3 ms·

> Fortunately the anti-vaxxers are a small minority instead of a large majority so the risk is somewhat controllable and fortunately the only people at risk are

> Fortunately the anti-vaxxers are a small minority instead of a large majority so the risk is somewhat controllable and fortunately the only people at risk are those that have not been vaccinated yet (a risk that for many diseases is extremely small) so the consequences for society as a whole are manageable. Loss of herd immunity effects those who have gotten the vaccine as well (especially with vaccines that have more significant failure rates). Choosing to not vaccinate your child and expecting everybody else's children at the public school you send them to to just deal is about more than personal bodily integrity.

jacquesm 10y ago
That's true, but it's not an absolute: there is no guarantee anybody will get ill, it's rolling the dice with a somewhat higher chance of someone else getting ill but a much bigger chance of you yourself getting ill. As an analogue: if you want to categorize the non-vaccinated person as a 'drunk driver' who is not allowed to partake in traffic then you prioritize (rightly, imo) their choice to be drunk over the risk they pose to the lives and health of others because the chances of causing a serious accident are large enough - and we have the evidence to back that up - that we collectively have decided against people having that particular freedom. So if that's your argument (which I don't know for sure) you definitely have a point. The counter point (to that convenient strawman :) ) is that the chances of someone getting ill are not as easy to determine and that that someone might have gotten ill anyway. Cause and effect are a lot more distant in that case and much harder to relate to each other.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  > The counter point (to that convenient strawman :) ) is that the chances of someone getting ill are not as easy to determine and that that someone might have gotten ill anyway. Cause and effect are a lot more distant in that case and much harder to relate to each other. This is wishy-washy logic. There are real evidence/data-based scientific studies that show the specific measurable increase in infections of various diseases based on how many members of the population refuse the available vaccines. There have been flare-ups in California with dozens of people becoming infected (and some dying) when herd immunity is lost. This is not hypothetical; it is simply fact. Similarly, it's hard to say whether any individual pack-a-day smoker will die from lung cancer, but we know that, in aggregate, smoking significantly increases your risks of dying from lung cancer, so to make wishy-washy statements attempting to justify smoking as maybe not unhealthy would similarly fall on deaf ears. And lastly -- this isn't all theoretical. I want you to watch a video of an infant, too young for vaccination, that has contracted whooping cough thanks to failure of herd immunity (i.e. anti-vaxxers). Even with all the benefits of modern medicine there is a good chance that infants like this one that contract whooping cough will die. This is what enabling anti-vaxxers does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    I'm fully aware that some people will suffer because of this. That doesn't mean that we should force our views and our beliefs on those that do not share those, even if we have the science on our side. There are some pretty basic elements at play here and if you want to over-rule the right to basic bodily integrity you're going to have to do better than to quote statistics. By that rule we should force everybody to eat healthy, to have an alcohol lock in every car and so on. Finally your emotional appeal is nothing but the 'think of the children' argument. Yes, it is a tragedy, no that does not mean that anti-vaxxers should not have the right to do as they please with their own bodies. Principles only matter when there is a price to pay and in this case that price could very well be my own child. Even so, I still stand by my support of those that decide otherwise because not to do that means giving the state way too much power over our bodies.
    - CydeWeys 10y ago
      Do the people and babies who cannot be vaccinated not have a right to their own bodily integrity as well? If that's really what you care about, then it seems better to require most people to get mild vaccines than to force some people to get deadly illnesses.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        > Do the people and babies who cannot be vaccinated not have a right to their own bodily integrity as well? Of course they do, but their bodily integrity does not extend to forcing others to give up theirs. I realize this is a difficult subject because it seems so obvious to people schooled in biology and statistics but the 'greater good' here is that we have a society where you get to make that choice. That there is a price to pay for that is something that right now a majority of the non-scientifically trained people feels is a trade-off worth making. Freedoms always carry a price, and in some cases that means that people die. Those can be old people, young people or people somewhere in the middle but it is unavoidable. From a purely rational perspective this may not make sense to you but people are not purely rational beings, they tend to feel they should have a right to say 'no' to someone that wants to stick a needle in their arm for 'the greater good'. The only way I see to solve this is to encourage education and to hope for informed consent, not force. Anti-vaxxers for the most part are people that have been duped either by religion or by fear mongering that vaccinations are bad, this makes it an education issue, not an our-way-or-the-highway issue.

