No really, vaccines good things, anti-vac is growing more and more deadly.

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Yes the people still have a choice, but it is a greatly constrained choice. Not everyone has the means to simply homeschool children and not everyone receiving child tax benefits is an unemployed bum. The idea of punishing citizens for opting out of medical procedures completely undermines informed consent and self-determination. Honestly, how would you feel if the government started making all medical decisions for you and if you failed to comply you would be hit with severe financial penalties. It should be concerning to anyone regardless of there view on the treatment if they believe in a human's right to choose for themselves or those in their care.

Edit: I thought the Church was pro-agency

@NeuroTypical mentioned this before.

Herd Immunity.  If 15% of the people exercise their liberty to not vaccinate, it negates the liberty of the 85% to vaccinate.  This is not about the "human's right to choose for themselves" it is about the 15%'s right to risk the lives of the 85%.  And, therefore, Democracy is exercised here.

I am a proponent of RESPONSIBLE vaccination.  Therefore, I do not promote not vaccinating the herd, I heavily promote more support for research on making vax safer or find safer alternatives.

Edited August 23, 2018 by anatess2

[Vort]

Individual immunity does indeed confer a great advantage to the immunized, usually preventing infection and often mitigating the effects if the immunized person does get sick. The "herd immunity" you mention is what makes things like polio basically non-existent. But I don't see how a society that values individual liberty can really force people to get immunized.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Individual immunity does indeed confer a great advantage to the immunized, usually preventing infection and often mitigating the effects if the immunized person does get sick. The "herd immunity" you mention is what makes things like polio basically non-existent. But I don't see how a society that values individual liberty can really force people to get immunized.

The same way they force everything else detrimental to society.  Install a penal system.  Increases the chances of people joining the 85% to avoid penalty instead of the 15% willing to bear the consequence.

Edited August 23, 2018 by anatess2

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The same way they force everything else detrimental to society.  Install a penal system.  Increases the chances of people joining the 85% to avoid penalty instead of the 15% willing to bear the consequence.

Sure. That's the idea behind any law; compel obedience at the risk of incarceration or other punishment. We can also make sure people never say mean things by making mean-thing-saying illegal and putting anyone who says mean things in jail. Many societies do just this. We in the US claim to have a better system, where we do not infringe on personal liberties except in certain well-defined circumstances. We do this knowing that the majority will be inconvenienced, because we consider individual liberty more important than the comfort of the majority.

[NeuroTypical]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

But I don't see how a society that values individual liberty can really force people to get immunized.

Yeah, the 'public good vs individual liberty' argument is a valid argument.  I'm not advocating laws or coercion.  I'll just push things to borderline public shaming, and hope peer pressure coupled with the desire to not be ignorant does the rest. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, the 'public good vs individual liberty' argument is a valid argument.  I'm not advocating laws or coercion.  I'll just push things to borderline public shaming, and hope peer pressure coupled with the desire to not be ignorant does the rest.

Two problems with this. The first is that you don't want to bring to life the Frankenstein's monster of public shaming, or use it when it's already alive. That's a society that no decent person wants to live in. The second is that many such items of mockery do more harm than good to your cause. For example, comparing an invasive medical procedure to washing one's hands undermines the credibility of the argument. That I happen to agree with your desired outcomes doesn't mean I'm willing to accept any means to arrive there.

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sure. That's the idea behind any law; compel obedience at the risk of incarceration or other punishment. We can also make sure people never say mean things by making mean-thing-saying illegal and putting anyone who says mean things in jail. Many societies do just this. We in the US claim to have a better system, where we do not infringe on personal liberties except in certain well-defined circumstances. We do this knowing that the majority will be inconvenienced, because we consider individual liberty more important than the comfort of the majority.

Correct.  Ok, so, the difference between something like, say, abortion (and most, if not all current existing laws except for taxation*) and vaccination when it comes to individual liberty is that one tells you "You CAN'T do that" while the other tells you "You HAVE TO do that".  There's a very big leap between "you are not at liberty to do X" from "you have to do X".  One is democratic, the other is authoritarian.

So, the law is actually not written that you have to vaccinate your kids.  That would be authoritarian.  That's not the law.  You can walk around un-vaccinated without fear of going to jail for it.  So to increase the stats for herd immunity, the government simply withdraws government benefits from un-vaccinated people - like, you can't enroll in public school and you can't enroll in state sponsored colleges.

