Thanks, anti-vax movement...

[NightSG]

On 1/19/2019 at 8:37 AM, unixknight said:

If all  those people were in the same place, yeah.  They aren't though. 

Effectively, they are; Earth.

I have a piece of fabric I received yesterday.  By some quirk of USPS's package handling, it was in LA the day before.  Halfway across the country, sealed in a Tyvek bag where no sterilization process could do anything for the contents, delivered in about 18 hours.  Any microbe that can survive a day outside a host might as well be everywhere on the planet at once.

[NightSG]

On 1/26/2019 at 2:49 PM, Carborendum said:

I don't mind because I'm fine with rice (I wonder why).

Tasteless and pale...seems like eating rice would border on cannibalism for engineers.

[NightSG]

On 1/23/2019 at 8:50 AM, anatess2 said:

Of course, if you want to achieve 80% immunity, you can hand the thing over to the government.  

150 years of government meddling heavily in education has gotten us to 86% basic literacy, after all.  The War on Drugs has us 87% clean for only $650 billion a year.  I'm sure they can rush it along and keep costs down for vaccines.

[unixknight]

So I just saw an argument by someone who is against vaccines.  It went something like this (paraphrased):

You're a hypocrite if you judge people who don't vaccinate, but then turn around and feed your kids the kind of garbage that puts them on a path to Diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.

And that struck me as a good point, because if you're okay with using Government to force people to vaccinate their kids on the grounds that it's protecting the children, then you have a very weak case against the Government also telling you how to feed your own.

[Guest Godless]

12 hours ago, unixknight said:

So I just saw an argument by someone who is against vaccines.  It went something like this (paraphrased):

You're a hypocrite if you judge people who don't vaccinate, but then turn around and feed your kids the kind of garbage that puts them on a path to Diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.

And that struck me as a good point, because if you're okay with using Government to force people to vaccinate their kids on the grounds that it's protecting the children, then you have a very weak case against the Government also telling you how to feed your own.

Except that a diabetic kid won't give my kid diabetes....

[unixknight]

9 hours ago, Godless said:

Except that a diabetic kid won't give my kid diabetes....

That's beside the point I'm making.  A lot of people justify using Government force on the grounds that it's bad parenting to not vaccinate and the Government can save the day.  This argument simply takes that to its logical conclusion.  Namely, that if the Government is empowered to make sure you're parenting in a particular way, then the camel's nose is in the tent, as it were.

[SpiritDragon]

19 hours ago, Godless said:

Except that a diabetic kid won't give my kid diabetes....

Or will they...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2668504

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082

Quote

...obesity appears to spread through social ties. These findings have implications for clinical and public health interventions.

It sounds more similar than one might think.

I bring up obesity because it goes hand in hand with diabetes, heart disease, and many cancers. Ultimately, someone choosing not to vaccinate themselves or their children does not guarantee that anyone will contract said disease, but it increases the odds. Your kid being diabetic increases the odds that mine could become so too, albeit by different means. Either way, if the idea is that it is for the public good - @unixknight's acquaintances's argument is not invalidated. In fact, this very argument (your pet peeve issue doesn't spread to others like my pet peeve issue) may strengthen the case of the hypocrisy by showcasing that people support forcing treatments on others under one set of circumstances, but not under others. It also points out that we just don't know what's coming next. When my wife was young she caught the measles and no one was too concerned back then and surely wouldn't have imagined the witch hunt against people's right to informed consent over treatments for themselves and their children that happens now. Today people may not think that governing how we eat would ever be a thing, but in forty years, who knows, we could be seriously shaming parents for allowing children to become overweight and pushing for them to be removed from custody so they can have a better chance at adopting healthy habits. I doubt this myself, but no one knows the future.

[zil]

7 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

obesity appears to spread through social ties

What, like insisting people provide you and your companions desserts at 7pm?  Say in a church meeting?

