5 ms·

Vaccination is not an onerous requirement and there is very good reason to believe it is beneficial to public health when widely administered. If you want to re

by aggie 11y ago

Vaccination is not an onerous requirement and there is very good reason to believe it is beneficial to public health when widely administered. If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice.

sp332 11y ago
It could still be a civil suit - if someone actually got sick because you weren't vaccinated, they could sue you for damages. Also, once you give the government the authority to require people to be injected, they will probably start expanding it in various directions. That's really not a power I want to give to them.
- chaosphere2112 11y ago
  The government has had this authority since 1905 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts); there's no "giving them" this power, they've had it for over 100 years.
- grotsnot 11y ago
  That's the sort of tragedy-of-the-commons style fault that is prohibitively difficult to prove is due to a specific individual. Governments exist to solve such coordination problems.
- valarauca1 11y ago
  Appeal to fear is a logical fallacy not a rational argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
  - jack9 11y ago
    Regardless of a fallacy or not, it's effective. So the argument works. Dealing with the populace, citing wikipedia doesn't get you very far.
- filoeleven 11y ago
  If someone got sick because you weren't vaccinated, does that not imply that they were also not vaccinated? Or are there cases where e.g. you can only get vaccinated as an adult, and you're suggesting a civil suit if you infect a child?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Vaccines are not 100% effective. Some people are unable to take vaccinations. That's why we want to vaccinate as many people as possible - herd immunity protects the people who are unable to get vaccinated or people at that edge of efficacy. And a child who is not vaccinated by their parent may want to get that vaccination when they're old enough to make that decision by themselves.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      Why, categorically, should one be forcibly vaccinated in order to protect someone else? Sure, it's the civilized thing to do, but why is the justification to compel it? (And yes, the "anti-vax" "movement" is disgusting - a fine example of the stupidity of crowds. Unfortunately, defending freedom often means defending scoundrels). There's a similar argument around fire coverage. The common argument against a more libertarian approach to fire fighting is that if someone's house catches fire and is left to burn, then it will easily spread to neighbors, increasing their risk. And this the obvious physical reality, especially where things are dense. But since those neighbors are the only concerned parties, then why (in principle) is that additional risk not theirs to bear and mitigate? It cannot cost any more than the neighbors splitting the cost of the fire protection on the unprotected building. Practically, the fire department would just pool that overhead across all customers. Of course there is the issue of long term second-order effects - freeloading - since most likely if you didn't pay the fire department would still try to extinguish your house as quick as possible (possibly just busting it up a bit more in the process). But making coverage mandatory also ignores long term second-order effects when an organization does not have to be responsive to the people it serves (which is usually then handwaved away with the wisdom-of-crowds fallacy). The root of the disagreement comes from different thinking about what society actually is. Is it a monolithic system we're all bound to and the only way to change it is top-down? Or is it the constructive result of the surplus that everyone is willing to bring to the table, implying that an individual should have the option to quit the game and take their ball - even if that individual then watches from the sideline or even returns to play but without their ball? Both perspectives are needed, but every society is predisposed towards over-centralization - most people have a very hard time seeing anything besides their own perspective, so they falsely think their desires apply to everyone. Yet as demonstrated by the success of free markets, only decentralization can satisfy and incorporate minority viewpoints. When creative destruction is prevented from applying to structures within the society, then it will inevitably occur to the society as a whole.
Someone1234 11y ago
> If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice. Nope, they really don't. The default should not be for the state to force someone to inject a substance into their body, and if they refuse or raise concern, that it is then on them to explain/justify why NOT. The state should justify why they're doing it, and make a good case to each individual so they make the right choice. If you think the first amendment is an important right in the US, then the right to not have complex chemicals and or living organisms injected into your body should be an even higher right (since you're entrusting your very health on the state). I fully support vaccines and we are CHOOSING to vaccinate our kid. I understand herd immunity, but your fear doesn't trump other people's individual rights. I dislike both anti-vaxxers AND forced-vaxxers. One is scientifically ignorant and the other is morally bankrupt. Pick your poison I guess.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  I'm fine with "you can't force me to get vaccinated" if it includes an acceptance of civil liability should you be part of an outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    That's just petty. Even assuming liability, you cannot sue dead people back to life, or sue an epidemic away. So, no, that is silly and helps nobody. If you're going to do that just go full hog and fine people, at least it doesn't feel like petty revenge. Ultimately it is the fact that vaccines AREN'T required that forces the government to spend the time, resources, and effort promoting vaccines. Without that they can just arbitrarily start demanding we inject things and outright reject all requests for information/data/etc. We are actually in a good-ish place. Most of the population is vaccinated, there's plenty of data on vaccinations available to the public, and many of the concerns have been debunked using good solid science which cannot easily be refuted. Essentially the forced-vaccination people are arguing for worse science, they just haven't figured that out yet because they aren't looking far enough into the future. If they are forced, what is the justification for the science? Or are you just going to rely on other countries where it isn't mandated for the science (in particular follow up studies)?
jschwartzi 11y ago
I would like to point out that, in practice, we have eradicated Polio, and Smallpox, both of which are terrifying diseases. Also, thanks to vaccination of the adult populace you never hear about babies dying from Pertussis. There are other diseases that are similarly rare now but that used to kill or deform people before vaccinations became a part of public health policy. So there are some good reasons why I think you're right.
netcan 11y ago
The problem I have with thee sorts of debates is that fundamentals are very hard to argue against in principle. But in effect, practical "compromises" can often serve both goals better than a single purists solution. I happen to believe in both liberty and public health. In practice, vaccinations against infectious diseases need to hit certain percentages, not 100% of the population. With free vaccination, post natal health care, school programs and public education campaigns we can hit those numbers, and we do so regularly. There's no need for the gross violation of freedom some people fear, locking up parents or declaring them unfit, tying people to a chair and needling them. Doing this voluntarily puts more onus on the system to be smart and high functioning, invest in education and making people comfortable with the whole thing. It increases the pressure to reduce side effects, inconvenience, cost, fear and any other barrier to getting kids vaccinated. Generally, the whole thing works better. The fundamentalist is not serving principles more faithfully than the centrist or pragmatist. She's often just being argumentative and trying to be right to the detriment of her principles. Declaring all state involvement or authority to be (equally?) coercive and violent is silly, thinking in discreet categories when the world of human beings is fuzzy. Ignoring people's agency in the decision to vaccinate them or their children is an obvious violation is a basic morally deafness. I see comments like these from smart people who think more deeply about such things than the average person. It's baffling. Almost makes me think that the whole enterprise of moral philosophy and political philosophy is counter-productive. People fall into traps of vainly searching for consistency and leave their moral sense behind, with common sense far behind. TLDR: There is no reason to forgo obesity for vaccination or vaccination for freedom. People are motivated into these arguments by a desire to be right, not to help people be free or healthy.
- ghaff 11y ago
  As you suggest, one can be strongly pro-vaccination and just as strongly against the ability of the government to send a SWAT team to the door to vaccinate you forcibly. Personally, the law California passed seems a reasonable compromise to me. Once it's phased in, it makes it possible for parents to still opt-out their children but it 1.) makes it very much a non-casual decision, given that they'll probably have to home-school as a result, and 2.) keeps the children away from at least one of the locations (school) where they would interact with the largest population of other children.

