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

[Papewaio]

In Victorian times 40% of children died by age five. From the start of last century to its end life expectancies doubled due to medical advances.

Polio was almost wiped out by vaccination not chiropractors who are a vested group in having patients.

Whooping cough kills over 1% of children hospitalized who have got it.

The 95% figure is pure hogwash until a link is added. Making up facts does not a case make.

[Fisherking]

In Victorian times 40% of children died by age five. From the start of last century to its end life expectancies doubled due to medical advances.

Polio was almost wiped out by vaccination not chiropractors who are a vested group in having patients.

Whooping cough kills over 1% of children hospitalized who have got it.

The 95% figure is pure hogwash until a link is added. Making up facts does not a case make.

You know you misunderstand the whole premise of the argument.

It is not to discourage people from taking advantage of vaccines and protecting themselves as much as possible.

The argument is the right to chose not to and not be compelled by government to do so.

By what right do you have to dictate to the rest of the world what choices to make?

From where do you derive the authority to do so?

Statistics have little or no place in the argument. Statistically I am sure it is possible to single out a group and say they propose some risk to the rest of the population and should be excluded from the rest of the world. This, among other reasons, is what you open your self up to by dictatorial compulsion of individuals to comply against their wishes.

It really doesn’t matter how big a flakes they are or how non-mainstream their ideas are. Their rights are to be as protected as anyone else’s. If they eliminate themselves due to increased risk it is not your business.

We simply do not have a right to protect others against themselves.

[Papewaio]

Statistics from the recent Welsh measles outbreak:
"In the outbreak children who were unvaccinated had a chance of catching measles of around 1 in 18 (6,812/371), children who were partly vaccinated had a chance of catching measles of around 1 in 750 (14,219/19) and children who were fully vaccinated had a chance of catching measles of around 1 in 2,200 (68,825/31). This shows that 2 doses of MMR were over 99% effective in protecting against measles and 1 dose of MMR was over 97% effective in protecting against measles."

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/do...T%20REPORT.doc

1400 measles notifications, 88 people were hospitalized and one died.

So the 95% number is the wrong way round and even with modern medicine and fast responses in a first world country a relatively small outbreak can be fatal.

[Fisherking]

Pap, I am not anti-vaccine. What I am is pro-liberty. If a person wishes to opt out they should have the right to do so. I did not post a link because the cited material could be classed as ant-vaccine and I could not locate the cited CDC figures for verification.

But in the defense of those who would opt out, after the government assuring us that those not wishing to be vaccinated are all just crazies and all the vaccines are safe, they did pass a little piece of legislation, The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The act exempt pharmaceutical manufactures and the healthcare industry from damage claims for vaccine related conditions. Further, the FDA, CDC and vaccine makers openly state that often the number of human subjects used in pre-licensing studies are too small to detect rarer adverse events, making post-marketing surveillance of new vaccines a de facto scientific experiment. In this regard, the ethical principle of informed consent to vaccination attains even greater importance


The remedy for injury is to sue the federal government in federal court before a federal judge, and that can take years once you have received standing to sue, and after you prove your case the government then has a second court adjudicate the compensation.

Of the cases won in court two out of three still receive no compensation. But even after all of those high hurdles have been cleared there has been approximately $3 billion awarded. Obviously there is real and genuine reason for concern.

The law also is to provide parents with vaccine benefit and risk information before their children are vaccinated, but I have been unable to find any real data or analyses published by the government or anyone else other than anti-vaccine sites.

But perhaps you can do better.

If I recall correctly, when my children were vaccinated minutes before the procedure I was handed a paper about 3 inches wide and 3 and a half feet long, printed on both sides in print so fine a magnifying glass was required to read it, which may have contained that information, but not in any usable form.

If that is not enough to raise a healthy skepticism in most everyone, I don’t know what would.

[HoreTore]

Seriously, if you took a course on human right and you disagree, you must have slept through it.

It is the foundation of the rest of the document. Self ownership is the foundation of all human rights.

You do get that part, right?

