MrShorty

vaccines at the intersection of religious liberty and public health

Recommended Posts

I watched my dad swear and curse and yelp in pain over his shingles for over a year.   If current science says I get two shots and might spend a week being sore and having nausea and swelling and redness and shivering and being tired, but I'm 90% sure of not getting shingles, that still seems like a bargain for me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikbone said:

Would you let me do surgery on your broken tibia if I informed you of a 50% success rate?  At what success rate do you think you would be comfortable?

Depends on what the prognosis is for NOT having the tibia operated on.  

I am just concerned that this forum is turning into a vaccine denial site.  My rights only extend as far as your nose.  Once my supposed "rights" start to affect others in a negative way, I am limiting their rights and agency.  Fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

I am just concerned that this forum is turning into a vaccine denial site.

WOW!  There's a broad brush.

Only ONE person in this thread (mikbone) has said that they recommend not getting several vaccines.  But he still advocated getting many of them.

I only questioned measles and HPV.  I didn't say DON'T get them.  I simply asked about rates and statistics.

No one else said anything other than questioning the justification for government mandates.  But apparently, that's enough to call someone a "vaccine denier."  Whatever that's supposed to mean.

So, it's all or nothing, eh.  Either government mandate every vaccine on the market universally, or you're a vaccine denier.  Good argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

Depends on what the prognosis is for NOT having the tibia operated on.  

I am just concerned that this forum is turning into a vaccine denial site.  My rights only extend as far as your nose.  Once my supposed "rights" start to affect others in a negative way, I am limiting their rights and agency.  Fact. 

Pretty sure I’m not preventing you from injecting anything into your body.  

I treat heroin and meth addicts all the time...

What I dislike is misinformation and anyone mandating or even recommending that the government mandate vaccinations.

Fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I watched my dad swear and curse and yelp in pain over his shingles for over a year.   If current science says I get two shots and might spend a week being sore and having nausea and swelling and redness and shivering and being tired, but I'm 90% sure of not getting shingles, that still seems like a bargain for me.  

Since I've never experienced shingles, I wouldn't have the same inclination as you.  You may be right, that it is indeed worth it.  How would I know?

But the real question is:  Does this justify a government mandate to have everyone get a shingles vaccine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mores said:

But the real question is:  Does this justify a government mandate to have everyone get a shingles vaccine?

No.  Because shingles does not have a high risk of contagiousness (is that a word?).

Okay, so this is how I look at things:

- Seatbelts are mandated, not because you're going to die but because it raises insurance costs for everyone else because the government mandated insurance companies to cover personal injury even for misuse or non-use of seatbelts - so the personal injury mandate is the issue, not the seatbelt.
- Shingles are not mandated because, as it stands right now, somebody getting shingles does not cause other people's health costs to rise.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No.  Because shingles does not have a high risk of contagiousness (is that a word?).

And that has been my point all along.  What are the numbers that justify it?  If the numbers indicate it, then I'd be all for govt mandating vaccines.  But the numbers would have to be pretty strong.

  • High incidence of the disease in question (absent vaccines).
  • High mortality or long term symptom/damage from the disease.
  • Proven track record of the vaccine (high success rate, low side-effect rate).
  • Proven to be highly contagious from casual contact --especially during the non-symptomatic stage of the disease.

What I'm really scared of the plague.  After reading about the rat population in some of our bigger cities, it is becoming a very real possibility.  And the vaccine is not really proven.  So, what are we supposed to do in cases like that?

Quote

their effectiveness has never been measured precisely. Field experience indicates that vaccination with plague vaccine reduces the incidence and severity of disease resulting from the bite of infected fleas. The degree of protection afforded against primary pneumonic infection is not known.

CDC.

If we're gung-ho about mandating a vaccine with the qualifications I just outlined, are we gung-ho about vaccinating against such a deadly disease as the plague when its effectiveness is not known?  How about mandating that the cities in question take more measures to clean their streets or exterminate rats?  How is mandating a vaccine any different than the mandate for cities to take basic sanitation measures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mores said:

But apparently, that's enough to call someone a "vaccine denier."

Note: I didn't say that.   Just mentioned I was worried about the thread.  

For the record I am in favor of governments limiting certain activities (e.g. speeding, drunk driving, poor sanitation practices etc.).    The hard part is who decides what to limit, who to limit and how much to limit and when.  I don't know the answer.  However I do not feel that anarchy or even libertarianism is the best way; too many people who do not know how to limit themselves. 

Back to @mrshorty question about HPV vaccination, I had the same question for my kids and so far I have had none of them immunized.   I am not in favor of mandating this particular vaccine because if my child is chaste, they have already made a choice that will keep themselves and others safe.  However, I recognize this may not be true for a future spouse who may not have been chaste in the past.   They might ultimately hurt my child.  It's a tough one.  Should governments be allowed to even ask if a youth plans to be sexually active with more that one partner and if yes, should the government then REQUIRE them to be vaccinated?  Maybe.  For example, if I knew an individual was going to visit a place where ebola is rampant and that they would be returning to possibly infect others, I might expect government to require them to be vaccinated before they left for the sake of public safety.   In this case I would say the mandate is justified because the travelling individual is making a choice beforehand to put themselves in harm's way and potentially threaten others.  'tsall about choices and the seriousness of one person's choices on others.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jdf135 said:

Note: I didn't say that.   Just mentioned I was worried about the thread.

