A Nanny state question on vaccinations.

[Moonbeam]

Should the state require children to be vaccinated?

The imbecility of irrational fear, actually unconscious self hate, but never mind that for now, has led many fearful and scientifically illiterate parents to opt not to have their children vaccinated against major childhood killers, whooping cough, for example, which is now epidemic in California and with the result that a number of children have died from it.

The issue is this. Children are protected from deadly disease where there is herd immunity to that disease, when the population is vaccinated against it in high percentage, because few carry the disease to infect them. When folk do opt out for some imagined safety to their own kids, and selfishly rely on others taking that risk to protect their own kids, they create a danger to this herd immunity protectiveness.

Should the irrational have a right not to vaccinate their kids and put them at risk contrary to all scientific fact, or should vaccination be mandatory?

 

[dainthomas]

I would say let the stupid people croak, but for two reasons. It puts even those who get vaccinated at risk. Also, the children aren't making the choice, it's the crackpot parents putting them at unnecessary risk.

 

[MovingTarget]

Yes. Vaccines aren't 100% effective for those that get them. Without state mandate, herd immunity to disease is difficult if not impossible to achieve.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would say let the stupid people croak, but for two reasons. It puts even those who get vaccinated at risk. Also, the children aren't making the choice, it's the crackpot parents putting them at unnecessary risk.

Wat? This reads crazy to me.

 

[Munky]

You put too much faith in the "factual" validity of vaccinations. While many are beneficial, I would not subject myself to anything just because the govt and drug companies say it's good for me. And nanny state is not acceptable by any means.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Wat? This reads crazy to me.

"But for" = "except for" in his usage, i.e. he reluctantly agrees with vaccination since not doing so puts others at risk and because children are not choosing this.

That's my feeling as well. Not vaccinating is similar to refusing to treat your child's broken arm because you have faith that Odin will heal it if you pray and sacrifice a goat.

 

[bamacre]

Pharmaceutical companies answer, "yes, absolutely."

 

[boomerang]

Wat? This reads crazy to me.

I always got the impression you spoke crazy fluently.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Pharmaceutical companies answer, "yes, absolutely."

Yep, and also the answer for advocates of more and more gov't control. Obviously the gov't knows best so you must conform... You must go to gov't school, and to enroll you must... and then you must... and must...

 

[cubby1223]

Should the irrational...

Oh no, you're not biased at all in your opinions.

I do not believe forced vaccinations will make this country a better place to live. There are pros and cons all around to all positions, and I do not believe the pros of forced vaccinations out-weigh the cons.

 

[Daverino]

You put too much faith in the "factual" validity of vaccinations. While many are beneficial, I would not subject myself to anything just because the govt and drug companies say it's good for me. And nanny state is not acceptable by any means.

Here's a "factual" graph to wrap your head around:

After the introduction of the measles vaccine in American the annual rate of occurrence dropped from 400,000 to 600,000 cases a year to under 100. Not getting your child immunized is the moral equivalent of letting them play with a loaded handgun.

 

[cubby1223]

"But for" = "except for" in his usage, i.e. he reluctantly agrees with vaccination since not doing so puts others at risk and because children are not choosing this.

That's my feeling as well. Not vaccinating is similar to refusing to treat your child's broken arm because you have faith that Odin will heal it if you pray and sacrifice a goat.

What are you going to do to solve all of the world's problems? Will the government assume custody of all children and raise them according to the specific letter of congressional legislation until they are 18 years old?

 

[cubby1223]

Here's a "factual" graph to wrap your head around:

After the introduction of the measles vaccine in American the annual rate of occurrence dropped from 400,000 to 600,000 cases a year to under 100. Not getting your child immunized is the moral equivalent of letting them play with a loaded handgun.

So what? Show that graph to a parent, and let the parent make the decision, not you.

You can come up with all the analogies you want, you will still be wrong in your overall position.

 

[bamacre]

What are you going to do to solve all of the world's problems? Will the government assume custody of all children and raise them according to the specific letter of congressional legislation until they are 18 years old?

I think it's a great idea. Then in 40 years, we can produce a graph showing child obesity rates decreasing by 95%, and we can conclude that government forcing children to run 3 miles a day and live on a federally mandated diet proved to be a huge success.

 

[Daverino]

What are you going to do to solve all of the world's problems? Will the government assume custody of all children and raise them according to the specific letter of congressional legislation until they are 18 years old?

That's not an argument, that's hyperbole. The government is perfectly in its right to stop you from driving 150 mph at night without your lights on in a residential area. Why? Because it's stupid and it puts a lot of people in danger of your stupidity. For the same reason, the government is perfectly right to keep your virus addled kids out of public schools where they could get everyone else's kids sick with a fatal disease.