Articles 1 and 2 are not 'rights'. Article 3 does not prohibit mandatory vaccination, and article 25 supports it.

The UDHR does not mean whatever you think it should mean. It means whatever the UN thinks it should mean, and the UN runs several mandatory vaccination programs.


Argue for 'liberty' all you want, but do not think the UDHR supports your position.

[Fisherking]

Articles 1 and 2 are not 'rights'. Article 3 does not prohibit mandatory vaccination, and article 25 supports it.

The UDHR does not mean whatever you think it should mean. It means whatever the UN thinks it should mean, and the UN runs several mandatory vaccination programs.


Argue for 'liberty' all you want, but do not think the UDHR supports your position.

Article 25 says healthcare is a right. Article 3 is the first right. The first two set the stage as to what a right is. If a person has a right, the government can not infringe upon it.

Therefore no where in those two Rights does it give government the latitude to require people to do as they say.

You are reading what is not there. Having a right to care doesn’t mean against ones will. This limits government. It does not extend its control over the lives and bodies of the public.


edit: When government has the ability to force compliance with medical procedures this is what you get:http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S...0#.U7P14UBRx9N

You don’t have a right sometimes and other times not. If the government can make you take a vaccine they can make you take an anal probe.

[Husar]

By what right do you have to dictate to the rest of the world what choices to make?

Choices? Which choices?

[Fisherking]

Then everyone is hard wired to either conform or not. In that case I suppose the group will eliminate the dissenters in the same way it always dose. With violence and we are nothing but violent animals that will never change. So all of you who believe that can just off your self before you do something you regret.

[HopAlongBunny]

Perhaps it is because I am a socialist Canadian; I see no problem with a compulsion where it is a matter of Public Health.
The individuals Right to be a public menace/danger to others is trumped by the public's right to be protected from known dangers.
Nor does it overcome the public cost associated with viral mutation and propagation; all the individual mandate accomplishes is endangerment and unnecessary expense.

[Papewaio]

Pap, I am not anti-vaccine. What I am is pro-liberty. If a person wishes to opt out they should have the right to do so. I did not post a link because the cited material could be classed as ant-vaccine and I could not locate the cited CDC figures for verification.

But in the defense of those who would opt out, after the government assuring us that those not wishing to be vaccinated are all just crazies and all the vaccines are safe, they did pass a little piece of legislation, The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The act exempt pharmaceutical manufactures and the healthcare industry from damage claims for vaccine related conditions. Further, the FDA, CDC and vaccine makers openly state that often the number of human subjects used in pre-licensing studies are too small to detect rarer adverse events, making post-marketing surveillance of new vaccines a de facto scientific experiment. In this regard, the ethical principle of informed consent to vaccination attains even greater importance


The remedy for injury is to sue the federal government in federal court before a federal judge, and that can take years once you have received standing to sue, and after you prove your case the government then has a second court adjudicate the compensation.

Of the cases won in court two out of three still receive no compensation. But even after all of those high hurdles have been cleared there has been approximately $3 billion awarded. Obviously there is real and genuine reason for concern.

The law also is to provide parents with vaccine benefit and risk information before their children are vaccinated, but I have been unable to find any real data or analyses published by the government or anyone else other than anti-vaccine sites.

But perhaps you can do better.

If I recall correctly, when my children were vaccinated minutes before the procedure I was handed a paper about 3 inches wide and 3 and a half feet long, printed on both sides in print so fine a magnifying glass was required to read it, which may have contained that information, but not in any usable form.

If that is not enough to raise a healthy skepticism in most everyone, I don’t know what would.

I have a healthy skepticism and I also do not believe in absolute solutions. I do believe vaccines will improve over time.

But to me vaccines are not just an individuals health it is community health.

I'm not pro people's choice to the put they endanger the community. That applies both to people born and incorporated.

At least in Aus scheduled vaccines are free. Most companies will pay for flu shots (I don't bother with those)

[Fisherking]

I have a healthy skepticism and I also do not believe in absolute solutions. I do believe vaccines will improve over time.

But to me vaccines are not just an individuals health it is community health.

