Page 2 of 3 [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

CuriousButDepressed
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Boston

27 Jul 2017, 1:46 pm

Stoic0209 wrote:
Chichikov wrote:
Stoic0209 wrote:
I have to disagree with you - not getting vaccinated does not harm anyone other than the person that refuses, in and of itself. It's the diseases which vaccines protect against which cause the harm. It would only affect others if the other individuals themselves are also not vaccinated, which is the choice they themselves made.


Sadly, no. google "herd immunity", it's a thing.



(ps - that was just one video out of millions on the subject as well as many papers etc, someone posting one video saying herd immunity is not a thing does not disprove that it is)

As for not allowing people to do things that will harm others, countries like the USA let you buy guns so that's not much of an argument. I can see both sides of the issue really, it wouldn't bother me if anti-vaxxers were prosecuted, but I'm not going to write to my MP if they're not either. TBH I'd rather see the parents of obese children prosecuted before anti-vaxxers.


I am aware of herd immunity. Once again, if an individual relies on Herd Immunity, and that reliance fails them, the only person that suffers from their decision is their own selves.

And the gun comment is kind of off-topic and non-equivalent, but if you want, I could open a thread in the Random discussion thread. I love debating gun control. :)


soloha wrote:
If people were actually responsible for their own vaccine choices and they were the only ones that bore the consequences, I would agree with you. But since the choice to vaccinate is usually made by the parent of a child, for the child, and not vaccinating generates external costs, like costs to the healthcare system with is born by everyone in one way or another, I shall have to disagree with you :).


Once again, please see my point regarding allowing the government to make health choices for individuals. It's a Pandora's box that you don't want to open. Not vaccination does not necessarily generate extra cost - only if both vaccination does not occur and the person becomes infected, and the cost is only spread out depending on the person's insurance, which will take us down the path of potentially debating healthcare and insurance. I'd rather remain on the topic of the legality of refusing vaccines and the suggested/hypothetical reprecussions of refusing.

Let me throw another dimension of complexity: let's say I'm fine with the MMR, the DPT, my hep shots, but I don't want a Meningitis vaccine. Do I still end up in jail? Just curious. :D


Yes, I would have you arrested in this society because assuming you were medically capable of receiving the vaccination and you refused to, you put people who were unable to get the vaccine at a risk for death and disability, so you knowingly and willingly put people in harm's way. You'd be arrested and vaccinated to prevent biological weapons from spreading. Diseases have to be annihilated out of existence, period.



Stoic0209
Raven
Raven

Joined: 15 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 123
Location: New York

27 Jul 2017, 2:31 pm

CuriousbutDepressed wrote:
Yes, I would have you arrested in this society because assuming you were medically capable of receiving the vaccination and you refused to, you put people who were unable to get the vaccine at a risk for death and disability, so you knowingly and willingly put people in harm's way. You'd be arrested and vaccinated to prevent biological weapons from spreading. Diseases have to be annihilated out of existence, period.


But in your world, the vaccine is offered to everyone, correct? Meaning that there is no one that fulfills the criteria for being at risk of potential exposure to me that you have posited. They would only be people who, like myself, with knowledge of the risks, declined. They would be taking the same risks I am, and wouldn't be victims of anything other than their own choice.

Now let me ask you this, since diseases have to be annihilated out of existence, does that include genetic diseases? Because there's only one way I know how to eliminate those, and that's by preventing the birth of those who carry them, and not allowing carries for genetic diseases to procreate. Would you then sterilize people with genetic diseases? Would you force parents with genetic diseases to have abortions? Would you deem them unfit to live?

This is what I mean regarding this Draconian line of thinking. This is where it takes you. Please take a look at the opinions expressed in the Supreme court Case of Buck Vs. Bell.