I have yet to meet someone arguing against vaccinations that wasn't themselves vaccinated as a child.

 

[Genx87]

That's not an argument, that's hyperbole. The government is perfectly in its right to stop you from driving 150 mph at night without your lights on in a residential area. Why? Because it's stupid and it puts a lot of people in danger of your stupidity. For the same reason, the government is perfectly right to keep your virus addled kids out of public schools where they could get everyone else's kids sick with a fatal disease.

I have yet to meet someone arguing against vaccinations that wasn't themselves vaccinated as a child.

Wouldnt the only kids that would be infected be the ones who werent vaccinated?

 

[Daverino]

So what? Show that graph to a parent, and let the parent make the decision, not you.

You can come up with all the analogies you want, you will still be wrong in your overall position.

No. If the parent cannot understand the implications of not getting their child vaccinated and puts their child AND my children at risk for a fatal disease, they should have their kids put into productive custody.

 

[CitizenKain]

Vaccinations are not a parents decision if they will affect any other person. If you want to martyr your kid because you can't comprehend vaccinations, keep your kids away from others.

 

[shira]

You put too much faith in the "factual" validity of vaccinations. While many are beneficial, I would not subject myself to anything just because the govt and drug companies say it's good for me. And nanny state is not acceptable by any means.

Yes, but:

If your actions endanger the well-being of others, does the state have the right to force you to change your actions (in this case, force you to stop refusing vaccinations)?

Analogies:

The state can force you to put fencing of at least a specified minimum height around your swimming pool, since swimming pools are an "attractive hazard" that can endanger the lives of children.

The health department can temporarily restrict your liberty by forcing you into quarantine if you have a highly-contagious, highly-dangerous disease.

 

[Moonbeam]

"But for" = "except for" in his usage, i.e. he reluctantly agrees with vaccination since not doing so puts others at risk and because children are not choosing this.

That's my feeling as well. Not vaccinating is similar to refusing to treat your child's broken arm because you have faith that Odin will heal it if you pray and sacrifice a goat.

I know what but for means. I think its irresponsible to suggest that stupid folk should be allowed to kill themselves with their own stupidity, no other negative down side in sight. You don't just stand there and let a person jump off a bridge. It's not good for your self respect.

 

[Munky]

Here's a "factual" graph to wrap your head around:


After the introduction of the measles vaccine in American the annual rate of occurrence dropped from 400,000 to 600,000 cases a year to under 100.

It's only factual in regard to measles. Extrapolation and generalization aren't gonna cure any diseases.

Not getting your child immunized is the moral equivalent of letting them play with a loaded handgun.

Sensationalist propaganda. The drug companies outta hire you as a spokesperson.

 

[Munky]

Yes, but:

If your actions endanger the well-being of others, does the state have the right to force you to change your actions (in this case, force you to stop refusing vaccinations)?

Analogies:

The state can force you to put fencing of at least a specified minimum height around your swimming pool, since swimming pools are an "attractive hazard" that can endanger the lives of children.

The health department can temporarily restrict your liberty by forcing you into quarantine if you have a highly-contagious, highly-dangerous disease.

Think about this: If you got vaccinated, but it did not protect you against getting sick, did the vaccine work or not?

 

[Amused]

Vaccines should not be mandated by law.

However, social pressure can and should include: Daycares not accepting unvaccinated children. Hospitals refusing to treat unvaccinated children. School refusing to educate unvaccinated children. Parents refusing to allow their children to associate with unvaccinated children. And so on.

Also, REAL education campaigns on vaccinations and a REAL response to the anti-vaccination crowds/hysteria.

You CAN change things wthout mandating them by law. Just as with drug addiction, your BEST and first choice should be education, NOT force of law.

 

[Daverino]

Wouldnt the only kids that would be infected be the ones who werent vaccinated?

No. Vaccination success is dependent on both a percentage of the population being vaccinated and a low prevalence of the virus. Even if you are vaccinated against a disease, if your exposure is increased you have an increased risk. Furthermore, increasing the population of virus carriers increases the likelihood that the virus will mutant into a strain resistant to the vaccine.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yep, and also the answer for advocates of more and more gov't control. Obviously the gov't knows best so you must conform... You must go to gov't school, and to enroll you must... and then you must... and must...

Sadly, you are an ideological jackass who can't think. The question is not about some maniac government controlling the people in some mad cap diabolical scheme, it is whether the government should mandate the vaccination of children because science can prove the protective nature of herd immunity.

Do we do as a society what we know scientifically will protect children from childhood killers, or do we allow parents to make irrational decisions our of scientifically illiterate positions, because of irrational fears. Do you get to be stupid and not vaccinate your kids and kill them and your neighbors?