I'm not pro people's choice to the put they endanger the community. That applies both to people born and incorporated.

At least in Aus scheduled vaccines are free. Most companies will pay for flu shots (I don't bother with those)

Oh yes, I am sure you are right. Individual human rights are bad for the group. We should work for the greater good of all humanity and eliminate those dissenting voices. We must take to heart those lessons given us by the governments who championed this ethic and their great leaders; Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and others.

Oh my, on second thought you can travel with that crew but I don’t choose to.

The forced compliance of such mandates is not the hallmark of a free people or a government that represents them.

It may suite you to live in an authoritarian state where the government tells you what is best and what to believe but I will fight against it as long as I can.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh yes, I am sure you are right. Individual human rights are bad for the group. We should work for the greater good of all humanity and eliminate those dissenting voices. We must take to heart those lessons given us by the governments who championed this ethic and their great leaders; Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and others.

Oh my, on second thought you can travel with that crew but I don’t choose to.

The forced compliance of such mandates is not the hallmark of a free people or a government that represents them.

It may suite you to live in an authoritarian state where the government tells you what is best and what to believe but I will fight against it as long as I can.

The original proposition was that unvaccinated children should not be allowed to attend State Schools.

To understand why - consider the following case of two mothers in a City in the US, let's say NYC.

Mother #1 has three children aged 10, 6, and six months. The two older children have had the MMR, the youngest will hav it as soon as she is old enough.

Mother #2 has two children aged 8 and 10, she doesn't believe in vaccinations, so they haven't had the MMR.

The two 10-year olds are friends, Mother #2's child contracts Measles, and invites Mother #1's child around to play after school - at this point he is a-symptomatic. When Mother #1 comes to pick the child up later she brings the baby, and she has now been exposed to the virus. The 6-moth-old baby contracts Measles and ends up hospitalised.

Best case scenario now is that Mother #1 gets hit with hospital bills because America lacks a modern healthcare system, worst case scenario the child develops acute Measles and dies.

Now - take a Look at the CDC report for 2008:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm

"Washington. On April 28, 2008, the Washington State Department of Health received a report of several suspected measles cases in a Grant County household. The index patient had rash onset on April 12. During April 18--21, the other seven children in the household became ill with fever and rash. Three of the children developed pneumonia and were evaluated by a health-care provider who suspected measles; all three tested positive for measles-specific IgM antibody. Rash onset occurred during April 13--May 30 in 11 additional cases identified in Grant County. All of the 19 cases were linked epidemiologically, and all but one occurred in children and adolescents aged 9 months to 18 years. The 19 cases included 16 in school-aged children, among whom 11 were home schooled. Because of their parents' philosophical or religious beliefs, none of the 16 children had received measles-containing vaccine. Specimens from eight patients were submitted for virologic testing, and all contained genotype D5, which had been circulating in Japan and parts of Europe. A possible source of the outbreak was a church conference, held March 25--29 in King County, Washington, that was attended by four of the patients, including the index patient. The conference was attended by approximately 3,000 persons, primarily students from junior high through university age from 18 states, DC, and several foreign countries. None of these countries or states has since reported confirmed cases of measles among persons who attended this conference."

[HoreTore]

Article 25 says healthcare is a right. Article 3 is the first right. The first two set the stage as to what a right is. If a person has a right, the government can not infringe upon it.

Therefore no where in those two Rights does it give government the latitude to require people to do as they say.

They certainly give the government the power to order parents. The UDHR mandates education for all, and so states are bound to mandate education regardless of the parents wishes. The same applies to healthcare, it is the governments responsibility to ensure healthcare for all, regardless of the parents wishes. The government has, according to the UDHR, the explicit responsibility to provide healthcare for children. Note that the article on education includes a note on parents' choice; the healthcare one does not.

Children's rights are further developed in their own convention, the convention on the rights of the child. Now, what does this one state? It states clearly that the government should ensure that children develop healthily. It's not "parents", and it's not "provide". It's the government's responsibility, and they should ensure it. Clarly, if a given vaccine is deemed necessary for the health of a child, it is the governments responsibility to ensure that the child recieves it. Parents have no authority to challenge the human rights of their children.