[unixknight]

17 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Today people may not think that governing how we eat would ever be a thing, but in forty years, who knows, we could be seriously shaming parents for allowing children to become overweight and pushing for them to be removed from custody so they can have a better chance at adopting healthy habits. I doubt this myself, but no one knows the future.

Exactly.  And, people who call for more Government authority never think it'll go any farther. 

Edited February 20, 2019 by unixknight

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

It sounds more similar than one might think.

 

14 hours ago, unixknight said:

Exactly.  And, people who call for more Government authority never think it'll go any farther. 

There is a big difference between communicable diseases under the purview of the CDC and obesity.  They're not even comparable.  Individual freedom ends where another person's nose begins.  Your freedom to care for your own diseases ends where your ability to transfer that disease to another person who has no defense against it begins.  There's no such thing as one's obesity forcing itself through the free exercise of choice of another regardless of your "social ties".

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

There is a big difference between communicable diseases under the purview of the CDC and obesity.  They're not even comparable.  Individual freedom ends where another person's nose begins.  Your freedom to care for your own diseases ends where your ability to transfer that disease to another person who has no defense against it begins.  There's no such thing as one's obesity forcing itself through the free exercise of choice of another regardless of your "social ties".

The evidence provided by @SpiritDragon suggests otherwise.  Ignore that if you like, but don't expect other people to follow you.

Besides, drawing the line between someone's freedom and someone else's nose is pretty arbitrary.  It's one thing to justify legislation by saying your freedom ends at someone else's nose.  It's another entirely to say something like "your freedom ends if anything you do could ever possibly hit someone else's nose."  By that logic, the Government should provide drivers for our cars, since our freedom to drive can cause someone else to get hurt or die.  It's also a great gun control argument.  Take it to its logical conclusion and all the sudden you open up a wide range of excused for greater and greater Government crackdown.  

[NeuroTypical]

Just wanted to make sure that people know something.

Real actual fact:  Russian Twitterbots have been helping legitimize the Anti-Vax movement and intentionally sowing discord for years now.   Every time I read that sentence, I want to chuckle or roll my eyes or give nervous laughter or something.  But it's true.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567

Normal internet use for a mature person, requires a healthy dose of fact checking and source evaluation.  But on the topic of vaccinations, it's important to know that a hostile foreign government is actually out there intentionally spreading disinformation trying to sow division and discord in us.  

It's one reason why I'm glad to have SpiritDragon here - he's got a few brain cells to rub together, AND he's got good worthy links to share about stuff. 

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The evidence provided by @SpiritDragon suggests otherwise.  Ignore that if you like, but don't expect other people to follow you.

Besides, drawing the line between someone's freedom and someone else's nose is pretty arbitrary.  It's one thing to justify legislation by saying your freedom ends at someone else's nose.  It's another entirely to say something like "your freedom ends if anything you do could ever possibly hit someone else's nose."  By that logic, the Government should provide drivers for our cars, since our freedom to drive can cause someone else to get hurt or die.  It's also a great gun control argument.  Take it to its logical conclusion and all the sudden you open up a wide range of excused for greater and greater Government crackdown.  

This is not correct.

SpiritDragon's evidence is like this:  Studies found that poverty occurs in clusters.  Therefore, poverty is a contagion.  That's silly.

Freedom and someone else's nose is not arbitrary.  It is exactly how the US Constitution is designed.  And, as designed, the government LIMITS freedom.  Therefore, the US Constitution LIMITS government.  

So, let's take driving cars for example.  You have the freedom to drive a car until you hit someone with it.  Then your freedom ends.  The US Constitution limits the Government from taking your freedom to drive a car UNTIL you hit somebody else.  In that instance where your freedom hits somebody's nose, the government can take you to court and send you to jail.  Now, if the voting populace would GIVE THAT RIGHT to the Government to limit their freedom to drive a car, then sure.  The Government WILL create laws to take your freedom to drive a car.  And that's why it is very important that a voting populace be reminded, educated, taught, campaigned FOR SMALL GOVERNMENT policies.  

