4 ms·

These anti-vax folks believe vaccines cause autism AND that there is some massive conspiracy to give their kids autism via vaccines so a small nudge seems unlik

These anti-vax folks believe vaccines cause autism AND that there is some massive conspiracy to give their kids autism via vaccines so a small nudge seems unlikely to much effect at all. What we need are massive civil suits against these folks for putting other people into danger.

gdhbcc 7y ago
Would you hold that same argument for other things that cause people to die? Could I sue you for driving, given that the likelyhood that you killing someone due to driving is higher than the unvaccinated equivalent ? Can we use that same argument to interfere in peoples bodily integrity? Can we ban abortion due to that reasoning? I dont think you would like the results if that argument is applied to things you approve of, so you should beware when making it
- ThirdFoundation 7y ago
  Sorry, but these examples aren't properly analogous. A driving equivalent would something like automatic breaking technology. If it was proven that people driving with this were 50% less likely to cause accidents and the technology was available in all cars, then it would make sense to fine people that opted to manually turn it off. Abortion isn't the same situation at all. That is a loaded topic involving religion, body autonomy, the concept of a "soul", person-hood, and science. It is not a binary issue. Vaccines are black and white. There is sound science proving they don't cause autism and by not getting them the rest of the population is in danger. I would think heavy fines would be appropriate throughout society for these type of circumstances (or some other types of behavioral push).
  - gdhbcc 7y ago
    The argument is exactly the same though. The argument being made is "infringing on peoples bodily integrity is ok if a measurable amount of lives are saved by the infringement". I simply extended that argument to other things where we can measurably evaluate how many more people would be alive if we infringe on peoples rights. Abortion is a perfect example because not only can we establish a clear upper bound on the number of lives lost due to it, but we can also save those lives through an infringement on bodily integrity in particular. In short, if we can infringe bodily integrity to save less than 1 life a year, by mandating mandatory measles vaccines, then it stands to reason that all other similarly permanent offenses to bodily integrity are also permitted if they save 1 or more lives per year.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
fpalmans 7y ago
If massive civil suits, huge fines and, eventually, forced vaccination won't convince everyone there is no massive conspiracy, then, pray tell, what will?
- NullPrefix 7y ago
  Could you explain how do massive civil suits, huge fines and forced vaccination prove that there's no massive conspiracy? I just want to know the reasoning behind your statement.
  - dnadler 7y ago
    It was sarcasm. Edit: I think
    - fpalmans 7y ago
      Yes, it was
  - fpalmans 7y ago
    As mentioned before, I was being sarcastic. Why does anyone believe that marginalizing or demonizing the antivax movement, that attempting to force them into submission, will do anything but strengthen their resolve? Even I am starting to wonder why, when the benefits of vaccination are obvious, governments feel the need to _force_ parents. If the vaccination story is solid, which I believe it is, let's just let this play out. Let the anti-vaxxers be our control group. History will settle the debate.
    - aleatorisch 7y ago
      Umm, because this so called "control group" you're so casually dismissing also includes infants and individuals with various conditions [0]. Those people rely on herd immunity to not get sick, and we shouldn't allow crazy anti-vaxxers to endanger them. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html
Vinnl 7y ago
Well, the assumption there is that this holds for everyone who does not get (their kids) vaccinated, and I'm not prepared to immediately accept that. We don't need 100% coverage, so as long as there are enough people for whom this nudge would be enough, we'd be good. To be clear, I'm not saying that it would work; just that I don't know that it wouldn't, and it'd be great if it would.
thatuseristaken 7y ago
Your reply is such a bad generalization. I'm getting really sick of these "these anti-vax folks" statements. Me and my wife carefully considered every recommended vaccination by reading studies on the vaccines, their side-effects and general success rate. We chose to have our son vaccinated against measels (and others) because it made sense. However other vaccines against other childhood diseases didn't do so great a job. So we decided against them. Just saying "get (your kid) vaxed with every vax out there" is just as bad advice as not vaccinating at all. You also don't have to believe in this "vaccines create autism" bs. Every medicine has side-effects. The question is just what they are and if you should prefer them to the disease, maybe even if the vaccine just protects only in 30% of the cases. There are more things to consider: - Vaccinating a child to early (especially if it is breastfed) will seriously dampen the success of the vaccine. - Lots of childhood diseases are especially dangerous to adult people. So it makes a lot more sense to vaccinate them (again). - Mothers that have had childhood diseases as kids will give their offspring a better immunization against those.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  "Anti-vaxxer" has a specific meaning. Considering that you are not an "Anti-vaxxer" I would urge you to take your self-righteousness and share it with someone who values it. I'm not even going to go into your nonsense about mis-vaccinating or whether or not your analysis was even accurate. Follow the advice of your skilled pediatrician and the standards bodies they belong to. Good day, sir!
  - Vinnl 7y ago
    Then again, you mentioned "these anti-vaxxers" in response to a remark about unvaccinated people in general, as if your assertions held for all of them.

