And we take a step back - measles return

[nehalem256]

Of course there was never any doubt that authoritarian elitists who think the government should control any and all aspects of your life (hello eskimospy!) would have no problem forcing others to do what they want them to do at gunpoint. Hey, gotta sacrifice your freedom at the altar of big government right?

The sane among us however want people to make the right choice through education instead of government force and mandates.

Unless we are talking about pregnant teenagers. Because their freedom is sacrosanct.

In that case leftist authoritarians like eskimo will be at the front of the line to protect their freedoms.

 

[momeNt]

Wait, what?

Whooping cough is both highly contagious and frequently transmitted to children by individuals who don't even know they have the disease, due to a long incubation period. Measles is similarly believed to be contagious during asymptomatic periods.

To prevent infection a responsible parent will neither allow their child to go outside until they are two, nor will they allow anyone who has been outside to come in contact with their baby as there is no way of knowing who is infected and who isn't. All food will be irradiated before coming through the vacuum sealed tube to their room.

Thank god for freedom.

Well some of your response is exaggerated. I suppose the exaggeration is just as large as anti-mandate proponents claiming that the government will be busting down doors, killing parents who resist, and injecting babies at gunpoint with the vaccine.

I'd have never thought somebody would turn freedom into a boogeyman. Congratulations on reaching a new liberal low!

BTW your answer was wrong. A responsible parent would vote for vaccination mandates and campaign for their neighbors to do so also, so their child could have the freedom to go outside. Progressive freedom! Progressives aren't destroying our freedoms, they are helping us redefine what freedom means. If you don't resist the vaccination gestapo won't break your door down, just keep it unlatched to allow your fellow civil servant access to your home and children.

I think we can just leave it be. It's probably impossible to find a school that doesn't require MMR vaccinations. Which leaves the only way to avoid the vaccine past 5-6 as home-schooling or raising an illiterate child. Infant to infant contractions is probably extraordinarily low. So we are wanting to create a whole new section of government for vaccine enforcement? That seems wasteful. Government and tax dollars are essentially limited resources, those resources are probably serve society better if spent elsewhere.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course there was never any doubt that authoritarian elitists who think the government should control any and all aspects of your life (hello eskimospy!) would have no problem forcing others to do what they want them to do at gunpoint. Hey, gotta sacrifice your freedom at the altar of big government right?

The sane among us however want people to make the right choice through education instead of government force and mandates.

Before I respond to your post I ask for clarification. To what do you object? Is it mandatory vaccination or authoritarian views?

I do not see them as the same.

 

[xBiffx]

Sarcasm meter lied again

This is one of those topics where inconsistencies are expected and so things may lead me astray.

For example one here argues for health care being a right then argues against one of the safest and effective means to deliver it. In essence he wants it yet proposes it be denied those most helpless. No additional program, no doubt as to efficacy. No upheaval. Not poorly thought out and the consequences for good and ill are established. It's care in true form at a basic level. Doesn't add up as I look at it.

Yeah, I guess I was playing too close to an actual believable argument. Which is now more obvious. Thanks for that.

 

[fskimospy]

Well some of your response is exaggerated. I suppose the exaggeration is just as large as anti-mandate proponents claiming that the government will be busting down doors, killing parents who resist, and injecting babies at gunpoint with the vaccine.

I'd have never thought somebody would turn freedom into a boogeyman. Congratulations on reaching a new liberal low!

BTW your answer was wrong. A responsible parent would vote for vaccination mandates and campaign for their neighbors to do so also, so their child could have the freedom to go outside. Progressive freedom! Progressives aren't destroying our freedoms, they are helping us redefine what freedom means. If you don't resist the vaccination gestapo won't break your door down, just keep it unlatched to allow your fellow civil servant access to your home and children.

I think we can just leave it be. It's probably impossible to find a school that doesn't require MMR vaccinations. Which leaves the only way to avoid the vaccine past 5-6 as home-schooling or raising an illiterate child. Infant to infant contractions is probably extraordinarily low. So we are wanting to create a whole new section of government for vaccine enforcement? That seems wasteful. Government and tax dollars are essentially limited resources, those resources are probably serve society better if spent elsewhere.