Feel free to argue for your version of liberty all you want, but refrain from bringing up the UDHR. It does not support your views, and it has an interpretation of liberty which differs from yours. The UN sees national governments, with the UN as arbiter, as the providers of the freedoms listed in the UDHR.

[Pannonian]

The original proposition was that unvaccinated children should not be allowed to attend State Schools.

To understand why - consider the following case of two mothers in a City in the US, let's say NYC.

Mother #1 has three children aged 10, 6, and six months. The two older children have had the MMR, the youngest will hav it as soon as she is old enough.

Mother #2 has two children aged 8 and 10, she doesn't believe in vaccinations, so they haven't had the MMR.

The two 10-year olds are friends, Mother #2's child contracts Measles, and invites Mother #1's child around to play after school - at this point he is a-symptomatic. When Mother #1 comes to pick the child up later she brings the baby, and she has now been exposed to the virus. The 6-moth-old baby contracts Measles and ends up hospitalised.

Best case scenario now is that Mother #1 gets hit with hospital bills because America lacks a modern healthcare system, worst case scenario the child develops acute Measles and dies.

Now - take a Look at the CDC report for 2008:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm

"Washington. On April 28, 2008, the Washington State Department of Health received a report of several suspected measles cases in a Grant County household. The index patient had rash onset on April 12. During April 18--21, the other seven children in the household became ill with fever and rash. Three of the children developed pneumonia and were evaluated by a health-care provider who suspected measles; all three tested positive for measles-specific IgM antibody. Rash onset occurred during April 13--May 30 in 11 additional cases identified in Grant County. All of the 19 cases were linked epidemiologically, and all but one occurred in children and adolescents aged 9 months to 18 years. The 19 cases included 16 in school-aged children, among whom 11 were home schooled. Because of their parents' philosophical or religious beliefs, none of the 16 children had received measles-containing vaccine. Specimens from eight patients were submitted for virologic testing, and all contained genotype D5, which had been circulating in Japan and parts of Europe. A possible source of the outbreak was a church conference, held March 25--29 in King County, Washington, that was attended by four of the patients, including the index patient. The conference was attended by approximately 3,000 persons, primarily students from junior high through university age from 18 states, DC, and several foreign countries. None of these countries or states has since reported confirmed cases of measles among persons who attended this conference."

I don't understand. Why do these viruses continue transmitting by taking advantage of people's belief in liberty and the right to choose? Do micro-organisms hate freedom?

[Fisherking]

They certainly give the government the power to order parents. The UDHR mandates education for all, and so states are bound to mandate education regardless of the parents wishes. The same applies to healthcare, it is the governments responsibility to ensure healthcare for all, regardless of the parents wishes. The government has, according to the UDHR, the explicit responsibility to provide healthcare for children. Note that the article on education includes a note on parents' choice; the healthcare one does not.

Children's rights are further developed in their own convention, the convention on the rights of the child. Now, what does this one state? It states clearly that the government should ensure that children develop healthily. It's not "parents", and it's not "provide". It's the government's responsibility, and they should ensure it. Clarly, if a given vaccine is deemed necessary for the health of a child, it is the governments responsibility to ensure that the child recieves it. Parents have no authority to challenge the human rights of their children.

Feel free to argue for your version of liberty all you want, but refrain from bringing up the UDHR. It does not support your views, and it has an interpretation of liberty which differs from yours. The UN sees national governments, with the UN as arbiter, as the providers of the freedoms listed in the UDHR.

Maybe it is a basic misunderstanding as to what a Right is. Rights are outside government control. It is endowed to you by your basic humanity. Government can not take away or regulate rights. They may only assure that they do not violate them and see that services are available. Therefore a right to health care does not mean the government has a say in what procedures you choose or decline. Just like a right to education does not mean every child must be indoctrinated in a government school to a particular political ideology. Some may choose alternatives.

