If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public school

[Kadagar_AV]

Nobody asks for experimental medicine to be mandated. We ask for what is more or less settled science. The measles vaccine is pretty damn well understood by now. No it does not cause autism. No it won't kill you. No it won't leave you infertile. What might leave you infertile as an adult male is the actual disease (measles) itself.

Us all taking a vaccine means that specific (cocktail) of pathogen strains is dealt with. It means those viruses will not be doing the wiping out. It does not make us all the same, and the risk of a hypothetical new virus doing us in remains the same as it ever was. In fact, the risk of a virus in general wiping us all out is reduced by taking out the threat of those pathogens. That's the whole point of (mandatory) vaccination!

If some people go "off the expected path" in this case, some people now actually reintroduce the risk of that cocktail of viruses wiping us out. That is all they accomplish: to risk the lives of others. Now since we're not dealing with population wide epidemics or pandemics we can afford to be relaxed about this and say it's their own decision to expose themselves to disease and us to a lesser degree to that risk as well.

But why on earth that should be a carte blanche for parents to do the same to their children (or indeed, for anyone to do it to anyone else) still escapes me.

To round off a post full of misunderstanding you apply classic scope insensitivity: failure to multiply. If there is a chance of only 10^-11 that the decision for mandatory vaccination is catastrophic, then based on the total human population which ever will exist (estimated to be 10^10) we should go with the 10^-11 chance of error over the demonstrably vastly more likely alternative which is already causing minor epidemics in a well funded, highly vaccinated population today (USA!) -- simply because the herd immunity is no longer as powerful as it once was.

In simple terms: the numbers don't add up to admit any kind of utilitarian argument for allowing parents not to get their children vaccinated. There is simply no fringe benefit to be had outweighing the primary benefits from vaccination on a national or global scale.

Sorry mate, it's late and this isn't the answer your post deserved. I hope others can pick up the gauntlet, otherwise I'll try to find time tomorrow.

Regardless, in short:

1. Viruses have a tendency to come back and bite us. We should thread more carefully around that issue than "all eggs in one basket". Same reply as to GC.

2. Settled science isn't always as settled as you think.

3. (this is important) I take all vaccines and stuff, so don't make me out as being some loon...

My sole points is that we, as a human race, should never, ever, ever, ever think we master nature, and we should never bet everything on one set of cards.

Diversity is absolutely GRAND when it comes to survival as a species, if we speak about the picture at large.

Hope i have made myself more comprehensible now :)

[Kadagar_AV]

Vaccines, on the other hand, are totally different. Its not reactive care, its preventative care, and it relies on over-saturation. We need it for them to work.

Yes, but every time we alter nature, nature has the chance to snap back, and often with a vengeance.

What closes one loophole might open up another.

My point is (yet again) that all eggs in one basket is just a very stupid way to make a race move forwards in an age when we have very little clue as to what we are actually doing.

[Kadagar_AV]

Sometimes you have no choice but to put all your eggs in one basket. While I appreciate your philosophical sentiment (its one I actually agree with), there's simply no alternative to good vaccination practices if you really want to wipe out the majority of diseases out there.

Well, that philosophical sentiment might, just might, be what saves us as a species.

I'm not saying it will, I am just asking if you are ready to bet that it wont?

Diversity is key for survival, it's just as simple as that.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Sorry mate, it's late and this isn't the answer your post deserved. I hope others can pick up the gauntlet, otherwise I'll try to find time tomorrow.

Regardless, in short:

1. Viruses have a tendency to come back and bite us. We should thread more carefully around that issue than "all eggs in one basket". Same reply as to GC.

First of all, I wrote the post in a to rebut not just your more narrow argument against 'settled science' but also to rebut the simple fact that it is a cogent argument at all in the context of the topic of this thread. That's also intended for the other proponents of allowing parents to decide for their children on vaccination. I see it as a mixture of simply being misinformed/clueless on the topic and also being irrelevant as demonstrated before and below. So, yeah, I took it point by point and tore it down somewhat viciously. I'm afraid there's more to follow below. Please don't read this as aimed solely at a fictitious lunatic you; if it's to be addressed to lunatics allow me to try and (perhaps unwisely) take on the full asylum:

Viruses that die out due to herd immunity will not come back as before. While they remain we're by and large immune, that's the definition of herd immunity. When they're gone, we're fully immune precisely because they're gone. Note, also, that the only way for them to 'bite' when you are vaccinated is to mutate into something that your vaccination does not help to protect you against. Note that in order to mutate, they need to infect successfully and make their offspring mutants need to make it out of the host 'alive'. Precisely what vaccination helps us to prevent by teaching our immune system some much needed self defence course against those viruses, and by extension their mutant offspring, too.

There is the potential of viruses being frozen and reawakened in, say, permafrost that melts. As long as we keep vaccinating, though, all that will do is merely move us back to the herd immunity stage and we'll have as good a chance as we do now. Vaccination therefore continues to remain a very good idea (tm).

2. Settled science isn't always as settled as you think.

Indeed. Meanwhile the benefits of vaccination are clear, whereas the benefits of doing nothing... are not. So unless you have radical new information and facts that fundamentally alter the picture you are arguing the extremely unlikely. You need to demonstrate a correspondingly huge benefit, something big enough to outweigh both the costs of not vaccinating (i.e. the people who do die of measles, the victims of rubella during pregancy, and so on and so forth) and the benefits of vaccinating (though you may deduct the costs of vaccinating, of course). Settled science 'is not' does not make a cogent argument in the context of the thread. You need to demonstrate far more than that for the position that people should be allowed to opt someone else out of the demonstrably beneficent vaccine programme.

3. (this is important) I take all vaccines and stuff, so don't make me out as being some loon...

I don't make you out as anything. If you feel ridiculed by a sharp, on point answer to your posts I respectfully suggest that the ridicule is in being associated with the answered posts.

In any case, I invite you not to continue to defend an untenable position which so far only defies logic, nature, facts, reason and math. Don't try to make a fallacious argument about some off chance Hollywood scenario about a heroic individual who doesn't get vaccinated as that also defies logic, nature, facts, reason and math like Hollywood scenario's tend to do. No, if you really want to argue why parents should be allowed to decide this for their children, please address the question: why should they?

My sole points is that we, as a human race, should never, ever, ever, ever think we master nature, and we should never bet everything on one set of cards.

Diversity is absolutely GRAND when it comes to survival as a species, if we speak about the picture at large.

Hope i have made myself more comprehensible now :)

You keep repeating something about eggs in one basket. I don't think that means what you think it means, or perhaps you simply do not understand the context. Allow me:

Here's what not vaccinating is: it's putting all of our eggs (all of us) in the basket of "we know these diseases exist, we know what they do to us, let's do nothing: what could possibly go wrong?" That is a hand me down basket which is so battered and broken by now that even risking one egg to it is simply stupid. That was already apparent in 10th century China if Wikipedia's history on inoculation is to be believed. Risking an egg that isn't you, is therefore also clearly wrong in my opinion.

By contrast to not vaccinating, here's what vaccinating is: let's give us all improvement in our chances of surviving free from X diseases, by eliminating X vectors (strains) through X vaccines. That's not one basket. That's as many baskets as there are strains in all the vaccines combined. As you seem to intuitively understand with eggs, that is still the sensible thing to do with humans.

Given the way herd immunity works, the choice not to vaccinate cannot be admitted as simply one more albeit a very bad egg basket among the many vaccinated ones. In a way, one is rotting away as we speak and this rot is already starting to affect the other baskets (see: outbreaks of measles in the USA).

Again, let's side step the arguments of utility since it's not really a debate in which you can constructively argue against mandatory vaccination. Unless you happen to have radical new information and facts which completely alters the picture; which I'm inferring you do not based on your misconception of viruses that 'come back' to 'bite' but only if we vaccinate.

