|
Bel Shazar posted:No. Legal actions (I'm not saying that those actions were legal in the case you quoted) that result in harm or death should be prosecuted when possible. My objection was to mandated prophalactic medical procedures, not to there being legal ramifications for people who opt to not protect their children medically and then fail to protect them (or others) from the increased risk caused by their choice. Vaccines are pointless without complete coverage, you realize that? By allowing people to opt you, you are allowing the diseases to spread in society. You are essentially, killing people, because your ideal of freedom says that people can't be forced to do something?
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Opting out of vaccinations is not neglegence. Opting out of vaccinations absolutely is 100% negligence. It is needlessly endangering your child with absolutely no advantages. Just like not putting your children in car seats, or allowing them to drink bleach. This is not up for debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:No. Legal actions (I'm not saying that those actions were legal in the case you quoted) that result in harm or death should be prosecuted when possible. My objection was to mandated prophalactic medical procedures, not to there being legal ramifications for people who opt to not protect their children medically and then fail to protect them (or others) from the increased risk caused by their choice. I specifically asked you about active medical treatment for disease, not prophylactics though. VitalSigns posted:How does this not apply to almost any medical treatment. Denying my kid antibiotics does not guarantee his pneumococcus infection will kill him. People used to recover from pneumonia without treatment all the time! You said Bel Shazar posted:It absolutely applies to pretty much any other medical treatment. And yet there are people whose firmly held beliefs do not allow them to partake of those treatments. I don't agree with it, I don't like it, I advocate against it and I think efforts should be made to make that happen as rarely as possible. And yet, I don't think mandating medical procedures is an appropriate use of state powers. So could you explain? Should it be legal to withhold antibiotics from a child suffering from pneumococcus, or not? If not, why is it okay to expose your child to needless risk of death by withholding vaccines, but not to expose him to needless risk of death by withholding antibiotics? Neither thing guarantees death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:And that is not my argument. I am saying that I do not believe I have the right to tell another parent that they have to make the same choice I did. But you already support denying services to those going unvaccinated which pretty much amounts to the same thing, only with a time-wasting middle step.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Fair enough, folks. Thanks for challenging me on this. I can't land on any answer that doesn't include the threat of repercussions, and if I'm already going to accept coercion the moral choice is to require vaccines before the chance of death arises. I continue to prefer education and incentives over mandates, but when all else fails, you are correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Edited due to above. Modern experiments have found evidence that human brains are rather poo poo at accurately determining risk. You can say that you prefer incentives over mandatory laws at getting people vaccinated, but you're then putting unjustified faith in the risk assessment of normal human beings. Your position is in opposition to real evidence. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:Your position is in opposition to real evidence. Heh, nahh, it's just a poor cover to a pretty complete rout. Bel Shazar fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Fair enough, folks. Thanks for challenging me on this. I can't land on any answer that doesn't include the threat of repercussions, and if I'm already going to accept coercion the moral choice is to require vaccines before the chance of death arises. It's way too loving easy to not vaccinate, especially in CA. When starting school in CA, I had to submit my vaccinations records, but the county government in MD had lost my records, so I figured I'd just get the measles vaccination again (the only one they needed). When I went though, I noticed a line "Check here if you wish to refuse vaccination for philosophical reasons", and after asking the nurse she said all I had to do was check that box and get cleared by the school for vaccination purposes. It should not be that insanely easy to opt-out. By the way, the mandates are necessary because vaccinations are only effective when 98% or higher of the population has them, because 2-3% won't be able to get vaccinated due to unrelated medical reasons. Also, when vaccinations were debuted in the 50s/60s every single person raising a child had suffered from or knew someone who had suffered from measles, whooping cough, polio, etc. and did not hesitate to make their child immune to said diseases. Now we're 2-3 generations past and the newest crop of know-it-all parents think those diseases aren't that bad and think nothing of letting their child catch it. Education and incentives are pointless because people choosing to let their child catch an infectious disease have already determined what "the truth" is, from internet research, Jenny McCarthy, etc, and no amount of informing or offers will sway them otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