 

* I have a friend who believes Federal Income Tax doesn't mean Federal defines Income Tax (tax sent to the feds) rather Federal Income defines Tax (tax only on monies earned from the Fed govt).  He hasn't paid income taxes for over 20 years (Florida has no state tax) and has gone to court twice for it, each time the IRS ended up paying him $20,000 after he sued them back for putting a lien on his property.

Edited August 23, 2018 by anatess2

[unixknight]

58 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I agree...  But I also realize many of those parents also think that paying the Lottery is a good idea.

So while I fully agree with letting the parents make the call we also need to have the correct (aka scientific) information practically in their face so they have to choose to ignore it

Absolutely.  The real problem is a lack of education.  Some people won't listen no matter what, but many will.  I used to be somewhat skeptical of vaccines but the more I learned the more I knew the right choice.  The problem was I had to go out of my way to learn, and most people don't bother.

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, the law is actually not written that you have to vaccinate your kids.  That would be authoritarian.  That's not the law.  You can walk around un-vaccinated without fear of going to jail for it.  So to increase the stats for herd immunity, the government simply withdraws government benefits from un-vaccinated people - like, you can't enroll in public school and you can't enroll in state sponsored colleges.

This is a form of imprisonment. What is "the government"? It's us. If "the government" provides some benefits, then those are OUR benefits. They belong to us. Not being allowed to enjoy my own benefits is, in effect, imprisonment.

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is a form of imprisonment. What is "the government"? It's us. If "the government" provides some benefits, then those are OUR benefits. They belong to us. Not being allowed to enjoy my own benefits is, in effect, imprisonment.

It is funny to me because you encourage people to stop receiving the public school benefit.

It is not a form of imprisonment.  Governments should not be in the business of handing out benefits.

Edited August 23, 2018 by anatess2

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It is funny to me because you encourage people to stop receiving the public school benefit.

Actually, I do not. I'm not an evangelist for homeschooling. If parents want to do it and are committed to seeing it through, I think it's a wonderful idea and fully support them. But I don't encourage anyone and everyone to homeschool their children.

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It is not a form of imprisonment.  Governments should not be in the business of handing out benefits.

The second sentence doesn't support the first. I agree with the second. But when government proclaims ownership over something, that ownership ultimately belongs to the people. Not necessarily on an individual level, but it is the people's. Singling someone out to deprive them of their share in this communal ownership without just cause is not in keeping with the principles of our society. Claiming lack of immunization as just cause for depriving children of educational benefits doesn't seem to me to pass muster.

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

Actually, I do not. I'm not an evangelist for homeschooling. If parents want to do it and are committed to seeing it through, I think it's a wonderful idea and fully support them. But I don't encourage anyone and everyone to homeschool their children.

Dagnabbit!  I knew I'd be confusing you with @Carborendum all day long! 

 

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

The second sentence doesn't support the first. I agree with the second. But when government proclaims ownership over something, that ownership ultimately belongs to the people. Not necessarily on an individual level, but it is the people's. Singling someone out to deprive them of their share in this communal ownership without just cause is not in keeping with the principles of our society. Claiming lack of immunization as just cause for depriving children of educational benefits doesn't seem to me to pass muster.

When "the people" give the government authority or ownership over something, don't be surprised when they decide to deprive you of it with the "just cause" reasoning that they provide.  That's why the wise choice is to limit government control as much as possible.

In the case of vax... societal survivability is the just cause.  Tomorrow, when enough nutcases join the government you're gonna have population control as the "just cause" for eliminating vax edicts in the hopes of wiping out half the children in that society.

Anyway... what's your idea of how a society can achieve herd immunity?  In the Philippines, the Catholic Church is large enough that if you can get the Church onboard, you're going to get herd immunity without much trouble.  The problem in the Phils is not that people are anti-vax.  Rather, unless it's free, people can't afford to vax.  We still have too many people dying of malaria.  Hoping Bill Gates finally gets a vax for that.  Might be cheaper than finding a way to make the malaria-carrying-mosquito extinct.

Edited August 23, 2018 by anatess2

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Anyway... what's your idea of how a society can achieve herd immunity?

As long as the anti-vaxxers make up less than about 20% of the population, I imagine they won't pose a significant threat to the rest of us.

