decrease. You shove a bunch of people together, into the sort of poor-quality housing (and poor food, etc.) you get with quarentines, and they'll get sicker. Plus, people who would ordinarily have little or no contact with each other will be living cheek-by-jowl, which means exposure to "new" germs, which means more disease.

Again---proven fact, accepted by the world's leading medical journal---flu shots cause more illness than flu.
At least, given modern treatment, fewer work hours are lost to flu than to flue shots, on a per-person basis.

I would like to see this proof please. Also, how is your response any way relevent to what you quoted? Are you suggesting that taxes should be pushed further up, or change it from increasing health to decreasing health?

Health would decrease. You shove a bunch of people together, into the sort of poor-quality housing (and poor food, etc.) you get with quarentines, and they'll get sicker. Plus, people who would ordinarily have little or no contact with each other will be living cheek-by-jowl, which means exposure to "new" germs, which means more disease.

You have obviouslly never been put under modern day quarentines. I refer to you the people that lived in Toronto during the "SARS crisis" as CNN once put it.

Health should be unchanged. After all, this issue clearly presupposes that flu shots are voluntary now, so keeping them voluntary changes nothing. And why any change to health funding?

Because more people get sick when they are exposed to the winter bug, and are not covered with a flu shot, they might get the flu.

Although, you do bring up a point about health funding.

Either health funding changes are introduced in options 1 and 2, or not introduced at all. I would assume that health funding would be changed in both cases.

- Sovy K.

Again---proven fact, accepted by the world's leading medical journal---flu shots cause more illness than flu.
At least, given modern treatment, fewer work hours are lost to flu than to flue shots, on a per-person basis.
I would like to see this proof please.
As I said the first time, it was in The New England Journal of Medicine a few years back. I'm not going to do your research for you.

Also, how is your response any way relevent to what you quoted? Are you suggesting that taxes should be pushed further up, or change it from increasing health to decreasing health?
Do you really have that much difficulty with such a simple referent? Or do you think you are making some kind of rhetorical point?

Health would decrease. You shove a bunch of people together, into the sort of poor-quality housing (and poor food, etc.) you get with quarentines, and they'll get sicker. Plus, people who would ordinarily have little or no contact with each other will be living cheek-by-jowl, which means exposure to "new" germs, which means more disease.
You have obviouslly never been put under modern day quarentines. I refer to you the people that lived in Toronto during the "SARS crisis" as CNN once put it.
The SARS quarentine had no more than a few hundred people in it any any one time. In a major city, tens to hundreds of thousands of people may have the flu at any one time. Quarentining flu sufferers would be dealing with 3 to 4 orders of magnitude more people. The SARS quarentine in Toronto is not useful as a guide. The yellow fever quarentines of the last century, and common sense, are the best guides. And they both tell us if you've got hundreds of thousands of people being temporarily housed at government expense, they'll envy pigs in their sties.

Health should be unchanged. After all, this issue clearly presupposes that flu shots are voluntary now, so keeping them voluntary changes nothing. And why any change to health funding?
Because more people get sick when they are exposed to the winter bug, and are not covered with a flu shot, they might get the flu.
Apparantly you missed the point that unchanged circumstances should give unchanged results.

As I said the first time, it was in The New England Journal of Medicine a few years back.

Looking through the exerpts of the journal I have found an exerpt of the 'The Guillain?Barré Syndrome'. The other report I found made some mention of the benefits and risks of getting a vaccination.

Do you really have that much difficulty with such a simple referent? Or do you think you are making some kind of rhetorical point?

It was a genuine question. I'm not going to second guess what you want changing. That response had evidence that would be considered to be inadmissible, due to the fact that flu shots affect the amount of people who will supposedly get the flu. Infact, deriving from what you said, it could be support how effective flu shots.

The SARS quarentine had no more than a few hundred people in it any any one time. In a major city, tens to hundreds of thousands of people may have the flu at any one time. Quarentining flu sufferers would be dealing with 3 to 4 orders of magnitude more people. The SARS quarentine in Toronto is not useful as a guide.

It effectively demonstrated how much the city was locked down due to the supposed crisis. Also, it was NOT limited to the mere few hundreds, but rather several thousand.

http://www.health24.co.za/news/Respiratory/1-942,22518.asp

Apparantly you missed the point that unchanged circumstances should give unchanged results.

I completely agree with you. For that, I will bring up this quote.

A recent influenza outbreak in @@NAMES@@'s larger cities has sparked sparked a heated debate on vaccinations.

You should know it, you even had it in one of your quotes.

Humbly submitted,

- Sovy K.

Alright, NOW what do I do?

I can foresee this argument going on til the end of time, so just submit what you have right now to the mods, and let them sort it all out.

- Sovy K.

Submitted. *hint hint*

I hope it gets in. :D