by aggie 11y ago

sp332 11y ago

It could still be a civil suit - if someone actually got sick because you weren't vaccinated, they could sue you for damages. Also, once you give the government the authority to require people to be injected, they will probably start expanding it in various directions. That's really not a power I want to give to them.

chaosphere2112 11y ago
The government has had this authority since 1905 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts); there's no "giving them" this power, they've had it for over 100 years.
grotsnot 11y ago
That's the sort of tragedy-of-the-commons style fault that is prohibitively difficult to prove is due to a specific individual. Governments exist to solve such coordination problems.
valarauca1 11y ago
Appeal to fear is a logical fallacy not a rational argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
- jack9 11y ago
  Regardless of a fallacy or not, it's effective. So the argument works. Dealing with the populace, citing wikipedia doesn't get you very far.
filoeleven 11y ago
If someone got sick because you weren't vaccinated, does that not imply that they were also not vaccinated? Or are there cases where e.g. you can only get vaccinated as an adult, and you're suggesting a civil suit if you infect a child?
- DanBC 11y ago
  Vaccines are not 100% effective. Some people are unable to take vaccinations. That's why we want to vaccinate as many people as possible - herd immunity protects the people who are unable to get vaccinated or people at that edge of efficacy. And a child who is not vaccinated by their parent may want to get that vaccination when they're old enough to make that decision by themselves.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Why, categorically, should one be forcibly vaccinated in order to protect someone else? Sure, it's the civilized thing to do, but why is the justification to compel it? (And yes, the "anti-vax" "movement" is disgusting - a fine example of the stupidity of crowds. Unfortunately, defending freedom often means defending scoundrels). There's a similar argument around fire coverage. The common argument against a more libertarian approach to fire fighting is that if someone's house catches fire and is left to burn, then it will easily spread to neighbors, increasing their risk. And this the obvious physical reality, especially where things are dense. But since those neighbors are the only concerned parties, then why (in principle) is that additional risk not theirs to bear and mitigate? It cannot cost any more than the neighbors splitting the cost of the fire protection on the unprotected building. Practically, the fire department would just pool that overhead across all customers. Of course there is the issue of long term second-order effects - freeloading - since most likely if you didn't pay the fire department would still try to extinguish your house as quick as possible (possibly just busting it up a bit more in the process). But making coverage mandatory also ignores long term second-order effects when an organization does not have to be responsive to the people it serves (which is usually then handwaved away with the wisdom-of-crowds fallacy). The root of the disagreement comes from different thinking about what society actually is. Is it a monolithic system we're all bound to and the only way to change it is top-down? Or is it the constructive result of the surplus that everyone is willing to bring to the table, implying that an individual should have the option to quit the game and take their ball - even if that individual then watches from the sideline or even returns to play but without their ball? Both perspectives are needed, but every society is predisposed towards over-centralization - most people have a very hard time seeing anything besides their own perspective, so they falsely think their desires apply to everyone. Yet as demonstrated by the success of free markets, only decentralization can satisfy and incorporate minority viewpoints. When creative destruction is prevented from applying to structures within the society, then it will inevitably occur to the society as a whole.

