And we take a step back - measles return

[Paul98]

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.

LMAO so you think it should be legal to put others in danger for no reason ther than your stupidity? It's not like there is a single reason to not have them and having vaccines save lives. Having people not vaccinated WILL lead to deaths and diseases that people shouldn't have to deal with.

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm curious about how far some of you are willing to take this "personal freedom is greater than the public good" argument. You're acting like personal freedom trumps all and is absolute.

What about someone who comes to the country and happens to have smallpox? You happy for them to roam the streets without treatment? Should they be detained? Should treatment be forced?

 

[Texashiker]

LMAO so you think it should be legal to put others in danger for no reason ther than your stupidity?

Define "danger."

Danger is an inherent part of life. Driving, swimming, eating,,,, living in any shape for or fashion is dangerous.

To make society safer we should strip people of their most basic civil rights? How about we start screening fetuses for violent genes. Fetus test positive for a gene that is linked to violence, lets force that woman to have an abortion. so what if her civil rights are violated, we have to do something to protect society.

Chances are people have a higher risk of dying in a car wreck than they do of dying from measles.

I'm curious about how far some of you are willing to take this "personal freedom is greater than the public good" argument. You're acting like personal freedom trumps all and is absolute.

No, personal freedoms do not trump everything else.

A few years ago there was a local man with TB who was arrested because he would not take his medicine. The man was held against his will in a special hospital until he took his medicine and tested negative for TB.

I have no problem holding the man against his will.

But then again, this thread is not about TB.

If this thread was about TB, Hep C, Polio, or HIV my stance on the issue would be different.

 

[child of wonder]

Guys, I'm anti-hand washing. There's a risk that it could dry my skin. As long as all you other "hand washing nuts" keep your hands clean then I'm protected. So when you see me with shit and dirt on my hands, you'll know my morality and intellect is supreme.

 

[Texashiker]

Guys, I'm anti-hand washing. There's a risk that it could dry my skin. As long as all you other "hand washing nuts" keep your hands clean then I'm protected. So when you see me with shit and dirt on my hands, you'll know my morality and intellect is supreme.

Then you need to have your hands cut off.

Better yet, lets get the government to put you to death for not washing your hands. A lot of people are keen about taking civil rights away, so lets line the anti-hand washers up and put them to death without a trial.

Or maybe, lets round the anti-hand washers up and ship them off to an internment camp.

From here on out all civil rights are suspended in the name of public health. If you so much as sneeze in public you are going to jail for a long, long, long time. And shame on you if you cough in public.

 

[WelshBloke]

No, personal freedoms do not trump everything else.

A few years ago there was a local man with TB who was arrested because he would not take his medicine. The man was held against his will in a special hospital until he took his medicine and tested negative for TB.

I have no problem holding the man against his will.

But then again, this thread is not about TB.

If this thread was about TB, Hep C, Polio, or HIV my stance on the issue would be different.

There's a vaccine for TB, should that be mandatory?

I'm just curious where your level of risk/reward is really.

Fact is that measles is a highly infectious disease that can have some serious but rare complications, and that it can be avoided with a vaccine that has little side effects. On a risk/reward level it's hard to argue against vaccination.

 

[child of wonder]

Then you need to have your hands cut off.

Better yet, lets get the government to put you to death for not washing your hands. A lot of people are keen about taking civil rights away, so lets line the anti-hand washers up and put them to death without a trial.

Or maybe, lets round the anti-hand washers up and ship them off to an internment camp.

From here on out all civil rights are suspended in the name of public health. If you so much as sneeze in public you are going to jail for a long, long, long time. And shame on you if you cough in public.

You're right. Let's allow adults to refuse immunizations for their children (who can't make the determination on their own) and let whooping cough, influenza, measles, polio, and smallpox (also making a comeback in the Middle East and Africa because religious leaders claim it is a Western plot to sterilize children) all return to their pre-immunization prominence! People in wheelchairs due to polio? Yes, please! Measles is just a harmless disease so why immunize for that? Oops, 30% of all children 5 and under with measles also develop pneumonia and 1 in 1,000 get encephalitis! For added fun, 11 in 100,000 get SSPE, a degenerative disease of the central nervous system that is fatal! Let's go back to 48,000 people a year requiring hospitalization for measles! 500 dead every year! 1,000 crippled due to complications! Yay!

