• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anti-Vaxxer's Chickens Come Home To Roost

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Londo_Jowo said:
Looks like Australia is getting serious about their vaccination program.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/asia/australia-anti-vaccination-welfare-cut/
Click to expand...


If the government wants everyone to be vaccinated then they should simply make it compulsory and deal with the fallout.

Schemes like cutting child care benefits benefits hurt the same children that the govt. is supposedly trying to protect. Not seeing a win-win situation here.

And, I notice that it's apparently a measure that seems directed specifically at the poor. One wonders what the statistical breakdown of the income levels of families that don't vaccinate looks like. Also, what's the plan for those who don't collect benefits?
 
DrPizza said:
It's 2015. How the hell is giving an 18 year old one beer "endangering the welfare of a minor," but refusal to have a child vaccinated against these horrible maladies not?!
Click to expand...

Just because there's one stupid law doesn't mean you should advocate for another.
 
NoStateofMind said:
Just because there's one stupid law doesn't mean you should advocate for another.
Click to expand...
I agree and disagree. I agree in regard to giving an 18 year old a drink. I, as a parent, was threatened by the local gestapo that if I had a graduation party for my son, and provided even one beer to my son, if caught, I was facing some pretty hefty fines.

But, I think vaccinations of people other than those who can't due to medical reasons (allergic to eggs, etc.) should be mandatory. Measles should have been eradicated 100% by now - it should have the status of small pox. Instead, children have to suffer as a result of mentally deficient parents listening to idiots.
 
DrPizza said:
But, I think vaccinations of people other than those who can't due to medical reasons (allergic to eggs, etc.) should be mandatory. Measles should have been eradicated 100% by now - it should have the status of small pox. Instead, children have to suffer as a result of mentally deficient parents listening to idiots.
Click to expand...

Okay that's all well and good. Being informed is the only way to make a educated decision. Yet I'd like to know something. Where'd you obtain the right to make someone take a vaccination?
 
NoStateofMind said:
Okay that's all well and good. Being informed is the only way to make a educated decision. Yet I'd like to know something. Where'd you obtain the right to make someone take a vaccination?
Click to expand...

And why does the government think it has the right to take my money in the form of taxes? And where do they get off requiring me to pass a silly test or purchase insurance just to drive my car? It sure is great that the government can't require anything of minors, like mandatory education....

We live in a society that has some concessions to absolute freedom in the name of sharing the burden of living together. There are all sorts of requirements imposed on the people by the government; why should vaccines be held to a different standard than any other public health risk?
 
The vaccine was changed in 1997 to a new type of acellular vaccine that doesnt last as long. The reason: to extract more profit from the dumbed down suckers who will gladly accept 60 shots since they so willingly accept 30. Why not? Most of the dumbed down masses will take 200 shots. Hell there is no end to the shots these mindless morons will take. Because its better to take 200 shots than to ever criticize the vaccine money farm industry.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
And why does the government think it has the right to take my money in the form of taxes? And where do they get off requiring me to pass a silly test or purchase insurance just to drive my car? It sure is great that the government can't require anything of minors, like mandatory education....

We live in a society that has some concessions to absolute freedom in the name of sharing the burden of living together. There are all sorts of requirements imposed on the people by the government; why should vaccines be held to a different standard than any other public health risk?
Click to expand...

I still don't see where you've acquired the right to force someone against their will to take a vaccination.

We may agree on the effectiveness of such medical practices but nowhere have we obtained the authority to require our neighbors to act as we see fit.

If we had though, I'm sure you'll be able to tell us when and how this came about right?
 
NoStateofMind said:
I still don't see where you've acquired the right to force someone against their will to take a vaccination.

We may agree on the effectiveness of such medical practices but nowhere have we obtained the authority to require our neighbors to act as we see fit.

If we had though, I'm sure you'll be able to tell us when and how this came about right?
Click to expand...

So one of the major functions the government is supposed to have is to internalize costs that a society must bare. One such externality that the government tries to internalize is the 3rd party risks of disease. You may not want to get a vaccine, but in doing so you increase the risk of getting others sick by being a potential carrier. Further, by being a potential carrier you increase the ability for a breeding population of the disease which means that it can gain more mutations and could possibly become more deadly. Society has no real effective way of making you compensate it for the risks you are putting on it, so we came up with mandatory vaccinations. Its pretty easy to understand really, and I am a pretty clear cut libertarian.

When a situation arises where 3rd parties are effected and not compensated, then government has a real role to play.
 
I see a real problem with mandatory vaccination
However I can see not allowing them access to public funds, exclusion from schools and sports etc if they don't comply.
If they want to drop out of society as much as possible, OK don't participate
 
realibrad said:
So one of the major functions the government is supposed to have is to internalize costs that a society must bare. One such externality that the government tries to internalize is the 3rd party risks of disease. You may not want to get a vaccine, but in doing so you increase the risk of getting others sick by being a potential carrier. Further, by being a potential carrier you increase the ability for a breeding population of the disease which means that it can gain more mutations and could possibly become more deadly. Society has no real effective way of making you compensate it for the risks you are putting on it, so we came up with mandatory vaccinations. Its pretty easy to understand really, and I am a pretty clear cut libertarian.

When a situation arises where 3rd parties are effected and not compensated, then government has a real role to play.
Click to expand...

