Make America Sick Again (Trump & Vaccine Refusal)

[GIGObuster]

@WillFarnaby

No.

My definition of parental choice is the prevailing status quo in parts of the country I’m familiar with. Parents do not have to have their child vaccinated. If you want to take that option away, that puts you on the extreme authoritarian fringes on this issue. Wrong fringes.

Sorry you village idiot, but the evidence shows that many parents are being irresponsible with their own kids and the ones from others in this issue. So then California and other states are tightening that “choice”.

@WillFarnaby

You are upset that parents can choose to not vaccinate, yet you claim nobody wants to
forcibly vaccinate. Confused thinking. What would you like to happen if parents refuse to have their children vaccinated?

As others pointed before,

California’s child vaccination law attacks parents’ constitutional rights,...

Still, the professor said, attorneys for the plaintiffs have a tough case to make: that a parent has the right not to protect their children against disease — “and the right to send the child to school unvaccinated and risking others.”

A parent’s right to make medical decisions for their children is constitutionally protected, she said, but “that right is not absolute.” The bodily autonomy argument is also a difficult one to make, she said, as “the children here don’t have a choice. The children don’t decide not to vaccinate; it’s the parents.”

…

[in comments]

The state can in fact restrict fundamental rights if I can demonstrate 1) it has a justifiable compelling interest to do so and 2) acting to restrict exercise of the right is the least intrusive means of acting on that compelling interest. that’s the reason, for example, despite a constitutional right to bear arms the mentally ill and convicted felons may be denied gun ownership, why members of the US military must surrender many of their rights (including the right to refuse vaccinations or to plead the fifth amendment during a court-martial procedure), etc.
In this case the state has a compelling public health interest in protecting children from infectious disease.

[WillFarnaby]

@k9bfriender

Or daycare, or sports, or the park, or birthday parties. Really, anything that would have your child coming into contact with any other children. Church I suppose is okay, as long as all members agree, and there is a big sign out front that says, “Our children have not been vaccinated.” The CDC will visit from time to time when your children start dying from preventable diseases, they have not gotten all that much data on many of these in modern times, (as vaccines have prevented them from making outbreaks in first world nations) so your child’s sacrifice will at least do a small amount of good.

Oh, and if you choose not to vaccinate, whether it be universal healthcare, or insurance, any complications that arise from preventable illness should not be socialized, and the parents who made the decision can bear the cost of it.

So, if you are willing to lock you child up, and not allow them to socialize with their peers, and not receive medical treatment when they do get sick, then you can skip the vaccines.

Now, it is to wonder if it is ethical to isolate a child like that, but who are we to dictate what choices parents make about their children?

It is a choice, if you choose to receive the benefits from society, there are some small obligations that are asked of you. If you refuse those small obligations, then society has no reason to give you (and your child) those benefits.

You are correct that owners of private property such as day cares, sports leagues, and churches should be allowed to require vaccination to attend. Where you go off the rails is when you make it a requirement for these property owners to require vaccines. You can choose to not engage with these businesses, but you have no right to mandate these policies through force of law.

[WillFarnaby]

@GIGObuster

Sorry you village idiot, but the evidence shows that many parents are being irresponsible with their own kids and the ones from others in this issue. So then California and other states are tightening that “choice”.
As others pointed before,

California's child vaccination law faces another legal challenge

Damn you are really dumb. Why are these activist leftists so incapable of nuance?

I never stated that parents should be allowed to not vaccinate their child and send them to public, or any other school. It is entirely up to the school whom they chose to admit. I simply stated that parents currently have the right to not vaccinate their children. This is true. I also stated that if you want to take that option away, you are on the extreme authoritarian fringes on this issue.

[Czarcasm]

@WillFarnaby

Damn you are really dumb. Why are these activist leftists so incapable of nuance?

I never stated that parents should be allowed to not vaccinate their child and send them to public, or any other school. It is entirely up to the school whom they chose to admit. I simply stated that parents currently have the right to not vaccinate their children. This is true. I also stated that if you want to take that option away, you are on the extreme authoritarian fringes on this issue.

This right to endanger your children and, through them, the children of others-is this some weird offshoot of Libertarian “property rights are sacrosanct” principles where your children are your property and the government has no right to interfere?

[WillFarnaby]

@Czarcasm

This right to endanger your children and, through them, the children of others-is this some weird offshoot of Libertarian “property rights are sacrosanct” principles where your children are your property and the government has no right to interfere?

It’s actually pretty much the status quo. Thanks for the input though.

[GIGObuster]

@WillFarnaby

Damn you are really dumb. Why are these activist leftists so incapable of nuance?

You are not even wrong on this dumb point also, there are a good number of leftists who are also misled to not vaccinate their kids.

@WillFarnaby

I never stated that parents should be allowed to not vaccinate their child and send them to public, or any other school. It is entirely up to the school whom they chose to admit. I simply stated that parents currently have the right to not vaccinate their children. This is true. I also stated that if you want to take that option away, you are on the extreme authoritarian fringes on this issue.

You should go back and realize that you were the jackass for not pointing out what “nuanced” position you had. In any case it is still a stupid one.

[Czarcasm]

@WillFarnaby

It’s actually pretty much the status quo. Thanks for the input though.

What’s the status quo-that children are property?

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Der_Trihs

Many of them claimed to have voted for Trump to “punish” America for not paying attention to them, and a plague would hurt lots of people so yes; they probably love the idea of a new Black Death style epidemic. Anything that hurts and kills people, Trump supporters love.

This. America wants to kill America because America hates America, especially Americans.

[Czarcasm]

@Drunky_Smurf

This. America wants to kill America because America hates America, especially Americans.

Druck off, Funky.

[WillFarnaby]

@GIGObuster

You are not even wrong on this dumb point also, there are a good number of leftists who are also misled to not vaccinate their kids.
You should go back and realize that you were the jackass for not pointing out what “nuanced” position you had. In any case it is still a stupid one.

If you weren’t in such a hurry to let off your flurry of cites from the activist-o-sphere, maybe reading comprehension wouldn’t be such a chore for you.

[WillFarnaby]

@Czarcasm

What’s the status quo-that children are property?

That parents have the right to not vaccinate their children.

[Czarcasm]

@WillFarnaby

That parents have the right to not vaccinate their children.

So your post was a non sequitur, and not a response to what I said at all.

[WillFarnaby]

@Czarcasm

So your post was a non sequitur, and not a response to what I said at all.

Wrong. I can tell you’re trying, which is good.

“This right to endanger your children and, through them, the children of others-is this some weird offshoot of Libertarian “property rights are sacrosanct” principles where your children are your property and the government has no right to interfere?”

-Czarcasm

This right to endanger your children, and through them, the children of others (i.e. Not vaccinating in demagogue language) is not an offshoot of libertarian principles, but it is the status quo.

That’s why I said that it was… the status quo. Thanks for playing.

[Me_Billy]

@GIGObuster

…The Kremlin really does not need to send spies to the USA to undermine it…

Where do you get THAT information?

Note that historically Russia has spent MILLIONS on spreading propaganda in the U.S.

And might want to read the following about Russia’s recent shenanigans.

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections…
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

From the above document “The Kremlin’s campaign aimed at the US election featured disclosures of data obtained through Russian cyber operations; intrusions into US state and local electoral boards; and overt propaganda.”

[Czarcasm]

@WillFarnaby

Wrong. I can tell you’re trying, which is good.

“This right to endanger your children and, through them, the children of others-is this some weird offshoot of Libertarian “property rights are sacrosanct” principles where your children are your property and the government has no right to interfere?”

-Czarcasm

This right to endanger your children, and through them, the children of others (i.e. Not vaccinating in demagogue language) is not an offshoot of libertarian principles, but it is the status quo.

That’s why I said that it was… the status quo. Thanks for playing.

What a fucked up philosophy you have and, no, it is NOT the status quo.
BTW, this isn’t a “game” to be won or lost by a sneer and a dismissive hand wave-you are just wrong, and you are part of a small(but annoyingly loud) group that endangers children.

[GIGObuster]

@WillFarnaby

If you weren’t in such a hurry to let off your flurry of cites from the activist-o-sphere, maybe reading comprehension wouldn’t be such a chore for you.

Well, you are only showing the ignorance you have, Doctors are the ones who are raising the alarm, not just activists.

Experts say preventable diseases like these are gaining a foothold again because many parents have taken advantage of laws in 48 states that allow families to skip or delay the shots for religious or personal reasons.

“Ten to 20 percent delay the shots. One to 2 percent choose not to vaccinate at all,” says Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

That wouldn’t be so bad if they were evenly distributed across the U.S., putting an unvaccinated kid here or there. But people who decide to go unprotected tend to cluster in groups.

Dr. Paul Offit: "A Choice Not To Get a Vaccine Is Not a Risk-Free Choice" |...

What do you say to parents who are vaccine skeptics?

I think it’s reasonable to be hesitant. It’s very hard, I think, for a parent to watch their child get 26 inoculations in the first few years of life, five shots at one time, for diseases they don’t see.

What I say to those people is that a choice not to get a vaccine is not a risk-free choice. It’s just a choice to take a different risk. And what is that other risk? For example, even though we hadn’t seen measles in this country for 10 years, we finally got to the point where enough children weren’t vaccinated that children started to get measles in 2008, as many as 140, and some of those children were hospitalized, and one of those children almost died. And you don’t want that to be you. And the only way that you can accept, I think, a vaccine for diseases that frankly are virtually gone from the United States, like measles or diphtheria or polio, is if those vaccines are incredibly safe, have a wonderful safety profile. And these vaccines do have that. Doing nothing is doing something. It is, in this case, taking a risk that’s unnecessary.

