3 ms·

We also have concrete cases of negative effects of vaccination and as long this is the case, forcing people to take these risks, just to lower the vague risks f

We also have concrete cases of negative effects of vaccination and as long this is the case, forcing people to take these risks, just to lower the vague risks for others people's babies is ridiculous. Maybe people shouldn't expose their babies to the public as long as they are so vulnerable. Probably safer than requiring that everybody else is vaccinated...

jlgreco 13y ago
There is nothing vague about herd immunity; it is very well understood.
- lignuist 13y ago
  By vague I mean that there is no guarantee that babies die, just because I'm not vaccinated. It's not even very likely. Taking the probability of damages due to vaccination into account, we are trading one person's safety against the safety of a baby that shouldn't be in the public as long as it is too vulnerable. So maybe the parents of that baby should be liable at first. Nobody will ever be able to guarantee a germ-free world out there.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    If the baby was killed by something that you, a willfully unvaccinated person (or your child, who you willfully did not vaccinate), were carrying, and the source of the infection can be said be you (or your child) more likely than not, then that should be more than enough for a civil trial. Were we talking about criminal charges, then the evidence would need to be stronger. In reality, we can track the progression of disease much better than "more likely than not". This is something that we have gotten quite good at doing. The importance of "100% guarantees" exists only in your imagination. Nothing in the real world works that way.
    - lignuist 13y ago
      Even in my imagination there is no 100% guarantee. And so there is no 100% safe and germ-free world for babies out there. If people take their vulnerable babies to the public, then nobody but them is responsible if this is too much for the baby. People can be agents of germs, even if they are vaccinated, so vaccination is not really protecting these babies and especially not by 100%. Requiring (or pushing) people to take medicine to protect others people's health is like putting the cart before the horse.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        > If people take their vulnerable babies to the public If?!?! Your expectations have no relation to reality. > People can be agents of germs, even if they are vaccinated, 1) Viruses. 2) If you are knowingly making the decision to be a greater risk, then you are being reckless and should be considered liable for the outcome. > Requiring (or pushing) people to take medicine to protect others people's health is like putting the cart before the horse. No it is not. Herd immunity allows us to eradicate disease. Your suggestion of "live and let live" does not.
        lignuist 13y ago
        > If?!?! Your expectations have no relation to reality. Whose reality? Seeing people taking newborns to malls makes me feel very uncomfortable. I know cultures where people keep their babies at home for the first few months. > 2) If you are knowingly making the decision to be a greater risk, then you are being reckless and should be considered liable for the outcome. Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Deciding to not get vaccinated is not deciding to be a greater risk, but in the first place a decision against a specific treatment for the personal body. Especially if this treatment has its own risks. Calling someone reckless for deciding against a specific medical treatment is simply impertinent.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        >Whose reality? The reality of western life. The reality where both genders are in the workplace and where people visit the homes of others. The reality where single parents are plentiful and where both parents working is common. You could perversely wish all of these things were not so, but that would not change the nature of reality. This is absurd before we even get into the fact that it is not only newborns that benifit from herd immunity... > Deciding to not get vaccinated is not deciding to be a greater risk Of course it is. It is empirically.

jlgreco 13y ago

There is nothing vague about herd immunity; it is very well understood.

lignuist 13y ago
By vague I mean that there is no guarantee that babies die, just because I'm not vaccinated. It's not even very likely. Taking the probability of damages due to vaccination into account, we are trading one person's safety against the safety of a baby that shouldn't be in the public as long as it is too vulnerable. So maybe the parents of that baby should be liable at first. Nobody will ever be able to guarantee a germ-free world out there.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  If the baby was killed by something that you, a willfully unvaccinated person (or your child, who you willfully did not vaccinate), were carrying, and the source of the infection can be said be you (or your child) more likely than not, then that should be more than enough for a civil trial. Were we talking about criminal charges, then the evidence would need to be stronger. In reality, we can track the progression of disease much better than "more likely than not". This is something that we have gotten quite good at doing. The importance of "100% guarantees" exists only in your imagination. Nothing in the real world works that way.
  - lignuist 13y ago
    Even in my imagination there is no 100% guarantee. And so there is no 100% safe and germ-free world for babies out there. If people take their vulnerable babies to the public, then nobody but them is responsible if this is too much for the baby. People can be agents of germs, even if they are vaccinated, so vaccination is not really protecting these babies and especially not by 100%. Requiring (or pushing) people to take medicine to protect others people's health is like putting the cart before the horse.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > If people take their vulnerable babies to the public If?!?! Your expectations have no relation to reality. > People can be agents of germs, even if they are vaccinated, 1) Viruses. 2) If you are knowingly making the decision to be a greater risk, then you are being reckless and should be considered liable for the outcome. > Requiring (or pushing) people to take medicine to protect others people's health is like putting the cart before the horse. No it is not. Herd immunity allows us to eradicate disease. Your suggestion of "live and let live" does not.
      - lignuist 13y ago
        > If?!?! Your expectations have no relation to reality. Whose reality? Seeing people taking newborns to malls makes me feel very uncomfortable. I know cultures where people keep their babies at home for the first few months. > 2) If you are knowingly making the decision to be a greater risk, then you are being reckless and should be considered liable for the outcome. Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Deciding to not get vaccinated is not deciding to be a greater risk, but in the first place a decision against a specific treatment for the personal body. Especially if this treatment has its own risks. Calling someone reckless for deciding against a specific medical treatment is simply impertinent.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        >Whose reality? The reality of western life. The reality where both genders are in the workplace and where people visit the homes of others. The reality where single parents are plentiful and where both parents working is common. You could perversely wish all of these things were not so, but that would not change the nature of reality. This is absurd before we even get into the fact that it is not only newborns that benifit from herd immunity... > Deciding to not get vaccinated is not deciding to be a greater risk Of course it is. It is empirically.