[anatess2]

Just now, Vort said:

As long as the anti-vaxxers make up less than about 20% of the population, I imagine they won't pose a significant threat to the rest of us.

Well, that's WITH government compulsion...  without that compulsion I doubt you'll reach 50%.

[Guest Scott]

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I think the church just advocates seeking and following competent medical advice, and leaves it at that.  Our philanthropic arm sure is involved in bringing immunizations to poor countries.  https://www.ldscharities.org/what-we-do/immunization

But I don't know if the church has actually made any sort of official statement about immunizations.  

I don't know if it counts as an official statement, but I found this on lds.org:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/07/random-sampler/immunizations-a-reminder?lang=eng

Here it is word for word, with some parts colored and underline by me:

 

Immunizations—a Reminder

Not too long ago small children were the victims of childhood diseases, the very names of which struck fear into the hearts of parents. Polio, whooping cough, diphtheria, and others maimed or killed thousands of children.

Today, with the use of immunizations, these diseases are becoming more and more uncommon. In fact, they are so uncommon that many parents have become lax about immunizing their children. Some feel that there is no need; others fear adverse side effects. But parents have an obligation to protect their families through immunization.

In 1978 the First Presidency issued a statement in support of immunization programs and urged parents to participate. The statement read in part: “Immunization is such a simple, yet vital, matter and such a small price to pay for protection against … destroying diseases.

“Failure to act could subject untold thousands to preventable lifelong physical or mental impairment, including paralysis, blindness, deafness, heart damage, and mental retardation.

“We urge members of the Church … to protect their own children through immunization. Then they may wish to join other public-spirited citizens in efforts to eradicate ignorance and apathy that have caused the disturbingly low levels of childhood immunization.” (Reported in Ensign, July 1978, p. 79.)

The accompanying immunization schedule can help you ensure that your child is adequately immunized. In following this schedule, it is important that you keep a record of the type of immunization, the date given, and the doctor or clinic that gave the immunization.

Age	Type of Immunization
2 months	First DTP—diptheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) First polio
4 months	Second DTP Second polio
6 months	Third DTP
15 months	MMR—measles, mumps, rubella
18 months and older	Fourth DTP Third polio
4 to 6 years	Fifth DTP Fourth polio TP booster—tetanus, diphtheria. Thereafter every ten years, or following a dirty wound if a booster has not been given in the preceding five years.
(Information taken from “Your New Baby” (PXRS0329), a pamphlet published by the Relief Society. The pamphlet can be ordered for 10¢ from Church distribution centers.)

Edited August 23, 2018 by Scott

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

I on't know if it counts as an official statement, but I found this on lds.org:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/07/random-sampler/immunizations-a-reminder?lang=eng

Here it is word for word, with some parts colored and underline by me:

 

Immunizations—a Reminder

Not too long ago small children were the victims of childhood diseases, the very names of which struck fear into the hearts of parents. Polio, whooping cough, diphtheria, and others maimed or killed thousands of children.

Today, with the use of immunizations, these diseases are becoming more and more uncommon. In fact, they are so uncommon that many parents have become lax about immunizing their children. Some feel that there is no need; others fear adverse side effects. But parents have an obligation to protect their families through immunization.

In 1978 the First Presidency issued a statement in support of immunization programs and urged parents to participate. The statement read in part: “Immunization is such a simple, yet vital, matter and such a small price to pay for protection against … destroying diseases.

“Failure to act could subject untold thousands to preventable lifelong physical or mental impairment, including paralysis, blindness, deafness, heart damage, and mental retardation.

“We urge members of the Church … to protect their own children through immunization. Then they may wish to join other public-spirited citizens in efforts to eradicate ignorance and apathy that have caused the disturbingly low levels of childhood immunization.” (Reported in Ensign, July 1978, p. 79.)

The accompanying immunization schedule can help you ensure that your child is adequately immunized. In following this schedule, it is important that you keep a record of the type of immunization, the date given, and the doctor or clinic that gave the immunization.

Age	Type of Immunization
2 months	First DTP—diptheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) First polio
4 months	Second DTP Second polio
6 months	Third DTP
15 months	MMR—measles, mumps, rubella
18 months and older	Fourth DTP Third polio
4 to 6 years	Fifth DTP Fourth polio TP booster—tetanus, diphtheria. Thereafter every ten years, or following a dirty wound if a booster has not been given in the preceding five years.
(Information taken from “Your New Baby” (PXRS0329), a pamphlet published by the Relief Society. The pamphlet can be ordered for 10¢ from Church distribution centers.)

