5 ms·

My guess is that enough people did it without requiring a law. Laws can be costly to implement (additional bureaucracy) and are prone to edge cases. Better to j

by Y-bar 7y ago

My guess is that enough people did it without requiring a law. Laws can be costly to implement (additional bureaucracy) and are prone to edge cases. Better to just let it be while it works. But now it does not and we may require laws unless the misinformation can be quenched soon.

benj111 7y ago
You could fit it in with child abuse laws already? I'm in the UK that has lost eradication status. Before I could claim my children weren't in danger because its eradicated. Now it isn't and am now exposing my children to a clear danger. Is it not analogous to letting my children play with the bleach under the sink?
- hhas01 7y ago
  “Is it not analogous to letting my children play with the bleach under the sink?” Oh, my sweet innocent child. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=Kerri+Rivera+bleach https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=Kerri+Rivera+bleach
skrebbel 7y ago
Forcing people to undergo medical treatment is ethically questionable at best. It's an extremely heavy measure to take. So no, cost is not the reason and I think it's a bit scary that that's the best reason you could come up with. I'm as sceptical of antivaxxers as most of HN, but I'm appalled at the level of support for forced medical intervention in the comments here. That's the stuff of dictatorships.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  For that reason the laws don't make vaccinations mandatory, they make it illegal to enter public schools without a vaccination. Limiting dangerous activities in public places is accepted by most as a valid function of government.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    I consider people who vote differently from myself to be a threat to my safety. Acting on that opinion is not a good idea. The question isn't 'can we rationalise this?' - we can rationalise everything. The question is 'is the threat great enough for the government to start infringing on liberty?'. It probably isn't, otherwise we'd ban all hard and soft drugs (including alcohol & smoking) as a similar level of threat to public health. That battle has been fought and lost by the public safety folks. An incentive program would probably be a good idea, but I expect there is already one in place.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - gumby 7y ago
      Actually nuance is given close to the proper level of attention. You may drink yourself to death but some controls are in place to reduce the chance you’ll run someone over via drink driving. You may smoke but not in places where you might be fumigating others involuntarily. Etc. It’s all about managing th externality.
- BerislavLopac 7y ago
  Vaccination is not treatment. And we are being "forced" to undergo much more than that which is in our interest: filtering of air and water, food quality regulations and so on.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gumby 7y ago
  > That's the stuff of dictatorships. I think that’s over the top. The most legitimate argument for forming governments is the management of externalities. It infringes on the factory owner’s liberties to restrict their dumping of toxic waste into the river. Likewise vaccines and quarantine are ways to limit the spread of dangerous pathogens.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    Abortion has externalities. However, we've decided that individual medical autonomy over one's body is sacred.
    - magduf 7y ago
      What externalities are you talking about? I fail to see how forcing women to give birth to children would do anything positive for society: either you'd have to force them to raise them, which would result in tons of children being raised by single mothers who don't want them, which doesn't sound like a very good environment (and also violates individual autonomy) and would have a lot of negative economic effects for society, or you'd end up with tons of kids in foster homes or orphanages, which would also have lots of negative economic effects for society, both for the costs of institutionalizing these children, and then later all the social problems they'll cause when they grow up and become criminals. There are no real negative effects for vaccination, as long as you don't force them on people who have genuine medical conditions preventing them from taking them safely (e.g., allergy to vaccine components).
      - homonculus1 7y ago
        Externalities on the fetus.
- jaster 7y ago
  Not necessarily a fan of forced vaccination, but a little remark to further the discussion: Unlike most medical interventions, vaccination is not about one's individual well-being, but more about the protection of the entire population, especially other, more vulnerable individuals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity). This is why some vaccines are recommended even if you're not especially in danger, because they help protect others that may not be able to be vaccinated (because they are too weak, or due to a special reaction to the vaccine etc.) Not saying that it means that forced vaccination is morally justified however! But the question of vaccination is definitely not simply about individual choice in regard to one's own health.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- magduf 7y ago
  Thought experiment: a government is faced with a problem, where they have to either force people at gunpoint to get a vaccination for a deadly disease, or the society will utterly collapse because too many people stupidly refuse to get this vaccine because of unfounded fears spread by some people who have a financial interest in doing so and don't understand the societal consequences of this (a pandemic is coming and it will wipe out most of the population). Is it right for the government to force vaccinations in this case? Also, an interesting note: if you join the military, you have to get vaccinations. You're not allowed to opt-out.

by Y-bar 7y ago

benj111 7y ago

You could fit it in with child abuse laws already? I'm in the UK that has lost eradication status. Before I could claim my children weren't in danger because its eradicated. Now it isn't and am now exposing my children to a clear danger. Is it not analogous to letting my children play with the bleach under the sink?

hhas01 7y ago
“Is it not analogous to letting my children play with the bleach under the sink?” Oh, my sweet innocent child. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=Kerri+Rivera+bleach https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=Kerri+Rivera+bleach

skrebbel 7y ago

Forcing people to undergo medical treatment is ethically questionable at best. It's an extremely heavy measure to take. So no, cost is not the reason and I think it's a bit scary that that's the best reason you could come up with. I'm as sceptical of antivaxxers as most of HN, but I'm appalled at the level of support for forced medical intervention in the comments here. That's the stuff of dictatorships.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
For that reason the laws don't make vaccinations mandatory, they make it illegal to enter public schools without a vaccination. Limiting dangerous activities in public places is accepted by most as a valid function of government.
- roenxi 7y ago
  I consider people who vote differently from myself to be a threat to my safety. Acting on that opinion is not a good idea. The question isn't 'can we rationalise this?' - we can rationalise everything. The question is 'is the threat great enough for the government to start infringing on liberty?'. It probably isn't, otherwise we'd ban all hard and soft drugs (including alcohol & smoking) as a similar level of threat to public health. That battle has been fought and lost by the public safety folks. An incentive program would probably be a good idea, but I expect there is already one in place.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - gumby 7y ago
    Actually nuance is given close to the proper level of attention. You may drink yourself to death but some controls are in place to reduce the chance you’ll run someone over via drink driving. You may smoke but not in places where you might be fumigating others involuntarily. Etc. It’s all about managing th externality.
BerislavLopac 7y ago
Vaccination is not treatment. And we are being "forced" to undergo much more than that which is in our interest: filtering of air and water, food quality regulations and so on.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gumby 7y ago
> That's the stuff of dictatorships. I think that’s over the top. The most legitimate argument for forming governments is the management of externalities. It infringes on the factory owner’s liberties to restrict their dumping of toxic waste into the river. Likewise vaccines and quarantine are ways to limit the spread of dangerous pathogens.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Abortion has externalities. However, we've decided that individual medical autonomy over one's body is sacred.
  - magduf 7y ago
    What externalities are you talking about? I fail to see how forcing women to give birth to children would do anything positive for society: either you'd have to force them to raise them, which would result in tons of children being raised by single mothers who don't want them, which doesn't sound like a very good environment (and also violates individual autonomy) and would have a lot of negative economic effects for society, or you'd end up with tons of kids in foster homes or orphanages, which would also have lots of negative economic effects for society, both for the costs of institutionalizing these children, and then later all the social problems they'll cause when they grow up and become criminals. There are no real negative effects for vaccination, as long as you don't force them on people who have genuine medical conditions preventing them from taking them safely (e.g., allergy to vaccine components).
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      Externalities on the fetus.
jaster 7y ago
Not necessarily a fan of forced vaccination, but a little remark to further the discussion: Unlike most medical interventions, vaccination is not about one's individual well-being, but more about the protection of the entire population, especially other, more vulnerable individuals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity). This is why some vaccines are recommended even if you're not especially in danger, because they help protect others that may not be able to be vaccinated (because they are too weak, or due to a special reaction to the vaccine etc.) Not saying that it means that forced vaccination is morally justified however! But the question of vaccination is definitely not simply about individual choice in regard to one's own health.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
magduf 7y ago
Thought experiment: a government is faced with a problem, where they have to either force people at gunpoint to get a vaccination for a deadly disease, or the society will utterly collapse because too many people stupidly refuse to get this vaccine because of unfounded fears spread by some people who have a financial interest in doing so and don't understand the societal consequences of this (a pandemic is coming and it will wipe out most of the population). Is it right for the government to force vaccinations in this case? Also, an interesting note: if you join the military, you have to get vaccinations. You're not allowed to opt-out.