To top this off, I just called the cops on my neighbors because they are ready to kill one another. Should I just stand back and let them settle it? Goddamn. I feel like a huge rear end in a top hat, but I also know it was the right thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:Modern experiments have found evidence that human brains are rather poo poo at accurately determining risk. You can say that you prefer incentives over mandatory laws at getting people vaccinated, but you're then putting unjustified faith in the risk assessment of normal human beings. Your position is in opposition to real evidence. Just to reiterate what you're saying, this was demonstrated pretty strongly when this happened: Pohl posted:That church in Texas that was anti-vaccine actually held vaccination clinics after a bunch of them got measles. It turns out that being anti-vaccine is cool until people start catching diseases that will disable and or kill them. Parents today are the first generation to grow up without they or anyone they know ever getting these diseases, and they literally have no idea what they are, or what they do so vaccines against something no one ever gets seems unnecessary and needles are scary so any argument against them can appear like a plausible reason "not to take the risk of injections". Education isn't enough. Sometimes you have to force people because they are willfully or negligently ignorant. Especially since experiencing the consequences finally drills some sense into these idiots, so if education doesn't work you might as well force them to do what they're almost definitely going to want to do anyway once one of their kids dies. But with the mandate we can skip the whole needlessly dead kids part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just to reiterate what you're saying, this was demonstrated pretty strongly when this happened: My dad had Polio when he was a child and I will always be a crazy vaccine person. I love vaccines. I've said what you said before, about people not understanding the risks they are taking. This is not a game or some stroll to the corner store with a gun in order to make a point. This is a life and death discussion and yet, people with no idea what they are talking about and whom haven't experienced these diseases seem to really believe their voice matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Oh my.... Actual anti-vaxxers quote: quote:Vaccination is Blasphemy because it prevents merciful providence from culling children of the poor John Birch 1806 (not the John Birch Society John Birch another one). Source: History of vaccination by someone who actually knows what they are talking about. http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/from-jenner-to-wakefield-the-long-shadow-of-the-anti-vaccination-movement Seriously Birchs' argument was: There are too many poor people. It is bad to be poor. Poor people die of smallpox more than rich people. Therefore smallpox is good because it kills poor people who would otherwise have had a miserable life. The argument is consistent and logical but depends on some seriously hosed up values. I'm glad to see that modern Anti-vaxxers have developed much better arguments to support for the unnecessary randomised killing of their children.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Oh my.... That is the same twisted thinking that created Apartheid. As a social scientist I know that my science has been corrupted and misused in the past. I'm certainly not going to let people misuse it today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
pentyne posted:It's way too loving easy to not vaccinate, especially in CA. To put your mind at ease about it, California has recently changed the law regarding opt-outs. A law passed in 2012 which took effect Jan 1 of this year requiring that all parents opting their children out of vaccinations must first receive counseling by a health care practitioner (and chiropractors are specifically listed as NOT qualifying to sign, thankfully) about vaccination and submit a form signed by the health care practitioner along with the exemption request. In states where a similar type of law has passed, vaccination rates went up; whether the rates were artificially lower than they should have been because it used to be easier to opt out than to actually provide the needed documentation and now it no longer is, or if it has *actually* increased the vaccination rates is up for debate. In Washington state, for instance, a similar law passed in 2011 and opt-out rates for children entering kindergarten have dropped 27 percent in the years since.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
These laws are a good idea. If we are going to allow religious or conscience exceptions (which we should not be doing), at least make it more of a hassle than getting the drat shot is and require medical consultation, so at least negligent assholes don't just check the box because it's easier and anyone who is incurious but not super dumb has to let a doctor show them a flipbook of polio pictures or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