That's a real argument you can take to the person who's refusing the treatment. Let them know how their decision may impact those around them and maybe they'll see it your way.

Let's put away this silly notion of a 'request' because its anything but. Once you bring Government into the room you bring a gun, ultimately, into the room. Now with a vaccination it may be 'only' as bad as holding you down for them to vaccinate you. Well then everything is fine right? Trample on the right of one for the lives of the many? (if we tow that line) How would you feel if the vaccination led to a bad reaction of some sort and the patient died? Would you feel responsible? Would your want of requiring all people be vaccinated and tasking that cause to 'government' to enforce remove your burden from cause and consequence?
 
NoStateofMind said:
That's a real argument you can take to the person who's refusing the treatment. Let them know how their decision may impact those around them and maybe they'll see it your way.

Let's put away this silly notion of a 'request' because its anything but. Once you bring Government into the room you bring a gun, ultimately, into the room. Now with a vaccination it may be 'only' as bad as holding you down for them to vaccinate you. Well then everything is fine right? Trample on the right of one for the lives of the many? (if we tow that line) How would you feel if the vaccination led to a bad reaction of some sort and the patient died? Would you feel responsible? Would your want of requiring all people be vaccinated and tasking that cause to 'government' to enforce remove your burden from cause and consequence?
Click to expand...

Yes, all enforcement by the government is done by force. But implicit in that is the understanding that you also have the choice that if you do not want to comply you can break away from society and leave the enforcement of the government. You do this by leaving the country which is extreme, but that is the choice you have. Another function of government is the legal system, where you can argue your case if you believe it is unfair. That being said, the burden is on the person disagreeing with the law to show that it is wrong in any context.

The real issue is the impact their choice has on others around them. If not getting a vaccine only effected the individual then you would have a point about the government not having the right to ignore personal sovereignty. In this case, what the government is doing is enforcing the 3rd party rights in the society. Personal rights stop when they encroach on others rights. The governments role in that area is to establish an effective way to protect all rights. It sometimes fails, but not in this case so far as I can see.
 
sm625 said:
The vaccine was changed in 1997 to a new type of acellular vaccine that doesnt last as long. The reason: to extract more profit from the dumbed down suckers who will gladly accept 60 shots since they so willingly accept 30. Why not? Most of the dumbed down masses will take 200 shots. Hell there is no end to the shots these mindless morons will take. Because its better to take 200 shots than to ever criticize the vaccine money farm industry.
Click to expand...

Was wondering when a anitvaxxer idiot would weigh in.
 
sm625 said:
The vaccine was changed in 1997 to a new type of acellular vaccine that doesnt last as long. The reason: to extract more profit from the dumbed down suckers who will gladly accept 60 shots since they so willingly accept 30. Why not? Most of the dumbed down masses will take 200 shots. Hell there is no end to the shots these mindless morons will take. Because its better to take 200 shots than to ever criticize the vaccine money farm industry.
Click to expand...
That sure is some grade A trolling right there.

now be quiet while the adults speak.
 
Iron Woode said:
re the bolded part: maybe there is hope after all that anti-vaxxers aren't all ignorant nutters and can learn from their mistakes.
Click to expand...

They are all ignorant nutters, that is why they are anti-vaxxers.

That said, ignorance can be treated safely! I agree, there is hope!
 
NoStateofMind said:
I still don't see where you've acquired the right to force someone against their will to take a vaccination.

We may agree on the effectiveness of such medical practices but nowhere have we obtained the authority to require our neighbors to act as we see fit.

If we had though, I'm sure you'll be able to tell us when and how this came about right?
Click to expand...

The United States Supreme Court said so... In 1905

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
 
DCal430 said:
Question: the last case of polio was over 30 years ago in the U.S. So why are we still being vaccinated.
Click to expand...

😱

Because the virus still exists. Because people who are potential carriers come from overseas areas where polio is still in endemic.
 
NoStateofMind said:
I still don't see where you've acquired the right to force someone against their will to take a vaccination.

We may agree on the effectiveness of such medical practices but nowhere have we obtained the authority to require our neighbors to act as we see fit.

If we had though, I'm sure you'll be able to tell us when and how this came about right?
Click to expand...

Isn't a vaccine healthcare and Obama said it was a right to have healthcare. So while politicians fought to give us universal healthcare you want to prevent healthcare.

Also driving is regulated, shouldn't we have a right to drive outside the rules of government?
 
NoStateofMind said:
That's a real argument you can take to the person who's refusing the treatment. Let them know how their decision may impact those around them and maybe they'll see it your way.

Let's put away this silly notion of a 'request' because its anything but. Once you bring Government into the room you bring a gun, ultimately, into the room. Now with a vaccination it may be 'only' as bad as holding you down for them to vaccinate you. Well then everything is fine right? Trample on the right of one for the lives of the many? (if we tow that line) How would you feel if the vaccination led to a bad reaction of some sort and the patient died? Would you feel responsible? Would your want of requiring all people be vaccinated and tasking that cause to 'government' to enforce remove your burden from cause and consequence?
Click to expand...

How about if a person with a highly deadly and contagious disease was walking around NYC, potentially infecting thousands or millions of people? Would the government be in their rights to use force to remove that person from society? After all that individual has done nothing wrong, they are merely exercising their right to free movement. Is it okay to trample on the right of one for the lives of the many?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top