Please simply address the question: why should someone's personal mistaken beliefs about vaccination allow them to decided for others that they must not be vaccinated, given the abundantly clear argument for vaccination and the lack of serious arguments against? Why should that person be allowed to endanger not only others by his own inaction, but also endanger others by preventing someone else not to be vaccinated?

I'm genuinely curious. Thus far, I've seen exactly zero arguments which do address that most basic question. I've seen a lot of grandstanding about freedom of choice, but nothing with any meat to it that actually makes the case for parents deciding for their children in this manner. I've already provided ample examples of similar decisions which we take out of the hands of parents as a matter of course, so do please explain to me why we would not this in the case of vaccination. The best way to make a proper argument, I think would be to formulate a coherent response to those questions.

[Ironside]

1. Viruses have a tendency to come back and bite us. We should thread more carefully around that issue than "all eggs in one basket". Same reply as to GC.

Herd immunity actually reduces the risk for a virus to mutate enough to "bypass" a vaccine (basically it would make it less effective). Think of everyone having the disease as a mutation chamber. The less people having it, the less trials made. The vaccine itself does not make a trial, since it's not the full disease.

Antibiotics works that everytime it's used, you have a resistance trial.

2. Settled science isn't always as settled as you think.

For the old vaccines? They're very much thoroughly tested. And it's those we talk about here. It'll be those and possibly the extreme cases that would end up manditory.

Newer ones might have. I'm sure you know about the narcolepsy incident. For those who don't, one of the boosters in the swine flu vaccine (not the vaccine itself) increased the risk of getting narcolepsy in children about 20 times (going from extemely rare to very rare). The flu vaccine has a certain production procedure, so any severe cases of side effect won't happen.

The extreme cases are if something like the bubonic plague version super 3.0 shows up. 90+% lethality, expected to infect 10-50+% of the total population. That's kind of an all bets are off situation and any vaccine could probably have lethal side effects and still be accepted. But that's a doomed if you do and doomed if you don't scenario.

[Papewaio]

Your body makes a random set of antibodies and with each exposure it makes (attempts to make) a set of antibodies to fight off the current disease and keeps these in the armory for future events. Identical twins immune systems are not identical due to the essentially random creation and exposure of antibodies.

Vaccinations give your body a preview of the disease and hence your body produces the antibodies and has access to them to fight off the disease in the future. It doesn't reduce the other antibodies in your body or the ability of your body to make new ones. It just adds a template to fight disease version 1.0

Those of us who do not get a vaccination might already be immune or we get infected with diesese v1.0 and get ill and suffer the short or long term consequences. Each diseased person has a chance for the disease to mutate into another version. If the version mutates enough it will not be countered by the antibodies for disease v1.0. The new disease v2.0 will then infect everyone who doesn't happen to have a natural immunity.

So by reducing the number of potential disease v1.0 victims you not only benefit the individual you also benefit the group. Enough vaccinated individuals form a moat of protection for the unvaccinated greatly reducing their chance of getting the disease in the first place as all the vectors get removed.

So vaccination of disease 1.0 does not decrease human immune system nor our ability to combat future diseases.

The more that get vaccinated the more effective it is. If it reaches 100% it might even be wiped out. Vaccinations also make it safer for the non-vaccinated. On the flip side unvaccinated people make life more dangerous for everyone from children too young to vaccinate (immediate danger) to the long term health of everyone (vaccinated or not) due to disease mutation.

[Fisherking]

I see this as one of those left/right hypocrite issues.

This is the abortion issue in reverse.

Are people free to control their bodies and make decisions for their families or are they subjects of the government to be dictated to and controlled for their own good (the good of the government).

The benefit doesn’t matter. It is simply an either or proposition. Free or subject.

Who would decide differently on those grounds?

[Papewaio]

I see this as one of those left/right hypocrite issues.

This is the abortion issue in reverse.

Are people free to control their bodies and make decisions for their families or are they subjects of the government to be dictated to and controlled for their own good (the good of the government).

The benefit doesn’t matter. It is simply an either or proposition. Free or subject.

