4 ms·

Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Ger

Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. There isn't a good solution here that satisfies all parties and science is on the side of the vaccinated. Sometimes you just have to make hard choices and stick with them.

sgeisler 8y ago
> Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? Right, that's immoral, but what I was getting at was that you can choose to not endanger anybody to a large extent even if you aren't vaccinated. The main problem are densely populated areas and public institutions. If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved. > I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. I know, I'm German, but the proposal itself bears some resemblance to forced sterilization during that time to "improve public health". It's one of the most tricky policy areas there are and should be handled with more care and consideration. I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic.
- detaro 8y ago
  > but without consent it's abuse It's not exactly a new concept that parents' rights to make decisions for their kids isn't absolute (e.g. the law requires that you send your kids to school, and it is not considered abuse if the state enforces that), so there clearly is some potential room for this.
- drivingmenuts 8y ago
  > I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic. And what option is there if the parents refuse to give consent? People who refuse to vaccinate their kids for bullshit-science reasons aren’t exactly reasonable to begin with. Tyranny sucks but it’s very occasionally useful and people get over it eventually. Ask any parent who used to a teen about the wannabe Genghis Khan they had for a parent.
- majewsky 8y ago
  > If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved. Sounds like you've never visited Germany.
  - eindiran 8y ago
    > I know, I'm German The post says that GP is German.
basetop 8y ago
To start off, I'm vaccinated and I think people should be vaccinated for the most contagious and deadly diseases. But following your logic, should 80 million people get vaccinated just because a few thousand might be affected? Also, science ( especially politicized science ) is on the side of vaccination. But science was on the side of performing hysterectomies on women, using leeches and blood letting, experimenting surgery on black slaves, etc. When it comes to things like rights and bodily autonomy, we shouldn't solely appeal to science because it has a nasty habit of going horrible ( aka nazi germany ). Yes. I agree that sometimes you have to make hard choices. Authoritarianism is always the easy choice. Freedom is the hard choice. It's incredible how the same people who proclaim a woman's body is hers to do with as she wants and yet, when it comes to vaccines, nobody has bodily autonomy. I'm always wary of "everyone has to do X" for the benefit of the few. Strange to find so many pro-authority sentiment on a hacker news site.
- atoav 8y ago
  A few thoughts: In Germany parents who neglect their parents, can get their parental rights taken away because they are apparently unfit to not harm the rights of their kids. In the US the balance between personal freedom VS other people’s rights is traditionally closer to “personal freedom”, while in the europe after WWII it has been more on the side of “other people’s rights”. If you don’t vaccinate your children against a illness with a mortality rate akin to that of measels, the state has to weigh the parents right to personal freedom against your kids right to be bodily unharmed. You are not allowed to let your kid starve, you are also not allowed to leave your kid unbuckled in the car for the very same reason. It becomes even more clear when you start to factor in the rights of other people that can’t vaccinate because they are pregnant or have a medical condition that doesn’t allow them to. Measels is also highly infectious and can be transmited through the air, so these vulnerable people have no reasonable way to avoid it. The comparison with abortion is a bit weird. No women wishes to go through an abortion. This is about the balance of rights between the women and a unformed embryo. Why european nations are very slightly in favour of the women’s right to decide is because a society doesn’t really gain a lot from unwanted kids and a embryo by our definition is not a person yet. Also: the religious feelings of bystanders don’t have a right here. This of course gets more and more problematic during the growth of the embryo, but this is reflected in German law. You are only allowed to abort up to a certain point unless certain medical conditions arise.

sgeisler 8y ago

> Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? Right, that's immoral, but what I was getting at was that you can choose to not endanger anybody to a large extent even if you aren't vaccinated. The main problem are densely populated areas and public institutions. If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved. > I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. I know, I'm German, but the proposal itself bears some resemblance to forced sterilization during that time to "improve public health". It's one of the most tricky policy areas there are and should be handled with more care and consideration. I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic.

detaro 8y ago
> but without consent it's abuse It's not exactly a new concept that parents' rights to make decisions for their kids isn't absolute (e.g. the law requires that you send your kids to school, and it is not considered abuse if the state enforces that), so there clearly is some potential room for this.
drivingmenuts 8y ago
> I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic. And what option is there if the parents refuse to give consent? People who refuse to vaccinate their kids for bullshit-science reasons aren’t exactly reasonable to begin with. Tyranny sucks but it’s very occasionally useful and people get over it eventually. Ask any parent who used to a teen about the wannabe Genghis Khan they had for a parent.
majewsky 8y ago
> If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved. Sounds like you've never visited Germany.
- eindiran 8y ago
  > I know, I'm German The post says that GP is German.

basetop 8y ago

To start off, I'm vaccinated and I think people should be vaccinated for the most contagious and deadly diseases. But following your logic, should 80 million people get vaccinated just because a few thousand might be affected? Also, science ( especially politicized science ) is on the side of vaccination. But science was on the side of performing hysterectomies on women, using leeches and blood letting, experimenting surgery on black slaves, etc. When it comes to things like rights and bodily autonomy, we shouldn't solely appeal to science because it has a nasty habit of going horrible ( aka nazi germany ). Yes. I agree that sometimes you have to make hard choices. Authoritarianism is always the easy choice. Freedom is the hard choice. It's incredible how the same people who proclaim a woman's body is hers to do with as she wants and yet, when it comes to vaccines, nobody has bodily autonomy. I'm always wary of "everyone has to do X" for the benefit of the few. Strange to find so many pro-authority sentiment on a hacker news site.

atoav 8y ago
A few thoughts: In Germany parents who neglect their parents, can get their parental rights taken away because they are apparently unfit to not harm the rights of their kids. In the US the balance between personal freedom VS other people’s rights is traditionally closer to “personal freedom”, while in the europe after WWII it has been more on the side of “other people’s rights”. If you don’t vaccinate your children against a illness with a mortality rate akin to that of measels, the state has to weigh the parents right to personal freedom against your kids right to be bodily unharmed. You are not allowed to let your kid starve, you are also not allowed to leave your kid unbuckled in the car for the very same reason. It becomes even more clear when you start to factor in the rights of other people that can’t vaccinate because they are pregnant or have a medical condition that doesn’t allow them to. Measels is also highly infectious and can be transmited through the air, so these vulnerable people have no reasonable way to avoid it. The comparison with abortion is a bit weird. No women wishes to go through an abortion. This is about the balance of rights between the women and a unformed embryo. Why european nations are very slightly in favour of the women’s right to decide is because a society doesn’t really gain a lot from unwanted kids and a embryo by our definition is not a person yet. Also: the religious feelings of bystanders don’t have a right here. This of course gets more and more problematic during the growth of the embryo, but this is reflected in German law. You are only allowed to abort up to a certain point unless certain medical conditions arise.