The Anti-vaccination movement!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Anti-vaccination movement!

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Ogmius815 posted:

That report doesn't give any account of why similar research on "antivirals" can't be accomplished using literally any other virus than this one horrible dangerous one that you say should never be a problem again.

While dishelved's treatment of that was pretty disingenous, they give a pretty clear reason, behold:

quote:

Is work on additional compounds essential in view of the very advanced stages of development for ST-246 and CMX001? Some members of the committee felt that until licensure is reached for the lead compounds, live virus should be retained in the event that the lead compounds fail to be licensed and identification/development of other compounds is required. Others felt that it was so unlikely that the lead compounds would not be licensed that live virus was no longer needed.

They have pretty good antivirals for smallpox, but they haven't been approved yet. If they fail approval, we'll want some smallpox around to develop other antivirals, but maybe they won't fail anyways.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2014 23:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 16:05

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Main Paineframe posted:

Neither of those are smallpox-specific antivirals. ST-246, for example, is effective against all orthopoxviruses, and interferes with a gene that also exists in cowpox and vaccinia (remember, these two viruses are over 95% similar to smallpox!). It's also extremely hard to see how smallpox retention is necessary to antiviral development, given that it's impossible to test any smallpox drug against smallpox due to several properties of smallpox that make it a lovely experimental subject. As for the other drug, that's an anti-herpes drug that may be useful against many other families of virus, it's not a targeted anti-smallpox drug.

What's your point here? It's not at all relevant whether those antivirals are smallpox-specific, these scientists are asserting that smallpox is useful for developing specific antivirals which can be used against smallpox, the fact that they are also useful against other viruses doesn't diminish the need for antivirals which are effective against smallpox. The point is that existing leading antivirals which are effective against smallpox are not yet fully vetted.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 03:00

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Main Paineframe posted:

It's not, though. Actual, physical smallpox samples are of little use in antiviral research, mostly because anything that works against cowpox, monkeypox, and vaccinia will work against smallpox too, and anything that works against smallpox will also work against those three viruses, and all three of those viruses are far more useful in smallpox research than smallpox itself is, because smallpox has certain properties that make it absolute garbage to experiment with.

Ok cool, and your panel of experts in the field asserting this is where?

# ¿ Jul 10, 2014 03:28

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

GreyPowerVan posted:

The reason people jump on you in the Police Reform thread occasionally and why I responded kind of strongly in this thread is that you state things as if they're your thoughts and opinions rather than telling people that you're the mouthpiece of the law. It can make people think that you're a robot.

It's obvious that they are just explaining the status quo, whether or not the status quo is good or not is an entirely unrelated matter. In fact, they've gone out of their way to preface statements with "Legally, <statement>", as opposed to "Morally/Ethically, <statement>". If you're confused about that I think that's on you.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2015 22:38

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

GreyPowerVan posted:

Yes, as I assume it is on all of the other people that argue with Actus, like multiple pages of posters in other threads.

I mean if you want to act incredulous that there's a bunch of stupid people, or that there's a bunch of people that are trying to pick a fight, so they'll read in "And also that's a good thing" into statements that don't have it, you can do that, but it's not really convincing.

quote:

Anyways, there's a lot of stuff like that where the "legally...." statements are a cover for personal beliefs, such as racists who say "legally employers can't be racist so they aren't." and I had to deal with one of those today in one of my classes. Sorry for being on edge .

Huh? "Legally employers can't be racist" is sometimes a cover for "I am a racist" ok sure. "Legally you can't quarantine someone for not being vaccinated" is a cover for what personal belief held by the person claiming to be the mother of a vaccinated child?

# ¿ Jan 8, 2015 22:47

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Nintendo Kid posted:

You're not debating though, you're trying to brag about some supermarket cheese because you're incapable of proving that punishments don't exist outside of convictions. What are you even on?

ActusRhesus would be correct in not debating your legal opinions, since they are just obviously trivially wrong. You don't debate people who say 2+2=5.

twodot fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Jan 9, 2015

# ¿ Jan 9, 2015 02:53

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Solkanar512 posted:

Christ, I hate this "Oh god I hate conflict so much the truth is in the middle" crap. Do you seriously not understand how differing political worldviews that lead to the same anti-vaxxer bullshit might need to be addressed differently?

