Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 8 of 16
Quote:Ouch.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Siggy, I really don't think either end of the continuum here is gonna be reasonable enough about it to discuss it rationally, from what I have seen...
The only person around here who even seems to understand my position on the issue is Jack, and that because he holds the exact same one for many of the same reasons.
I hate to disagree with you, Frem, because I see eye to eye with you on most things. But when you say neither "end of the continuum HERE is gonna be reasonable enough to discuss it rationally," I gotta take issue. If I haven't been reasonable or rational, you gotta point out where.
The continuum HERE is not anti-vaccine vs. pro-vaccine. I have not seen any anti-vaccine arguments for the most part. It is anti-choice vs. pro-choice. 6ix, Baby, you, and I are on the pro-choice side, though we tackle the issue from different angles. Cit, Rue, and Sig lean towards the anti-choice side, though Cit may actually be a moderate (choice with contingencies). I don't see how our end of the continuum has somehow been unreasonable or irrational.
I understand you. I agree with you. Choice should be based on the principle of the thing. But that doesn't mean the debate can't be argued by questioning assumptions underlying current policy (re effectiveness, public threat, etc).
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By living with other people we have given up total freedom. So it's not fair to characterize the issue as "choice" versus "no choice" because that characterization is too global. For example, I happen to be "pro-choice" when it some to abortion, but not "pro-choice" when it comes to driving on the wrong side of the freeway. I think we're all in the middle of this very wide spectrum between "no choice" and "total freedom".
Part of whether something is optional depends on who else it affects, and how badly. ASSUMING (I realize that this is an assumption) that vaccines are about 90% effective, there are several ways that an unvaccinated population can affect the vaccinated population:
1) The unvaccinated becomes a risk once they make up a significant portion of the population. If vaccines were 100% effective, this wouldn't be a problem, but since they're not there is a percentage of the vaccinated who will be exposed to more carriers and have a higher risk infection through no choice of their own. One could argue that your choice not to vaccinate takes away choice from those who do. To make this mathematical, if the unvaccinated population is nearly 100%, they represent a 10% risk to others. I would prolly make it a requirement that at the first sign of an outbreak all unvaccinated or previously uninfected be required to stay home- that means from work as well as from school.
2)The specific costs of treating a disease that is mainly preventable. People who catch pertussis, measles, polio, meningitis etc and who go on to develop debilitating illness and sometimes permanent disabilities cost lots and lots of money, placing additional burden on insurance rates and taxpayer dollars. I would solve this problem by simply requiring that those who do not receive a MEDICAL exemption from vaccines sign a waiver that they will pay for all treatment and rehabilitation costs if they cotrnact a non-vaccinated illness.
3) The general societal costs of disease including pandemic including lost productivity and so forth. There is simply no way to recoup these costs. But it can be a huge drain on economies, and those with and without malaria demonstrate.
There are a few things I would change as far as vaccinations are concerned:
Remove mercury.
Be prepared to give single vaccines.
Create more liberal criteria for medical exemptions, including a family hx of autism, autoimmune disease, or a high mercury burden.
Create better reporting of post-vaccination complictions. I know of two children who had very specific, debilitating vaccination complications, and to see the CDC poo-pooing reported complications is troubling.
Provide lifelong medical services for those with post-vaccine complications.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To that I would add:
innoculate with liquid up the nose rather than injection, wherever it makes sense (eg flu)
use graduated innoculations - parts, killed, then attenuated
and look into innoculating breast-feeding moms rather than babies
If I have time I'll get back to the thread later.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But they don't. Especially in the school environment where exemptors have never exceeded 2% of the population. So the point is moot.
Originally posted by SignyM:
1) The unvaccinated becomes a risk once they make up a significant portion of the population.
Quote:You and Cit both bring this up. First, mandatory vaccination law has nothing to do with health care costs. It has to do with being allowed to attend school.
2)The specific costs of treating a disease that is mainly preventable.
Second, I personally do not have a problem opting out of treatments for vaccine-prescribed diseases. (I very rarely see MDs for anything anyway.) I just want a discount on my insurance premiums for opting out of those services. I should also be able to opt out of paying for treatments for vaccine injuries incurred by other people's choices. If they aren't willing to pay for my risks, I shouldn't be forced to pay for their risks. I think that is fair. But when all's said and done, even if we all got what we wanted re health care costs, none of this has anything do with with current mandatory vaccination law.
Quote:Well, vaccine injuries cause economic drains as well. It is just the cost of living together, that we all bear some cost for each other's choices. But again, this point has nothing to do with mandatory vaccination law.
3) The general societal costs of disease including pandemic including lost productivity and so forth. There is simply no way to recoup these costs. But it can be a huge drain on economies, and those with and without malaria demonstrate.
I agree with all the suggestions you made.
I would, of course, add this reform:
Vis a vis school attendance, the small fraction of unvaccinated children do not threaten the public health of the vaccinated population at school. Therefore mandatory vaccination laws for school attendance should be repealed. Short of that, nonmedical exemptions must be granted in all 50 states.