The primary method of transmission is usually from parent to child, yes. The thing is that the whooping cough vaccine also wears off over time, meaning that a lot of people who get it are those who were previously immune earlier in life. It's a highly contagious disease that we really need to stay on top of.

There's no need to break down doors or any of that. I would just make it a requirement to prove vaccination of your child in order to get tax deductions for them, etc.

 

[momeNt]

The primary method of transmission is usually from parent to child, yes. The thing is that the whooping cough vaccine also wears off over time, meaning that a lot of people who get it are those who were previously immune earlier in life. It's a highly contagious disease that we really need to stay on top of.

There's no need to break down doors or any of that. I would just make it a requirement to prove vaccination of your child in order to get tax deductions for them, etc.

That's at least a passive response.

 

[WelshBloke]

Which is a totally consistent view.

I was calling out the people like Esikmo that have no problems forcing medical procedures on infants, but throw a fit if the same thing is suggested of grown women.

I guess the difference is that infants can't vote so there is no need to pander them.

You shouldn't try so hard to turn everything into one of your anti women rants.

They are very different diseases with very different risks to the wider community. Walking around in public you are very unlikely to spread HIV, walk around with measles and you will pass it on.

 

[nehalem256]

You shouldn't try so hard to turn everything into one of your anti women rants.

They are very different diseases with very different risks to the wider community. Walking around in public you are very unlikely to spread HIV, walk around with measles and you will pass it on.

And if you are worried about measles YOU can get a vaccine to protect yourself those stupid people who don't get the vaccine.

The ones that cannot be protected by the vaccine are infants who are too young for the vaccine. Just like unborn children are not able to avoid HIV spreading from their infected mother.

Its exactly the same idea. So why is forcing medical procedures on one horrible and not the other?

EDIT: And its amusing that protecting children from AIDS is an "anti-woman rant". Just another example that all of the liberal crying about caring about children is just a lie to get benefits for women.

 

[Texashiker]

They are very different diseases with very different risks to the wider community. Walking around in public you are very unlikely to spread HIV, walk around with measles and you will pass it on.

Lets be honest and frank, how much worse is measles as compared to the flu, E. Coli, shigella,,,, and other usually non-lethal communicable diseases?

If we had a rise in the number of shigella cases, or e. coli, or even the flu, would anyone even start a thread over it?

Measles is one of those nuisance diseases (like chicken pox) that rears its head from time to time. Its like anything else in life, its just something we have to deal with.

Measles is not TB, whooping cough, small pox, polio,,, it is not even close to being the killers those are. But for some reason people make a big deal out of it.

How many of us have gone to work sick? I have. I had to because my family needed the money.

Someone go to work with the flu they are a dedicated employee.

Someone go to work with measles and they are sick in the head for spreading a disease.

 

[fskimospy]

Lets be honest and frank, how much worse is measles as compared to the flu, E. Coli, shigella,,,, and other usually non-lethal communicable diseases?

If we had a rise in the number of shigella cases, or e. coli, or even the flu, would anyone even start a thread over it?

Measles is one of those nuisance diseases (like chicken pox) that rears its head from time to time. Its like anything else in life, its just something we have to deal with.

Measles is not TB, whooping cough, small pox, polio,,, it is not even close to being the killers those are. But for some reason people make a big deal out of it.

How many of us have gone to work sick? I have. I had to because my family needed the money.

Someone go to work with the flu they are a dedicated employee.

Someone go to work with measles and they are sick in the head for spreading a disease.

You shouldn't go to work with the flu either and if you do your employer should send you home. Sure you might get some work done but in many jobs you have a really good chance of making everyone else sick too, which is a net negative for the business.