Gun control is, of course, different.  There is no Constitutionally protected right to drive a car.  There is a Constitutionally protected right to own a gun.  In the case of guns, the Government is specifically BARRED from creating laws to limit one's freedom to carry a firearm.  It is not a freedom a voting populace can easily hand over to the government.  It will take for the voting populace to agree to a Constitutional Amendment requiring 2/3 of the States to vote for it.

[unixknight]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

SpiritDragon's evidence is like this:  Studies found that poverty occurs in clusters.  Therefore, poverty is a contagion.  That's silly.

Of course it's silly, and not what @SpiritDragon's evidence says.  It's saying bad easting habits are a social factor.  Bad eating habits lead to obesity, which is a major contributor to Diabetes.  (Poor people tend to be obese more often than wealthy people, because they tend to eat cheaper, less healthy fare).

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Freedom and someone else's nose is not arbitrary.  It is exactly how the US Constitution is designed.  And, as designed, the government LIMITS freedom.  Therefore, the US Constitution LIMITS government. 

Yes that's correct, the Constitution DOES limit Government.  Too bad we have so many movements in this day and age eroding it.

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, let's take driving cars for example.  You have the freedom to drive a car until you hit someone with it.  Then your freedom ends.  The US Constitution limits the Government from taking your freedom to drive a car UNTIL you hit somebody else.  In that instance where your freedom hits somebody's nose, the government can take you to court and send you to jail.  Now, if the voting populace would GIVE THAT RIGHT to the Government to limit their freedom to drive a car, then sure.  The Government WILL create laws to take your freedom to drive a car.  And that's why it is very important that a voting populace be reminded, educated, taught, campaigned FOR SMALL GOVERNMENT policies. 

I happen to agree with your reasoning here, but that's all beside the point.  If the Government is going to enforce vaccinations, it's not going to wait until an unvaccinated kid gets someone sick before imposing control on the grounds of protecting the community.  Editing for clarity:  I'm talking about individuals.  It won't force individuals to get vaccinated only after they make somebody sick.  It'll enforce it for ALL, regardless of the individual risk factors.

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Gun control is, of course, different.  There is no Constitutionally protected right to drive a car.  There is a Constitutionally protected right to own a gun.  In the case of guns, the Government is specifically BARRED from creating laws to limit one's freedom to carry a firearm.  It is not a freedom a voting populace can easily hand over to the government.  It will take for the voting populace to agree to a Constitutional Amendment requiring 2/3 of the States to vote for it.

Tell that to the government in places where firearm ownership is banned or severely curtailed.  People ignore the Constitution when they think they have a legitimate gripe.  Again, I agree with your words here, but they don't refute the topic at hand.  A Constitutional argument can also be made against the Government forcing a medical procedure like a vaccination, but still there's people calling for it.

All of this, by the way, is a hypothetical discussion.  The community in which there was an outbreak was an isolated community, where only other members, who had chosen not to vaccinate, had issues.  The general public was not affected because it had chosen to vaccinate.  That's another reason @Godless' argument from earlier fails.  My next door neighbor's kid might not be vaccinated, but mine are, so the threat is imaginary.

Edited February 20, 2019 by unixknight
Clarifying a point

[anatess2]

31 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Of course it's silly, and not what @SpiritDragon's evidence says.  It's saying bad easting habits are a social factor.  Bad eating habits lead to obesity, which is a major contributor to Diabetes.  (Poor people tend to be obese more often than wealthy people, because they tend to eat cheaper, less healthy fare). 

Habits and social factors is not independent of choice.  A person imbibing on the habit does not remove the choice of another person not to imbibe in the habit.  Therefore, there is no freedom infringed.  This is different from a contagion where contracting the disease goes against choice.  You can choose not to contract the disease and do everything in your power to prevent the disease yet it still gets you because other people decide to host the disease rent-free.

 

Quote

Yes that's correct, the Constitution DOES limit Government.  Too bad we have so many movements in this day and age eroding it.

I happen to agree with your reasoning here, but that's all beside the point.  If the Government is going to enforce vaccinations, it's not going to wait until an unvaccinated kid gets someone sick before imposing control on the grounds of protecting the community.

Tell that to the government in places where firearm ownership is banned or severely curtailed.  People ignore the Constitution when they think they have a legitimate gripe.  Again, I agree with your words here, but they don't refute the topic at hand.  A Constitutional argument can also be made against the Government forcing a medical procedure like a vaccination, but still there's people calling for it.

There is no Constitutionally protected right to be unvaccinated.  Therefore, this freedom to vaccinate or not has been handed by the people to the government decades ago.  If you want to change it you can by convincing a simple majority in your cities and states to give you back that freedom.

Unconstitutional laws in the USA are null and void.  Therefore, if you believe any law - be it gun control or vaccination - is unconstitutional, then you can challenge the thing in court so it gets struck down.

 

Quote

All of this, by the way, is a hypothetical discussion. 

 

Yes, all my responses has been for a hypothetical and legal design or principle discussion.

 

Quote

 The community in which there was an outbreak was an isolated community, where only other members, who had chosen not to vaccinate, had issues.  The general public was not affected because it had chosen to vaccinate.  That's another reason @Godless' argument from earlier fails.  My next door neighbor's kid might not be vaccinated, but mine are, so the threat is imaginary.

The purpose of vaccination is eradication - rendering a disease Extinct as much as possible.  So, yes, your kids being vaccinated does not make the threat imaginary.  It just makes your kid safe from the threat.  There are many people who does not have the option to vaccinate - babies, elderly, people with long-term illnesses, immune deficient people, etc. etc.  The threat is real to them and it is their noses that is the concern for the anti-vax freedom to keep the disease alive in society.

So back to the principle.  My default position as a classic liberal (which equates to conservative in the USA) is that governments may tell me I can't do something but governments SHOULD NOT tell me I HAVE to do something.  This is what made Obamacare egregious - this is the first time a government forced a populace to buy something instead of just banning something from sale.  My position on the vaccination issue, therefore, goes against my classic liberal principles.  I allow this exception because of the dire consequences of contagious diseases on the populace and how the solution to the problem is best administered by an institution that has power over the entire populace.  This is in the same vein as the concept of National Defense where a government-run military, with the government having the power over the entire populace, is the best solution to eliminating the threat of invasion.  Now, if this need to solve contagious diseases changes - that is, eradication of the plague can be achieved through Private Enterprise rather than government, then that is where my support will naturally flow.

Edited February 20, 2019 by anatess2

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Habits and social factors is not independent of choice.  A person imbibing on the habit does not remove the choice of another person not to imbibe in the habit.  Therefore, there is no freedom infringed.  This is different from a contagion where contracting the disease goes against choice.  You can choose not to contract the disease and do everything in your power to prevent the disease yet it still gets you because other people decide to host the disease rent-free.

It doens't matter.  If there's data to suggest a social factor impacting the number of Diabetes cases, that's enough, for some, to justify Government intervention.  Besides, I could turn that same argument back on you by saying a person can choose to avoid contact with those who are unvaccinated.

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There is no Constitutionally protected right to be unvaccinated.

... in your opinion.  There are compelling arguments saying that forced vaccination violates the 4th and 5th Amendments.

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The purpose of vaccination is eradication - rendering a disease Extinct as much as possible.  So, yes, your kids being vaccinated does not make the threat imaginary.  It just makes your kid safe from the threat.  There are many people who does not have the option to vaccinate - babies, elderly, people with long-term illnesses, immune deficient people, etc. etc.  The threat is real to them and it is their noses that is the concern for the anti-vax freedom.

Again, that same logic applies to driving cars.  I can form an argument saying the threat is real as long as I'm not the only person on the road in a car.  (Of course, there's no way to make myself or my kids completely safe from traffic accidents, I can only mitigate the risk by driving skill and good habits.) 

People who can't get vaccinated for whatever reason are perfectly well aware of their vulnerability and can (and do) take steps to mitigate the risk to themselves of contracting diseases form others.

The point is that the threat is vastly overstated in order to justify Government force.  My kids are vaccinated, as are the overwhelming majority, so the threat is minimal.  If I were to chose otherwise, I'd have done so with a full understanding of the risks. 

[SpiritDragon]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

A person imbibing on the habit does not remove the choice of another person not to imbibe in the habit.  Therefore, there is no freedom infringed.

That sounds right, just as a person not being vaccinated doesn't force anyone else not to be vaccinated. The restriction of freedom comes when the government mandates that you have to feed your kids a certain way. Perhaps it is a certain way that will prevent obesity and diabetes in over 90% of the population, but it gives your kid digestive issues - they had better put up with it for the greater good though. 

Going along with the idea of freedoms ending when they get to some one else's nose don't you think the same argument could be made that the immunocompromised person has no right to impose a treatment on another because it may be beneficial to them? 

 

55 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

SpiritDragon's evidence is like this:  Studies found that poverty occurs in clusters.  Therefore, poverty is a contagion.  That's silly.

Perhaps you missed some of the message they were putting forth in the studies. Let me highlight some other points:

Quote

In addition to such strictly social mechanisms, it is plausible that physiological imitation might occur; areas of the brain that correspond to actions such as eating food may be stimulated if these actions are observed in others.¹³ Even infectious causes of obesity are conceivable.^14,15

Quote

There was no evidence to support self-selection or shared built environments as possible explanations, which suggests the presence of social contagion in obesity.

 

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

It doens't matter.  If there's data to suggest a social factor impacting the number of Diabetes cases, that's enough, for some, to justify Government intervention.  Besides, I could turn that same argument back on you by saying a person can choose to avoid contact with those who are unvaccinated.

"Some" in the USA doesn't make laws.

You can't avoid contact with a contagious disease if that disease is alive in society.  For example, I was a carrier for Tuberculosis.  TB is air-spread - it gets hangtime and gets inhaled by someone else.  I was not sick with TB and I was vaccinated against TB.  But, I was still a carrier of TB.  You can get TB from me even if I'm vaccinated against it.  Therefore, to be able to get a visa for the USA where TB vaccinations is not required, the Federal Government had to make sure my TB is killed first.  It was one of the reasons it took me so long to get my visa.

 

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

... in your opinion.  There are compelling arguments saying that forced vaccination violates the 4th and 5th Amendments.

There is NO Constitutionally Protected Right to vaccinate or not.  Vaccination is not on the Bill of Rights.  Your freedom to vaccinate would have been covered under 9th and 10th amendments except that the American people handed that right over to the Federal Government long time ago.

But, even if it all I said in that paragraph above is just my opinion in my interpretation of the constitution, that doesn't really change things.  Even Supreme Court Justices render nothing else but Opinion.  In my opinion, anti-vax claim on 4th and 5th amendments are tenuous at best.  But that's only my opinion.  If you want the SCOTUS opinion - which is the only opinion that matters if you want to strike down a law without going through the voting process - then you'll have to raise the matter in court.

 

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Again, that same logic applies to driving cars.  I can form an argument saying the threat is real as long as I'm not the only person on the road in a car.  (Of course, there's no way to make myself or my kids completely safe from traffic accidents, I can only mitigate the risk by driving skill and good habits.) 

I don't know how it applies the same to cars.  You can choose to not drive a car.  You can't choose to not breathe.  But regardless...  If you can convince a simple majority of people to hand over their freedom to drive cars over to the Federal Government, you can get it into law.

 

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

People who can't get vaccinated for whatever reason are perfectly well aware of their vulnerability and can (and do) take steps to mitigate the risk to themselves of contracting diseases form others.