jacquesm 10y ago

That's true, but it's not an absolute: there is no guarantee anybody will get ill, it's rolling the dice with a somewhat higher chance of someone else getting ill but a much bigger chance of you yourself getting ill. As an analogue: if you want to categorize the non-vaccinated person as a 'drunk driver' who is not allowed to partake in traffic then you prioritize (rightly, imo) their choice to be drunk over the risk they pose to the lives and health of others because the chances of causing a serious accident are large enough - and we have the evidence to back that up - that we collectively have decided against people having that particular freedom. So if that's your argument (which I don't know for sure) you definitely have a point. The counter point (to that convenient strawman :) ) is that the chances of someone getting ill are not as easy to determine and that that someone might have gotten ill anyway. Cause and effect are a lot more distant in that case and much harder to relate to each other.

CydeWeys 10y ago
> The counter point (to that convenient strawman :) ) is that the chances of someone getting ill are not as easy to determine and that that someone might have gotten ill anyway. Cause and effect are a lot more distant in that case and much harder to relate to each other. This is wishy-washy logic. There are real evidence/data-based scientific studies that show the specific measurable increase in infections of various diseases based on how many members of the population refuse the available vaccines. There have been flare-ups in California with dozens of people becoming infected (and some dying) when herd immunity is lost. This is not hypothetical; it is simply fact. Similarly, it's hard to say whether any individual pack-a-day smoker will die from lung cancer, but we know that, in aggregate, smoking significantly increases your risks of dying from lung cancer, so to make wishy-washy statements attempting to justify smoking as maybe not unhealthy would similarly fall on deaf ears. And lastly -- this isn't all theoretical. I want you to watch a video of an infant, too young for vaccination, that has contracted whooping cough thanks to failure of herd immunity (i.e. anti-vaxxers). Even with all the benefits of modern medicine there is a good chance that infants like this one that contract whooping cough will die. This is what enabling anti-vaxxers does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw
- jacquesm 10y ago
  I'm fully aware that some people will suffer because of this. That doesn't mean that we should force our views and our beliefs on those that do not share those, even if we have the science on our side. There are some pretty basic elements at play here and if you want to over-rule the right to basic bodily integrity you're going to have to do better than to quote statistics. By that rule we should force everybody to eat healthy, to have an alcohol lock in every car and so on. Finally your emotional appeal is nothing but the 'think of the children' argument. Yes, it is a tragedy, no that does not mean that anti-vaxxers should not have the right to do as they please with their own bodies. Principles only matter when there is a price to pay and in this case that price could very well be my own child. Even so, I still stand by my support of those that decide otherwise because not to do that means giving the state way too much power over our bodies.
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    Do the people and babies who cannot be vaccinated not have a right to their own bodily integrity as well? If that's really what you care about, then it seems better to require most people to get mild vaccines than to force some people to get deadly illnesses.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > Do the people and babies who cannot be vaccinated not have a right to their own bodily integrity as well? Of course they do, but their bodily integrity does not extend to forcing others to give up theirs. I realize this is a difficult subject because it seems so obvious to people schooled in biology and statistics but the 'greater good' here is that we have a society where you get to make that choice. That there is a price to pay for that is something that right now a majority of the non-scientifically trained people feels is a trade-off worth making. Freedoms always carry a price, and in some cases that means that people die. Those can be old people, young people or people somewhere in the middle but it is unavoidable. From a purely rational perspective this may not make sense to you but people are not purely rational beings, they tend to feel they should have a right to say 'no' to someone that wants to stick a needle in their arm for 'the greater good'. The only way I see to solve this is to encourage education and to hope for informed consent, not force. Anti-vaxxers for the most part are people that have been duped either by religion or by fear mongering that vaccinations are bad, this makes it an education issue, not an our-way-or-the-highway issue.