I think in the 1950s or ’60s or ’70s, when you were choosing not to get a vaccine, you were, in a sense, putting a gun to your head that had a certain number of empty chambers and a certain number of bullets. Now, I think, with the diseases being so much rarer, you’re still putting a gun to your head; there’s just far more empty chambers. But why put a gun to your head?

Some people have modified the schedule. What do you think?

I think that people should be reassured by something called concomitant use studies, which is to say, every time a vaccine comes onto the schedule — a new vaccine — the FDA makes the company prove that that vaccine doesn’t interfere with the safety profile or the immunogenicity profile of the existing vaccine, and vice versa. So the schedule is very well tested.

I think that when you choose your own schedule, you’re choosing something that isn’t well tested, where you don’t know whether or not the immune response is the same; you don’t know whether or not the safety profile is the same. So one should go with the schedule that has the most data. And there are hundreds of these kinds of studies that are performed prior to licensure. …

The fears aren’t science-based. I guess our job as health care professionals is to try and make the data that show that vaccines are safe and effective compelling. And it’s not easy, especially in the absence of clear evidence that those diseases are overwhelming our population. But I guess we all have our biases. My bias is, I work in a hospital, so I see these diseases come into our hospital. I know what they can do, and knowing that they can be prevented safely is very compelling.

In some communities, vaccination rates have dropped a lot. What’s behind this?

I think we were starting to see over the past few years communities that are choosing not to vaccinate their children. It tends to be highly educated groups who are relatively well off, upper middle class, who don’t see these diseases and aren’t compelled by them, and just believe that they shouldn’t get the vaccines. And Vashon Island, [Wash.,] is one example; Ashland, Ore., is another example; Southern California, there are communities; and in New York, in suburban New York, there are communities. And so there’s a risk. And the risk is not theoretical anymore. What you’re seeing is, you’re seeing outbreaks of diseases that were one time much better controlled. …

There was one outbreak [of pertussis] in Delaware that was particularly worrisome. It occurred in 2006. It was written up by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in their journal called Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, and it had one sentence in it which was particularly frightening, because what it said was, if you looked at that outbreak, it occurred primarily in 5- to 9-year-old children, which is really not something that we see in the vaccine era. And the statement was, this is the epidemiology of what one typically saw in the pre-vaccine era.

And now we’ve had a handful of children who have died of Haemophilus influenzae type b, died because their parents were more frightened of the vaccine than they were of the disease. They chose to leave those children vulnerable, and those children paid the ultimate price for that choice. It’s not OK anymore. It’s really unconscionable. We have gotten to a tipping point where enough people now are making this choice that they are affecting not only their own children but children who come in contact with their children.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Jackmannii

This is unusually stupid even for you, Will.

I strongly disagree. It’s perfectly within his usual stupidity bailiwick.

[GIGObuster]

@Me_Billy

Where do you get THAT information?

Note that historically Russia has spent MILLIONS on spreading propaganda in the U.S.

And might want to read the following about Russia’s recent shenanigans.

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections…
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

From the above document “The Kremlin’s campaign aimed at the US election featured disclosures of data obtained through Russian cyber operations; intrusions into US state and local electoral boards; and overt propaganda.”

I did not say that the Kremlin does not do that, only that they did figure out ALSO on how to help a political candidate more in the open.

[WillFarnaby]

@Czarcasm

What a fucked up philosophy you have and, no, it is NOT the status quo.
BTW, this isn’t a “game” to be won or lost by a sneer and a dismissive hand wave-you are just wrong, and you are part of a small(but annoyingly loud) group that endangers children.

Yes. It is the status quo. Parents do not have to vaccinate their children. You are absolutely stunning in your ability to be wrong and loud about being wrong.

@GIGObuster

Well, you are only showing the ignorance you have, Doctors are the ones who are raising the alarm, not just activists.

Dr. Paul Offit: "A Choice Not To Get a Vaccine Is Not a Risk-Free Choice" | FRONTLINE

So what do you want to do if parents don’t want to vaccinate their child. Be specific.

[k9bfriender]

@WillFarnaby

You are correct that owners of private property such as day cares, sports leagues, and churches should be allowed to require vaccination to attend. Where you go off the rails is when you make it a requirement for these property owners to require vaccines. You can choose to not engage with these businesses, but you have no right to mandate these policies through force of law.

Good day cares are licensed, pat of that license requires the children attending to be vaccinated. (There are hole in the wall day cares, which I am not sure if it is actually legal, and I know are a bad idea, but I suppose you and the other parents who choose to leave your children at risk of suffering from and transmitting preventable disease can all get together, and let your children wallow in filth.)

Sports are played on public fields, it is within the rules of public use commons to not allow plague carriers to use those commons.

I already said churches can go their own way, as long as they make sure that the public is aware of the unsanitary conditions.

I would limit them from other areas, like restaurants, stores, malls, and any other public gather places if it were easier to tell which children are those who are at risk of transmitting the disease to someone who is immuno-compromised in such a way that they cannot gain an immunity to the disease that you wish your child to spread.

Or are you saying that these limitations are too much undue burden upon those who wish to place the burden of their sick children on society.