If the government offers health care and a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is not the same as government forced abortion or sterilization programs. But by your definition those are only extensions of healthcare.

.

[Fisherking]

The original proposition was that unvaccinated children should not be allowed to attend State Schools.

To understand why - consider the following case of two mothers in a City in the US, let's say NYC.

Mother #1 has three children aged 10, 6, and six months. The two older children have had the MMR, the youngest will hav it as soon as she is old enough.

Mother #2 has two children aged 8 and 10, she doesn't believe in vaccinations, so they haven't had the MMR.

The two 10-year olds are friends, Mother #2's child contracts Measles, and invites Mother #1's child around to play after school - at this point he is a-symptomatic. When Mother #1 comes to pick the child up later she brings the baby, and she has now been exposed to the virus. The 6-moth-old baby contracts Measles and ends up hospitalised.

Best case scenario now is that Mother #1 gets hit with hospital bills because America lacks a modern healthcare system, worst case scenario the child develops acute Measles and dies.

Now - take a Look at the CDC report for 2008:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm

"Washington. On April 28, 2008, the Washington State Department of Health received a report of several suspected measles cases in a Grant County household. The index patient had rash onset on April 12. During April 18--21, the other seven children in the household became ill with fever and rash. Three of the children developed pneumonia and were evaluated by a health-care provider who suspected measles; all three tested positive for measles-specific IgM antibody. Rash onset occurred during April 13--May 30 in 11 additional cases identified in Grant County. All of the 19 cases were linked epidemiologically, and all but one occurred in children and adolescents aged 9 months to 18 years. The 19 cases included 16 in school-aged children, among whom 11 were home schooled. Because of their parents' philosophical or religious beliefs, none of the 16 children had received measles-containing vaccine. Specimens from eight patients were submitted for virologic testing, and all contained genotype D5, which had been circulating in Japan and parts of Europe. A possible source of the outbreak was a church conference, held March 25--29 in King County, Washington, that was attended by four of the patients, including the index patient. The conference was attended by approximately 3,000 persons, primarily students from junior high through university age from 18 states, DC, and several foreign countries. None of these countries or states has since reported confirmed cases of measles among persons who attended this conference."

I have never said society has no recourse. Quarantine or exclusion are reasonable. There are alternatives or alternatives can be provided.

I don't understand. Why do these viruses continue transmitting by taking advantage of people's belief in liberty and the right to choose? Do micro-organisms hate freedom?

Talk to Monty, they have no free will, they had to do it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe it is a basic misunderstanding as to what a Right is. Rights are outside government control. It is endowed to you by your basic humanity. Government can not take away or regulate rights.

This interpretation of "Rights" appeals to the concept of "Natural Law" as developed by Thomas Aquinas from rational Muslim thought (yeah, I'm serious) and while it's a valid argument it can't be applied to the situation in the majority of the developed world, including the United States, because it is incompatible with a "secular" Constitution.

What HoreTore is referring to is the "Social Contract" whereby the citizens of the State agree to be regulated by the state - something with only works when you live in a democracy.

They may only assure that they do not violate them and see that services are available. Therefore a right to health care does not mean the government has a say in what procedures you choose or decline. Just like a right to education does not mean every child must be indoctrinated in a government school to a particular political ideology. Some may choose alternatives.

If the government offers health care and a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is not the same as government forced abortion or sterilization programs. But by your definition those are only extensions of healthcare.

This is a debatable point - it hinges on your definition of "healthcare". I would argue that abortions and family planning are exempt because, fundamentally, being pregnant is not an illness.

I have never said society has no recourse. Quarantine or exclusion are reasonable. There are alternatives or alternatives can be provided.

OK - so you quarantine the child once he develops symptoms - that's after he's already infectious. Note the real-life case I posted. By the time patient Zero was suspected of having Measles they had already infected their siblings.

Vaccinating the older children prevents they babies from being infected - fact. Failure to vaccinate has been shown to result in the virus spreading to children too young to vaccinate - also a fact - see the CDC report.

By allowing unvaccinated children to congregate in a government-owned institution the government is promoting the spread of infectious diseases which are fatal or debilitating in infants. It is therefore reasonable to mandate uptake of vaccinations as a prerequisite of attendance at said institution. Conversely, it is the responsibility to provide universal access, without cost, to these vaccinations.

[Fisherking]

Actually natural rights go back at least to ancient Greece. It was a stream in English thought and philosophy and it gained more religious backing through Thomas Aquinas and others until the 19th century.

But the hard question is, do you want and trust the government to be able to use force when they deem a medical procedure is required?

Remember once the government has a power they are the ones who decide who what when and how. It needn’t have anything at all to do with vaccines or life saving procedures.

Obviously you also missed the part about incomplete trials which basically use the public as their lab rats.

It is also one thing to put faith in science and another to put faith in pharmaceutical corporations exempt from liabilities for their products.

[HoreTore]

Maybe it is a basic misunderstanding as to what a Right is.

If you intend to use the UDHR to support your position, you must also follow its definition of what a right is. Needless to say, you do not have the same understanding of what a right is.

Therefore, I have asked you not to bring up the UDHR, as it does not support your claims.

[HoreTore]

As to government being able to force you leading to authoritarian regimes...

My own government took away my freedom of movement, my freedom of employment and my freedom of expression for 11 months and 8 days. I had done no wrong, aside from being born in this country. They forced me, under threat of jail, to move from my home and into a six-man room hundreds of miles away. They dictated when I got up in the morning, what clothes I wore, and what type of food I ate. I was given some time of my own, but it was always at the whims of the government; they could take it away as they pleased, without any justification or prior warning. I had to do whatever job the government told me to do, no matter how I felt about it. Work hours ranged from 6 to 24. Refusal meant withdrawal of benefits, fines or ultimately jail. Sometimes, they decided not to give me any food or sleep at all, while working for days on end.


Aside from it all being extremely boring, I can't see that it hurt me much. And Norway still isn't a totalitarian dictatorship....

I don't think we'll become one with mandatory vaccination programs either.

[Papewaio]

Oh yes, I am sure you are right. Individual human rights are bad for the group. We should work for the greater good of all humanity and eliminate those dissenting voices. We must take to heart those lessons given us by the governments who championed this ethic and their great leaders; Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and others.

Oh my, on second thought you can travel with that crew but I don’t choose to.

The forced compliance of such mandates is not the hallmark of a free people or a government that represents them.

It may suite you to live in an authoritarian state where the government tells you what is best and what to believe but I will fight against it as long as I can.

Yes Australia is an authoritarian state you finally found out our dirty little secret.

For AU:
The federal government isn't mandating vaccines. It gives people free access to them.

What the state government schools and independent schools don't want to be is liable for spreading preventable diseases. So they mandate that to attend you need to have your vaccination schedule up to date.

As a lot of school children have younger sibilings to young to get injections it seems a sensible precaution when schools act as incubators to all sorts of illnesses. For instance hear in NSW the public school teachers get twenty paid sick days per annum because of the amount of bugs they get from the children. A more macroscopic version is the spread of nits and lice. Not all parents provide equal care to their children, but communicable diseases and pestilence don't care once they get kids sitting in a warm humid room shoulder to shoulder.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But the hard question is, do you want and trust the government to be able to use force when they deem a medical procedure is required?

Do you want and trust soccer moms to be able to stop the spread of measles, yellow fever and polio in between their daily session of Dr. Oz and crossfit?

[Ironside]

Do you want and trust soccer moms to be able to stop the spread of measles, yellow fever and polio in between their daily session of Dr. Oz and crossfit?

Maybe. The school work the child will miss in that case is massive though. They have to stay home for a long time every time you got a patient zero to prevent epidemics. And if there's an epidemic, the home stay will be longer.

Having contact with friends during this time? Big nono.

Quarantine sucks. It works, but it sucks.

[Fisherking]

You know, I would be perfectly happy if you all could surrender your rights without it impacting me.

You love it when government cares for you so much.

