Nah, American Individualism means that we all believe we have the right to make our own decisions, sometimes even when that means we negatively impact the lives of others. Plus the Freedom of Religion thing and there are people for whom measles, rubella and polio are God’s Will.
Americans aren’t necessarily good at Utilitarianism. There are a few times in our history where we can pull it together and make sacrifices for the good of the community - understanding that not doing so puts the entire community at risk. But for the most part, Individualism has served us pretty well and we tend to be a little suspicious of limitations to our individual freedoms because someone says its better for everyone that way.
(Now if we could only be consistent in our believes about individual freedoms one way or another. Because, of course, we aren’t. See Gay Rights. And my, that sounds Libertarian of me - I’m not, btw. I think that if your kids want to go to public school, they should be vaccinated - because there is a Utilitarian argument there. I think the ‘hurts the community’ arguments on gay marriage is a bunch on whining because those people think gay sex is icky.)
You’re apparently unaware that exceptions to mandatory immunization apply in countries other than the U.S.
For instance, unless things have recently changed, kids don’t have to be vaccinated against common childhood infectious diseases in order to enter school in the U.K.
The comment about “American exceptionalism” seemed to imply (speaking just for myself), perhaps mistakenly, that you thought America was unique in allowing refusers for dubious reasons.
BTW, where is “around here” for you that there are no exceptions made?
If a family travels to a region where there are known to be diseases (for which no vaccine exists), should they pay higher premiums upon their return to the US? After all, they are making themselves a disease risk to other Americans when they return.
That woman may have had something called Dravet’s Syndrome. For nearly 20 years, reactions to the P of the DTP (now DTaP) vaccine were blamed for the syndrome, and these people who had it received vaccine injury compensation. Bu just about 14 years ago, someone found a gene that controls the development of the sodium channel to the brain. People with what seems to be a spontaneous mutation, albeit, one that favors some families, have this sodium channel disorder, and all the symptoms of supposed P vaccine injury. Several hundred were tested, and all but a handful had the gene, so probably none of them were really vaccine injured, not even the few left, because they were too few to establish a pattern, and many of them had documented birth injuries.
If someone’s children are vaccinated, why do they care if the next door neighbor’s is not? I thought the purpose of a vaccine was to make it so a person doesn’t get sick? So if the vaccinated children get exposed to it and they still get infected, I guess the vaccines aren’t all they’re made out to be. So if vaccinating a child doesn’t prevent the disease from occurring in all situations what is the real reason for them? Is there a money motivator somewhere in this? If they can’t guarantee the vaccinated children are safe from a disease then it makes no sense to force parents to get their children vaccinated.
Not only that, but it’s an over-reach of government. Parents should have the authority to determine what is the proper way to raise their children without government intervention. What’s next? Are they going to tell us our children must eat a carrot every day because they think that’s required and if we don’t feed our children carrots they get taken away or we’re put in prison?
It’s the same concept - forcing an action upon a parent to a child rather than letting the parent decide.
If we’re going to begin forcing parents as to what they give their children, I propose we begin with enforcing the dietary laws in Bible Leviticus Chapter 11 because I believe that is healthy for your children and a required part of keeping a child healthy and free of diseases. If we’re going to force parental actions on children for their health, that is a much better start than a vaccination.
Has anyone done a scientific study to see the rate of sicknesses between unvaccinated patients who keep the dietary guidelines of the Bible vs. those that do not? Or the rate of sickness of 7th Day Sabbath Keepers vs. non-Sabbath keepers? I doubt they have done a study on these things.
It shouldn’t even be a choice. When you have a child, you have signed the social contract of bringing that child into a functioning society, a tenant of which is that you will have them vaccinated to protect us all, if possible. There are a lot of people who can’t be vaccinated for one reason or another, and we need to protect them by having everyone else who can be vaccinated vaccinated.
So they shouldn’t have to pay higher insurance premiums. They should be found guilty of a crime by the state and their children removed from their custody.
The logistics of that action would be rather daunting, no?
I think a lot of people on this MB think they’ll be punishing wingnuts on the right, but this is something that is more of an age related issue than a partisan issue, and some of the most vehement anti-vaxers are on the left.
Exactly how many countries make it illegal to not vaccinate your children? This is not some strange American thing. Not to mention that it would almost certainly be unconstitutional to mandate vaccinations at the federal level. States might be able to do it, but not the feds.