Someone1234 11y ago

> If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice. Nope, they really don't. The default should not be for the state to force someone to inject a substance into their body, and if they refuse or raise concern, that it is then on them to explain/justify why NOT. The state should justify why they're doing it, and make a good case to each individual so they make the right choice. If you think the first amendment is an important right in the US, then the right to not have complex chemicals and or living organisms injected into your body should be an even higher right (since you're entrusting your very health on the state). I fully support vaccines and we are CHOOSING to vaccinate our kid. I understand herd immunity, but your fear doesn't trump other people's individual rights. I dislike both anti-vaxxers AND forced-vaxxers. One is scientifically ignorant and the other is morally bankrupt. Pick your poison I guess.

ceejayoz 11y ago
I'm fine with "you can't force me to get vaccinated" if it includes an acceptance of civil liability should you be part of an outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  That's just petty. Even assuming liability, you cannot sue dead people back to life, or sue an epidemic away. So, no, that is silly and helps nobody. If you're going to do that just go full hog and fine people, at least it doesn't feel like petty revenge. Ultimately it is the fact that vaccines AREN'T required that forces the government to spend the time, resources, and effort promoting vaccines. Without that they can just arbitrarily start demanding we inject things and outright reject all requests for information/data/etc. We are actually in a good-ish place. Most of the population is vaccinated, there's plenty of data on vaccinations available to the public, and many of the concerns have been debunked using good solid science which cannot easily be refuted. Essentially the forced-vaccination people are arguing for worse science, they just haven't figured that out yet because they aren't looking far enough into the future. If they are forced, what is the justification for the science? Or are you just going to rely on other countries where it isn't mandated for the science (in particular follow up studies)?

jschwartzi 11y ago

I would like to point out that, in practice, we have eradicated Polio, and Smallpox, both of which are terrifying diseases. Also, thanks to vaccination of the adult populace you never hear about babies dying from Pertussis. There are other diseases that are similarly rare now but that used to kill or deform people before vaccinations became a part of public health policy. So there are some good reasons why I think you're right.

netcan 11y ago

The problem I have with thee sorts of debates is that fundamentals are very hard to argue against in principle. But in effect, practical "compromises" can often serve both goals better than a single purists solution. I happen to believe in both liberty and public health. In practice, vaccinations against infectious diseases need to hit certain percentages, not 100% of the population. With free vaccination, post natal health care, school programs and public education campaigns we can hit those numbers, and we do so regularly. There's no need for the gross violation of freedom some people fear, locking up parents or declaring them unfit, tying people to a chair and needling them. Doing this voluntarily puts more onus on the system to be smart and high functioning, invest in education and making people comfortable with the whole thing. It increases the pressure to reduce side effects, inconvenience, cost, fear and any other barrier to getting kids vaccinated. Generally, the whole thing works better. The fundamentalist is not serving principles more faithfully than the centrist or pragmatist. She's often just being argumentative and trying to be right to the detriment of her principles. Declaring all state involvement or authority to be (equally?) coercive and violent is silly, thinking in discreet categories when the world of human beings is fuzzy. Ignoring people's agency in the decision to vaccinate them or their children is an obvious violation is a basic morally deafness. I see comments like these from smart people who think more deeply about such things than the average person. It's baffling. Almost makes me think that the whole enterprise of moral philosophy and political philosophy is counter-productive. People fall into traps of vainly searching for consistency and leave their moral sense behind, with common sense far behind. TLDR: There is no reason to forgo obesity for vaccination or vaccination for freedom. People are motivated into these arguments by a desire to be right, not to help people be free or healthy.

ghaff 11y ago
As you suggest, one can be strongly pro-vaccination and just as strongly against the ability of the government to send a SWAT team to the door to vaccinate you forcibly. Personally, the law California passed seems a reasonable compromise to me. Once it's phased in, it makes it possible for parents to still opt-out their children but it 1.) makes it very much a non-casual decision, given that they'll probably have to home-school as a result, and 2.) keeps the children away from at least one of the locations (school) where they would interact with the largest population of other children.