BTW, I never received the Meningitis vaccine, so I guess I'm going to jail. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Stoic0209
Raven
Raven

Joined: 15 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 123
Location: New York

27 Jul 2017, 2:34 pm

soloha wrote:
Stoic0209 wrote:
Once again, please see my point regarding allowing the government to make health choices for individuals.

I understand the concern. Though it is partly about the government making health choices, it is not just about it. I see it along a similar vein as requiring school for children. It's required, up to a certain age, because the child does not fully understand the repercussions of refusal. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made here. Should an intellectually mature individual have the right to refuse a vaccine? Absolutely. Should a parent be able to refuse vaccines for their child? You could argue yes, because they make other health decisions on behalf of the child. What would we think, though, of an adult telling a doctor "no, I am refusing to allow you to take out the spleen that may rupture" Maybe a bad example but I hope understand my intent.

Stoic0209 wrote:
Let me throw another dimension of complexity: let's say I'm fine with the MMR, the DPT, my hep shots, but I don't want a Meningitis vaccine. Do I still end up in jail? Just curious. :D

If you, as an adult refused? What do I care? No, not jail. Not for refusing all ... or one. Refusing for your child? Morally gray....


This is a reasonable position. I understand the desire to protect children from parents who may be lacking in the brains department. allowing the government to make choices on behalf of the parents thought leads to issues such as the recent Charlie Gard case... so it wouldn't be a clean solution. There's issues either way. Your concerns are definitely valid, however. The best thing we can do is fight the anti-facts of the anti-vaxx argument with truth.



CuriousButDepressed
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Boston

27 Jul 2017, 3:31 pm

Stoic0209 wrote:
CuriousbutDepressed wrote:
Yes, I would have you arrested in this society because assuming you were medically capable of receiving the vaccination and you refused to, you put people who were unable to get the vaccine at a risk for death and disability, so you knowingly and willingly put people in harm's way. You'd be arrested and vaccinated to prevent biological weapons from spreading. Diseases have to be annihilated out of existence, period.


But in your world, the vaccine is offered to everyone, correct? Meaning that there is no one that fulfills the criteria for being at risk of potential exposure to me that you have posited. They would only be people who, like myself, with knowledge of the risks, declined. They would be taking the same risks I am, and wouldn't be victims of anything other than their own choice.

Now let me ask you this, since diseases have to be annihilated out of existence, does that include genetic diseases? Because there's only one way I know how to eliminate those, and that's by preventing the birth of those who carry them, and not allowing carries for genetic diseases to procreate. Would you then sterilize people with genetic diseases? Would you force parents with genetic diseases to have abortions? Would you deem them unfit to live?

This is what I mean regarding this Draconian line of thinking. This is where it takes you. Please take a look at the opinions expressed in the Supreme court Case of Buck Vs. Bell.

BTW, I never received the Meningitis vaccine, so I guess I'm going to jail. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


The fallacy in your argument is that while everyone would be offered the vaccine in my society, unfortunately with current medical circumstances, some people's immune systems would not be able to handle the vaccine and they'd be reliant on herd immunity, which is when a certain number of people are vaccinated against an illness to the point where it cannot spread. Your refusal to get vaccinated despite being abled bodied would be criminal because you'd knowingly put people who could not be vaccinated at risk for death or disability.

As for which diseases should be annihilated, the goal would be for all of them to be annihilated, however I have a different approach than abortions. Scientists would research cures to alter genetics after a person has been born to allow the person with the defect to still be born and have their defect then removed. After this treatment is released, genetic defects will be annihilated off the planet and completely exterminated.



Stoic0209
Raven
Raven

Joined: 15 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 123
Location: New York

27 Jul 2017, 4:07 pm

CuriousButDepressed wrote:

The fallacy in your argument is that while everyone would be offered the vaccine in my society, unfortunately with current medical circumstances, some people's immune systems would not be able to handle the vaccine and they'd be reliant on herd immunity, which is when a certain number of people are vaccinated against an illness to the point where it cannot spread. Your refusal to get vaccinated despite being abled bodied would be criminal because you'd knowingly put people who could not be vaccinated at risk for death or disability.

