Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 13 of 16

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, December 22, 2006 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The government decides how clean (or dirty) the air is supposed to be. If you don't like government-quality air, what are you going to do - stop breathing?...
"2)" is like "1)".

WTF???

See #2. There is a difference between regulating the absence of something and forcingthe presence of something.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, December 22, 2006 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"34 people stricken in Indiana and Illinois last year -- was traced back to a 17-year-old girl who had traveled to Romania without first getting vaccinated, government health officials said Thursday...Only two of the 34 people had been vaccinated against measles.

First, we don't know if she never got vaccinated or just didn't get the measles booster before she traveled. If she had never been vaccinated, they might have said, "without ever been vaccinated" as opposed to "without first getting vaccinated [before she traveled]."

Second, most of the people affected in this outbreak are people who chose to take the risk of contracting the disease. It's their choice, and they pay the consequences. There is nothing unfair about that.

Third, we don't have enough information in this article alone to get all judgmental. This 17 year old alledgedly indirectly infected 2 people who were vaccinated against measles. Now infecting other people is always a tragedy, so I am not making light of it. But the story would be less condemning if we found out that the 17 year old had gotten vaccinated against measles when she was a child and simply did not get booster shots before she traveled, and the 2 infected were adults whose immunity to measles had obviously waned and didn't get booster shots either. We just don't really know the full story to get all contemptuous. Or rather, *I* don't know enough to leap to judgment. Obviously, others do not have such scruples.

Here is another perspective. I read this story and I see that the vaccine failed to protect 2 people who were exposed to the disease. Vaccine failure happens, exposure happens. It is terrible, but the disease is still running around (amongst vaccinated AND unvaccinated people) and some failed-vaccine recipients are still going to catch it.

You want to blame this kid for infecting those 2 people, that's fine. But hold the same standard to vaccinated people when THEY infect people too. That is, if you want to hold her responsible for infecting others, hold her responsible whether she had been vaccinated as a child, vaccinated yesterday but somehow wasn't protected, or never been vaccinated at all.

It is simply unjust to have double standards.

Here is the bottom line of scapegoating unvaccinated people for infection, and forgiving vaccinated people who do exactly the same thing. People assume vaccines are highly effective in preventing both symptoms and infection for most people, an assumption that begs to be questioned. People assume that there are no other alternatives to vaccines that are equally or more effective, an assumption that has never been tested, let alone proven. The bottom line is that vaccinated people are perceived to have "tried their best" to prevent infection, and therefore can be forgiven. Unvaccinated people are perceived as not having tried their best to prevent infection and therefore accountable for their lack of effort.

But does anyone actually have PROOF to back up these perceptions? Vaccines, as we all know, do not guarantee immunity. Do you have proof that vaccines are indeed the "best" effort available at preventing infections? Do you have proof that unvaccinated didn't try prevention methods equal to or better than vaccination?

I have said before that unvaccinated people do not threaten failed-vaccine recipients. I had implied, but should have made it more explicitly clear: unvaccinated people do not threaten failed-vaccine recipients any more than failed-vaccine recipients threaten each other.

Edited to add: I understand that infecting others is a threat, and I can go along with taking responsibility for that. If you want to hold people responsible for infecting others, then hold ALL people responsible for infecting others. Let people choose what method they prefer (more effective, less risky) to prevent infection of others.

For example, if I infect you, I have to pay for your medical bills to treat the infection. If you in

SIGNYM

Friday, December 22, 2006 5:53 PM

Quote:
There is a difference between regulation of voluntary products/activities and forcing one to purchase said products or engage in said activities. For example, the government regulates the pasteurization of milk, but doesn't force anyone to buy milk. And to address Signy's oft repeated "running the red light" analogy, the government regulates driving, but doesn't force anyone to drive. There are no compulsory driving laws.

And likewise, there is no requirement that your children MUST be in school, because homeschooling is always an option and in most states it's very easy to do. But, like driving, most people depend on it for convenience or necessity to their lifestyle. So, like driving, it is subject to regulation. And unlike some traffic regulations (ie drunk driving, vehicular manslaughter) you won't wind up paying a fine or in jail because there's no criminal penalty attached to not vaccinating. www.hslda.org/laws

Quote:
The rule is not forced upon drivers, but is consentual. To my knowledge, there are no groups protesting the use of traffic lights.