 

[Paul98]

I would have no problem with people being forced to give their children vaccines. With the amount of stupidity in the USA, and how easily they can spread anti-vaccine stupidity. This can be harmful or fatal to others. Those who can be vaccinated should be made to, not to protect themselves, I don't care if people want to harm themselves. What I want to protect is those who can't get the vaccine or are for some reason at risk from others. Especially when people aren't getting vaccines because they are scared of something that isn't real.

 

[Texashiker]

You shouldn't go to work with the flu either and if you do your employer should send you home. Sure you might get some work done but in many jobs you have a really good chance of making everyone else sick too, which is a net negative for the business.

Back around 1989 or 1990 the company I worked for, about 3/4 of the employees were out sick with the flu. I was one of the few that did not get sick. It was like a ghost town for around 2 weeks.

Flu makes a round every year.

If measles makes a round, we as a society have take a step backwards?

I guess when there was a mumps outbreak in Iowa a few years ago society broke down and returned to the dark ages?

 

[WelshBloke]

Back around 1989 or 1990 the company I worked for, about 3/4 of the employees were out sick with the flu. I was one of the few that did not get sick. It was like a ghost town for around 2 weeks.

Flu makes a round every year.

If measles makes a round, we as a society have take a step backwards?

I guess when there was a mumps outbreak in Iowa a few years ago society broke down and returned to the dark ages?

Mumps is horrible if you get it as an adult male.

 

[WelshBloke]

And if you are worried about measles YOU can get a vaccine to protect yourself those stupid people who don't get the vaccine.

That's not how it works. There's a chance you'll still get it even if your vaccinated.

The ones that cannot be protected by the vaccine are infants who are too young for the vaccine. Just like unborn children are not able to avoid HIV spreading from their infected mother.

Except those are totally different situations, with totally different diseases, one effecting the wider public and one contained in the family group.

Its exactly the same idea. So why is forcing medical procedures on one horrible and not the other?

It's not the same at all. Ones a public health issue the other isn't.

EDIT: And its amusing that protecting children from AIDS is an "anti-woman rant". Just another example that all of the liberal crying about caring about children is just a lie to get benefits for women.

It's more that you can't resist cramming an ill fitting "woe is me, the wimins is oppressing us" rant where it doesn't belong.

 

[Texashiker]

I would have no problem with people being forced to give their children vaccines.

Where do you draw the line on your totalitarian opinions?

Force welfare moms to have an abortion?

Forced sterilization?

Permits to become a parent?

Permit before you can buy a cheeseburger or pizza?

Permit before you can buy a pack of smokes?

Permit before you can buy alcohol?

Forced lapband surgery for overweight people?

One of the true freedoms we have is the freedom to control our body.

If the government can not force a woman to carry a child to term, or force her to have an abortion, then you can not force someone else to take a shot.

 

[Paul98]

Where do you draw the line on your totalitarian opinions?

Force welfare moms to have an abortion?

Forced sterilization?

Permits to become a parent?

Permit before you can buy a cheeseburger or pizza?

Permit before you can buy a pack of smokes?

Permit before you can buy alcohol?

Forced lapband surgery for overweight people?

One of the true freedoms we have is the freedom to control our body.

If the government can not force a woman to carry a child to term, or force her to have an abortion, then you can not force someone else to take a shot.

I see you can't be bothered to read an entire post and have to take one comment out of context.

 

[momeNt]

I see you can't be bothered to read an entire post and have to take one comment out of context.

Nothing was taken out of context. You wanted to force vaccines under the pretext of protecting people who are unable to receive them due to being immune compromised.

Thinking there is a justification for totalitarian government is where you are wrong. Making a distinction between what you said against what TH said because you feel it is "more justified" is also wrong. What happens when lawmakers feel any of his options are just as justified as how you feel about vaccinations? Well justification is a completely arbitrary thing so there is nothing to stop them from feeling that way.

 

[Pulsar]

Haha. I think you got them there.

How come liberals throw a fit if a pregnant 15 year old girl cannot make whatever choice they want despite the obvious enormous practical costs of their decision to society, but then have no issue with forcing vaccines on people because of theoretical problem of them getting measles.