Really?

54 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

I am just concerned that this forum is turning into a vaccine denial site. 

Uh-huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion:

 

 

Quote
  • High incidence of the disease in question (absent vaccines).
  • High mortality or long term symptom/damage from the disease.
  • Proven track record of the vaccine (high success rate, low side-effect rate).
  • Proven to be highly contagious from casual contact --especially during the non-symptomatic stage of the disease.

This in addition:

  • Herd immunity is necessary for disease extinction.

needs to be an AND scenario (all have to be true).  This is the only scenario where government mandate of a vaccine is justified.

I'm not sure if the mortality rate bullet needs to be true.  I think extreme discomfort - like a year of pain or whatever - would suffice in the effect of someone's negligence on somebody else's personal liberty.   But I'm not sure about this.

Of course, this opinion only holds if there is no Universal Healthcare mandate - one of the reasons I am opposed to Universal Healthcare.

 

Quote

If we're gung-ho about mandating a vaccine with the qualifications I just outlined, are we gung-ho about vaccinating against such a deadly disease as the plague when its effectiveness is not known?  How about mandating that the cities in question take more measures to clean their streets or exterminate rats?  How is mandating a vaccine any different than the mandate for cities to take basic sanitation measures?

The decision is in the effectiveness.  Say, both solutions provide the same disease extinction results - Which mandate has the better chance of compliance balanced with its attached risk factor to get to the point of disease extinction?  This could be a systems engineering project to come up with the decision matrix.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
  • Herd immunity is necessary for disease extinction.

I don't see why this is important to the justification.  With or without it, the justification would qualify or not.

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

needs to be an AND scenario (all have to be true). 

Agreed.

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not sure if the mortality rate bullet needs to be true.  I think extreme discomfort - like a year of pain or whatever - would suffice in the effect of someone's negligence on somebody else's personal liberty. 

That's what I said.  Read the WHOLE line on that bullet point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mores said:

Really?

Sorry if name-calling was inferred.  It was not my intent.  I hope that mikbone is not offended.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jdf135 , for a while there, I was worried about the same thing.  Mores and milkbone both had me rolling my eyes and thinking "antivax nutter..."

But the more I read from them, the more I realize they have many brain cells to rub together.  In an online environment where everything I read about vaccinations is polarized, agenda-driven, and possibly outright false, I believe they have things to say that are worth considering, even learning from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jdf135 said:

Sorry if name-calling was inferred.  It was not my intent.  I hope that mikbone is not offended.   

Thank you for being gracious.  (not being sarcastic).

This site is actually a pretty good site.  A lot of faithful Saints here.  And we still have differences of opinion that we can hash out.  That's why I recently chose to put up shop here.  To paint the SITE with such a broad brush is not justified.

Also note that most of what you said were things that most of us agree with.  I agree with most of what you said.  But I still differ on some minutae.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This could be a systems engineering project to come up with the decision matrix.

This would be awesome.  I have actually tried to do this in my own life.  Seriously.  I have a spreadsheet to help me with decision making.   However I have found it has major limitations in that I cannot foresee all mitigating factors.  Stuff just gets in the way and messes up my plans!   Subsequently, I am afraid we will always have to make final decisions based on philosophy (principles, the spirit) rather than science.  If only I were Vulcan and reason and logic could prevail....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mores said:

I don't see why this is important to the justification.  With or without it, the justification would qualify or not.

I don't think it would justify as a mandate if not for reasons of herd immunity.  Basically, "I don't have the disease and therefore cannot infringe on your personal liberty", remains valid until someone contracts the disease.  So just plainly the "chance of me getting the disease and passing you the disease" cannot be the reason for a government mandate.  Now, mandated solitary confinement of people with the disease can be a government mandate.  The reason vaccinations for contagions is mandated is due to herd immunity - to achieve disease extinction.  

 

37 minutes ago, Mores said:

That's what I said.  Read the WHOLE line on that bullet point.

The line said long-term.  I'm not sure if it needs to be long-term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikbone said:

Pretty sure I’m not preventing you from injecting anything into your body.  

I treat heroin and meth addicts all the time...

What I dislike is misinformation and anyone mandating or even recommending that the government mandate vaccinations.

Fact.

I find your post interesting and I am glad to read them - especially when there are lots of disagreement - it is my line of thinking that I do not learn as much from those I agree with - not that I will agree but just the possibility to consider something I likely missed.  For my understanding - Obviously the government exist to mandate things (laws) - so I wonder what is your litmus test for things of necessity the government must mandate?  And who (opinion) should define the mandate?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I find your post interesting and I am glad to read them - especially when there are lots of disagreement - it is my line of thinking that I do not learn as much from those I agree with - not that I will agree but just the possibility to consider something I likely missed.  For my understanding - Obviously the government exist to mandate things (laws) - so I wonder what is your litmus test for things of necessity the government must mandate?  And who (opinion) should define the mandate?