Forced vaccinations, The War on Terror, The War on Drugs, and other things done in your name are all just fine. Taking the rights of others for the greater good is fine and dandy.

Rights are distant and never anything you concern your self with. Rights are for other people to worry about. You never use them anyway.

Well, rights are something you don’t miss until you don’t have them. And by the way, then it is too late.

The level of your wisdom and comprehension is just beyond belief.

I am sure you will take that as a compliment.

[Pannonian]

You know, I would be perfectly happy if you all could surrender your rights without it impacting me.

You love it when government cares for you so much.

Forced vaccinations, The War on Terror, The War on Drugs, and other things done in your name are all just fine. Taking the rights of others for the greater good is fine and dandy.

Rights are distant and never anything you concern your self with. Rights are for other people to worry about. You never use them anyway.

Well, rights are something you don’t miss until you don’t have them. And by the way, then it is too late.

The level of your wisdom and comprehension is just beyond belief.

I am sure you will take that as a compliment.

What if others demand the right for their children not to be exposed to unvaccinated children? Which right prevails? As PVC has illustrated, this isn't a theoretical right from argument, but one which has real life applications and examples.

[Fisherking]

What if others demand the right for their children not to be exposed to unvaccinated children? Which right prevails? As PVC has illustrated, this isn't a theoretical right from argument, but one which has real life applications and examples.

What if I demand the right to your property? I can show a plan by which I can make better use of it and provide more benefit to the community. Should that entitle me to it? It is all for the betterment of the group you understand.

There is not right to be free of risks. This is what the public is demanding. There is also no right to force another to do your will.

The taking of rights are always cited for a good reason. But once taken government sees no reason to limit what it can do.

However, the issue is reason for concern which require compromise. There must be a balance and alternatives to forced compliance.

[HoreTore]

What if I demand the right to your property? I can show a plan by which I can make better use of it and provide more benefit to the community. Should that entitle me to it? It is all for the betterment of the group you understand.

There is not right to be free of risks. This is what the public is demanding. There is also no right to force another to do your will.

The taking of rights are always cited for a good reason. But once taken government sees no reason to limit what it can do.

However, the issue is reason for concern which require compromise. There must be a balance and alternatives to forced compliance.

Do you disagree with mandatory education?

[Kadagar_AV]

What if others demand the right for their children not to be exposed to unvaccinated children? Which right prevails? As PVC has illustrated, this isn't a theoretical right from argument, but one which has real life applications and examples.

Easy, unvaccinated kids could be marked as such. Possibly with a yellow star or something

This debate is about public schools... If you don't want your kids to hang out with unvaccinated kids, send them to public school. If you don't mind them being around unvaccinated kids, send them to private christian schools.

I don't see the issue?

[Pannonian]

What if I demand the right to your property? I can show a plan by which I can make better use of it and provide more benefit to the community. Should that entitle me to it? It is all for the betterment of the group you understand.

There is not right to be free of risks. This is what the public is demanding. There is also no right to force another to do your will.

The taking of rights are always cited for a good reason. But once taken government sees no reason to limit what it can do.

However, the issue is reason for concern which require compromise. There must be a balance and alternatives to forced compliance.

I see it as something akin to a deadlier version of playing horrendously loud music at ungodly hours. You're not allowed to play music at innard-shaking volumes at 1 in the morning, as it's disturbing your neighbours, and you do not have sole ownership of the area affected by your music. But loud music doesn't threaten life. Sending your unvaccinated kid, because you don't believe in vaccinations, into a school where there are other kids who are too young to be vaccinated, does threaten the lives of those other kids. You're not just making the choice for your kid, you're making the choice for those other kids too, at a stage when they're most vulnerable to the choice you're making. What gives you the right to make the choice for them?

[HoreTore]

What? Although you are able to be vaccinated, thus reducing the likelihood that you will not contract disease x - the decision of another not to get vaccinated is the equivalent of FORCING you not to get vaccinated?

No, the children of parents who does not want vaccination are not able to get vaccinated.

Once again, I am talking of children while you are trying to build the strawman that we are talking about adults...