Mandatory vaccinations in order to attend school has more to do with attempting universal vaccination coverage than with protecting health environment at school. It is simply easier to get at the babies and preschoolers than to convince adults to vaccinate. If lawmakers were really concerned about public health at school, they would mandate current vaccination coverage for all teachers and school personnel as well. You can have a never-vaccinated school teacher, but you can't have a never-vaccinated child at school. What kind of double standard is that?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Quit making up what I'm saying, quote me (for once) or stop making things up.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quit acting like a prat, Cit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And your overall tone paints you very much as anti-vaccination in all circumstances, but when pointed out you demand quotes, so I'm demanding the same thing.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Your tone of ridicule and wanting to put restrictions on choice implied to me that you were anti-choice. Allowing choice under specific conditions that are unlikely to happen is not prochoice.
I like how you purposefully ignore everything I subsequently say.
Quote:I don't get to vote in America unless you drastically changed your system of governance or Britain has unfortunatly become the 51st state recently. I'll reiterate I like the system in Britian fine, vaccinations aren't mandatory, in fact you'd probably like it because if you don't get a vaccination and fall ill the NHS will still treat you free of charge, no consequences for your desitions, just like you and Frem want.
So citizen, I'll ask you point blank what I asked Rue. If you could vote on it, would you 1) vote against mandatory vaccination for school attendance and 2) vote against any AMA initiative to rescind nonmedical exemptions from all 48 states that have them? No addendums, amendments, or anything. It's come for vote the way it is and you have to decide. If your answer is yes, I will apologize to you for mischaracterizing your position.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But what happens if you make vaccination optional and that small fraction becomes a LARGE fraction? Do you re-institute mandatory vaccination if that faction becomes more than X%? The problem is that you advocate a policy that not "everyone" can follow. In essence, you want to be treated like a special case, and that's not a policy.
Vis a vis school attendance, the small fraction of unvaccinated children do not threaten the public health of the vaccinated population at school. Therefore mandatory vaccination laws for school attendance should be repealed. Short of that, nonmedical exemptions must be granted in all 50 states.
Quote:Not a very good policy, altho I expect the assumption is that most teachers have either been vaccinated or have already had the usual diseases. I do know that teachers are routinely tested for TB. That's one of the diseases that the USA DOESN'T vaccinate for, altho many other nations do. The USA policy on TB is screening and treatment, not vaccination. And it's not too much to expect that a teacher (or student) who tests positive for TB not have contact with others.
If lawmakers were really concerned about public health at school, they would mandate current vaccination coverage for all teachers and school personnel as well. You can have a never-vaccinated school teacher, but you can't have a never-vaccinated child at school. What kind of double standard is that?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
just like you and Frem want.
Bullshit.
Quote:
If someone makes a choice, and it *IS* a choice, financial and other responsibility falls to them, no one is saying otherwise, but what is being pushed here - is the idea that people should NOT have a choice, and when that decision is forced upon them, should ALSO not have one whit of recourse if the results of that decision are harmful.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25494
Posted Monday, November 27, 2006 - 11:32
So how about you just shut your pie hole before you embarrass yourself further, moron.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I said quote me you stupid arsehole, not your self, what are you, a fucking retard?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
just like you and Frem want.
Bullshit.Quote:
If someone makes a choice, and it *IS* a choice, financial and other responsibility falls to them, no one is saying otherwise, but what is being pushed here - is the idea that people should NOT have a choice, and when that decision is forced upon them, should ALSO not have one whit of recourse if the results of that decision are harmful.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25494
Posted Monday, November 27, 2006 - 11:32
So how about you just shut your pie hole before you embarrass yourself further, moron.
And its good saying that, then you go on about how any possible consequence is unfair. You're fine with the consequences as long as there aren't any.
Not allowing your children to pass on contagious diseases is 'unfair'.
Having to pay your own medical bills for preventable disease is 'unfair'.
Dealing with any consequences is unfair, apparently. You evidently like the idea of taking the consequences yourself, just not the practice.
Besides, what hypocricy, you didn't reply to my entire post, just one quote, I guess your going to shut up about me doing the same thing, or you know continue being such a collosal hypocrite.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a matter of fact....
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25494
Quote:
If someone makes a choice, and it *IS* a choice, financial and other responsibility falls to them, no one is saying otherwise, but what is being pushed here - is the idea that people should NOT have a choice, and when that decision is forced upon them, should ALSO not have one whit of recourse if the results of that decision are harmful.
Monday, November 27, 2006 - 11:32
Quote:
My argument is that the person in question should have informed consent and the option to refuse if they feel the risks outweigh the benefits, on their own responsibility without any additional consequence beyond their own responsibility for themself
Monday, November 27, 2006 - 15:24
Quote:
As for responsibility, turn that one on it's head - do you think it's fair for me to pay (cause some of it does indeed come out of my tax dollars here in the US) for the lifelong care of people harmed by vaccinations that are legally mandatory ?
*I* did not make the decision to vacc someone with pre-existing risk factors without seeking alternatives.
So why should I then be stuck with the bill ?
Morally, it works in both directions, or neither.
I am perfectly willing to foot the bills for my own decisions, I am NOT, however, willing to foot the bills for decisions forced upon me by others.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 13:33
Quote:
At no time, under no circumstances, did I say that other folks should foot the bill for someones own, personal, medical decisions - all I have ever said, and continue to say, is that I should not have to foot it for decisions forced upon me by others.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 13:33
Keep diggin, why don't you ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME