4 ms·

"Reckless"? You mean sub-optimal. Sure, if the issue is spreading disease people outside one's family, then fine away. But choices whose primary consequences

by ponow 7y ago

"Reckless"? You mean sub-optimal. Sure, if the issue is spreading disease people outside one's family, then fine away. But choices whose primary consequences are to be borne by the family, ought to stay within the family. Actually, a reasonable starting fine is the expected cost of healthcare outside the family due to non-immunization by the family.

maze-le 7y ago
No I do mean "reckless". It is one thing to have no knowledge about a topic and act accordingly, it's quite another to be in active denial about a topic that has been proven again and again. >> Actually, a reasonable starting fine is the expected cost of healthcare outside the family due to non-immunization by the family. Well, its damn hard for anyone immunocompromised (under immunosuppressive therapy or by disease). They have a higher chance of dying, a death that could be prevented if herd immunity would be reached. They are not just a costly externality.
- convolvatron 7y ago
  it would be so much easier if we could just assign a dollar amount to each human life. then the insurance industry could perform its normal risk-management function. since clearly all lives dont have the same economic value, and the market is really the only effective process to ascribe such a value - slavery is really most natural framework to sort all this out. as a plus, we also dont have to have all those stupid discussions about trollies and track switches anymore.
fzeroracer 7y ago
Okay, let's take your argument to the extreme. You say that choices whose primary consequences are to be born by the family ought to stay with the family. With that logic established, do you believe violence against family members is permitted? How about psychological harm or abuse? Your logic doesn't hold up because we've established that certain things are Bad regardless if it's self-contained within a family unit. Ergo, vaccinations should be included as something that should be included. Avoiding vaccinations I argue is tantamount to child abuse.

by ponow 7y ago

maze-le 7y ago

No I do mean "reckless". It is one thing to have no knowledge about a topic and act accordingly, it's quite another to be in active denial about a topic that has been proven again and again. >> Actually, a reasonable starting fine is the expected cost of healthcare outside the family due to non-immunization by the family. Well, its damn hard for anyone immunocompromised (under immunosuppressive therapy or by disease). They have a higher chance of dying, a death that could be prevented if herd immunity would be reached. They are not just a costly externality.

convolvatron 7y ago
it would be so much easier if we could just assign a dollar amount to each human life. then the insurance industry could perform its normal risk-management function. since clearly all lives dont have the same economic value, and the market is really the only effective process to ascribe such a value - slavery is really most natural framework to sort all this out. as a plus, we also dont have to have all those stupid discussions about trollies and track switches anymore.

fzeroracer 7y ago

Okay, let's take your argument to the extreme. You say that choices whose primary consequences are to be born by the family ought to stay with the family. With that logic established, do you believe violence against family members is permitted? How about psychological harm or abuse? Your logic doesn't hold up because we've established that certain things are Bad regardless if it's self-contained within a family unit. Ergo, vaccinations should be included as something that should be included. Avoiding vaccinations I argue is tantamount to child abuse.