3 ms·

Nothing is guaranteed to be 100% safe. I can however guarantee you that a population losing herd immunity will put more lives at risk. Can those who abstain f

by jlgreco 13y ago

Nothing is guaranteed to be 100% safe. I can however guarantee you that a population losing herd immunity will put more lives at risk. Can those who abstain from vaccines be held liable when those who actually cannot get vaccinated fall ill? That seems like a fair compromise; tax anyone who chooses not to vaccinate and use the proceeds to help those who are harmed by their decision. We wouldn't be jailing them, merely holding them accountable for their actions. Throwing salt onto the icy sidewalk in front of your business can be dangerous, but if you don't do it and somebody gets hurt, you can be sued.

lignuist 13y ago
If safeness cannot be guaranteed, then noone should be forced. Arguing with statistics over a population surely must sound cynical to those who have been negatively affected by vaccination: "Sorry, you're one of the rare people we ignored while forcing everyone to take the medicine which is known to cause problems for 0.00001% of people." Also, vaccination does not guarantee, that I cannot be an agent of the germ, even if I am imune myself.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Nobody is being forced to vaccinate under this proposal. They are only being opened up for liability if they choose not to vaccinate. If you want to endanger your child and others, then fine; just don't expect there to be no consequences. NOBODY is claiming that immunization is a guarantee; I don't know where you are getting that nonsense from.
  - lignuist 13y ago
    Taxing is a way of enforcement, as well as telling people that they can get sued. Also, I never asked for the guarantee of immunization, but for guaranteed safety of vaccination. For example I know a child that lost ability to speak due to bad vaccination. Since it doesn't live in the US, it will never get compensation from a fund.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Such a guarantee would be unprecedented, and expecting it is ludicrous. You can get sued for many things that you cannot say you are "forced" to do.

by jlgreco 13y ago

lignuist 13y ago

If safeness cannot be guaranteed, then noone should be forced. Arguing with statistics over a population surely must sound cynical to those who have been negatively affected by vaccination: "Sorry, you're one of the rare people we ignored while forcing everyone to take the medicine which is known to cause problems for 0.00001% of people." Also, vaccination does not guarantee, that I cannot be an agent of the germ, even if I am imune myself.

jlgreco 13y ago
Nobody is being forced to vaccinate under this proposal. They are only being opened up for liability if they choose not to vaccinate. If you want to endanger your child and others, then fine; just don't expect there to be no consequences. NOBODY is claiming that immunization is a guarantee; I don't know where you are getting that nonsense from.
- lignuist 13y ago
  Taxing is a way of enforcement, as well as telling people that they can get sued. Also, I never asked for the guarantee of immunization, but for guaranteed safety of vaccination. For example I know a child that lost ability to speak due to bad vaccination. Since it doesn't live in the US, it will never get compensation from a fund.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Such a guarantee would be unprecedented, and expecting it is ludicrous. You can get sued for many things that you cannot say you are "forced" to do.