Thank you for sharing this. Very proud of the church! 

[Midwest LDS]

26 minutes ago, Scott said:

I don't know if it counts as an official statement, but I found this on lds.org:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/07/random-sampler/immunizations-a-reminder?lang=eng

Here it is word for word, with some parts colored and underline by me:

 

Immunizations—a Reminder

Not too long ago small children were the victims of childhood diseases, the very names of which struck fear into the hearts of parents. Polio, whooping cough, diphtheria, and others maimed or killed thousands of children.

Today, with the use of immunizations, these diseases are becoming more and more uncommon. In fact, they are so uncommon that many parents have become lax about immunizing their children. Some feel that there is no need; others fear adverse side effects. But parents have an obligation to protect their families through immunization.

In 1978 the First Presidency issued a statement in support of immunization programs and urged parents to participate. The statement read in part: “Immunization is such a simple, yet vital, matter and such a small price to pay for protection against … destroying diseases.

“Failure to act could subject untold thousands to preventable lifelong physical or mental impairment, including paralysis, blindness, deafness, heart damage, and mental retardation.

“We urge members of the Church … to protect their own children through immunization. Then they may wish to join other public-spirited citizens in efforts to eradicate ignorance and apathy that have caused the disturbingly low levels of childhood immunization.” (Reported in Ensign, July 1978, p. 79.)

The accompanying immunization schedule can help you ensure that your child is adequately immunized. In following this schedule, it is important that you keep a record of the type of immunization, the date given, and the doctor or clinic that gave the immunization.

Age	Type of Immunization
2 months	First DTP—diptheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) First polio
4 months	Second DTP Second polio
6 months	Third DTP
15 months	MMR—measles, mumps, rubella
18 months and older	Fourth DTP Third polio
4 to 6 years	Fifth DTP Fourth polio TP booster—tetanus, diphtheria. Thereafter every ten years, or following a dirty wound if a booster has not been given in the preceding five years.
(Information taken from “Your New Baby” (PXRS0329), a pamphlet published by the Relief Society. The pamphlet can be ordered for 10¢ from Church distribution centers.)

Thanks for looking that up!

[Guest]

On 8/23/2018 at 10:28 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, the 'public good vs individual liberty' argument is a valid argument.  I'm not advocating laws or coercion.  I'll just push things to borderline public shaming, and hope peer pressure coupled with the desire to not be ignorant does the rest. 

What you've said about the food workers not washing hands is supporting anti-vaccines.

If a food service worker doesn't wash his hands, his action directly affects me and puts me in danger of getting a disease.  I have no protection from his disease.  If you're saying that a vaccinated individual is in danger of getting a disease because I didn't vaccinate, then you're saying that the vaccination didn't offer that person any protection.

[Guest]

On 8/23/2018 at 10:09 AM, Vort said:

I thought Return of the Archons was a Star Trek episode.

It was.

The idea behind the episode was essentially a commentary about war.  A war was raging for hundreds of years without any hope of letting up.  The reasons (Kirk discovered) was essentially the same philosophy behind what you said about chastity and the HPV vaccine.  I had once said the same thing about handing out free condoms to high school students.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What you've said about the food workers not washing hands is supporting anti-vaccines.

If a food service worker doesn't wash his hands, his action directly affects me and puts me in danger of getting a disease.  I have no protection from his disease.  If you're saying that a vaccinated individual is in danger of getting a disease because I didn't vaccinate, then you're saying that the vaccination didn't offer that person any protection.

I see the point as... there are people who legitimately cannot get vaccinated.  I think one of them posted in this thread if I remember correctly (too lazy to scan back).  Those are in danger of the other guys who can't get the vaccine AND those unnecessarily opted out of the vaccine.  There's a certain threshold of incidences before something becomes an epidemic.  Once there are enough people that are not vaccinated, the chance of the disease not getting into extinction levels becomes greater and eventually, that disease is going to develop a resistance to the vaccine risking the entire population vaxxed or not.

