What a minute. When exactly did either of them “jump on the anti vaccine movement”? If their comments are read in their entirety, I don’t see any way to rationally conclude that either of them is in favor of the anti-vaccine movement.
Obama (in case anyone couldn’t guess who ITR Champion was talking about) made those remarks in 2008. This was before the Wakefield study had been discredited. So at the time it was possible for a reasonable person to say it was an open issue that warranted investigation.
But it’s now 2015. We now know that Wakefield falsified his evidence and his work has been discredited. There’s no longer any rational basis for believing vaccines might cause autism or other mental disorders.
I’m pretty sure most kids aren’t too keen on having needles stuck in them, but they don’t generally need to be strapped to tables to be vaccinated. Instead, they just need a responsible adult to them it’s necessary to keep them from getting sick, and they just need to sit through it. On the other hand, if they have adults telling them vaccines are bad for them and can make it so they can’t walk or talk properly, they’ll believe that, too. Because they’re children.
This isn’t about the children. They’re not equipped to make these type of decisions. It’s about the parents. A debate over whether or not parents should be required to vaccinate their kids is right up there with a debate over whether or not parents should be required to feed or clothe their kids. It’s just nuts.
I recall mentioning the eradication of smallpox as a counterexample for your Every Government is Always Evil and Incompetent stance. Your response was equivocal. Can you offer a more nuanced view today? Would smallpox have been eradicated sooner without government intervention? Was its eradication a misfortune in hindsight?
I’m for the status quo on this issue. As are the vast majority of free individuals. Paul states that the state does not own our children. That seems to be what’s causing the usual characters to squeal a bit.
Rational position? What, exactly, is rational about it being optional to receive a medical treatment with virtually zero chance of significant or long-term damage that, should everyone receive it, stands a very good chance of wiping out deadly infectious diseases? Especially when the reasons why people opt out are so fundamentally wrong?
Libertarian endorses phenomenally bad policy with regards to infectious diseases: standard and expected. I hate to be a jerk, but with regards to vaccines, your political philosophy is unequivocally on the side of “let’s get polio!” There are damn good reasons to consider vaccines mandatory.
Gov Christie doesn’t seem to have a problem with extended mandatory quarantine after exposure to diseases that a person is not immunized against (in that case ebola for which there is not a vaccine.) He seems, in action, to lend some credence to there being possible consequences. That case was silliness extreme instead of rationale governance. I could have seen him trying to stake out a middle ground… he didn’t.
Sen. Paul seems to still lend credence to the wootastic BS about disproven side effects. That concerns me. The more libertarian aspect of letting parents be stupid could be separate but in his case doesn’t seem to differentiate.
While supporting getting kids vaccinations, I tend towards the more pragmatic on this issue. What system of compliance is really going to modify the behavior of someone who truly believes autism or guaranteed eternal damnation on the list of side effects for their little snowflake. Saying we mandate vaccinations is one thing. Developing actual systems required to effectively monitor and enforce compliance is another. Those systems come with real financial and social costs that need to be compared to the benefits. I don’t see Paul or Christie effectively staking out that middle ground. On what doesn’t have to be a binary issue they made IMO the wrong binary choice.
I’d be interested in some of the candidates who support mandatory vaccination making proposals for how. How matters. Anything less is simply side stepping the issue and giving political platitudes along the lines of “I support the same good things my opponents do. Vote for me because I said it said it wearing a nicer suit.”
They rarely are. It’s hard to be a libertarian with a firm grasp of the science, understanding the consequences of your political beliefs, and still hold them in good conscience. It’s much easier to do if you hold up beliefs that are nonsensical. Things like believing that climate change is a hoax, or that the consequences thereof aren’t as bad as we think. If you understand the scope and the extremity of the danger involved, how could you possibly advocate a political system with such a laissez-faire attitude? Similarly, if you understand the science behind vaccines, it’s very difficult to take a stance that doesn’t involve the eradication of these diseases. Not as hard as with global warming, but the point remains the same.
When libertarianism head butts reality, it loses. Non-libertarians are not saying that the state owns our children, we’re merely trying to minimize the risk for everybody. There are some children with specific issues like cancer treatments who cannot be immunized and some who are too young to receive the vaccine. Other than that, it should be mandatory. We have no more reason to accept cases of measles than we do of polio or smallpox. There are no valid reasons not to immunize, short of unique medical reasons due to other issues the child might have. If you don’t vaccinate your children who can be vaccinated, you’re not only a negligent parent, you’re taking risks with other children’s lives.
Since Chris Christie has stated that he has vaccinated his kids and, even if he allows parents a choice in vaccinating, he has a record of not hesitating to quarantine someone with a contagious disease to protect others I’m not sure I’d describe him as “anti-vax” in the usual sense. Personally, he seems on board with vaccines and, while allowing choice, is also on board with protecting others when necessary via other measures.
Rand Paul, though, is perpetrating discredited bullshit and is clearly anti-vax.
This sort of thing makes it close enough to mandatory that there’s not a whole lot of daylight in between. If it were up to me, I would go a step further and deny accreditation to any private school that didn’t require its students to be vaccinated, at which point the only kids who wouldn’t be vaccinated would be a subset of those getting home-schooled.
You know, even in 2008 the evidence was overwhelming that there was no link between autism and vaccination. I know this because my anti-vax sister told me I should consider not vaccinating my daughter born in 2006, and I did the research back then and it was pretty clear. If Obama meant himself when he said “This person included” then he’d have to have been ignoring the current science for the time.
Fortunately for you and our sanity, and unfortunately for ITR Champion, Vox issued an update to that article with a video showing that Obama clearly wasn’t referring to himself. He does still leave open the possibility that some environment cause like vaccines could be connected, which was probably prudent in 2008, but as the same update points out, Obama made his position on vaccination abundantly clear back then. Shame on everyone for spreading this quote around, but at least one news site still issues retractions (sorry, “Updates”).
Just once, when ITR Champion makes a failed partisan shot, I’d like to see him come back to the thread and say “oops.” Not “I’m sorry, I made a mistake” or anything, just, “oops.”
So if that scenario happens, the children should be kidnapped from the parents and forcibly injected with a vaccine?
Proponents of mandatory vaccines speak in the tone of so many disappointed catholic priests, yet they will not come out and say what a mandatory vaccine actually requires.
Nobody proposes that. I believe that unvaccinated children should be denied enrollment in school and the parents should be denied the child tax deduction for failing to vaccinate their children, in the absence of an acceptable medical reason not to. If a child who should have been vaccinated gets a preventable disease, the parents should be charged with child abuse.