Who would decide differently on those grounds?

Not equivalent bordering on a straw man argument in its fallacy.

Not vaccinating has closer merits with some lazy twat deciding to post natal abort someone else using Russian roulette.

[Fisherking]

Not equivalent bordering on a straw man argument in its fallacy.

Not vaccinating has closer merits with some lazy twat deciding to post natal abort someone else using Russian roulette.

Please do explain the fallacy.

It is either people have the right to be as stupid as they like or the government has the right to tell you what to do with your body.

Sometimes is something that never works.

The right of society to exclude you for that stupidity is valid. Your choice. But the right to compel you to put or not put substances into your body is far more intrusive.

[Papewaio]

Please do explain the fallacy.

It is either people have the right to be as stupid as they like or the government has the right to tell you what to do with your body.

Sometimes is something that never works.

The right of society to exclude you for that stupidity is valid. Your choice. But the right to compel you to put or not put substances into your body is far more intrusive.

There is a difference between choosing self harm and harming others.

Not vaccinating is in the same vein as shouting fire in a theatre. It's action can cause harm and death to innocents around you.

Young children cannot get vaccinated against whooping cough. Adults can. But if an unvaccinated adult gets whooping cough they can infect the child. Whilst in an adult whooping cough is annoying and nasty, in a child it can cause death.

So this is about other people choosing detrimental outcomes to you. It is about other people impacting on the health and safety of others.

Unvaccinated people are no different to people screaming fire in a theatre, or speeding vastly above the speed limit, or doing other dangerous activities that impact more then just themselves. In most instances these activities if done result in custodial sentences. Not immunizing is treated pretty lightly considering the harm it does to society.

[Fisherking]

There is a difference between choosing self harm and harming others.

Not vaccinating is in the same vein as shouting fire in a theatre. It's action can cause harm and death to innocents around you.

Young children cannot get vaccinated against whooping cough. Adults can. But if an unvaccinated adult gets whooping cough they can infect the child. Whilst in an adult whooping cough is annoying and nasty, in a child it can cause death.

So this is about other people choosing detrimental outcomes to you. It is about other people impacting on the health and safety of others.

Unvaccinated people are no different to people screaming fire in a theatre, or speeding vastly above the speed limit, or doing other dangerous activities that impact more then just themselves. In most instances these activities if done result in custodial sentences. Not immunizing is treated pretty lightly considering the harm it does to society.

Yours is the fallacy.

You are rationalizing a position for government intervention into the most private area of human existence. Your own body and what you can do with it.

If the government has a right to tell you what you can put into it for any reason then you are property of the government.

If they cannot then there is some degree of individual freedoms the government cannot take from you.

Which is it?

[Fisherking]

Its not that hard a concept. By choosing to take a moral stand on vaccination, you actually endanger people. That's not in dispute, is it?

No, there is risk. But it goes beyond that single risk.

It is not vaccination or any other single issue.

A right is something the government cannot take from you under any conditions what so ever.

It is not subject to the will of the government or the wellbeing of others.

Personal ownership is the foundation of all other rights. If you give up that right you have de facto given up all the others.

You can’t simply have a right sometimes and sometimes not.

[Fisherking]

This may seem like a simple no brain issue of the wellbeing of others vs. the will of a few malcontents but it is the foundation of all rights and liberties.

It is the ultimate in the battle of security vs. liberty.

Understanding that is the most important part of deciding the issue. Vaccines reduce the risk of contracting an illness but do not always work. You gain some measure of security from them but you have given up your most basic and personal right to get that security.

Is it truly worth it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't we already violate that right with prohibition of any drug? The government literally tells us what we can and can't do with our body all the time, and I don't think anyone will lament the fact that the government controls us in that that we are not allowed to inject heroin into our bodies if we so choose.

[Fisherking]

Don't we already violate that right with prohibition of any drug? The government literally tells us what we can and can't do with our body all the time, and I don't think anyone will lament the fact that the government controls us in that that we are not allowed to inject heroin into our bodies if we so choose.

