6 ms·

>“They should be allowed to have the measles if they want the measles,” Just inject them with measles then, and keep them away from the rest of the population.

by soperj 7y ago

>“They should be allowed to have the measles if they want the measles,” Just inject them with measles then, and keep them away from the rest of the population. edit: this is also an argument against charitable donations being tax write-offs.

snarf21 7y ago
Exactly this. But don't stop there, give them polio too. Let's see how their vaccines are holding up from long ago. I also think people who get one of the diseases from someone who ever visits their site or whatever should sue them for damages. We don't let people yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, it is considered a form of terrorism. This is no different. We need to prevent these people from getting access to any government services that we can until they get vaccinated.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  > "We don't let people yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, it is considered a form of terrorism." https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Please use a different metaphor in the future.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- conanbatt 7y ago
  > We need to prevent these people from getting access to any government services that we can until they get vaccinated. It's a great opportunity to apply this ban, but exempt all taxation from the individuals, as they are cut off from all government services.
toss1 7y ago
There are several problems with this (other than that giving them the measles vaccine is a safer version of the same thing). First problem is that the anti-vaxxers are both ignorant of history and unable to reason about risk. They ignore the centuries of disease, the then-common human experience of bearing a dozen kids and having only a few live to adulthood, and they vastly distort the risks and ignore the rewards of vaccines. Worse yet, they are entitled freeloaders, freeloading on the herd immunity that is created and maintained by the smart people. This specifically endangers those who need to rely upon the herd immunity, the not insignificant part of the population who cannot be vaccinated due to other medical conditions. The anti-vaxxers are literally threatening the lives of these people. So, if we wanted to do that, the anti-vaxxers need to be shunned, hard. This means zero access to any public space. Remember, many of these diseases are so highly contagious that an infection can occur merely by walking through the same space hours after an infected person has been through. So, the anti-vaxxers exclusion list would start with: schools, govt buildings, malls, grocery stores, and all forms of public transport including buses, trains, planes, and even taxi/Uber/Lyft. Even that list is likely inadequate if we lose herd immunity, as is now happening. The implications to public health & the costs to society are staggering if we lose herd immunity. This must be a simple requirement to participate in an advanced society. If you don't want to do it, go live on some island somewhere.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  Schools make sense and most schools do this (possibly with exemptions), but how would people screen each others' vaccination status in a general public place?
  - toss1 7y ago
    Exactly the point! This kind of screening is largely impractical, short of tattooing anti-vaxxers' foreheads with a large red strikethru "V". So, it needs to be simply a requirement. If you don't have either the vaccinations or a bona-fide medical excuse, you are denied all govt services & benefits until you do. No school, driver's license, passport, benefits, etc. The fact that this is still in a debate at all is an enormous normalcy bias error. Some of the origins are due to stupidity, but much of the growth of the "controversy" is the result of a deliberate and sustained attack on the west by Russia. Here's just two articles, scientific & news sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/09/in-the-united-states-russian-trolls-are-peddling-measles-disinformation-on-twitter/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/09/in-the-united-states-ru... Damn cheap way to undermine your enemy -- directly attack your target's public health for the cost of a few bots & trolls.
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      > So, it needs to be simply a requirement. If you don't have either the vaccinations or a bona-fide medical excuse, you are denied all govt services & benefits until you do. No school, driver's license, passport, benefits, etc. And no taxes? Where do I sign up.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - toss1 7y ago
        No. If anything, it should be double taxes, since the anti-vaxxers definitely create much higher costs for society in general and for the health system & govt in particular. So, yes, a big surcharge would be a good idea... maybe they could use part of it to pay for the red tattoos ;-)
tlogan 7y ago
I wonder if these donations were related to his work on wall street. Maybe he was shorting some vaccine markers or something similar.
stakhanov 7y ago
...the problem is that the test for charitable status has not all that much to do with working for/against humanity's best interests. One aspect is not generating a profit. The other aspect puts "science" and "religion" in the same category. I think that just about sums it up.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > One aspect is not generating a profit. Incorrect. The “nonprofit” part means not returning a profit to investors or other stakeholders. It has nothing to do with generating profits or not.
  - stakhanov 7y ago
    ...in the accounting sense YES. But in a deeper sense: If a tree fell in a forest and no one was there to see it happen, did the tree really fall? If a profit is generated that is not returned and not allowed to ever be returned, is the profit not just a loss waiting to happen? Deep shit right there. Truly deep shit.
marak830 7y ago
You would have to quarantine them for the people who cannot have vaccines. Or everytime they risked someone in such a state charge them with attempted murder, or at least assault wtih a deadly weapon.
- astrodust 7y ago
  Biological terrorism. Measles is one of the gentler kinds of fatal disease out there. Polio might make a come-back. Smallpox could rise again.
- camhenlin 7y ago
  Exactly- if a person created a device that dispersed diseases and placed it in a public area, would they not be charged with a crime? Is it much different to enter public areas unvaccinated, knowing that you might be a carrier of a disease that could be vaccinated against, especially when there are active outbreaks happening?
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    Sure, and while at it, put every single car driver in the same space. Shouldn't people in cars be segregated as they put the lives at risk of others when they go out in the public with those metal contraptions? Shouldn't they be charged for risking the lives of all, when we already know how many people perish in their hands?
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      This is a false analogy. Deaths from car accidents are unavoidable because driving a car is a societal requirement for many careers or needs. In the cases where those deaths were avoidable such as due to drunk driving, we rightfully penalize and criminalize people that put others at an unnecessary risk. Deaths from people refusing to vaccinate are an entirely avoidable issue. They choose not to vaccinate and in turn threaten the lives of those around them with gross negligence, especially those that are medically unable to be vaccinated. Which is exactly what being anti-vaxx means: it means being in favor of negligence that can and does result in many avoidable deaths of people without other choice.
astrodust 7y ago
Bring back the leper colonies, but for anti-vax people.
conanbatt 7y ago
> Just inject them with measles then, and keep them away from the rest of the population. I think people advocating for violence and assassination are a tad more dangerous than anti-vaxers.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Anti-vaxers are advocating for the slow unpleasant death of children. Anyway, I suppose it's all free speech, isn't it?
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    The op is advocating for the actual murder of a population. But I'm glad he feels free enough to expose his rotten moral compass.
    - stochastic_monk 7y ago
      No, infecting them with measles and quarantining them isn’t “actual murder of a population”. Strawmanning an argument to an ad hominem is two leaps too far.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- smartmeter 7y ago
  Are you aware that there are new strains of measles that are causing the "outbreaks" and ALL who are spreading it are vaccinated? - No different than flu vaccines. They are always at least 1 to 2 years behind the strain of the virus. I expected better research from the comments on here. - Oh wait, the government advocates the vaccines, and we all know the government is only here to help... so facts be damned.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    I've never heard this before, any decent articles you recall?

by soperj 7y ago

snarf21 7y ago

Exactly this. But don't stop there, give them polio too. Let's see how their vaccines are holding up from long ago. I also think people who get one of the diseases from someone who ever visits their site or whatever should sue them for damages. We don't let people yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, it is considered a form of terrorism. This is no different. We need to prevent these people from getting access to any government services that we can until they get vaccinated.

logfromblammo 7y ago
> "We don't let people yell "Fire!" in a movie theater, it is considered a form of terrorism." https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Please use a different metaphor in the future.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
conanbatt 7y ago
> We need to prevent these people from getting access to any government services that we can until they get vaccinated. It's a great opportunity to apply this ban, but exempt all taxation from the individuals, as they are cut off from all government services.

toss1 7y ago

There are several problems with this (other than that giving them the measles vaccine is a safer version of the same thing). First problem is that the anti-vaxxers are both ignorant of history and unable to reason about risk. They ignore the centuries of disease, the then-common human experience of bearing a dozen kids and having only a few live to adulthood, and they vastly distort the risks and ignore the rewards of vaccines. Worse yet, they are entitled freeloaders, freeloading on the herd immunity that is created and maintained by the smart people. This specifically endangers those who need to rely upon the herd immunity, the not insignificant part of the population who cannot be vaccinated due to other medical conditions. The anti-vaxxers are literally threatening the lives of these people. So, if we wanted to do that, the anti-vaxxers need to be shunned, hard. This means zero access to any public space. Remember, many of these diseases are so highly contagious that an infection can occur merely by walking through the same space hours after an infected person has been through. So, the anti-vaxxers exclusion list would start with: schools, govt buildings, malls, grocery stores, and all forms of public transport including buses, trains, planes, and even taxi/Uber/Lyft. Even that list is likely inadequate if we lose herd immunity, as is now happening. The implications to public health & the costs to society are staggering if we lose herd immunity. This must be a simple requirement to participate in an advanced society. If you don't want to do it, go live on some island somewhere.

