9 ms·

> A solution involves restricting access to public spaces for selfish morons who don’t get vaccinated, and yes, their children. I'm certainly not an antivaxxer

by rlt 8y ago

> A solution involves restricting access to public spaces for selfish morons who don’t get vaccinated, and yes, their children. I'm certainly not an antivaxxer. I receive vaccines and will vaccinate my children. But the government mandating people vaccinate themselves or their children in order to participate in society crosses a line for me. It may be reasonable in specific circumstances, which I haven't fully thought through, but not by broadly restricting access to public spaces.

fzeroracer 8y ago
Do you believe it's a bad idea for governments to mandate that you're up to date on your vaccinations before entering their country? Should you be allowed to lie about your vaccination history because you believe it's unfair for them to force that upon you? Is it your right to potentially threaten their population by bringing in dangerous diseases? Or does this only apply to your current government?
- rlt 8y ago
  I have a choice to travel to other countries or not. I don't really have a choice to not live in (or not pay taxes to) the country I was born into.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    No, but you do live with other people. As part of that, we all sign the social contract when we're born which stipulates how we can and cannot behave around other people. As part of that, people that disregard vaccination are putting the lives of those around them in very real danger. Which is exactly why people believe anti-vaxxers are a problem, and why there's an increasing push to deny them the public sphere.
    - rlt 8y ago
      > putting the lives of those around them in very real danger If thousands of people were dying of vaccine-preventable diseases I may reconsider my stance, but we are currently nowhere close to justifying crossing that line. IMHO it's a self-correcting problem. If more people do start dying of these diseases some of the holdouts will get the vaccines.
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        As has been mentioned in this thread before it's not a 'self-correcting problem', because the people that legitimately cannot get vaccines or suffer from other issues compromising their immune system are affected as well. And as seen with issue issues relating to conspiracy theories...they tend to just deny the outbreaks as being government-orchestrated, or say that getting the disease is actually good for you. Anti-vaxxers threaten the lives of innocent people and acting otherwise is incredibly callous and ignorant.
        rlt 8y ago
        How many immune system compromised individuals die of vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States each year? Like I said, if it's thousands I might reconsider my stance. If not, sorry, but it doesn't justify the government forcing people to do things to their body.
        fzeroracer 8y ago
        Okay, real question: Are you being serious here? There's a huge logical problem with your argument. The reason why so few immune-compromised individuals die of vaccine-preventable diseases is because they're protected by herd immunity due to people being vaccinated. When the vaccination rate goes down, you see more people die from vaccine preventable diseases. Because that's what vaccines do: they prevent people from dying from vaccine-preventable diseases. Which, often, is children.
        kazinator 8y ago
        > When the vaccination rate goes down, you see more people die from vaccine preventable diseases. To see this all we have to do is simply visualize history backwards, re-visiting the time before vaccines and medicine in general, and how people just horribly died in large numbers of diseases we don't even think of as deadly any more. But what are the odds vaccine deniers would believe historic record, right? The plague pandemics? Never happened; it's just a fabrication to promote vaccination.
    - tomp 8y ago
      > people that disregard vaccination are putting the lives of those around them in very real danger. So do people that drive...
berberous 8y ago
Isn't this already a thing? Per below links, I thought most schools require vaccinations. It seems to be a minority of states that allow 'philosophical' exemptions. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/state-reqs.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/state-reqs.ht... https://vaccines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003597 https://vaccines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003... Obviously, restricting access to all public spaces goes much further...but functionally, this works well enough if we just get rid of the states with philosophical exemptions.
- rlt 8y ago
  That may be one of the specific circumstances I'd be ok with, just because children are in such close contact with each other. > It seems to be a minority of states that allow 'philosophical' exemptions. Antivaxx is basically a religion, isn't it? ;)
chx 8y ago
I beg to differ. It's way too lenient to only restrict their children to access public spaces. No, they should be tried for the attempted premediated murder of every child their children meets or simply put, a crime against humanity. Biological warfare is a war crime, you know. Hand out a few thousand year sentences, watch anti vaxx sentiment disappear.
- tomp 8y ago
  Shouldn’t the same argument be used to persecute pro-choice advocates, women who get abortions and doctors who perform them?
  - chx 8y ago
    This issue is much simpler if you rephrase it: replace the "pro life" label with "anti woman". As long as the child is connected to the body of the mother, we as a society decided it's more important to give mothers bodily agency than any rights of a potential human. Do not get tangled in the definition of when life begins, this issue is not biological, it's very strictly a decision the society needs to make. And while you think the decision is not clear cut, it actually is, you just need to look elsewhere where soceties made a decision on bodily agency: organ donors after death. I never heard of any place where it is mandatory to be an organ donor -- actually most places are opt in. So, apparently even your cadaver deserves bodily agency. If we consider the agency of a dead body can be more important than the life of several adult humans then how on earth can the agency of a living body be less important than someone who is not even born yet (might not survive etc)? Hypocrisy much?
    - tomp 8y ago
      Sure, and you could similarly replace "pro-vaxx" with "anti-freedom". Then it becomes a bit harder to stomach, no? The point is, women are free to abort unborn children. They're not free to let their (born) children die (of neglect). It's not an obvious choice whether they should be free to not vaccinate their children or not.
      - 8y ago

by rlt 8y ago

fzeroracer 8y ago

Do you believe it's a bad idea for governments to mandate that you're up to date on your vaccinations before entering their country? Should you be allowed to lie about your vaccination history because you believe it's unfair for them to force that upon you? Is it your right to potentially threaten their population by bringing in dangerous diseases? Or does this only apply to your current government?

