4 ms·
I guess the answer is that it should be required by law then? You either get vaccinated, or you go into permanent quarantine until you do. I don't understand ho
by overcast 8y ago
I guess the answer is that it should be required by law then? You either get vaccinated, or you go into permanent quarantine until you do. I don't understand how in this case, the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
- ccallebs 8y agoI appreciate your desire to solve the problem, and I'm certainly pro-vaccination. However, I really don't want to set another precedent of allowing the state to permanently detain people because of perceived public danger (real or otherwise). Imagine if this kind of thinking prevailed in the HIV hysteria of the 80's/90's. It's relatively easy to follow this approach to its logical conclusion. When you order authoritarianism, it's very likely you'll get it. And not simply in the places you want it.
- overcast 8y agoThe HIV scenario is not equivalent. It was new, people were frightened and ignorant. There is no cure, no vaccination. Measles is a well understood disease that had been eradicated. Openly putting others at risk because of some nonsense belief should not be tolerated. Are you good with a HIV+ person knowingly infecting others because it's their right to refuse antiviral medication? Measles and other highly contagious diseases can infect large populations without anyone knowing before it's too late.
- ccallebs 8y agoI don't disagree with you and I trust you to make the distinction between the two things. However, I don't trust lawmakers/police/military to have the same sense of nuance.