Since government has to provide for education and many other public functions most of the people do agree that the parents that are irresponsible should have no access to those public facilities and functions when epidemics appear in our neck of the woods, and now it is clear that the anti-vaccine people were getting a free ride by not paying properly for the costs that are accumulating.
I thought so too, but most of the people that are being reported as being involved in the latest outbreak reside in Orange County, a very wealthy and conservative neck of the woods.
IMHO the salvos from Christie and Rand Paul are directed to the ones that will give the [del]most damage[/del] most votes and money to conservative causes, and as the latest anti-vaccination poster showed a few posts here in this message board, there is a lot of anti government fuel moving the current mutation of this pseudo-science.
I do agree with many critics of the right that are noticing that now many conservatives of the tea party variety are getting into this because of the “over-reach of government”.
Vaccines are not 100% effective. For example, the first MMR jab is about thiseffective:
[QUOTE=cdc]
More than 95% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity to all 3 viruses. A second vaccine dose gives immunity to almost all of those who did not respond to the first dose.
[/QUOTE]
Notice how that’s not 100%.
Indeed, the real way vaccines work is not simply by conferring immunity to each person who is given the dose. They aren’t 100% effective. No, the real way vaccines work is by providing fewer disease vectors. To quote SkepticalOB:
[QUOTE=skepticalOB]
Imagine that little Ainsley comes in close contact with 10 children per day. Now imagine that Ainsley develops diphtheria. Who is likely to catch diphtheria from Ainsley? If 99% of children are vaccinated and the vaccine is 95% effective, the odds are low that any of the 10 children she comes in contract with could get diphtheria. Thus, the outbreak of diphtheria ends with Ainsley (though it may end poor Ainsley’s life).
Now imagine that only 50% of children are vaccinated against diphtheria. That means that half the children are likely to be susceptible, and therefore diphtheria is almost certain to be transmitted. And since the children who catch diphtheria from Ainsley are going to expose additional children who aren’t vaccinated, the disease begins to spread like wild fire.
[/QUOTE]
By vaccinating almost everyone, you ensure that those for whom the vaccine doesn’t take, and those who cannot become vaccinated (the very young, the very old, the immunocompromised) are also protected. This is why vaccines are so effective in ending the spread of endemic diseases - not because they’re 100% effective, but because they’re effective enough that when everyone gets them, the disease lacks enough vectors to spread. This is why even a 28%-effective flu vaccine is far more useful than the numbers would let on.
[QUOTE=you]
Not only that, but it’s an over-reach of government. Parents should have the authority to determine what is the proper way to raise their children without government intervention. What’s next? Are they going to tell us our children must eat a carrot every day because they think that’s required and if we don’t feed our children carrots they get taken away or we’re put in prison?
It’s the same concept - forcing an action upon a parent to a child rather than letting the parent decide.
[/QUOTE]
Huh, funny. See, if you starve your child, they will be taken away and you will be put in prison. But no, it’s not the same concept. Vaccines are not a matter of personal choice, they are a matter of public health, because you not getting vaccinated increases everyone else’s chance of getting sick. And this isn’t really a close calculation, either - even beyond the issue of “you not vaccinating puts everyone at greater risk”, any parent who decides not to vaccinate their child has failed a very crucial risk/benefit assessment. Tragedy of the commons this ain’t.
This claim of absolute parental choice is absolutely ludicrous. You don’t have the right to raise your child the way you want to. Your child is your child, but it is also a part of society. You cannot beat them. You cannot abuse them. You cannot whore them out. You cannot starve them. Why should pretty much the only choice that involves protecting them alongside others be a choice as well?
[QUOTE=you]
If we’re going to begin forcing parents as to what they give their children, I propose we begin with enforcing the dietary laws in Bible Leviticus Chapter 11 because I believe that is healthy for your children and a required part of keeping a child healthy and free of diseases. If we’re going to force parental actions on children for their health, that is a much better start than a vaccination.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I have some news for you: what keeps a child healthy and free of disease is not a matter of belief but of fact, and what you just said is complete nonsense. Not only that, but unless you can show that this wards off infectious diseases the way vaccines do, protecting more than the child, then the analogy still doesn’t work!
And now you’re just being ludicrous. I mean, seriously? This is your argument? “Maybe this completely untested hypothesis that requires a significant lifestyle shift with absolutely zero prior plausibility is as effective as a tested, massively successful medical procedure with virtually zero significant side-effects, therefore forcing parents to vaccinate is a bad idea”? Dude, I shouldn’t have to explain how bad that argument is. It’s really, really bad.