Tell that to PN.

Actually, I know of several cases where people have successfully protested traffic lights. And as far as not being "forced" to stop at red lights, you have obviously not ever been fined or put in jail for a moving violation .... and then been nailed by your insurance company.

Quote:
2) There is a difference between regulating an absence and forcing the presence of a substance.... Taken as a whole, mandatory vaccination laws are the most intrusive of all government regulations, bar none.

First of all, as I mentioned already you are not being "forced" to purchase anything- not even public schooling. Secondly, non-vaccination consequences - such as they are- are far less than penalities attached to laws. Let me give you an examples: A person who willfully drove drunk every day for ten years and then plowed into a bus, injuring thirty three people, two of whom had to be hospitalized, would probably be in jail, sued by the victims, and have his license revoked. A person who transmitted a disease to thirty three people, two of whom had to be hospitalized, gets a news article.

Quote:
First, we don't know if she never got vaccinated or just didn't get the measles booster before she traveled. If she had never been vaccinated, they might have said, "without ever been vaccinated" as opposed to "without first getting vaccinated [before she traveled]." Second, most {but not all} of the people affected in this outbreak are people who chose to take the risk of contracting the disease. It's their choice, and they pay the consequences. There is nothing unfair about that.

Except to the two people who contracted measles and had been vaccinated.

Quote:
But the story would be less condemning if we found out that the 17 year old had gotten vaccinated against measles when she was a child and simply did not get booster shots before she traveled, and the 2 infected were adults whose immunity to measles had obviously waned and didn't get booster shots either.... Vaccine failure happens, exposure happens. It is terrible, but the disease is still running around (amongst vaccinated AND unvaccinated people) and some failed-vaccine recipients are still going to catch it... You want to blame this kid for infecting those 2 people, that's fine. But hold the same standard to vaccinated people when THEY infect people too.

If I step on the brakes and my brakes fail and I hit someone, that's an accident. If I don't step on the brakes at all, knowing full well that I may hit someone, that's intentional.

No matter how we try to parse this... and this goes for ALL behaviors... as long as you're living in a complex society in contact with a lot of people your behavior will affect others, whether it's blaring your radio at 2 AM or turning it down at 8 PM, running through red lights or driving carefully, or vaccinating or not vaccinating. It's not possible to want freedom to make choices- which hav

RUE

Friday, December 22, 2006 5:56 PM

CTS,

The government is not regulating the absense of toxins, it's regulating acceptable levels.

The government allows a certain level of benzene (carcinogen), lead (neurotoxin), CO (poison), soot (carcinogen) and other dangerous subtances in the air. In addition there are over 40,000 man-made chemicals in the air, in water, and in food not found in nature, (industry publications) all allowed by government.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, December 22, 2006 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The government is not regulating the absense of toxins, it's regulating acceptable levels.

It is regulating absence of unacceptable levels.

It is, for example, regulating NOT MORE THAN so much mercury. It is not forcing plants to ADD mercury into the atmosphere. There's the difference: forcing an absence, not forcing a presence.

And if you can't tell the difference, I give up.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

RUE

Friday, December 22, 2006 7:30 PM

CTS,

If the governemnt were interested in completely eliminating these substances and consequent risk, it would be writing its rules differently. Instead what it does is find a level where it thinks a certain number of people will be damaged (risk factor), and calling it acceptable. It does this for economic reasons. Its in effect trading your health for business profit.

If you can't see the difference, then I give up.

SIGNYM

Friday, December 22, 2006 8:07 PM

Hmmm, I don't see a reply to my post, so I'm going to beat an analogy to death for my own amusement: the public smoking analogy.

By analogy, smoking may have negative health consequences for the smoker, placing a disproporationate demand on health services. But the consequences to smoking spread beyond that once the individual smokes in the presence of others. In this case, others are affected whether they choose to smoke or not. And while it's possible to show statistically that second-hand smoke causes illness in others, it doesn't inevitably lead to illness in others nor is it the only cause of disease. In addition, there are many confounding factors, for example, people who assocaited with smokers amy have other associated traits (such as poverty). It's also impossible to determine who specifically caused which illness, making it impossible for monetary recovery from an individual. Therefore, for the protection of others we isolate people who smoke from people who don't, and we back it up with regulations and fines.

