Spanish Flu Vaccine Consent: Fill & Download for Free

In 1918 health & sanitation were the responsibility of the Provincial Governments. The “British” response (policy change) can be noted only by about 1920.India had been suffering the Third plague pandemic - Wikipedia since the late nineteenth century. The foreign powers had insisted on epidemic disease control in order to continue to do business with India.The result of those negotiations was the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 - Wikipedia - which is what's being currently used in India. The model is the same.The problem in dealing with the plague was that control had to be under under Indian elected sanitation commissioners & elected provincial governments. In 1896 terrorist action against plague controllers had shown that domestic efforts must be by consent. Chapekar brothers - WikipediaThere have been no substantial modern studies on this issue - but we have a number of issues. Plague mortality at roughly 500k a year, a chronic cholera epidemic & - in this year - bad rains & an enfeebled peasantry. Lack of food & comorbidities make it hard to pin down as the sole cause.We can see the first wave of the Spanish Flu - relatively mild going across India, then by the August the mutated second wave entered Bombay. In British provinces, maybe 5 million and an unknown number in the Indian States.The disease did not penetrate to the east and south. But we don't know why.British failures can be listed; the army had a key role in sanitation but was still serving overseas and in frontier war. The second wave coincided with the return of troops from Europe.India In The Years (1917-1918) : Williams L. F. Rushbrook : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveAbove is the handbook provided to British politicians on Indian developments. (Search influenza - about page 184)It discusses the difficulties; lack of medical care, the highly mortality of the young, the failure of the monsoon meaning people were hungry and weak. & Refusal to obey social distancing for customary reasons.Provincial governments were aided by Central agencies to open free dispensaries of medicine & milk in affected towns. In many places Provincial Governments distributed free grain because the price had risen to famine level.They did the same disease awareness campaigns as now. Both by government and charity bodies. Much of this was ignored.50–80% of India got the flu. Whether you lived or not depended. If you were old and rich - got the first wave…you'd be fine. But a young person who got hit by the second wave when hungry and with cholera was sure to die.Comorbidities.By the next year, better measure were undertaken. The Indian cholera epidemic had made people used to getting vaccinated. The flu vaccination was provided free or at cost, preventing recurrence in the East and South.The British admit that medical facilities were very poor (tax was only 7% of GDP). But did not think it would make a difference. The crucial factors were hunger, price gouging & comorbidities.For economic & social reasons, the British Sanitarian movement had been very active in India for 50 years. They believed that the Indian people needed education in the disease, and in public health. But they were still focused on plague suppression, cholera inoculation, the deaths of 2 million babies a year…India In 1919 (1920) : Williams L. F. Rushbrook : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveThe problem is that it had to be elected Indian politicians who transmitted the information to the rest of the population. (Except in military areas).In 1920 the Central Health Board is created, it worked to educate the people - but ultimately failed to convince the Indians to create full local Provincial and local bodies to focus on epidemiology. However, their efforts succeeded in stopping the disease re-emerging in 1920. Mobile Epidemiology Board would focus on a range of measures in affected towns; food, medicine, education, research, etc.Sadly - later discontinued under the Republic.Given the 50 years of fight against epidemic diseases - the decision in 1918 had already been made that the fight against the disease was in the hands of directly elected Indians. Politicians like Vallabhbhai Patel - Wikipedia made their names as Sanitation Commissioner. In his success, he then gets elected as the Mayor for 3 terms.Effective Commissioners and charities were funded further by the central government - ie. the Social Service League.The third plank of the British response is from international NGO's - ie. the creation of the Indian Red Cross, funded and linked into the international network. Or the National Association for the Provision of Female Medical Aid to the Women of India (funded by the Countess Dufferin) - & the creation of Women's Medical Colleges in order that the message gets through to women.Essentially; under EDA 1897 - the Indian Empire did exactly the same as the Republic today. Then - as now - competence of local departments was key. Many regions of India still suffer epidemics and have active, competent departments.Then - as now - some people were very well educated on social distancing.Then - as now - wealth was the greatest help. Sadly; the advice from 1918 “remain calm and go to sleep” is harder to follow, because Opium was still legal, normal & without stigma. The USA changed that. #legaliseitThe evolution of pandemic influenza: evidence from India, 1918–19India In 1919 : Williams L. F. Rushbrook : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveSuch information is forgotten in India; HRD wants universities to study how India handled 1918 Spanish flu, revived economySadly; the last ten years has seen an explosion of anti British racism in India (since those who remember die). They erased the pandemic from memory in order to call it “famine”.Now they want to say that the combined deaths of two waves, the plague, the cholera and a failed harvest is all “Spanish flu” - and that the British did not do anything. How British Negligence During the 1918 Flu Pandemic Led to the Strengthening of the Anti-Colonial MovementThat's ignorant. I think I've described why.

I’m against me taking this vaccine so I’ll answer (I’m not in to protesting, per se)The discussion of a vaccine being mandatory or engineered in to my life by way of restricting me earning or spending my money in the manner I choose, or restricting where I go is ludicrous and an unwarranted imposition on my lifeIf the vaccine you take works, why do I have to take it?If the vaccine you take doesn’t work, why do I have to take it?if the virus mutates (as COVID family viruses do) do you think I should take a vaccine every year (bare in mind, in the U.K. the National Health Service (NHS) offer a free flu (aka Spanish Flu/influenza) jab to at risk groups. To date the nhs has, year on year, selected the wrong vaccine for strain of flu that becomes most prevalent. it maybe the strain guarded against works, but it makes no difference, another strain takes its place to do the killingalso the fatality rate is meh. At its peak fatality C-19 killed 7000 people a week for two weeks. Sounds bad? Normal flu (from memory) in 2001(ish) and 2014/15(ish) killed 15000 a week, also for two weeks, and more recently in 2018 flu caused an additional 50,000 deaths over the “flu season” (which is in winter, in the U.K., and has similarity to a lock down…the people who stay in and only go out when they have to, seem to be the ones who get sick the most .Get down the pub till you talk to the porcelain god armatige shanks! You’ll be fine)I’m in a high risk group (asthma, high blood pressure, sub clinical diabetes, family history of dropping dead bang on age 52 from heart attack) if I chose to shield my self, my choice, no? Shouldn’t bother you if I do or I dont.boo hoo I’m being selfish…yes I’m being selfish about my behaviour, not yours! why do you think you get to be selfish about someone else’s behaviour…sod off, you do you, how ever you like.I’ll turn it around to try demonstrate my point. “No one is allowed to go to hospital if they get Covid-19, hospitals should be kept clear of untreatable disease so normal function like routine operations for transplants births mental health clinics etc, so go die at home” …shity if I think you should do that, even though it’s more valid (based on death rate) than lock down and insisting other people are forced to vaccinate.protesting isn’t my style. At the moment it’s a few stupid politicians talking about mandatory vaccines in open letters, a few columnists opining their opinions. But politicians are slimy bastards, and the back door approach, “no flights no jobs, without vaccine” is very possible, is via the “back door” without consent. Or even a chat up and a drink.no. thank. you.if I haven’t pissed you off, yet, for getting to decide what I do……Trump 2020! 🇬🇧 🇺🇸I hope he gets in to U.K. politics just to break the stagnancy of U.K. politics, I’ll vote for him happily! But I won’t mandate that you have to. I’m nice like that

“Preventing a deadly epidemic is a public goal of the highest order. But large-scale quarantines of healthy people have not been used in the United States since the Spanish flu epidemic that coincided with the last years of World War I. Large-scale forced isolation of sick individuals waned with the effective development of a polio vaccine in the 1950s. Since then, the Supreme Court has articulated constitutional limits that create some uncertainty over the scope of quarantine and isolation authority…“Today, as in the early days of the Republic, the federal government could certainly assist states that seek federal help in enforcing their own quarantines. But it appears that neither Congress nor the President could order state officials to implement a quarantine…“What about the federal government’s power to enforce its own quarantine laws directly? A federal statute authorizes the Surgeon General and other federal officials to adopt quarantines to prevent the spread of communicable disease from other countries or across state lines…“Presumably the federal quarantine law and the implementing regulations and executive orders fall within the power of Congress to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, although some recent statements by the Supreme Court’s conservative Justices call even that authority into question…“Accordingly, recent decisions by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority limiting federal authority in favor of states’ rights cast some doubt on federal quarantine authority. Nonetheless, the federal quarantine law would probably be upheld on the ground that it targets the spread of disease from other countries and across state lines. Movement across such boundaries can sometimes serve as the predicate for federal regulation, even when the underlying subject matter is not directly related to economic activity…“It does not follow, however, that government officials should be permitted to issue quarantine orders without any judicial oversight. A person subject to quarantine—or given the numbers that could be involved, a class action representative suing on behalf of many people subject to quarantine—should be permitted to challenge the quarantine itself…“At the same time, however, quarantine amounts to an extraordinarily serious limitation on liberty. Moreover, even a quarantine that is justified for purposes of preventing the spread of a disease to the general population can put the individuals subject to the quarantine at greater risk of becoming sick themselves—by concentrating them among others with a higher risk of being infected. Accordingly, judicial review of government officials’ claims that a quarantine is necessary to protect public health should not be a mere rubber stamp.”Containing Ebola: Quarantine and the ConstitutionSpecific Laws and Regulations Governing the Control of Communicable DiseasesIn the absence of an epidemic, anti-vaxers could not be “rounded up”. There would need to be some legal predicate for doing so that is articulable.The purpose of the quarantine in my view is to protect the “uninfected” from the “infected”. This (to me) appears to justify separating the infected from the rest of the population using the power afforded by the quarantine laws — not the other way around. Uninfected, unvaccinated individuals without a history of exposure to someone who is infected (IMO) should NOT be quarantined — and if they are, should be permitted access to counsel and an opportunity to challenge (1) the legality of their being subject TO that law AND quite possibly (2) challenging the legality of the quarantine order itself. IMO they may prevail in (1) but would have difficulty in prevailing on question (2).I don’t believe the Government could legally COMPEL individuals (at least adults with the capacity to consent/non-consent) to be vaccinated. (There are of course exceptions, such as members of the military, and those found by a court to be incompetent.) Involuntary treatment is controversial in the realm of prison corrections as well as in psychiatric hospitals. Taking away one’s right to consent (or refuse) treatment in my view is taking away an absolute right, is ethically impermissible as it denies an individual the autonomy of their personhood, and would meet the definition of a tort (battery). Involuntary treatment of minors remains legal in most states (although parents may challenge such treatments in court.) In an “emergency”, courts have given wide latitude to authorities to treat that is not permitted when an emergency does not exist.I am not a lawyer — just a physician concerned about violations of civil liberties.