3 ms·
The fact that there's still countries where you can cite philosophical preferences to opt your kid out of vaccinations speaks to some sort of fundamental discon
by avar 8y ago
The fact that there's still countries where you can cite philosophical preferences to opt your kid out of vaccinations speaks to some sort of fundamental disconnect that's hard to put one's finger on.
The scientific evidence supporting vaccinations is undebatable, the fact that parents can opt their kids out because they disagree with reality and put other people's lives at risk should be as abhorrent in the public mind as drunk driving.
After all, maybe there's someone who disagrees with the science of how alcohol consumption impairs driving, and how this, statistically, will kill innocent people. Shouldn't they get to disagree with reality and put innocents in harm's way?
But with vaccines the harm is too far removed and only visible through statistics, you usually can't point to any one unvaccinated child and say they caused so-and-so to die (unlike in the case of drunk driving). But the image of a child being forcibly separated from its parents to be injected by agents of the state does produce a visceral image of harm.
- louthy 8y ago> The scientific evidence supporting vaccinations is undebatable, the fact that parents can opt their kids out because they disagree with reality and put other people's lives at risk should be as abhorrent in the public mind as drunk driving. Indeed. And although this might sound extreme: should be considered child abuse too. You're making a massively uninformed choice that could kill or disable your child and others that aren't physically able to take the vaccine. Being an idiot shouldn't be any excuse for this behaviour.
- cies 8y agoDrunk driving: you were able to drive, then you took alcohol, no you are unable to drive. Going around unvaccinated: you were able to be infected and transmit a disease, then you (or your parents) did not allow others to vaccinate you, now you are still able to get infected and transmit. I'm not against vaccination, but I'm critical. (See my other comment) US has by far the biggest vaccination schedule in the world, and is not exactly an example of a great public health system. Scandinavian countries have much smaller schedules than the US, and they have healthier children.
- hueving 8y ago"Healthy children" has nothing to do with vaccines. Vaccines are for preventing specific diseases a population is at risk for. They don't prevent your kids from getting fat.
- cies 8y agoShould any vaccine we have be given, or are some diseases better to "live with"? I'm not talking about the nasty ones.
- mirimir 8y ago> The fact that there's still countries where you can cite philosophical preferences to opt your kid out of vaccinations speaks to some sort of fundamental disconnect that's hard to put one's finger on. There's this concept we call freedom. Edit: If you're hating on me, stop and consider where you'd draw the line regarding individual risk vs social benefit. What about eugenics? For me, the drug war is going too far.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y agoYour freedom to not get vaccinated is impinging on my freedom not to die from some totally avoidable pathogen. When freedoms are incompatible someone’s freedom has to be curtailed. I vote for the irrational and dangerous freedom to be curtailed in favor of public health, in the same way that I don’t care about curtailing someone’s freedom to best me to death with a brick because they want to. “Because freedom” isn’t an argument, isn’t a point being made, it’s nothing.
- mirimir 8y agoI get the argument. And maybe I'd be convinced if victims of vaccine side effects had the right to pursue class torts against manufacturers. But if they did, there likely wouldn't be any vaccine manufacturers. And that brings cost/benefit assumptions into question, no?