As for which diseases should be annihilated, the goal would be for all of them to be annihilated, however I have a different approach than abortions. Scientists would research cures to alter genetics after a person has been born to allow the person with the defect to still be born and have their defect then removed. After this treatment is released, genetic defects will be annihilated off the planet and completely exterminated.


I would agree with your first point - if I was walking around with Measles and coughing on people, knowlingly (or even unknowingly) spreading the disease. If I don't have it though, then I wouldn't be putting anyone else at risk.

Aaand at this point we cross over into the land of imagination. I'm not criticizing your point, I'm just pointing out that Gene Therapy is not currently viable. It won't be for a long time, if ever, due to the nature of the human genome and our lack of knowledge. Gene therapy, especially the permanent kind, is still a long ways off in the future. Though your idea would be the most ethical and avoid the whole eugenics thing. question: what if Asperger's gets classified as a genetic defect? Would we then eliminate Asperger's and Autism? I'm not certain if I would like that...



CuriousButDepressed
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Boston

27 Jul 2017, 4:27 pm

Stoic0209 wrote:
CuriousButDepressed wrote:

The fallacy in your argument is that while everyone would be offered the vaccine in my society, unfortunately with current medical circumstances, some people's immune systems would not be able to handle the vaccine and they'd be reliant on herd immunity, which is when a certain number of people are vaccinated against an illness to the point where it cannot spread. Your refusal to get vaccinated despite being abled bodied would be criminal because you'd knowingly put people who could not be vaccinated at risk for death or disability.

As for which diseases should be annihilated, the goal would be for all of them to be annihilated, however I have a different approach than abortions. Scientists would research cures to alter genetics after a person has been born to allow the person with the defect to still be born and have their defect then removed. After this treatment is released, genetic defects will be annihilated off the planet and completely exterminated.


I would agree with your first point - if I was walking around with Measles and coughing on people, knowlingly (or even unknowingly) spreading the disease. If I don't have it though, then I wouldn't be putting anyone else at risk.

Aaand at this point we cross over into the land of imagination. I'm not criticizing your point, I'm just pointing out that Gene Therapy is not currently viable. It won't be for a long time, if ever, due to the nature of the human genome and our lack of knowledge. Gene therapy, especially the permanent kind, is still a long ways off in the future. Though your idea would be the most ethical and avoid the whole eugenics thing. question: what if Asperger's gets classified as a genetic defect? Would we then eliminate Asperger's and Autism? I'm not certain if I would like that...


While you're right that if you were unfortunately infected with a vaccine preventable disease that it's unlikely you would try to knowingly infect it, it can still infect others without you even trying to. That's why healthy people should be legally required to be vaccinated, so that people currently physically incapable of being vaccinated are as protected as currently possible.

You're right that gene therapy probably will not be available for a long time. And as for how I see Asperger's, I don't consider the positive effects of the disorder to be a genetic defect. I think that once gene therapy becomes available, it should be a mix and match sort of affair where undesirable genes would be eliminated from a person with their consent and beneficial ones would remain intact.



BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

27 Jul 2017, 9:03 pm

I am curious about those that cannot be vaccinated? Some children for one reason or another cannot get vaccines. What do you think of them? They relie heavily on herd immunity. Do they count as anti vaxxer?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

27 Jul 2017, 9:05 pm

If they can't get vaccinated, they are not anti-vaxxers on the basis merely of that.



BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

27 Jul 2017, 9:08 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
If they can't get vaccinated, they are not anti-vaxxers on the basis merely of that.

Another point about them is the less people that get vaccinated the greater the risk there is for them.



the_phoenix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,489
Location: up from the ashes

27 Jul 2017, 9:11 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
If they can't get vaccinated, they are not anti-vaxxers on the basis merely of that.