Wait a minute here. Do political world views ever lead to someone being anti-vaccine? Anti-vaccine isn't a political stance, it's a science stance. I assume when we talk about anti-vaccine people we are talking about people who think vaccines are ineffective or dangerous, not people who think children shouldn't take Gardasil to stop them from having sex.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2015 17:58

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Anti-corporate views can lead to somebody being anti-vaccine. In that case it's the "CORPORATIONS ARE MAKING YOU PAY THEM TO INJECT POISON INTO YOUR BABIES!!!!!" nonsense.

This seems plausible, but the actual problem is the "POISON" part here. Regardless of your view on corporations, injecting poison into babies is bad. (edit2: I'm also not quite prepared to accept "anti-corporate" as a political stance. You are presumably not talking about socialists, and I'm not clear on what lies between the two.)

quote:

Lolbertarian views can also lead to it in a roundabout way because of the whole "well you can't force me to do things so nyah" crap. In that case it's a matter of "well I can believe and do whatever I want" leading to people choosing to believe and do really loving stupid things.

I'd like to see someone in the wild that A) Believed vaccines to be effective and important medicine and B) Existing school requirements on vaccines were illegitimate.
edit:
If it's not clear here, I think that to qualify as anti-vaccine, you need to also be anti-status quo.

twodot fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jan 29, 2015

# ¿ Jan 29, 2015 18:40

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

CruelCoin posted:

You should try Steak Tartar, raw, thinly sliced. Delicious.

Because the steak derail is more comfortable than dealing with crazy people, steak tartare is raw and minced or chopped and steak carpaccio is raw and thinly sliced. Both are good.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2015 17:47

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

QuarkJets posted:

Yeah man, I also enjoy the taste and texture of cat food

Sincere condolences on living in a hellscape (possibly the midwest) that doesn't serve proper food.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2015 20:35

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Wintir posted:

I'm interested in legislation requiring vaccinations for public school attendance. I understand that it varies from state to state. Is there any good source detailing what is required in which states as well as possible exemptions?

Here you go:
http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/schoolsurv/schImmRqmt.asp
Strangely it appears that the only states that don't allow religious or philosophical exceptions are Mississippi and West Virginia.
edit: Mississippi has legislation pending that creates non-medical exceptions

twodot fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Feb 3, 2015

# ¿ Feb 3, 2015 01:09

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Solkanar512 posted:

Washington State has a bill in the legislature removing the "personal belief" exemption, allowing only medical and religious exemptions. I believe California has a similar bill.

Here's what I don't understand - what's the practical difference legally speaking between a "personal belief" exemption and a "religious" exemption?

In Washington state, the law on exemptions requires:

quote:

(b) A written certification signed by any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child that the religious beliefs of the signator are contrary to the required immunization measures; or
(c) A written certification signed by any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child that the signator has either a philosophical or personal objection to the immunization of the child.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.210.090
Legally speaking lying on a government form is perjury, so practically someone who had a personal objection could lie and claim a religious belief without any practical consequence, but legally it would be a crime (that could never be successfully prosecuted).
edit:
Here's the form you have to fill out:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/348-106_CertificateofExemption.pdf

# ¿ Feb 5, 2015 19:30

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

thrakkorzog posted:

Religious exemptions usually require a bit more paperwork than refusing vaccinations because someone read an article on the Intertubes and/or watched Jenny McCarthy on The View.

The personal belief exemption usually just boils down to a checkbox on a form that can basically be boiled down to, "Because I didn't feel like it."

The religious groups that straight out forbid modern medicine are such a small part of the overall population that traditionally it wasn't worth picking a fight with them. Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses are probably the two biggest denominations who prefer the healing power of prayer over actual medicine, and they're usually considered to be pretty fringe groups.

If nothing else, making the the vaccine deniers fill out extra paperwork couldn't hurt.

Uh in Washington state the religious exemption requires exactly as much paperwork as the personal belief exemption, it is the exact same form, I literally posted the paperwork you need to fill out. The claim that your religion forbids all sorts of medical intervention actually requires less paperwork because you don't have to go to a doctor.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Captain_Maclaine posted:

The Vermont Senate has voted to remove the philosophical exemption for childhood vaccination (this is distinct from the religious exemption, which still stands). Whether or not it will pass the House is still in question, though for my money I'd expect that it will.

Governor Shumlin hasn't outright threatened a veto, but he has commented previously that he thinks the philosophical exemption should be retained. So I guess we'll see, if it gets that far.

Much like Washington, the difference between the two is just theatre:
http://healthvermont.gov/hc/imm/documents/Philexemption_2013.pdf

# ¿ Apr 23, 2015 23:23

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Solkanar512 posted:

2. In my view, vaccination today is really no different than drunk driving back in the 60s and 70s. Both are incredibly selfish and dangerous acts, but they (took/will take) a concerted effort before the laws match the danger to society such actions cause. The thing people keep forgetting is that laws can be changed, and what is difficult to prosecute today can be made much easier if laws are changed.

But what's the actual action that you are going to make illegal? With drunk driving, if someone is 1) drunk and 2) driving, that's illegal, but I don't see the analog for vaccination. If someone is walking around should an officer be able to stop them and demand certification that they are vaccinated? It's easy to say to someone "If you want to engage in state controlled action X (like school), you first have to prove you are vaccinated or have a medical reason to not be vaccinated" (which I support), but that doesn't get you anywhere close to making not getting a treatment illegal.

# ¿ May 4, 2015 17:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Solkanar512 posted:

The actual action of willfully choosing to deny your child basic healthcare, including vaccinations without a solid medical reason for doing so should be seen in the same light denying them food, shelter, clothing and so on. Sure, your kid won't die right away if you make them sleep outside in the rain or refuse to feed them, but it's a really lovely thing to do that causes needless suffering and that shouldn't be tolerated in a modern society. And yes, it's trivially easy to include provisions for understanding that "choice" doesn't include "I can't afford it" and "basic healthcare" is defined as "what a reasonable pediatric doctor/scientific consensus would believe".

No smart person can ever be convicted of this crime, they will just say they were delaying vaccination until it was more convenient/they had more money/the child was older/whatever. Short of a confession, you'll never prove someone willfully made such a choice.

quote:

The whole point is that much like drunk driving, anti-vaxxers won't be punished in a serious manner for the risk of harm and death they cause to others until the laws are changed to account for it. Right now the laws aren't there for such a thing to happen.

Anti-vaxxers won't be punished in a serious manner until our legal system drops the concept of actus reus.

twodot fucked around with this message at 19:56 on May 4, 2015

# ¿ May 4, 2015 19:50

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Solkanar512 posted:

There are tons and tons of people out there who are claiming, next to their own names that they utterly refuse to vaccinate their children.

And if you make it illegal, they'll likely stop that.

quote:

Even then, by the "reasonable doctor/scientific consensus" standard, there's little room for delaying, and clear points where the delay has no justification. Most likely time ranges will develop for vaccinations, and if someone just fucks up, they get the vaccinations and everyone is happy again.

Wait, so you're no longer proposing the action be illegal? For a crime, it should go "If someone just fucks up, they go to prison".

quote:

Furthermore, claiming that "people will try to avoid this law" as a justification for not having the law in the first place is silly. I get away with speeding every single day, should we eliminate speed limit laws? No, because that's silly.

If humans for some reason didn't possess the ability to objectively measure an object's speed, then speeding laws would be silly. Laws that govern making a choice not to do something (as in not governing not doing it, but making the choice) are silly, because it requires a confession to prosecute. If MRIs could tell the difference between someone who decided to never vaccinate, and someone who was just lazy, I might be on board.
edit:
Also I agree with PT6A about speeding laws in particular.

# ¿ May 4, 2015 20:00

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Harik posted:

I don't understand how actus reus fits in here, there are plenty of examples where our legal system handles crimes of inaction. Mandatory reporting, seatbelts, feeding your kids - simply not doing something is already an act. What makes not-vaccinating legally different?

Not feeding your kids is more or less inaction, but it's easy to deal with: you refuse to feed your kids, we take your kids somewhere where they will get fed. I don't think that necessarily should be a crime, so long as nothing was damaged. Obviously if you refuse to feed your kids, and that refusal leads to some harm, we've got a depraved indifference kind of situation, and that should be illegal.

As others have noted taking kids away because they aren't vaccinated is a stupid overreaction, we just vaccinate the kid and that solves that. If you want to argue it should be a crime, we need the "your refusal to vaccinate this kid was an action that led to some harm" connection which is really tenuous.

If a child gets harmed because they were denied food, then we should punish the food denier. If a child gets harmed because they were exposed to a disease they didn't have an immunity to, it's not obvious the person that failed to attempt to supply an immunity is criminally responsible.

# ¿ May 4, 2015 21:28

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Solkanar512 posted:

Child abuse is illegal, and it still happens. Murder is illegal, and it still happens. Exceeding the speed limit is illegal, it still happens. Quit making this argument, because the logical conclusion of this argument is to have no laws at all, and I think we can all agree how loving dumb that is.

I think you should take a break, you clearly aren't following the conversation. You said:

Solkanar512 posted:

There are tons and tons of people out there who are claiming, next to their own names that they utterly refuse to vaccinate their children.

I said if not vaccinating was illegal people would stop doing this. The proper analogy to child abuse would be if there were a bunch of forums about child abuse and how it's awesome and they intend to abuse their children a bunch.

quote:

There are lots of things at are illegal without the requirement to send people to prison. Quit being a loving pedant and follow along with the spirit of what I'm trying to say instead of making up weird definitions of things.

What is your proposed penalty for committing this crime then? If you're proposing new crimes, I'm going to be a pedant, because that is how crimes work.

quote:

You can measure if someone has had a vaccination or not. There are things called vaccination records and lab tests called titers. No confession required, so drop it.

You can measure if someone has had a vaccination or not. You can not measure whether someone made the willful choice to not vaccinate their children. Again here is what you said:

Solkanar512 posted:

The actual action of willfully choosing to deny your child basic healthcare, including vaccinations without a solid medical reason for doing so should be seen in the same light denying them food, shelter, clothing and so on.

# ¿ May 4, 2015 21:42

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Harik posted:

So the act is driving, not leaving the seatbelt off? I can grant that. How about mandatory reporting?

I view mandatory reporting as a professional competence requirement. If you want to be licensed as being a certain sort of profession, you need to adhere to a variety of practices, failing to perform those shouldn't be allowed, and might be criminal depending on the severity. But even if you're right, and I think that mandatory reporting violates basic legal principles, so what?

Solkanar512 posted:

Look, folks like twodot are just going to define and pedant away anything they want without providing any useful or meaningful discussion in the process so gently caress it, I'm not going to poo poo up this thread continuing to respond to him.

I'm surprised you missed the useful discussion: The legal system is a totally inappropriate mechanism to promote vaccinations.

# ¿ May 4, 2015 22:58

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Harik posted:

You do realize that the legal system isn't limited to criminal law, right? Just make the child tax credit/EITC child credits dependent on either up-to-date immunizations or a medical wavier. That's a good $1000/year penalty for being behind, plenty of carrot, and well within the powers of the federal government thanks to Roberts.

I'd hesitate to call the tax code the legal system, but sure I'll agree saying "legal system" there was overly broad, and I should have said "criminal law" since that was what both I and Solkanar512 were discussing. (edit: To be clear, this is a bad idea, but it's not bad for any of the reasons I've been talking about)

# ¿ May 5, 2015 00:02

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

No it's not. It's an argument in favor of a government with limited, enumerated powers that operates based on rule of law. It's an argument that just government requires adhering to equality under the law, and respecting the rights of others, rather than trying to carve out exceptions based on our personal prejudices.

I'm fully in favor of a government with limited, enumerated powers that operates based on rule of law. One of those enumerated powers ought to be "ensures children are being cared for, including them being vaccinated". Whether any particular state has a founding document that grants this power is a conversation that can be had, but even if we conclude it doesn't, I will still argue it should.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2016 14:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 16:05

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

For example, we generally agree on the principle that only people old enough to competently make decisions about governance should be able to vote. However, "competent enough to make decisions about government" isn't an objective standard. Now, we could set up some sort of bureau of experts to determine when someone had reached a significant level of competence, but then you have to decide who counts as an expert and therefore a gatekeeper of voting rights, and given our experiments with such things in the past, it would probably be used as a way to disenfranchise black people. So we instead say that citizens are granted the franchise when they turn 18, and objective standard.

We did actually convene a bureau of experts to determine when someone had reached a significant level of competence, they are called the legislatures, and it's their job to create policy that governs their jurisdictions. They are the people who get to decide what is best.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2016 17:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Anti-vaccination movement!