But, I'm certainly no expert on the matter.  I just find it... can't find the right word, amusing? awesome? it's in between those two or a combination thereof ... that you are all so free to debate vaccination while in the Philippines, we're begging to get the west to please please give us charity vaccines.  It would be awesome if all those who opt out of vaccines in the US would send their vaccines to the Philippines.

[NeuroTypical]

57 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If a food service worker doesn't wash his hands, his action directly affects me and puts me in danger of getting a disease.  I have no protection from his disease.  If you're saying that a vaccinated individual is in danger of getting a disease because I didn't vaccinate, then you're saying that the vaccination didn't offer that person any protection.

I thought you said you understood herd immunity...

(Oh, and full disclosure - finding out my good buddy Carb is reserved about vaccines, is a sore blow to me.  It is only slightly less than the near killing blow I received upon learning that the person I chose to be my wife didn't understand about refrigerating ketchup.)

Edited August 24, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I thought you said you understood herd immunity...

If vaccination worked only by herd immunity, it would never have been discovered. It must be the case that herd immunity contributes only a fraction of the benefit of vaccination, the rest being an individual benefit to those vaccinated. Perhaps that fraction is as large as 20% or even 30%, or perhaps it's very small, 5% or less. But if the argument is that an individual or collection of individuals refusing vaccination nullifies the advantages of vaccination, that's just not a tenable hypothesis.

[Guest MormonGator]

[SpiritDragon]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

If vaccination worked only by herd immunity, it would never have been discovered. It must be the case that herd immunity contributes only a fraction of the benefit of vaccination, the rest being an individual benefit to those vaccinated. Perhaps that fraction is as large as 20% or even 30%, or perhaps it's very small, 5% or less. But if the argument is that an individual or collection of individuals refusing vaccination nullifies the advantages of vaccination, that's just not a tenable hypothesis.

Indeed, herd immunity is a misnomer and a largely flawed concept. The protection offered is merely by breaking the chain of possible contagious carriers of the disease. It only protects by reducing the odds of exposure, but doesn't actually offer any immunity whatsoever. If one of the herd who is not immune comes in contact with the contagion they are likely to contract the illness. This protection even sounds great, and would be if vaccines offered it, but that isn't likely to be the case. It used to be assumed that vaccines offered lifelong protection, but relatively recently more and more it has been discovered that vaccine immunity wanes over time. In fact, adults considered to be adequately vaccinated against disease is estimated to be between 5% to 60% depending on the targeted disease. Furthermore these numbers are on the upswing suggesting that historically the adult population (representing around 80% of the total population IIRC) has not had immunity to these diseases anymore, and yet we haven't all been wiped out by these diseases even though the numbers needed to create so-called herd immunity would require a greatly increased forced vaccine campaign among adults to get this protection that is implied we have enjoyed for the last half a century. It makes the whole picture of vaccine efficacy appear correlative rather than causative. In any event, how silly would it sound for any other medication to only work if all your neighbors take it too? 

Other reasons to doubt herd immunity being plausible include vaccine failures. Merck has been undergoing trial for fraud for years now for allegedly falsifying vaccine efficacy at 95%, while field test have been finding closer to 80%. Now this is all alleged, so fair enough, but the problem is real that in a certain proportion of the population vaccines fail to create immunity and when they are expecting to need 95%+ to create herd immunity and recognize that a certain portion of the population shouldn't be vaccinated for whatever reason (immune compromise mainly I imagine) then the vaccine really needs to be darn near 100% effective to stand a chance. So while the blame continues to be put on people who choose not to vaccinate for whatever reasons they do (not many of which arrive at that decision lightly) for outbreaks it is entirely possible the blame rests every bit as squarely on higher than promised levels of vaccine failure.

Then there is also the issue of vaccines such as the pertussis vaccine which we don't even know if they actually prevent contracting the disease, but simply alter the course of the disease so that symptoms are milder or non-existent but the bacteria can spread. This makes for everyone vaccinated against this threat a potential carrier of the disease at any time and they won't even be the wiser to quarantine themselves.So much for protecting the herd there.

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0382-8

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/787

It is an ingenious marketing concept though to put pressure on everyone else to undergo a procedure for the good of everyone else.

[MarginOfError]

By my understanding, individual immunity between a live and an inert vaccine is very different. Thus, the original small pox vaccine didn't require as much herd immunity as the modern MMR might require.