Yep.
Some of us can't get vaccinated.
I used to get a free flu shot and was happy it was free.
Then, on two different occasions, I had a bad reaction to the shot.
Now I refuse to get a flu shot.

As far as how I feel about anti-vaxxers,
I believe people should have the freedom
to say "yes" or "no" as to the decision about what kind of medicine goes into their body.
That's a pro-choice view, yes?



CuriousButDepressed
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Boston

27 Jul 2017, 9:19 pm

BettaPonic wrote:
I am curious about those that cannot be vaccinated? Some children for one reason or another cannot get vaccines. What do you think of them? They relie heavily on herd immunity. Do they count as anti vaxxer?


No, because they have a valid medical excuse.



CuriousButDepressed
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Boston

27 Jul 2017, 9:20 pm

the_phoenix wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
If they can't get vaccinated, they are not anti-vaxxers on the basis merely of that.


Yep.
Some of us can't get vaccinated.
I used to get a free flu shot and was happy it was free.
Then, on two different occasions, I had a bad reaction to the shot.
Now I refuse to get a flu shot.

As far as how I feel about anti-vaxxers,
I believe people should have the freedom
to say "yes" or "no" as to the decision about what kind of medicine goes into their body.
That's a pro-choice view, yes?


I'm normally pro-choice, but the problem with being pro-choice about that is that your choice doesn't affect only you. Countless people could get maimed or killed from a disease that should have been annihilated.



EyeDash
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 328
Location: Colorado

27 Jul 2017, 10:43 pm

When I’ve heard autistics in other settings getting angry about the topic of vaccinations and people’s choice about them, it’s always struck me that the anger isn’t about vaccines, but about autism and acceptance. Why otherwise should vaccines specifically matter so much to those of us who are autistic? Some parents may want to avoid the risk of vaccine harm to their children and some believe that vaccines, among other environmental factors, can trigger autism. Whether there’s a relationship or not, autism isn’t something most parents want for their children and when they have an autistic child, they are often devastated – my own parents were when my autism became apparent. That lack of acceptance by our parents for our being different can be profoundly painful and damaging – it devastated me personally. It burns me so much that I have trouble ever reading parents’ accounts of how challenging it is to raise an autistic child. I guarantee that it’s a hundred times harder for that child than it is for their parents. I was told many times that I “destroyed” my mother’s life with no sympathy for what I went through and still go through. I’m not greatly affected one way or the other by other people’s choice to vaccinate their kids, and so it doesn’t have a great emotional impact on me. The rate of harm from contagious disease as well as the rate of harm from vaccine injury are both small here in the US. However I was greatly affected by my own parents’ attitude about my autism and that had a huge emotional impact that lasts to today, and I’m 60 years old. I don’t think vaccines are the real hot issue for those of us with autism, I think it’s parents treating autism as the end of the world and the affected child as a “problem” that should be avoided. In my own family, my brother wasn’t autistic, was a very healthy body-builder, and was on active duty in the US Navy. He was ordered to get the swine flu vaccine back when it was mandatory during the Carter presidency. He was one of a small fraction of those who received the vaccine who had an adverse reaction and he immediately developed long-term grand mal epilepsy. He was medically discharged from the Navy and not long after that his wife divorced him because she couldn’t handle his epilepsy and him being unemployed and she moved to a different state with their son. He couldn’t hold a job with his seizures and for a long time couldn’t drive. He was just one person who was harmed by the vaccine, but he was my brother. He died young, at age 54. I feel for him especially because I know what it’s like to be different and challenged in a society that most of the time doesn’t care about us.



teksla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 783

27 Jul 2017, 11:23 pm

CuriousButDepressed wrote:
Yes, I would have you arrested in this society because assuming you were medically capable of receiving the vaccination and you refused to, you put people who were unable to get the vaccine at a risk for death and disability, so you knowingly and willingly put people in harm's way. You'd be arrested and vaccinated to prevent biological weapons from spreading. Diseases have to be annihilated out of existence, period.