The point is that the threat is vastly overstated in order to justify Government force.  My kids are vaccinated, as are the overwhelming majority, so the threat is minimal.  If I were to chose otherwise, I'd have done so with a full understanding of the risks. 

I don't know about that.  I have a different opinion on the matter living in the Philippines where it wasn't until the past decade that we finally eradicated polio and we are still littered with dead children killed by Tuberculosis.

 

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Perhaps you missed some of the message they were putting forth in the studies. Let me highlight some other points:

 

SD, we're talking about vaccinations and Government Control.  Obesity as a cultural construct is outside the purview of Government Control - or SHOULD BE.  Unless you are going to posit that a Government should be able to... say... control the spread of hereditary genetic disorders by sterilizing genetic carriers or some such (just an example akin to that study on Obesity).  Say your study is true (I haven't looked into it as I just find it silly, but maybe @NeuroTypical can tell us the validity of that study).  What do you think would make it necessary for a Government that has the power over the entire populace to do that a Private enterprise without that power can't?

Edited February 20, 2019 by anatess2

[anatess2]

31 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

That sounds right, just as a person not being vaccinated doesn't force anyone else not to be vaccinated. The restriction of freedom comes when the government mandates that you have to feed your kids a certain way. Perhaps it is a certain way that will prevent obesity and diabetes in over 90% of the population, but it gives your kid digestive issues - they had better put up with it for the greater good though. 

But that's not how the law is constructed.  At least not in Florida.  The vaccination law in Florida was constructed so that people who have no reason not to vaccinate (digestive issues, is of course a reason if validated by your doctor) will vaccinate, otherwise, they don't get to avail of public (that is, government) resources.  You don't go to jail for non-vaccination in Florida.  This makes it so that the 20% allowance for herd immunity is only availed by those that has no option but to be in that 20%.

 

Quote

Going along with the idea of freedoms ending when they get to some one else's nose don't you think the same argument could be made that the immunocompromised person has no right to impose a treatment on another because it may be beneficial to them? 

Vaccination is not a treatment.  It's a prevention and an eradication.  It is beneficial to the society as a whole.

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by anatess2

[unixknight]

59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

"Some" in the USA doesn't make laws.

Au contraire, mon ami.  How can you be living in 2019 and say that?  "Some people" are the reason it's illegal to "misgender" people in NYC now.  Never underestimate the power of "some people" when they get loud enough. 

59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You can't avoid contact with a contagious disease if that disease is alive in society.  For example, I was a carrier for Tuberculosis.  TB is air-spread - it gets hangtime and gets inhaled by someone else.  I was not sick with TB and I was vaccinated against TB.  But, I was still a carrier of TB.  You can get TB from me even if I'm vaccinated against it.  Therefore, to be able to get a visa for the USA where TB vaccinations is not required, the Federal Government had to make sure my TB is killed first.  It was one of the reasons it took me so long to get my visa.

I'd say that's a fine example of people avoiding exposure.

59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But, even if it all I said in that paragraph above is just my opinion in my interpretation of the constitution, that doesn't really change things.  Even Supreme Court Justices render nothing else but Opinion.  In my opinion, anti-vax claim on 4th and 5th amendments are tenuous at best.  But that's only my opinion.  If you want the SCOTUS opinion - which is the only opinion that matters if you want to strike down a law without going through the voting process - then you'll have to raise the matter in court.

Which people are doing.

59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't know how it applies the same to cars.  You can choose to not drive a car.  You can't choose to not breathe.  But regardless...  If you can convince a simple majority of people to hand over their freedom to drive cars over to the Federal Government, you can get it into law.

If it's a question of freedoms vs. someone's nose, I can think of no better example.  Sure, you can't choose not to breathe, but you do have a pretty good amount of control over where you do it and whom you do it around.

59 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't know about that.  I have a different opinion on the matter living in the Philippines where it wasn't until the past decade that we finally eradicated polio and we are still littered with dead children killed by Tuberculosis.

And why is that?

41 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Vaccination is not a treatment.  It's a prevention and an eradication.  It is beneficial to the society as a whole.