When I first registered my son in school here in California, I was required to provide a copy of his vaccination record which the school photocopied. The registration packet also contained no less than 3 separate pages on which I was supposed to copy the vax record by hand. I remember thinking to myself "This is loving bullshit, opting out requires nothing more than me checking a box. If vaccination wasn't so important to me, I'd be checking that box right about now." I have a feeling that more than a few people probably DID check that box out of frustration with the idiotic paperwork. Now that they would need to make a doctor appointment and pay a co-pay for the counseling to get the form signed, it's probably made filling out a bunch of stupid bureaucratic paperwork a much more attractive prospect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:No. Legal actions (I'm not saying that those actions were legal in the case you quoted) that result in harm or death should be prosecuted when possible. My objection was to mandated prophalactic medical procedures, not to there being legal ramifications for people who opt to not protect their children medically and then fail to protect them (or others) from the increased risk caused by their choice. Cool, so instead of nobody in prison and no dead kids, we get both. Truly we live in the best of all possible worlds. Also, why are we acting like children are an extension of their parents? An infant doesn't have religious beliefs to violate any more than a fetus does. Your religion is your own, not something you get to inflict on other people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
Vaccishield - Yes, you can apparently just make poo poo up and people will buy it. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccishield-pixie-dust-for-an-imaginary-threat/
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Wait, did someone change their mind in response to an argument on the internet? What loving universe am I in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Right. That is, again, why we should certainly require almost everyone to get vaccinated. However, people also have a right to practice their religions, regardless of how backwards you believe those religions are. We make exceptions to this when there is a clear harm to public health, but in this case there is not one, so we default to letting people practice their religion. I don't know about the weird sects and offshoots, but the mainstream Abrahamic religions all exempt people from following the rules when doing so might endanger lives, and risk of disease is considered in that. For example, not observing fast days when there's an epidemic sweeping through (in order to avoid weakening themselves and heightening their vulnerability to infection). Ogmius815 posted:The failure rate of the measles vaccine is at least two per cent and may be as high as ten per cent. In the recent outbreaks of measles almost half of the affected people had been vaccinated. So yeah, if less than 100,000 Christian scientists and whatever portion of the Jehovah witnesses decide to abstain are going to compromise her immunity, chances are it was already compromised. So you end up with a needless violation of religious liberty. I know that's fine with you because you're a goony goon goon who hates religion, but that's not how this country works. Ogmius815 posted:Right. That is, again, why we should certainly require almost everyone to get vaccinated. However, people also have a right to practice their religions, regardless of how backwards you believe those religions are. We make exceptions to this when there is a clear harm to public health, but in this case there is not one, so we default to letting people practice their religion. I don't know about the weird sects and offshoots, but the mainstream Abrahamic religions all exempt people from following the rules when doing so might endanger lives, and risk of disease is considered in that. For example, not observing fast days when there's an epidemic sweeping through (in order to avoid weakening themselves and heightening their vulnerability to infection). Ogmius815 posted:The failure rate of the measles vaccine is at least two per cent and may be as high as ten per cent. In the recent outbreaks of measles almost half of the affected people had been vaccinated. So yeah, if less than 100,000 Christian scientists and whatever portion of the Jehovah witnesses decide to abstain are going to compromise her immunity, chances are it was already compromised. So you end up with a needless violation of religious liberty. I know that's fine with you because you're a goony goon goon who hates religion, but that's not how this country works. http://motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/vaccine-exemptions-states-pertussis-map In Vermont, more than 6% of kindergardeners had religious exemptions from vaccination last year. In some counties, local exemption rates are as high as 17% per year. A measles outbreak in Texas last year almost exclusively affected members of a local megachurch whose leader was an antivaxxer. Epidemics are localized things, not national ones; even though the unvaccinated rate for the US as a whole is less than 2%, mini-religions tend to concentrate in specific places which can have much higher anti vaccination rates than the general population - and are much more vulnerable to disease. Bel Shazar posted:I