gdhbcc 7y ago

Would you hold that same argument for other things that cause people to die? Could I sue you for driving, given that the likelyhood that you killing someone due to driving is higher than the unvaccinated equivalent ? Can we use that same argument to interfere in peoples bodily integrity? Can we ban abortion due to that reasoning? I dont think you would like the results if that argument is applied to things you approve of, so you should beware when making it

ThirdFoundation 7y ago
Sorry, but these examples aren't properly analogous. A driving equivalent would something like automatic breaking technology. If it was proven that people driving with this were 50% less likely to cause accidents and the technology was available in all cars, then it would make sense to fine people that opted to manually turn it off. Abortion isn't the same situation at all. That is a loaded topic involving religion, body autonomy, the concept of a "soul", person-hood, and science. It is not a binary issue. Vaccines are black and white. There is sound science proving they don't cause autism and by not getting them the rest of the population is in danger. I would think heavy fines would be appropriate throughout society for these type of circumstances (or some other types of behavioral push).
- gdhbcc 7y ago
  The argument is exactly the same though. The argument being made is "infringing on peoples bodily integrity is ok if a measurable amount of lives are saved by the infringement". I simply extended that argument to other things where we can measurably evaluate how many more people would be alive if we infringe on peoples rights. Abortion is a perfect example because not only can we establish a clear upper bound on the number of lives lost due to it, but we can also save those lives through an infringement on bodily integrity in particular. In short, if we can infringe bodily integrity to save less than 1 life a year, by mandating mandatory measles vaccines, then it stands to reason that all other similarly permanent offenses to bodily integrity are also permitted if they save 1 or more lives per year.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

fpalmans 7y ago

If massive civil suits, huge fines and, eventually, forced vaccination won't convince everyone there is no massive conspiracy, then, pray tell, what will?

NullPrefix 7y ago
Could you explain how do massive civil suits, huge fines and forced vaccination prove that there's no massive conspiracy? I just want to know the reasoning behind your statement.
- dnadler 7y ago
  It was sarcasm. Edit: I think
  - fpalmans 7y ago
    Yes, it was
- fpalmans 7y ago
  As mentioned before, I was being sarcastic. Why does anyone believe that marginalizing or demonizing the antivax movement, that attempting to force them into submission, will do anything but strengthen their resolve? Even I am starting to wonder why, when the benefits of vaccination are obvious, governments feel the need to _force_ parents. If the vaccination story is solid, which I believe it is, let's just let this play out. Let the anti-vaxxers be our control group. History will settle the debate.
  - aleatorisch 7y ago
    Umm, because this so called "control group" you're so casually dismissing also includes infants and individuals with various conditions [0]. Those people rely on herd immunity to not get sick, and we shouldn't allow crazy anti-vaxxers to endanger them. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html

Vinnl 7y ago

Well, the assumption there is that this holds for everyone who does not get (their kids) vaccinated, and I'm not prepared to immediately accept that. We don't need 100% coverage, so as long as there are enough people for whom this nudge would be enough, we'd be good. To be clear, I'm not saying that it would work; just that I don't know that it wouldn't, and it'd be great if it would.

thatuseristaken 7y ago

Your reply is such a bad generalization. I'm getting really sick of these "these anti-vax folks" statements. Me and my wife carefully considered every recommended vaccination by reading studies on the vaccines, their side-effects and general success rate. We chose to have our son vaccinated against measels (and others) because it made sense. However other vaccines against other childhood diseases didn't do so great a job. So we decided against them. Just saying "get (your kid) vaxed with every vax out there" is just as bad advice as not vaccinating at all. You also don't have to believe in this "vaccines create autism" bs. Every medicine has side-effects. The question is just what they are and if you should prefer them to the disease, maybe even if the vaccine just protects only in 30% of the cases. There are more things to consider: - Vaccinating a child to early (especially if it is breastfed) will seriously dampen the success of the vaccine. - Lots of childhood diseases are especially dangerous to adult people. So it makes a lot more sense to vaccinate them (again). - Mothers that have had childhood diseases as kids will give their offspring a better immunization against those.

wavefunction 7y ago
"Anti-vaxxer" has a specific meaning. Considering that you are not an "Anti-vaxxer" I would urge you to take your self-righteousness and share it with someone who values it. I'm not even going to go into your nonsense about mis-vaccinating or whether or not your analysis was even accurate. Follow the advice of your skilled pediatrician and the standards bodies they belong to. Good day, sir!
- Vinnl 7y ago
  Then again, you mentioned "these anti-vaxxers" in response to a remark about unvaccinated people in general, as if your assertions held for all of them.