rlt 8y ago
I have a choice to travel to other countries or not. I don't really have a choice to not live in (or not pay taxes to) the country I was born into.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  No, but you do live with other people. As part of that, we all sign the social contract when we're born which stipulates how we can and cannot behave around other people. As part of that, people that disregard vaccination are putting the lives of those around them in very real danger. Which is exactly why people believe anti-vaxxers are a problem, and why there's an increasing push to deny them the public sphere.
  - rlt 8y ago
    > putting the lives of those around them in very real danger If thousands of people were dying of vaccine-preventable diseases I may reconsider my stance, but we are currently nowhere close to justifying crossing that line. IMHO it's a self-correcting problem. If more people do start dying of these diseases some of the holdouts will get the vaccines.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      As has been mentioned in this thread before it's not a 'self-correcting problem', because the people that legitimately cannot get vaccines or suffer from other issues compromising their immune system are affected as well. And as seen with issue issues relating to conspiracy theories...they tend to just deny the outbreaks as being government-orchestrated, or say that getting the disease is actually good for you. Anti-vaxxers threaten the lives of innocent people and acting otherwise is incredibly callous and ignorant.
      - rlt 8y ago
        How many immune system compromised individuals die of vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States each year? Like I said, if it's thousands I might reconsider my stance. If not, sorry, but it doesn't justify the government forcing people to do things to their body.
        fzeroracer 8y ago
        Okay, real question: Are you being serious here? There's a huge logical problem with your argument. The reason why so few immune-compromised individuals die of vaccine-preventable diseases is because they're protected by herd immunity due to people being vaccinated. When the vaccination rate goes down, you see more people die from vaccine preventable diseases. Because that's what vaccines do: they prevent people from dying from vaccine-preventable diseases. Which, often, is children.
        kazinator 8y ago
        > When the vaccination rate goes down, you see more people die from vaccine preventable diseases. To see this all we have to do is simply visualize history backwards, re-visiting the time before vaccines and medicine in general, and how people just horribly died in large numbers of diseases we don't even think of as deadly any more. But what are the odds vaccine deniers would believe historic record, right? The plague pandemics? Never happened; it's just a fabrication to promote vaccination.
  - tomp 8y ago
    > people that disregard vaccination are putting the lives of those around them in very real danger. So do people that drive...

berberous 8y ago

Isn't this already a thing? Per below links, I thought most schools require vaccinations. It seems to be a minority of states that allow 'philosophical' exemptions. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/state-reqs.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/state-reqs.ht... https://vaccines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003597 https://vaccines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003... Obviously, restricting access to all public spaces goes much further...but functionally, this works well enough if we just get rid of the states with philosophical exemptions.

rlt 8y ago
That may be one of the specific circumstances I'd be ok with, just because children are in such close contact with each other. > It seems to be a minority of states that allow 'philosophical' exemptions. Antivaxx is basically a religion, isn't it? ;)

chx 8y ago

I beg to differ. It's way too lenient to only restrict their children to access public spaces. No, they should be tried for the attempted premediated murder of every child their children meets or simply put, a crime against humanity. Biological warfare is a war crime, you know. Hand out a few thousand year sentences, watch anti vaxx sentiment disappear.

tomp 8y ago
Shouldn’t the same argument be used to persecute pro-choice advocates, women who get abortions and doctors who perform them?
- chx 8y ago
  This issue is much simpler if you rephrase it: replace the "pro life" label with "anti woman". As long as the child is connected to the body of the mother, we as a society decided it's more important to give mothers bodily agency than any rights of a potential human. Do not get tangled in the definition of when life begins, this issue is not biological, it's very strictly a decision the society needs to make. And while you think the decision is not clear cut, it actually is, you just need to look elsewhere where soceties made a decision on bodily agency: organ donors after death. I never heard of any place where it is mandatory to be an organ donor -- actually most places are opt in. So, apparently even your cadaver deserves bodily agency. If we consider the agency of a dead body can be more important than the life of several adult humans then how on earth can the agency of a living body be less important than someone who is not even born yet (might not survive etc)? Hypocrisy much?
  - tomp 8y ago
    Sure, and you could similarly replace "pro-vaxx" with "anti-freedom". Then it becomes a bit harder to stomach, no? The point is, women are free to abort unborn children. They're not free to let their (born) children die (of neglect). It's not an obvious choice whether they should be free to not vaccinate their children or not.
    - 8y ago