How is that different from non-vaccination? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that non-vaccinaiton does not incur the same punishment as public smoking.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

RUE

Friday, December 22, 2006 8:13 PM

I think in general there are some common misconceptions.

One misconception is that 'you' stop at your skin external skin. In fact there is an 'internal skin' - the linings of lungs, alimentary tract, uro-genital tract and others - by which you are exposed whether you want to be, or are aware of it, or not.

The other misconception is that a 'good' is a discrete thing you can personally control. But there are things called 'public goods' - things you pay for but cannot personally own.

"Some of the most important contributors to human capability may be hard to sell exclusively to one person at a time. This is especially so when we consider the so-called public goods, which people consume together rather than separately.

This applies particularly in such fields as environmental preservation, and also epidemiology and public health care. I may be willing to pay MY share in a social program of malarial eradication, but I cannot buy MY part of that protection in the form of a 'private good' (like an apple or a shirt). It is a 'public good' -- malaria-free surroundings -- which we have to consume together."

Amartya Sen, 1998 Nobel Prize winner, economics

RUE

Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:58 AM

6-string

I've taken so long to reply to you specifically b/c you posted several posts and one was a long one and, well, it's the holidays and time is short, and all. I wasn't at all either offended or dismissive of any of your posts. You speak your mind, that's all.

And I really liked your last post, and not just b/c you think I'm a just little bit older than you. (In truth I'm old enough to be an old parent, or a precocious grandparent.)

To the topic at hand which is vaccination, I don't see a 'bright line' dividing some government regulations which we all seem to accept, and vaccinations. And to me it's not a black/ white/ forever topic. For example, if polio was rampant and there were enough unvaccinated people maintaining the epidemic, it might change opinions on mandatory vaccinations. People who are faced with it do reach different positions from their original one. The people of Nigeria thought the polio vaccine made men sterile and spread AIDS, and was a tool of genocide. After an outbreak of polio over the last few years, they've done an about-face from their original vehement anti-vaccination fears, and are now allowing UN vaccinations. (And the polio outbreak is abating.)

I grew up when polio was still a feared disease and know two people of my parent's generation (including my mother) who were paralyzed by polio. Growing up in a polio free-environment, without that experience, I can see how young people can have a blasé attitude to polio vaccination. What problem? I've never seen a problem.

Some things are harder to see. Anywhere between 20,000 and 40,000 people die of the flu every year. But the people dying are not likely to be you or me, they are the elderly. Do we restrict your freedom and mine to protect those vulnerable people?

What about HepB vaccines? Hepatitis B is certainly a disease of interest. "In 1990, the incidence among men and women was 9.8 and 6.3, respectively (per thousand) ..." "Six percent to 10 percent will become chronic carriers of HBV and will be at risk of developing cirrhosis or liver cancer." "In the United States, approximately 1.2 million persons have chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and are sources for HBV transmission to others." But you'd think (I'd think) that the strategy would be to target high-risk populations - drug users and prostitutes specifically. And yet - "... the most significant decline (89%) in acute hepatitis B incidence during 1990--2002 occurred among persons aged 0--19 years, from 3.0 in 1990 to 0.3 in 2002." Wha ...WHAT? This is one of those unobvious results that I would never have predicted.

So to me, vaccination partly a question of perceived risk, which is changeable as circumstances change. Then there is statistical risk. It's a balance between freedom AND protecting the lives of vulnerable people who can't help themselves. I'd never mandate blanket-vaccinations of every possible vaccine under the sun. At the same time I’d never absolutely forbid mandatory vaccinations either. It's a question that has to be asked every time.

RUE

Saturday, December 23, 2006 1:17 AM

SignyM -

No response yet to this: "If I step on the brakes and my brakes fail and I hit someone, that's an accident. If I don't step on the brakes at all, knowing full well that I may hit someone, that's intentional."

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE