Perhaps, IDK, but it does seem like your reply that it is still involving emotions - at least in part.
This is my point of my argument, you (or at least I) don’t fight emotion with logic, to me this never works and never will. Emotion must be fought must be fought on a emotional level. As I equate emotion with our spiritual side, emotional battles are spiritual battles, sometimes called spiritual warfare.
The hypothetical I presented above was a case where vaccinating someone who did not want to get vaccinated would result in no net benefit to society. By insisting that this person get vaccinated anyway I do see it as a emotional issue, as I stated above, perhaps self righteous, a sense of unfairness (I did it, you should too), and many times anger seems to be underlying.
Why would you want to force someone against one’s will to get a vaccine that has no proven benefit? And how can you logically argue your point if they have this illogical viewpoint?
In the realm of the emotional/spiritual (to me), I have to ask what would be the loving response to the above hypothetical, to me it is obvious, let them not be vaccinated in that case. And I have to question the difference from the loving emotional response to the observed emotional response.
I’ve been back over all your posts in the thread, and I can’t find this hypothetical you’re talking about. I’m sorry. Old eyes and my husband’s rushing us out of the house so I’m scrolling quickly. When you get a second, would you mind linking to the post or reposting the hypothetical?
Try going to Natural News and presenting a hypothetical wherein actually being vaccinated provides a net benefit to society and see how far that gets you. Whatever emotional issue you think your experience here suggests, surely being called a piece of shit baby killing Monsanto Big pHARMa whore (as you will be on Natural News, without a doubt) suggests MORE of an emotional issue.
Somewhat, in it’s most basic form if no one around a person can carry the disease due to immunity the risk of the person who is not immune becomes very small.
Thank you for providing the reason why debating with you is pointless.
This is like a deep, dark black hole of crazy I don’t have any interest in unpacking. You have no idea how evidence works.
Hmm… Diseases considered dead which can kill or maim children are making a comeback because a bunch of scientifically illiterate parents have been scared out of making correct medical decisions by liars and idiots who by all reason should be clapped in irons for antisocial behavior (Joe Mercola, Mike Adams, lookin’ at you!). I wonder why people are frustrated, angry, or self-righteous? :rolleyes:
Hmm. You know, that would be really interesting if it had any bearing on reality. Just like I could probably throw out a hypothetical example where it’s actually beneficial to distribute deadly toxins through the water supply; it doesn’t make it right in reality, and anyone who saw me advocating for that would be right to call me out on my crap, hypothetical or not. Reality. That thing that, you know, kinda matters. And your hypothetical sucks! Yes, herd immunity stops working below a certain threshold, but that doesn’t mean that reducing it towards that threshhold is a neutral action! In fact, it only gets stronger as the immunization rates increase. So your hypothetical is wrong on both a theoretical and practical level. In reality, many communities are already at the threshold where herd immunity starts to break down.
It’s crap. There, considered.
We do tout facts. In fact, we tout them loud and proud. We have, among others, the CDC, FDA, AAP, AMA, NAS, and virtually every major medical body in the western world espousing our position. The list of peer-reviewed papers and evidence stretching back over a century is overwhelming. It’s just that none of it seems to matter.
If you believe this, you are not paying attention. Full stop. No arguing, that is an irrefutable fact. If you think that those who support vaccination and believe it is safe and effective are not touting facts, then you are wrong. Spend five minutes on the CDC’s website, or 5 minutes on any article on ScienceBasedMedicine or RespectfulInsolence that talks about vaccines, or just take a minute to look. Hell, I provided three individual reliable sources which you then promptly ignored.
At the risk of repeating myself, the reason we didn’t spend a lot of time providing evidence in this thread before you showed up was because this is a discussion by rational adults, for rational adults, most of whom are well aware of the facts behind vaccinations. If I’m starting a thread about the impact of compound interest on retirement funds, I don’t spend a lot of time explaining how 2 * (1.05)^n works. And if someone here was actually interested in a discussion on the evidence surrounding vaccination, I’d be perfectly happy to have that discussion. You don’t seem interested.
Why should you care if I’m angry? Or can you read a whole lot of anger out of this PDF? Are all these scientists using emotional appeals? No! They’re using evidence. You know, that thing which matters to people who care about actually knowing things.
Not quite.As has already been mentioned, there are some that cannot be immunized due to various medical reasons. For herd immunity to work, the percentage of those that must be immunized has to be fairly high-so high, in fact, that the anti-vax movement can pretty much destroy it if they are successful.
From the CDC, the percentages necessary for herd immunity to work:
Well I was close enough, and looking at your link I feel I did a pretty darn good off the top of my head definition, and actually these percentages of a effective level is a lot lower then I assumed. Wow for some 15+% of the population can be unvax’ed and herd immunity would still be effective.
Your claim that the anti-vax crowd can push these numbers to the point that herd immunity would not work, I accept that is a valid argument. But I also want to put forth the opposite, the case where it would not.
What will likely happen to someone that strongly feels vaccination is harmful to the case of mandatory vaccinations? Will this person who was forced against their will be a bigger opponent to the cause and more destructive to it then if you allowed them to not be vaccinated?
I like this idea. I submit that we allow tax credits for people whose children can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons (allergies, cancer in a family member, etc.) but not for religious reasons.
I really don’t understand why religious people want things both ways. They want to stand up and be counted, but then they want no consequences for doing so. It’slike people who don’t get the concept of civil disobedience: they want to break a law they think is unjust, but then are shocked that the whole idea is to submit to civil authority, and go to jail afterwards.
The most head-exploding thing about them, if you ask me.
I know I’m preaching to the choir, but most people, pro or anti, don’t realize that the “lifelong” immunity of having a disease like measles or chickenpox, and recovering, gave you essentially lifelong immunity, because you were repeatedly exposed. The fact is that people in their 70s who have diseases like measles in childhood may now be vulnerable to them again, because they have not been exposed to them for 40 years. My mother started chemo (she isn’t seriously ill she had a tumor biopsy, and the doctor thought he got all the cancer cells with surgery, but she decided on a prophylactic round of chemo). Anyway, she got a full set of booster vaccines a few weeks before starting, since she would be immuno-suppressed. The only diseases she actually had were mumps and chickenpox, so she had her first ever MMR vaccine.
There’s always Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is a little like childhood disintegrative disorder, which if you’ve never seen, is a number of syndromes that manifest like a program form of autism along with a neuro-degenerative disorder like Tay Sachs, and results in death. Compared to it, ordinary autism is a day at the beach. SSPE is not the only post-measles degenerative syndrome that shows up several years after apparent full recovery, and there’s no way to know which children will develop the diseases.
Ironically, her child has seizures, which is one reason a doctor might take cautions with vaccinations; in fact, she diagnosed her child herself, if I am reading her book correctly. He may not have autism at all. He may have a disease that could have been exacerbated by febrile seizures after a vaccination. I worked with a person who had that, albeit, she had a stroke at birth, and had other issues, but did develop tonic-clonic seizures after a vaccination, and a fever (and got an award from the vaccination injury fund). Her doctor erred, supposedly, in not doing an EEG before her first vaccination, and telling her parents to give her Tylenol before the shots. Afterwards, all her vaccines were given in the doctors office, where she was observed for an hour, and the same thing was done for her younger sibling-- who had no birth issues, and never developed any seizures.
I don’t think she or her sib got vaccines on an alternate schedule, but I’m sure the school would have accepted that. I have a friend who had a child with cancer, and when he had chemo, his brothers couldn’t be vaccinated. The school accepted that.
I was vaccinated for Pertussis, and then got an attenuated case. It lasted only two or three days, but the cough, for the one acute day, was nightmarish. My mother thought I might have got it from the vaccine, but I probably got a mutant strain the vaccine didn’t quite control-- in which case, I was very lucky, because without the vaccine, I would have had the full-blown disease. I was only about 3 or 4 years old.
Nope. The more unvaccinated people there are, the more chance of the development of a mutant strain that can infect a vaccinated person. The smaller the pool of the unvaccinated, the better we are able to make sure the disease that is extant is the one we are making the vaccine for.
I had to show proof of Rubella vaccine to get a marriage license.
Except that by the time someone is old enough to be a legal sex worker, it may be too late. There’s a reason for giving them to girls who have not had sex yet. If boys can get them when my son is 12, he is getting one.
I wish we could just leave all the unvaccinated people to Darwin themselves out of the gene pool, but it just doesn’t work like that. They’re like drunk drivers who survive the accident while killing four sober people.
Oh. That’s not a hypothetical. But let me create a hypothetical out of it: imagine a population which has exceeded it’s vaccination goals for ensuring herd immunity. Would you (I) be accepting of personal choice (ie, not medical need) waivers then? My answer is yesbut… Yes, if we have exceeded our herd immunity percentage, then there’s more room for allowing personal choice waivers and not greatly raising the risk to the community. BUT, I would only do so with the caveat that a registration system were in place so that if that vaccination rate drops to a point where it looks like we’re going to be at risk, we can immediately contact people and get them in to be vaccinated. But, honestly, I don’t see that as being an easy sell. I think we’d have even more screeching about invasive government action if we tell them it’s okay not to vaccinate now and then literally round them up later.
So, that’s my hypothetical and my response to it. I don’t speak for any other vaccination supporter, of course.
BTW, years ago, on the old AOL SDMD, I argued against someone who seemed to be suggesting that there never be exemptions to mandatory vaccinations, not even medical ones-- as though people with egg allergies and siblings with cancer were just out of luck. Either she was crazy, or I misunderstood. Clearly, that would never happen. But FWIW, when I talk about mandatory vaccines, I always mean “with medical exemptions.” The whole point is to keep people alive and healthy.
I’m not sure how I feel about religious exemptions-- probably that they should exist, but that unvaccinated children with religious exemptions should not be allowed to go to public school. I don’t believe in “philosophical”-- whatever that means-- exemptions.
Forging vaccination documents should be a serious crime, with a fine and prison time. Sending a child to school with forged papers should be a felony, which should be a pretty good deterrent in 3-strikes states.
Did you bother to read the whole link I provided, or did you just read the part you mistakenly thought agreed with you and ignore the rest?
You cannot say that an 85% inoculation rate for a disease means that it’s o.k. for up to 15% of the anti-vaxers to drop out of the system. A percentage of the 15% are made up of those that cannot be inoculated for various medical reasons, another percentage are those that cannot get access to inoculations for various reasons, and another percentage are those that mistakenly think they are already inoculated. Now, considering those three groups of uninoculated people, what percentage of anti-vaxers could drop out of the system and still maintain herd immunity?
Honestly, due to lack of time, I looked at the pictures and skimmed.
Yes I fully and always agreed with this, and never mean to asy that 15% can be anti-vaxers, Anti-vaxers and their ability to chose has to do with such room being available to them given other un - vax’ed people.
Answered above, it would be up to 15% of the population total (for that specific disease), antivaxers included. If they fit they fit.
We have to realize we are in a free society where people can and do spout their viewpoints regardless of facts and get recognized and heard. The internet has accelerated this.
Do we want to continue a free society where the voice of the people can be heard, or do we want more centralized control? Even if we win over a disease, do we lose overall if we submit to mandatory forced vaccinations by allowing it to happen? Is the cure worse the the disease?
Just out of curiosity, do you know what this sounds like? When you skip from “here’s my wrong opinion on vaccines and evidence” to “well people have a right to be wrong, do you support censorship” when the only thing that’s really happened in the meanwhile is that lot of people have pointed out how wrong you are? It’s pretty classic, and not in a good way.
This doesn’t really have anything to do with the post of mine that you quoted, but I’m going to assume that since you quoted me, you want my thoughts on it.
As I said back on page one, I don’t support truly mandatory vaccination as the OP proposed it. That is, mandatory vaccination with only documented medical exceptions with criminal penalties for not vaccinating your kids. I don’t support that. I don’t support that because I agree with you that that cure would be worse than the disease - at least the disease as it stands now. While I see a few hundred cases of disease and a few dozen deaths per year as tragic and terribly unfortunate and I grieve with the families of the lost, I personally do not think that the death toll is high enough to warrant more aggressive enforcement at this time. At this time I support continuing to use **education **(both on a personal level, like I’ve tried to do in this thread, and on a larger level, with more television interviews with vaccination experts, TED talks, newspaper articles that do not present a false sense of “balance”, etc.) and **marketing **to increase vaccination rates, not law enforcement.
That may change in the future as more and more people refuse to vaccinate. (Or it may not; people are inherently selfish, and if kids start dropping like flies, I bet we’ll see a rise in voluntary vaccination, at least back to the levels of the 60s when every parent remembered how awful polio is.) Where’s my limit? I don’t know. I don’t know if I can put a hard and fast number on it. But if more kids start dropping dead of vaccine preventable illness than are killed in car accidents or choke to death on hot dogs every year, then I’m pretty sure we’d be in the territory where I’d have to cede that education and marketing aren’t enough, and some more draconian measures needed to be tried. Then the “cure” would not be worse than the disease, in my humble opinion.
You (and others in this thread) don’t seem to realize that* we already have a medical system which does not allow for parental freedom to the extent of endangering their child*. If you take a child to the hospital, you will not be able to sign them out AMA. Many people don’t realize this. If their condition is such that a medical doctor thinks it’s too dangerous to discharge them, you may not take them home. You may be able to have them transferred to another hospital, but even that is iffy. Our current medical culture views parents as agents of the state in making medical decisions for their children, not the other way around. As long as you’re making reasonable decisions mostly in line with what the state (as expressed by a Medical Doctor) wants, then you’re free to consider yourself in charge of your child’s health care. But step out of line and you’ll find out very quickly that the state will supersede your imaginary “rights” and appoint a legal guardian for healthcare who will make those decisions for your child on your behalf.
Parents may not refuse blood transfusions for their children. They may not refuse cancer treatments for their children. There are lots of interventions which a parent may not refuse for their child, even though they could refuse it for themselves. We’re actually *more *generous in our allowance of vaccine refusal than we are other areas of parental refusal for medical care for their children.