That's a semantic argument.  It's a medical treatment and it's being imposed, by force, on the many in order to accommodate the few.

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, unixknight said:

And why is that?  

Because we still have too many people who can't afford to vaccinate.  So we beg western nations to GIVE us vaccines.  And they do... lots of programs, including patented vaccines, are getting passed to the Philippines through WHO aid relief routes.  Unfortunately, we also have too many politicians who reroute the free vaccines and sell them to the private market to line their own pockets.  And we also have ignorant politicians running the Dept of Health that make stupid decisions in distribution of needed vaccines.  We are currently blasting one of them right now.  We had a problem with the free vaccine for Dengue that got contaminated.  So now we are reaching epidemic levels for Dengue fever.  But, because of this contamination, confidence on the other free vaccines have plummeted so now we are starting to see other outbreaks of things we have been on the way to eradicating!  And who is making people fear the other vaccines?  The irresponsible Dep of Health Secretary who can't tell the difference between Dengue, Polio, and Measles!  Idiot.

https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/dengue-virus-outbreak-philippines-has-reached-epidemic-levels

https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/philippinesparents-still-scared-of-govts-free-vaccines-a-year-after-dengvaxia-scare/

 

13 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That's a semantic argument.  It's a medical treatment and it's being imposed, by force, on the many in order to accommodate the few.

Dude, you're saying "a few" because you don't live in the Philippines.  Remove vaccinations from the USA and we will see how "few" is affected by contagions.

[unixknight]

28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Because we still have too many people who can't afford to vaccinate.  So we beg western nations to GIVE us vaccines.  And they do... lots of programs, including patented vaccines, are getting passed to the Philippines through WHO aid relief routes.  Unfortunately, we also have too many politicians who reroute the free vaccines and sell them to the private market to line their own pockets.  And we also have ignorant politicians running the Dept of Health that make stupid decisions in distribution of needed vaccines.  We are currently blasting one of them right now.  We had a problem with the free vaccine for Dengue that got contaminated.  So now we are reaching epidemic levels for Dengue fever.  But, because of this contamination, confidence on the other free vaccines have plummeted so now we are starting to see other outbreaks of things we have been on the way to eradicating!  And who is making people fear the other vaccines?  The irresponsible Dep of Health Secretary who can't tell the difference between Dengue, Polio, and Measles!  Idiot.

https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/dengue-virus-outbreak-philippines-has-reached-epidemic-levels

https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/philippinesparents-still-scared-of-govts-free-vaccines-a-year-after-dengvaxia-scare/

 

Dude, you're saying "a few" because you don't live in the Philippines.  Remove vaccinations from the USA and we will see how "few" is affected by contagions.

Ok.  But in the Philippines, do people have a choice (assuming the vaccine is available?)

Edited February 20, 2019 by unixknight

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Ok.  But in the Philippines, do people have a choice (assuming the vaccine is available?)

Yes, we have a choice - vaccinate or die. 

The government can't mandate vaccinations because... most people can't afford it and we don't have enough of the free stuff to go around.

[unixknight]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, we have a choice - vaccinate or die. 

The government can't mandate vaccinations because... most people can't afford it and we don't have enough of the free stuff to go around.

Ok that's what I was wondering about.

My (highly Libertarian) thinking is this:  Vaccinations are something that are basically a no-brainer, so the solution to the anti-vax movement is simply education.  People who are choosing not to vaccinate, based on junk science, are truly doing what they think is best for their kids, they just have the facts wrong.  They're not bad people, just unaware.  Granted, some fight tooth and nail to remain ignorant, but welcome to the human race, where worldviews are set in iron.

Fortunately, those tend to be isolated and herd immunity generally is sufficient to handle it.  It's when you see communities, like the one in the OP, being vulnerable due to clumps of people making the same bad call together.  That said, their community leaders are already working toward educating people and remedying the problem, so from where I'm sitting, Government power is not needed.