creaghpatr 7y ago
Schools make sense and most schools do this (possibly with exemptions), but how would people screen each others' vaccination status in a general public place?
- toss1 7y ago
  Exactly the point! This kind of screening is largely impractical, short of tattooing anti-vaxxers' foreheads with a large red strikethru "V". So, it needs to be simply a requirement. If you don't have either the vaccinations or a bona-fide medical excuse, you are denied all govt services & benefits until you do. No school, driver's license, passport, benefits, etc. The fact that this is still in a debate at all is an enormous normalcy bias error. Some of the origins are due to stupidity, but much of the growth of the "controversy" is the result of a deliberate and sustained attack on the west by Russia. Here's just two articles, scientific & news sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/09/in-the-united-states-russian-trolls-are-peddling-measles-disinformation-on-twitter/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/09/in-the-united-states-ru... Damn cheap way to undermine your enemy -- directly attack your target's public health for the cost of a few bots & trolls.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    > So, it needs to be simply a requirement. If you don't have either the vaccinations or a bona-fide medical excuse, you are denied all govt services & benefits until you do. No school, driver's license, passport, benefits, etc. And no taxes? Where do I sign up.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - toss1 7y ago
      No. If anything, it should be double taxes, since the anti-vaxxers definitely create much higher costs for society in general and for the health system & govt in particular. So, yes, a big surcharge would be a good idea... maybe they could use part of it to pay for the red tattoos ;-)

tlogan 7y ago

I wonder if these donations were related to his work on wall street. Maybe he was shorting some vaccine markers or something similar.

stakhanov 7y ago

...the problem is that the test for charitable status has not all that much to do with working for/against humanity's best interests. One aspect is not generating a profit. The other aspect puts "science" and "religion" in the same category. I think that just about sums it up.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> One aspect is not generating a profit. Incorrect. The “nonprofit” part means not returning a profit to investors or other stakeholders. It has nothing to do with generating profits or not.
- stakhanov 7y ago
  ...in the accounting sense YES. But in a deeper sense: If a tree fell in a forest and no one was there to see it happen, did the tree really fall? If a profit is generated that is not returned and not allowed to ever be returned, is the profit not just a loss waiting to happen? Deep shit right there. Truly deep shit.

marak830 7y ago

You would have to quarantine them for the people who cannot have vaccines. Or everytime they risked someone in such a state charge them with attempted murder, or at least assault wtih a deadly weapon.

astrodust 7y ago
Biological terrorism. Measles is one of the gentler kinds of fatal disease out there. Polio might make a come-back. Smallpox could rise again.
camhenlin 7y ago
Exactly- if a person created a device that dispersed diseases and placed it in a public area, would they not be charged with a crime? Is it much different to enter public areas unvaccinated, knowing that you might be a carrier of a disease that could be vaccinated against, especially when there are active outbreaks happening?
- conanbatt 7y ago
  Sure, and while at it, put every single car driver in the same space. Shouldn't people in cars be segregated as they put the lives at risk of others when they go out in the public with those metal contraptions? Shouldn't they be charged for risking the lives of all, when we already know how many people perish in their hands?
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    This is a false analogy. Deaths from car accidents are unavoidable because driving a car is a societal requirement for many careers or needs. In the cases where those deaths were avoidable such as due to drunk driving, we rightfully penalize and criminalize people that put others at an unnecessary risk. Deaths from people refusing to vaccinate are an entirely avoidable issue. They choose not to vaccinate and in turn threaten the lives of those around them with gross negligence, especially those that are medically unable to be vaccinated. Which is exactly what being anti-vaxx means: it means being in favor of negligence that can and does result in many avoidable deaths of people without other choice.

astrodust 7y ago

Bring back the leper colonies, but for anti-vax people.

conanbatt 7y ago

> Just inject them with measles then, and keep them away from the rest of the population. I think people advocating for violence and assassination are a tad more dangerous than anti-vaxers.

pjc50 7y ago
Anti-vaxers are advocating for the slow unpleasant death of children. Anyway, I suppose it's all free speech, isn't it?
- conanbatt 7y ago
  The op is advocating for the actual murder of a population. But I'm glad he feels free enough to expose his rotten moral compass.
  - stochastic_monk 7y ago
    No, infecting them with measles and quarantining them isn’t “actual murder of a population”. Strawmanning an argument to an ad hominem is two leaps too far.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
smartmeter 7y ago
Are you aware that there are new strains of measles that are causing the "outbreaks" and ALL who are spreading it are vaccinated? - No different than flu vaccines. They are always at least 1 to 2 years behind the strain of the virus. I expected better research from the comments on here. - Oh wait, the government advocates the vaccines, and we all know the government is only here to help... so facts be damned.
- mistermann 7y ago
  I've never heard this before, any decent articles you recall?