 

The Traveler

Well that’s a loaded question.

I see things in an eternal prospective.  So obviously the ideal would be to have Jesus Christ as the law giver.  Unfortunately, this will not occur till the millennium...

So we must do the best we can with what we have.  I trust that the founding fathers who produced our current constitution were inspired.  I’m not sure any of the current politicians are inspired at all...

When people have decided that the constitution is a living document that needs to be interpreted and defined by our current enlightened standards, I fear.

Obvious things like abortion, and entitlements make one wonder.

The United States of America with our Universities, natural resources, and freedom should have an enormous surplus of $$.  Instead we have a 22 Trillion Dollar debt.  If there is a significant natural disaster we will be hosed.  

I am no politician and have no care to sit in any committee and listen to the idiots pontificate on how intelligent they are.

We should have built the supercollider in Texas decades ago but we ran out of money.  We should be sending astronauts to Mars and bringing them home.  We should be a society of craftsmen, scientists, and philosophers.  Our nuclear power production should be decades ahead of our current status...

But instead we are paying for abortions and clean needles.   

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/10/02/are-american-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/amp/

Realistically, I can’t comprehend a solution.  So, I do my best to do what I think is right.  I work, I teach, I breed, and I follow my conscience.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jdf135 said:

Sorry if name-calling was inferred.  It was not my intent.  I hope that mikbone is not offended.   

nope.  It takes quite a bit to hurt my feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Herd immunity is necessary for disease extinction.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su48a7.htm

World-wide herd immunity.  We can’t do this alone. 

And the possibilities of disease resistance / mutations etc.

We thought we were going to eradicate tuberculosis a long time ago...  woops.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/tuberculosis-difficult-to-eradicate#3

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/tuberculosis-kills-thousands-people-every-day-we-aren-t-doing-enough-stop-it/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Well that’s a loaded question.

I see things in an eternal prospective.  So obviously the ideal would be to have Jesus Christ as the law giver.  Unfortunately, this will not occur till the millennium...

So we must do the best we can with what we have.  I trust that the founding fathers who produced our current constitution were inspired.  I’m not sure any of the current politicians are inspired at all...

When people have decided that the constitution is a living document that needs to be interpreted and defined by our current enlightened standards, I fear.

Obvious things like abortion, and entitlements make one wonder.

The United States of America with our Universities, natural resources, and freedom should have an enormous surplus of $$.  Instead we have a 22 Trillion Dollar debt.  If there is a significant natural disaster we will be hosed.  

I am no politician and have no care to sit in any committee and listen to the idiots pontificate on how intelligent they are.

We should have built the supercollider in Texas decades ago but we ran out of money.  We should be sending astronauts to Mars and bringing them home.  We should be a society of craftsmen, scientists, and philosophers.  Our nuclear power production should be decades ahead of our current status...

But instead we are paying for abortions and clean needles.   

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/10/02/are-american-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/amp/

Realistically, I can’t comprehend a solution.  So, I do my best to do what I think is right.  I work, I teach, I breed, and I follow my conscience.

 

For more than 50 years I have been influenced by reading "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.  It is short and you should be able to read it in an evening.  Here is a link to a pdf copy:

https://fee.org/media/14951/thelaw.pdf

Here is an example from the forward in the link:

Quote

Like others, Bastiat recognized that the greatest single threat to liberty is government. Notice the clarity he employs to help us identify and understand evil government acts such as legalized plunder. Bastiat says, “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” With such an accurate description of legalized plunder, we cannot deny the conclusion that most government activities, including ours, are legalized plunder, or for the sake of modernity, legalized theft.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mores said:

What I'm really scared of the plague.  

Plague is easily treatable as long that it is recognised, if that makes you feel better.

The deadliest strains of the plague are thought to be extinct as well, but that could change.

One thing interesting as well is that some evidence concerning the black death has also surfaced in recent years.  More than likely the plague is what caused the black death, but during the black death it seems to have been accompanied by some kind of virus as well (the plague is bacteria).   Interesting, though morbid stuff.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Traveler said:

For more than 50 years I have been influenced by reading "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat.  It is short and you should be able to read it in an evening.  Here is a link to a pdf copy:

https://fee.org/media/14951/thelaw.pdf

 Here is an example from the forward in the link:

Thank you.  Just thru the introduction so far.  Love it.  Every time I read the phrase legal plunder I kinda do this.

528098C5-36ED-4171-8EC9-990E7CC11214.gif.165cf32a0d1568a8e532049a66397265.gif

I asked my wife what she thought of Bastiat.  She is the legal mind of the house.  She said, “Oh he is wonderful!  We should have his words framed all over the house.”

 

stupid greed and false philanthropy.

Edited by mikbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:
4 hours ago, Mores said:

What I'm really scared of the plague.  

Plague is easily treatable as long that it is recognised, if that makes you feel better.

Here in Colorado about every other year or so, we have a case or three of bubonic plague.  Usually in Pueblo, usually showing up in people who have been cleaning out hay barns in dusty conditions.  I don't remember any deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now