4 ms·

> The default should not be for the state to force someone to... I agree. > The state should justify why they're doing it And they do: herd immunity, which i

by aggie 11y ago

> The default should not be for the state to force someone to... I agree. > The state should justify why they're doing it And they do: herd immunity, which is supported by convincing scientific evidence. I didn't say liberty should be violated by default. We are no longer in a default position -- the argument has already been made and it is apparent that vaccination is justified as a social good. As a member of a society, sometimes social good takes priority over individual liberty. My argument is that if people still want to reject it, they need to explain why their liberty should come before others' health. (This is a rhetorical request I don't expect someone will be able to convince me of, though some may hold this view.)

tracker1 11y ago
You have no right to be protected from getting sick... One's personal liberties should generally extend just shy of infringing on an other's rights.. That should be the default. That said I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I'm medically unable to take most of them now as they would dramatically increase the chance of a deadly side effect. Once in my life was enough (and the 6-figure hospital bill after insurance cap), and a 5% chance of reoccurrence is bad enough without tempting fate to make that risk much higher.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > You have no right to be protected from getting sick... Conversely, you have no right to infect other people (this is a unconsented harm inflicted on others, the most basic thing that is a violation of rights.) To the extent that doing so is neither intentional, reckless, nor negligent, you also shouldn't be held responsible to prevent doing so -- the question with mandatory vaccination largely boils down to whether failing to use particular vaccinations without a special medical reason is such a failing of a duty of care.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    Good luck tracking down and suing patient 0.

by aggie 11y ago

tracker1 11y ago

You have no right to be protected from getting sick... One's personal liberties should generally extend just shy of infringing on an other's rights.. That should be the default. That said I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I'm medically unable to take most of them now as they would dramatically increase the chance of a deadly side effect. Once in my life was enough (and the 6-figure hospital bill after insurance cap), and a 5% chance of reoccurrence is bad enough without tempting fate to make that risk much higher.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> You have no right to be protected from getting sick... Conversely, you have no right to infect other people (this is a unconsented harm inflicted on others, the most basic thing that is a violation of rights.) To the extent that doing so is neither intentional, reckless, nor negligent, you also shouldn't be held responsible to prevent doing so -- the question with mandatory vaccination largely boils down to whether failing to use particular vaccinations without a special medical reason is such a failing of a duty of care.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Good luck tracking down and suing patient 0.