Yep, same thing in a way. But the government controls the substance which is not the same. Now testing an individual for having used those drugs does infringe on that personal right. So it does have an impact.

[HoreTore]

Blinded by ideology.

This is like the stand against those evil seatbelt laws.

[Fisherking]

Blinded by ideology.

This is like the stand against those evil seatbelt laws.

Either you believe people have right or that you just have the privileges government grants you.

I know you are on the side of privilege. You are always ready to tell others what to think and how to act. You are authoritarian and don’t cover it much.

This is just for people who think that others have rights or liberties and don’t think others have the right to tell them how to live.

[Greyblades]

Good god, at this point I wouldnt be surprised if it turns out fisherking is in reality sean hannity.

[Fisherking]

Good god, at this point I wouldnt be surprised if it turns out fisherking is in reality sean hannity.

LOL

Not a chance. This is just basic political philosophy.

Should people have recognized rights the government can’t effect or should they just be managed for the wellbeing of the state.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I swear, its almost as if compulsion is the preference of a few on this board. It seems to me they lurk in waiting for issues which could be compelled on others. "Do you have a solution that could make large positive gains? If it isn't though compulsion, we don't want to hear it." It is super creepy.

[Greyblades]

I swear, its almost as if compulsion is the preference of a few on this board. It seems to me they lurk in waiting for issues which could be compelled on others. "Do you have a solution that could make large positive gains? If it isn't though compulsion, we don't want to hear it." It is super creepy.

But of course, the nature of the solutions we discuss on these forums is that they require universal and absolute cooperation, or they would fail and as the GOP have proven at every turn: if there wasnt compulsion through government action or otherwise there is a large percentage of people who refuse or actively fight against taking any action that would make large positive gains.

It doesnt help that most of the time the most vocal reasons that people refuse for are either ignorance or flimsy covers for petty or irrational concerns.

Also I would like to point out that you almost never present a solution that could make large positive gains without compulsion, merely naiive platitudes and assertations that people will allways work for thier best interests and dont need compulsion which is wrong, as has been repeatedly shown throughout history.

[ICantSpellDawg]

But of course, the nature of the solutions we discuss on these forums is that they require universal and absolute cooperation, or they would fail and as the GOP have proven at every turn: if there wasnt compulsion through government action or otherwise there is a large percentage of people who refuse or actively fight against taking any action that would make large positive gains.

It doesnt help that most of the time the most vocal reasons that people refuse for are either ignorance or flimsy covers for petty or irrational concerns.

Also I would like to point out that you almost never present a solution that could make large positive gains without compulsion, merely naiive platitudes and assertations that people will allways work for thier best interests and dont need compulsion which is wrong, as has been repeatedly shown throughout history.

I've accepted the idea of steering action through opt-out methods. Also, if a child wants the vaccination that is strongly recommended over the objections of the parents, then this should take preference over parental objection. There are ways of directing that are not through compulsion and those should always be preferable.

[Sir Moody]

honestly I worry about you two...

This isnt a Personal Freedom issue - its a decision that literally effects the Health of ALL humans.

If you are unvaccinated you are a potential epidemic waiting to happen - it affects EVERYONE you come into contact with - and anyone THEY come into contact with.

Where does Personal Freedom end? When the decision you make affects more than just you.

Just look at the History books - some of the Worlds biggest killers have been stopped in their tracks by Vaccination campaigns - do you really want us to return to a past where Measles killed millions a year? (it still kills around 100,000 a year right now...)

[Greyblades]

I've accepted the idea of steering action through opt-out methods.

As has been shown time and again, there are enough people in the world who would opt out, regardless of it being in thier interest, that they would provide a large enough breeding ground for the otherwise extinct diseases to produce a mutation that would make entire vaccination efforts moot.

Also, if a child wants the vaccination that is strongly recommended over the objections of the parents, then this should take preference over parental objection.

This relies on the child's desires. Children are universally deemed incapable of making informed decisions about sexual conduct. I see no reason to think that children should be able to make the same informed decision about vaccinations that children are incapable of making about sex.