I agree with you.

By refusing vaccines, even when its "just your child/children" can be fatal to children who cannot receive vaccines due to a lowered immune system from leukaemia, for example.

If vaccines only affected your child's health (and no one else's) it would be fine to refuse to vaccinate. But what many people do not realise that they are putting other peoples lives at risk (such as children with cancer, infants that are too young to get vaccinated), not to mention old people who can't be vaccinated.


Now, the diseases will probably never be completely eradicated because vaccines are not always 100% disease-proof, meaning that there never* will be the utopian "we don't need vaccines at all because all of the diseases have been eradicated". (*Unless ALL life on earth dies).

I believe that everyone, unless if there is a valid medical excuse (like cancer, their immune system is too weak ATM etc.) should be vaccinated.

Parents who are "anti-vaxxers" should be educated on vaccines and their children would be forced to be vaccinated.


_________________
Diagnosed with
F84.8 (PDD-NOS) 2014
F33.1 Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, moderate.


Stoic0209
Raven
Raven

Joined: 15 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 123
Location: New York

28 Jul 2017, 5:48 am

What is the percentage risk of the following scenario happening: Said parent does not allow their child to be vaccinated. Said child catches measles. Said child spreads measles to another individual that has a compromised immune system causing them serious injury or death.

The chance for that is so very slim. I cannot agree to initiate force on so many people for such a small risk. If there is a case by case basis where you could show that active exposure of an immune-compromised individual to another infected individual caused the issue, then you could legally pursue something, but to rob an individual of their right to refuse treatment? Why stop there? Why stop at vaccines? Why not just start sterilizing individuals due to genetic defects in their code? Because that's the point we're at right now. Realistically, there's no way to genetically alter a person's DNA, so the only other option is to sterilize people.

I could maybe, just maybe, agree to mandatory MMR vaccines, Polio, things of that nature. But flu shots?!? They're not even effective 2/3rds of the time. They're based on a best guess on how the disease is going to mutate. And they commonly cause adverse reactions.

With all due respect curious, I'm not too keen on the idea of ending up in jail on your world, because while the idea of vaccination is excellent, I don't trust every single vaccine. MMR is great, Polio, and others, but some like the Flu shot and Meningitis vaccine I'm not too keen on.



CuriousButDepressed
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Boston

28 Jul 2017, 7:05 am

Stoic0209 wrote:
What is the percentage risk of the following scenario happening: Said parent does not allow their child to be vaccinated. Said child catches measles. Said child spreads measles to another individual that has a compromised immune system causing them serious injury or death.

The chance for that is so very slim. I cannot agree to initiate force on so many people for such a small risk. If there is a case by case basis where you could show that active exposure of an immune-compromised individual to another infected individual caused the issue, then you could legally pursue something, but to rob an individual of their right to refuse treatment? Why stop there? Why stop at vaccines? Why not just start sterilizing individuals due to genetic defects in their code? Because that's the point we're at right now. Realistically, there's no way to genetically alter a person's DNA, so the only other option is to sterilize people.

I could maybe, just maybe, agree to mandatory MMR vaccines, Polio, things of that nature. But flu shots?!? They're not even effective 2/3rds of the time. They're based on a best guess on how the disease is going to mutate. And they commonly cause adverse reactions.

With all due respect curious, I'm not too keen on the idea of ending up in jail on your world, because while the idea of vaccination is excellent, I don't trust every single vaccine. MMR is great, Polio, and others, but some like the Flu shot and Meningitis vaccine I'm not too keen on.


While you're right that it is unlikely that such a scenario would happen, in the words of the great Batffleck, "if there's a 1% chance, we have to treat it like an 100% chance". It's much more beneficial to vaccinate as many people as possible and annihilate the disease entirely than to let the disease possibly infect people who aren't exposed. We have to do everything we can to ensure the utter extermination of these diseases.