It is extremely unfortunate that you think this is some kind of 'tit-for-tat' game where you try to score points off the other side. In fact, it's disgusting, counterproductive, and it appears to be a trend with you. Especially when politics comes into play.

Vaccinations don't just protect the vaccinated. It stops the spread to other people. The logic is fairly easy to follow. It's very much like second hand smoke in that regard, and the reason so many states have outlawed smoking in restaurants.

I have no problem if people really don't want to get vaccinated. However, they shouldn't be attending a public school where they could potentially expose thousands of kids to dangerous diseases if they choose not to be vaccinated.

 

[Texashiker]

I see you can't be bothered to read an entire post and have to take one comment out of context.

A couple of months ago there was a guy who was drinking and driving, was in a wreck, killed the other driver, and killed himself in the wreck.

He had two previous DWI incidents.

Where is the outrage on that situation? I am pretty sure there are similar DWI incidents around your home.

Have you talked to the local district attorney to see why those people are out of jail?

What about child molesters? After someone is convicted of sex with a child shouldn't they spend the rest of their lives in jail?

 

[momeNt]

A couple of months ago there was a guy who was drinking and driving, was in a wreck, killed the other driver, and killed himself in the wreck.

He had two previous DWI incidents.

Where is the outrage on that situation? I am pretty sure there are similar DWI incidents around your home.

Have you talked to the local district attorney to see why those people are out of jail?

What about child molesters? After someone is convicted of sex with a child shouldn't they spend the rest of their lives in jail?

They can be out of jail provided, they would need the proper license to be able to drink alcohol though at that point. Two DWIs i'm better that our totalitarian government would revoke his license to drink.

 

[Pulsar]

A couple of months ago there was a guy who was drinking and driving, was in a wreck, killed the other driver, and killed himself in the wreck.

He had two previous DWI incidents.

Where is the outrage on that situation? I am pretty sure there are similar DWI incidents around your home.

Have you talked to the local district attorney to see why those people are out of jail?

What about child molesters? After someone is convicted of sex with a child shouldn't they spend the rest of their lives in jail?

Allowing people to die to a preventable disease is irresponsible and we should strive to eliminate it.

With regards to your comments about other social ills, there are injustices all around us every day. The population of the United States can certainly work on improving more than one aspect of life at a time. It really doesn't have anything to do with the price of tea in China.

 

[Texashiker]

Allowing people to die to a preventable disease is irresponsible and we should strive to eliminate it.

Allowing people to die at the hands of serial drunks, and habitual drug users is irresponsible and we should strive to eliminate it.

There are a lot of injustices in the world. Stripping people of their civil liberties is not going to solve the problem.

 

[Nintendesert]

Some of you antivaccine nutters must really hate seatbelt laws too.

 

[Pulsar]

Allowing people to die at the hands of serial drunks, and habitual drug users is irresponsible and we should strive to eliminate it.

There are a lot of injustices in the world. Stripping people of their civil liberties is not going to solve the problem.

I see you chose to ignore half my post, then restated something in direct contradiction to it. Intellectual dishonesty is one of the reasons I spend more time in Discussion Club now.

I'll address the point once more.

We can concentrate on more than one thing at one. Child porn is horrible. So is letting children die when can prevent it. We're certainly capable of working on both issues. Can you please drop that strawman now? It would be helpful to move the discussion in an intelligent direction.

I don't support forcing vaccination on anyone. However, I don't believe unvaccinated children should be allowed to attend school and put others at risk. It's a fairly simple solution that gives parents the right to parent the way they see fit while still keeping the children of responsible parents safe.

 

[Pulsar]

Some of you antivaccine nutters must really hate seatbelt laws too.

There's a shred of truth in there. Many people want to stand by their 'don't tell me what to do' credo. I can understand not wanting the government to run your life.

At the same time, when there are issues that affect everyone like drunk driving (as another poster is so eager to bring up) then it's clear outlawing that behavior is an attempt to keep others safe as much as it is to keep the driver who might drink from hurting him/herself.

The vaccination of children isn't much different.