Rules are going to be put in place to require someone get a harmless immunization if they attend public schools? There's less than a one in a million chance it could have a side effect? THARE TAKEN MAH FREEDOMS AWAY! MAH CHILDRENS SHOULD BE FREE TO CARRY AND SPREAD DISEASE THAT IS COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE!

 

[Brainonska511]

You're right. Let's allow adults to refuse immunizations for their children (who can't make the determination on their own) and let whooping cough, influenza, measles, polio, and smallpox (also making a comeback in the Middle East and Africa because religious leaders claim it is a Western plot to sterilize children) all return to their pre-immunization prominence! People in wheelchairs due to polio? Yes, please! Measles is just a harmless disease so why immunize for that? Oops, 30% of all children 5 and under with measles also develop pneumonia and 1 in 1,000 get encephalitis! For added fun, 11 in 100,000 get SSPE, a degenerative disease of the central nervous system that is fatal! Let's go back to 48,000 people a year requiring hospitalization for measles! 500 dead every year! 1,000 crippled due to complications! Yay!

Rules are going to be put in place to require someone get a harmless immunization if they attend public schools? There's less than a one in a million chance it could have a side effect? THARE TAKEN MAH FREEDOMS AWAY! MAH CHILDRENS SHOULD BE FREE TO CARRY AND SPREAD DISEASE THAT IS COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE!

Polio is making a comeback. Smallpox has been eliminated.

 

[child of wonder]

Polio is making a comeback. Smallpox has been eliminated.

You're right. I began to type polio then changed to smallpox. My mistake.

 

[nehalem256]

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

Sounds like you just rationalized child abuse.

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

The spread of HIV to children isn't a public health issue?

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.

Lefties throw a fit about telling women what to do with their body, but then turn around and have no problem telling other people what to do with their body. Showing that lefties have no principles is not ranting about women.

 

[WelshBloke]

Sounds like you just rationalized child abuse.

That's because you either have a reading or understanding problem.

The spread of HIV to children isn't a public health issue?

The transmission of HIV from mother to child is not a health problem to the wider population. Its an issue where you can argue for the parents right to refuse treatment, if the parent were spreading the disease randomly, without warning to the wider public then you could argue that it was similar.

Lefties throw a fit about telling women what to do with their body, but then turn around and have no problem telling other people what to do with their body. Showing that lefties have no principles is not ranting about women.

Well at least you're not even pretending to be interested in the subject at hand and you're being honest in trying to crowbar your agenda into random subjects now.

 

[StinkyPinky]

What is scary is that if you read some of the comments there are people *still* anti-vacination, despite the utter and overwhelming proof it saves countless lives. If these morons have their way we would all be going back to the days where every second child didn't make it to adulthood.

Some people are just crazy.

 

[Texashiker]

Fact is that measles is a highly infectious disease that can have some serious but rare complications, and that it can be avoided with a vaccine that has little side effects. On a risk/reward level it's hard to argue against vaccination.

I am not arguing against vaccination.

However, I believe that we have certain rights. One of those rights being that we have control of our bodies.

On the flip side of the coin someone should not have the right to put the public at risk.

To me, and my personal opinion, if the disease causes no long term effects, and has an almost 0 death rate, why worry about it? Let nature run its course and dont worry about it.

You're right. Let's allow adults to refuse immunizations for their children (who can't make the determination on their own) and let whooping cough, influenza, measles, polio, and smallpox (also making a comeback in the Middle East and Africa because religious leaders claim it is a Western plot to sterilize children) all return to their pre-immunization prominence!

Big difference between measles and polio.

 

[nehalem256]

That's because you either have a reading or understanding problem.

The transmission of HIV from mother to child is not a health problem to the wider population. Its an issue where you can argue for the parents right to refuse treatment, if the parent were spreading the disease randomly, without warning to the wider public then you could argue that it was similar.

You clearly took the side of allowing women to spread HIV to their children. If that ain't child abuse...

It has to do with protecting children from disease. Whether that is some abstract threat of measles or a clearly quantifiable risk of AIDS is not a big difference.

Well at least you're not even pretending to be interested in the subject at hand and you're being honest in trying to crowbar your agenda into random subjects now.

I am interested in whether we can tell people what to do with their bodies or not. Pointing out hypocrisy on this issue is addressing the topic at hand.

