4 ms·

Perhaps some lawyers here can opine: Is it not possible for some of those affected by the recent measles outbreak, and others adversely impacted, to file a cla

• thatfrenchguy 8y ago
  Aren't you only affected by the measles outbreak if you're an anti-vax in the first place... ?
  • mprev 8y ago
    There are other circumstances in which you might not have had the vaccination, such as when undergoing chemotherapy. In those cases, herd immunity would provide protection for those who can't be get the vaccination themselves.
    • wlesieutre 8y ago
      In chemotherapy you probably would have had the vaccination, but the vaccination works by training your own immune system against it, and chemo wipes your immune system out.
      • AstralStorm 8y ago
        If it is this bad you should be staying in a cleanroom. It sometimes is this bad.
        • bluGill 8y ago
          There is a point after chemo when you are building your life back up. You are allowed in public, but only in lower risk areas.
        • Piskvorrr 8y ago
          Is this your advice for pregnancy and infants, too?
  • vkou 8y ago
    No, some people are immunocompromised, or can't get vaccinated (because they are newborns).
  • Someone1234 8y ago
    Children receive the MMR at 12 months of age, and the immunity they got from mom may lapse before then. There are also others who are unable to receive regular vaccinations for health reasons.
  • modzu 8y ago
    no. young children who have yet to be vaccinated and others who have developing or compromised immune systems are at risk.
  • yumraj 8y ago
    I don't think so, since people could have received the vaccine years ago, and even those who received vaccine recently are not 100% effective. Also, the anti-vaxxer who is affected can argue they were misled or misinformed, or if they are children of anti-vaxxers, not anti-vaxxer themselves. Many possibilities.. Disclaimer: IMNAL.
  • dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Aren't you only affected by the measles outbreak if you're an anti-vax in the first place... ? No. (1) There are people that cannot vaccinate for a variety of medical reasons; and (2) Real vaccines are less than 100% effective (I think current measles vaccine is 93% after the first dose, 97% after both), but approximate 100% effectiveness when you have sufficient immunized population because you have a combination of direct immunity and herd immunity, the latter of which is just “you are less likely to get exposed because the people you come in contact with are largely immune.” Anti-vaxxers jeopardise everyone.
  • Piskvorrr 8y ago
    Or too young, or immunodeficient, or your vaccination expired (some of the older models only provide some decades of immunity, where a lifetime protection was expected) etc. Nope, this is not "mere" self-harm: innocent bystanders have already been killed this way.
    • thatfrenchguy 8y ago
      I didn’t know, thanks for the explanation !
  • NatoStrut 8y ago
    What everybody else said, but including vaccinations are good but not perfect. If you give 1000 people the vaccine you're not going to see 1000 people now immune to the disease. You need "herd immunity" to help the people who've had the vaccine but who are not immune.
• JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Is it not possible for some of those affected by the recent measles outbreak, and others adversely impacted, to file a class action against the anti-vaxxers? Against anti-vaxxers as a group? Doubtful. Against the patient zero who got you sick? Maybe. Against those distributing literature? Particularly if they're making money from the enterprise? Probably the best bet. (Nitpick: anyone can sue anyone for anything. If it's really stupid, it will get thrown out. If it has legal merit, it should win. Asking "is it possible for X to sue Y" is therefore better framed as "would X be likely to win a case against Y".)
  • yumraj 8y ago
    I think there are some organisations and individuals who are kinda like flag bearers.
    • dragonwriter 8y ago
      The flag bearers are probably engaging in Constitutionally protected free speech, and do probably can't be held liable in that role.
      • xvector 8y ago
        Genuine question: Is telling people to commit suicide protected free speech? AVers aren’t much different here. Rather than saying “kill yourself”, it’s more like saying “kill yourself - slowly, infectiously, and painfully.”
        • true_religion 8y ago
          You can tell people to commit suicide if you have no malicious intent. For example if you think by dying you will go to a better place, then that's fine. Antivaxxers genuinely believe that vacinations cause illness. That they are wrong doesn't make their speech illegal.
        • dragonwriter 8y ago
          > Genuine question: Is telling people to commit suicide protected free speech? Telling people in general that they should is protected; telling a particular person that they should may or may not be depending on other factors. > AVers aren’t much different here. They are quite a bit different. Yes, not vaccinated increase risk of infection, sickness, and death for both the person choosing that action and other people, but it is a much less proximate relationship to any death than suicide does. Advocating suicide is not itself generally illegal, and advocating courses of action that are not intended to cause death but do in fact increase its likelihood is even less likely to be illegal in general.
• dragonwriter 8y ago
  It's possible to file a lawsuit on any pretext, but to win requires an argument that an actual law was broken, and there if no general legal duty to vaccinate; if you can trace a particular out real back to someone who, say, sought and received a fraudulently-given medical waiver of a public schol vaccination mandate that had only a medical exemption, and the transmission was in a context where the school mandate was relevant, you might have a case of harms stemming from an unlawful act where there might be a viable theory of recovery. But, generally, lawsuits depend on rather than substitute for appropriate laws.