Besides, children gain most of thier viewpoints by imitating the parents, even if we believe that a child was capable of making an unbiased choice about it; the parents influence would undeniably make them less likely to agree to vaccinations.

There are ways of directing that are not through compulsion and those should always be preferable.

Name one, in this issue for instance, that wont be screwed by 5-10% or so of the population refusing to cooperate.

[HopAlongBunny]

The mind boggles.
That rights are privileges should be clear from the bizarre enactment of the Patriot Act and the existence of the NSA; hugely expensive (and restrictive) programs that infringe on rights in all sorts of ways, largely to protect against the fantasy of Armageddon.
Vaccination is a reasonable infringement to provide real protection from a real threat.
That "It hasn't happened in my lifetime..." is testament to just how well it has worked, and is a further argument for mandatory vaccination.

[Fisherking]

It is important to ask your self, what is the role of government and where does the individual fit into it.

Is the individual a policy instrument compelled to follow government wishes and execute its wishes or is the role of government to provide the necessary security so individuals can lead their lives without too much hindrance to safety?

It is a nice situation when it is your wish for security being taken care of but what if it is you being compelled?

Can you see no situation where the best plan is to take the risk and not leave it to government power to compel?

How real is the threat? How do you know the answer? Because government tells you so! You are afraid of the risk. Because you are told you are at risk. And how strong is the protection against that risk?

Of course none of you would ever think of questioning the findings or verifying any of it. Too much trouble. Questing authority only leads to nasty difficulties. You were taught that in government schools weren’t you.

Might the real reason be hind it all be that the politicians involved are deeply invested in pharmaceuticals?

[Sir Moody]

how real is the threat?

We had a Measles epidemic in Wales last year - it is a real threat.

[Fisherking]

Right! And no one was vaccinated? We have had those vaccines since I was a kid. All my kids were required by law to have them to attend school also. I had all of them. Sure worked great.

Every year with everyone vaccinated there was a measles outbreak. Two of the three had measles, all three had rubella more than once, two had chickenpox. Two had mumps. None of them died, nor any classmates etc. I think it is a good idea for women who want to get pregnant to have those vaccines but I do question the effectiveness of them. None had small pox which has now been discontinued. We won’t go to flue vaccines that are a crap shoot from the start. But it is oh so important for government to take a role in keeping us safe. After all it is for the children.

Meantime, government has the power to compel your compliance just because they say so. It doesn’t matter if it works or if there is a benefit to it.

Do you really think they should?

[Sir Moody]

The Epidemic happened because there was a significant section of the population who were NOT immunised (which is why there was a rush on immunising with queues a mile long...)

Outbreaks will still happen (immunisation provides a resistance not immunity) however in a properly immunised community an outbreak will be tightly contained and should not become an Epidemic.

[Pannonian]

It is important to ask your self, what is the role of government and where does the individual fit into it.

Is the individual a policy instrument compelled to follow government wishes and execute its wishes or is the role of government to provide the necessary security so individuals can lead their lives without too much hindrance to safety?

It is a nice situation when it is your wish for security being taken care of but what if it is you being compelled?

Can you see no situation where the best plan is to take the risk and not leave it to government power to compel?

How real is the threat? How do you know the answer? Because government tells you so! You are afraid of the risk. Because you are told you are at risk. And how strong is the protection against that risk?

Of course none of you would ever think of questioning the findings or verifying any of it. Too much trouble. Questing authority only leads to nasty difficulties. You were taught that in government schools weren’t you.

Might the real reason be hind it all be that the politicians involved are deeply invested in pharmaceuticals?

In the most notable case where it was wrong to compel compliance with a pharmaceutical standard, it turned out that the individual holding out against said standard was actually doing her job according to the industry standard, and that it was the pharmaceutical company who were cutting corners in the cause of making money. The scientists were right and the capitalists were wrong, in other words. And similarly in every other case I know of where there has been a general consensus among the scientific community.