 

[child of wonder]

I am not arguing against vaccination.

However, I believe that we have certain rights. One of those rights being that we have control of our bodies.

On the flip side of the coin someone should not have the right to put the public at risk.

To me, and my personal opinion, if the disease causes no long term effects, and has an almost 0 death rate, why worry about it? Let nature run its course and dont worry about it.

Big difference between measles and polio.

Measles kills 1 in 1,000 and causes life changing nervous system damage in 11 out of 100,000.

If you don't consider that serious enough, would you voluntarily infect someone you love?

 

[WelshBloke]

You clearly took the side of allowing women to spread HIV to their children. If that ain't child abuse...

Like I said, you have either a reading or an understanding problem.

It has to do with protecting children from disease. Whether that is some abstract threat of measles or a clearly quantifiable risk of AIDS is not a big difference.

Vaccination against measles and the forced sterilization of HIV positive women are not issues that have anything in common.

I am interested in whether we can tell people what to do with their bodies or not. Pointing out hypocrisy on this issue is addressing the topic at hand.

And the best example you could think of was the forced sterilization of women. That kinda says a lot about you really.

 

[WelshBloke]

Measles kills 1 in 1,000 and causes life changing nervous system damage in 11 out of 100,000.

If you don't consider that serious enough, would you voluntarily infect someone you love?

Pretty sure that the morbidity rate of measles is several orders of magnitude less than that.

 

[child of wonder]

Pretty sure that the morbidity rate of measles is several orders of magnitude less than that.

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/overview.html

Out of 1,000 children under the age of 5 that contract the measles, 2 may die. Several more will end up with complications like pneumonia, encephalitis, and SSPE.

 

[Texashiker]

If you don't consider that serious enough, would you voluntarily infect someone you love?

You call .001% a serious threat?

 

[Nebor]

Ah, the anti-vaccination crowd: something that can make us all agree on big government. Idiots need to be ruled like peasants instead of being allowed to endanger society.

 

[nehalem256]

Like I said, you have either a reading or an understanding problem.

Vaccination against measles and the forced sterilization of HIV positive women are not issues that have anything in common.
.

They both are about protecting children from disease through forcing medical procedures on people.

 

[child of wonder]

You call .001% a serious threat?

You're, apparently, from Texas so I'll excuse the math error and offer my services free of charge to correct you.

1 in 1,000 is 0.1%, not 0.001%. In fact, the mortality rate in children 5 and younger may be as high as 0.2%.

To make matters worse, 20% of children who contract the disease will develop some sort of complication, from a relatively benign ear infection to pneumonia or, in more severe cases, encephalitis or SSPE.

In other words, odds are high enough that if we stopped vaccinating for the measles you would likely know someone who had to hospitalize their child due to measles or complications thereof and odds are good you'd even know of someone who lost a child due to it.

But, by all means, advocate refusing the measles vaccine. Put everyone needlessly at risk from a disease no one needs to endure thanks to a simple injection with virtually no drawbacks.

 

[WelshBloke]

They both are about protecting children from disease through forcing medical procedures on people.

Not really. I presume that you want to sterilise the women before they have the children? So your protecting them by stopping them from existing? And the woman still had hiv. Oh, and she's sterile as well.
With vaccination, nobodies ill and the child is alive.

See the slight difference in situations?

 

[WelshBloke]

You call .001% a serious threat?

1 in a thousand (which is what he said) is pretty high given that the child mortality rate in total in the US is about 6 in a thousand.

One disease with a 90% transmission rate and a mortality rate 1/6 of total child mortality rate is pretty serious.

 

[Texashiker]

1 in a thousand (which is what he said) is pretty high given that the child mortality rate in total in the US is about 6 in a thousand.

One disease with a 90% transmission rate and a mortality rate 1/6 of total child mortality rate is pretty serious.

But, by all means, advocate refusing the measles vaccine. Put everyone needlessly at risk from a disease no one needs to endure thanks to a simple injection with virtually no drawbacks.

There is no argument from me against vaccination.

My issue is with civil rights.

If the government can not force a woman to carry a child to term, or force her to have an abortion, then what right does the government have to tell people they have to inject something into their bodies.

If the abortion rights issue has taught us one thing it should be that we have a basic right to control our bodies.