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

[Montmorency]

"Enforce random things"? Like criminalization of murder?

[Kadagar_AV]

"Enforce random things"? Like criminalization of murder?

Oh come on... You know that that isn't what I mean, as well as you know that that's another issue completely. I think you will find more or less 100% support for criminalization of murder. No? Let's keep the debate in the sensible sphere, shall we?

[Montmorency]

I think you will find more or less 100% support for criminalization of murder.

And?

Let's keep the debate in the sensible sphere, shall we?

Wow.

[Kadagar_AV]

And?

Lemon.

Wow.

Lamp.


Why are we doing random words all of a sudden? Use your words...

[Kadagar_AV]

Think of it like this: Every unvaccinated person is potentially a breeding ground for diseases that otherwise would have been eradicated. Every preventable death from diseases like Measles, or Mumps, or Polio, or Whooping Cough, or whatever that could have been prevented by enforced vaccination is a death that supports equating it with murder, in the public health sense (though obviously not the legal sense. Obviously).

Hey, I have never said people can't make the WRONG choice.

I am saying that the wrong choice might be the right choice, in those weird instances when modern science and politicians simply are in the wrong. In the long run.

Let's allow those people to be around, for the better of humanity at large.

If we all were the same, a virus could easily wipe us out.

If some people go off the expected path, we as a race have a chance to survive.

I for one celebrate diversity, and I think diversity is the best way forward. Someone mentioned something along "the 10th view", if 9 people agree on something the tenth should do everything and anything to prove them wrong, and plan thereafter.

Government might be right in 99,99999999999 of the cases... But it only takes one mistake towards nature to **** us up completely. Pretty damn good in those situations to have people around with tin foil hats, or whatever.

And as we all know, nature is a pretty damn powerful force. I for one try not to mess around with it too much.

[Kadagar_AV]

Its not the un-vaccinated people that I worry about, its everyone else. One person with the wrong virus and no vaccinations, mixed with a fortuitous bit of viral evolution within our lone and un-vaccinated hero, could spark a pandemic (though highly unlikely). slightly more likely is the possibility that our lone anti-vaxxer spawns a slightly upgraded virus that kills or harms a few people, because their vaccinations are out of date--thanks to home-slice and his anti-vaxxing beliefs. This is why it is a public health issue: because its not protecting one person's right to be stupid, its protecting everyone else from that person's right to be stupid.

Well...

First of all I think we are both out on thin ice here... I am no medical expert.

But from what I have understood, nature has a way to bypass or go around whatever shields we put up.

I don't know about other countries, but Sweden try their best to not give anti-whatever stuff (unless REALLY needed)... Just because the more you give the more nature finds a way around it.

Until our scientists are more comfortable in battling viruses and bacteria and stuff, I would be hesitant to pick a fight with nature at large.

I think Swedens principle is right. If anyone can source why it wouldn't be though, I am eager to listen.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well you're right about being on thin ice. I don't know much about medical science beyond what you would consider common knowledge (like the differences between Viruses and Bacteria, and perhaps more importantly the differences between how one or the other becomes immune to what we're putting out there). There's surely merit to the idea that ignoring nature's ebbs and flows is a recipe for disaster, however what you're talking about is almost certainly anti-biotics, not vaccinations. Very different.

Good post :)

Bacteria of course don't act in the same way as viruses, and my previous point was directed towards the latter. Brain slip of mine, I attest.

Remember the thing I said about working on it

However:

1. I heard you should treat bacteria with some respect regardless... Not because of immunity, but because work-arounds. It's on the same evolvement cycle as we are (but granted not on the scale of viruses). Did I get this wrong?

2. This has absolutely nothing to do with my main point, that we barely know what what we are doing around these key issues, and it would be unwise to put all eggs in one basket...

My points is "all eggs in one basket being unwise"... Do you think that perspective is wrong?

[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]

Hey, I have never said people can't make the WRONG choice.

I am saying that the wrong choice might be the right choice, in those weird instances when modern science and politicians simply are in the wrong. In the long run.

Let's allow those people to be around, for the better of humanity at large.

If we all were the same, a virus could easily wipe us out.

If some people go off the expected path, we as a race have a chance to survive.

I for one celebrate diversity, and I think diversity is the best way forward. Someone mentioned something along "the 10th view", if 9 people agree on something the tenth should do everything and anything to prove them wrong, and plan thereafter.

Government might be right in 99,99999999999 of the cases... But it only takes one mistake towards nature to **** us up completely. Pretty damn good in those situations to have people around with tin foil hats, or whatever.

And as we all know, nature is a pretty damn powerful force. I for one try not to mess around with it too much.

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.

[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 :)

[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.