wasn't aware that I was arguing that measles isn't a very dangerous disease. I thought I was arguing that not vaccinating does not guarantee that you will catch it. I remain in favor of education and incentives over mandated vaccinations. Vaccination is the only way to (more or less) guarantee that you won't catch it, and is in fact the only reasonable protective measure, since measles is incredibly contagious. In fact, the only reason unvaccinated people aren't practically guaranteed to catch it is that vaccination rates were so high until recently. I'd also note that we force parents to give their child medical treatment even in cases where lack of treatment wouldn't be lethal. If a kid breaks their arm badly and the parents don't take the kid to a doctor, it's very unlikely to be fatal but CPS would almost certainly step in if they found out; it's painful and has a good chance of long-term consequences (like the bone healing improperly) and is more than enough to garner a neglect charge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Wait, did someone change their mind in response to an argument on the internet? I know, I know, I know. I allowed logic and alternate viewpoints to influence my thoughts and determined I was wrong. I think I'm doing this whole internet thing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Yeah you're meant to doubledown on stupid beliefs and then declare yourself a puppetmaster in 5 pages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Opting out of vaccinations absolutely is 100% negligence. It is needlessly endangering your child with absolutely no advantages. Just like not putting your children in car seats, or allowing them to drink bleach. This is not up for debate. No, see, it's okay; because after he infects his kid and local community with polio someone will sue him, then other people will think twice before being anti-vaxxers, and- (falls over dead after contracting smallpox)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:(falls over dead after contracting smallpox) Anti-vaxxers suck but blaming them in the event of a terrorist's biological weapons attack is a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Anti-vaxxers suck but blaming them in the event of a terrorist's biological weapons attack is a stretch. For real. Smallpox isn't vaccinated against because it doesn't exist in the wild anymore. I was hoping we could say the same with polio soon (only good thing Bill Gates ever tried to do), but our government had to gently caress that one up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I don't know about the weird sects and offshoots, but the mainstream Abrahamic religions all exempt people from following the rules when doing so might endanger lives, and risk of disease is considered in that. For example, not observing fast days when there's an epidemic sweeping through (in order to avoid weakening themselves and heightening their vulnerability to infection). Yeah alright you guys win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:For real. Smallpox isn't vaccinated against because it doesn't exist in the wild anymore. I was hoping we could say the same with polio soon (only good thing Bill Gates ever tried to do), but our government had to gently caress that one up. What's the story behind this? I've heard the islamaphobia version of people claiming Allah said not to get vaccinated so they were refusing WHO polio vaccines but, I haven't heard anything about it being a problem state side.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:What's the story behind this? I've heard the islamaphobia version of people claiming Allah said not to get vaccinated so they were refusing WHO polio vaccines but, I haven't heard anything about it being a problem state side. The US government used vaccine missions as cover to hunt for Bin Laden, (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/asia/12dna.html) because obviously catching a decreasingly important terrorist is of more use to humanity than annihilating polio or other easily preventable diseases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Granted we can blame the C.I.A. for validating Muslim fears, But they're not completely to blame. And there has been at least one murder by the Taliban that hints they were very much against vaccine programs back in 2007.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Lead Psychiatry posted:Granted we can blame the C.I.A. for validating Muslim fears, But they're not completely to blame. And there has been at least one murder by the Taliban that hints they were very much against vaccine programs back in 2007.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:What's the story behind this? I've heard the islamaphobia version of people claiming Allah said not to get vaccinated so they were refusing WHO polio vaccines but, I haven't heard anything about it being a problem state side. The CIA used fake tests/vaccines to track and kill Columbian counterfeiters as a dry run. Then they used stolen vaccines and samples from family to get Bin Laden. In both cases the targeted populations were allowed to believe they were inoculated. Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:The CIA used fake tests/vaccines to track and kill Columbian counterfeiters as a dry run. Then they used stolen vaccines and a to get Bin Laden. In both cases the targeted populations were allowed to believe they were inoculated. Wait, we didn't even actually give these people the vaccine? Jesus tapdancing Christ, that's getting to Captain Planet levels of super-villainy. Seriously, we jack up assholes who do things like give fake cancer drugs to selfish reasons($$$), then turn around and have the government do a similar drat thing? gently caress us. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Apparently we didn't even bother to keep records so we could at least follow up later and tell people "Hey, that wasn't a vaccine, you should go get a real one from these people, sorry!" At least this time we didn't purposely infect anyone with syphilis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Wait, we didn't even actually give these people the vaccine? Jesus tapdancing Christ, that's getting to Captain Planet levels of super-villainy. Seriously, we jack up assholes who do things like give fake cancer drugs to selfish reasons($$$), then turn around and have the government do a similar drat thing? gently caress us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Apparently we didn't even bother to keep records so we could at least follow up later and tell people "Hey, that wasn't a vaccine, you should go get a real one from these people, sorry!" Sad thing is, the US government has purposfully infected people with syphilis more than once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Lord_Ventnor posted:Sad thing is, the US government has purposfully infected people with syphilis more than once. We didn't intentionally infect those people, we just lied to them about how they were being treated. It was still loving horrible, but not as bad as you are implying. EDIT: Ehh that sounds deceptively tame. Let's be clear: we lied to those people in Tuskegee about the fact that they were not being treated for their syphilis. It's one of the greatest shames of the scientific community and resulted in a new set of ethical standards (for example, this is why IRBs exist). EDIT 2: Nope I'm wrong also. What happened is that we found a bunch of black men with syphilis, didn't tell them that they had syphilis, and continued to observe their untreated syphallis for decades even after an effective treatment (penicillin) had been discovered. Way to go America. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:What's the story behind this? I've heard the islamaphobia version of people claiming Allah said not to get vaccinated so they were refusing WHO polio vaccines but, I haven't heard anything about it being a problem state side. In countries where there is substantial distrust of the US and not very much knowledge about vaccination, it seems incredibly suspicious when a bunch of Western doctors show up and insist that they need to give medical shots to every single strong and healthy person in the community, while exempting the sickest and weakest. It lends itself incredibly well to conspiracy theories, usually along the lines of the doctors being American agents trying to ethnically cleanse neighborhoods by poisoning or sterilizing people with fake medicine. Both parts of that theory have come true recently, though separately. There were the CIA doctors in Pakistan using fake vaccines to search for Bin Laden, and Israeli aid organizations have been implicated in giving Ethiopian immigrants birth control shots without their knowledge or consent by lying about what was in the shot (such as claiming they were giving vaccines). Of course, Middle Eastern anti-vaxxers have been around long before those incidents, but the key factor here is trust - if a doctor is willing to lie about what's in their syringe, then it's incredibly easy to pull that kind of poo poo, and vaccines are the single best candidate for any kind of fake medicine tactic since they should be given to healthy people as well as sick ones. It's not that those people don't believe in vaccines, it's that they don't trust Western doctors enough to be completely confident that the vaccines are real and that the vaccination campaign isn't a cover for some kind of nefariousness. It's not really comparable to Western anti-vaxxers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:EDIT 2: Nope I'm wrong also. What happened is that we found a bunch of black men with syphilis, didn't tell them that they had syphilis, and continued to observe their untreated syphallis for decades even after an effective treatment (penicillin) had been discovered. Way to go America. Were they or their families ever compensated for this? (I'm guessing either no or not much.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Were they or their families ever compensated for this? (I'm guessing either no or not much.) They were ($9 million and  free medical care as a court decision), but considering nobody went to prison/was executed for the sham, it seems a little hollow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
So there was a story (here) in Australia in the last few days about the family of a girl who developed problems (around the time she got a vaccine, fluvax I think it was called) getting a massive payment awarded to them with the judge apparently saying that it was the vaccine that caused the problems. Anyone know if this is complete bullshit or an isolated incident where a vaccine somehow did cause a problem?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:57
|
|
