4 ms·

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

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.
        lignuist 13y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_cont...
      - btilly 13y ago
        You are still not facing facts. We give babies the MMR vaccine at 12-15 months. I do not know of any cultures where 10 month olds are kept indoors. And even if YOU think that OTHERS should do so to protect them from YOUR BAD DECISIONS, the fact is that they do not. Furthermore babies of that age get sick. (In fact for their long-term health it is good that a baby gets a serious cold in their first year, it helps their immune system out.) And sick babies will go to the pediatrician. Where, inevitably, you'll find other sick kids. Let's take a real near miss. In 2008 in San Diego a 10 month old baby boy (too young for the measles vaccine) went to the pediatrician where there was a kid with measles. The baby, too young for a vaccine, spent 3 days in the hospital, and the parents had to take a month off from work to nurse him back to health. You can verify these details at http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20100322/vaccination-choice-affects-other-kids-too http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20100322/vaccination.... So what are your expectations? That 10 month old babies be kept inside? That babies not go to the pediatrician for fear that your decisions will put their lives at risk? Now let me turn it around. Were I on a jury and Megan Campbell was suing YOU for her child's suffering, her hospital bills, and her lost wages accrued due to YOU NOT FOLLOWING STANDARD MEDICAL ADVICE, I'd support her side. If her baby had died and it was a criminal trial, I know that I'd be entirely in favor of a manslaughter charge against you. And your protestations that people with young children should keep up a good enough bubble would not endear you to me at all. Because I'm a parent, I know how hard parents work at it, and I know that the kind of bubble you're recommending is essentially impossible for real working families to do.

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.
      - lignuist 13y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_cont...
    - btilly 13y ago
      You are still not facing facts. We give babies the MMR vaccine at 12-15 months. I do not know of any cultures where 10 month olds are kept indoors. And even if YOU think that OTHERS should do so to protect them from YOUR BAD DECISIONS, the fact is that they do not. Furthermore babies of that age get sick. (In fact for their long-term health it is good that a baby gets a serious cold in their first year, it helps their immune system out.) And sick babies will go to the pediatrician. Where, inevitably, you'll find other sick kids. Let's take a real near miss. In 2008 in San Diego a 10 month old baby boy (too young for the measles vaccine) went to the pediatrician where there was a kid with measles. The baby, too young for a vaccine, spent 3 days in the hospital, and the parents had to take a month off from work to nurse him back to health. You can verify these details at http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20100322/vaccination-choice-affects-other-kids-too http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20100322/vaccination.... So what are your expectations? That 10 month old babies be kept inside? That babies not go to the pediatrician for fear that your decisions will put their lives at risk? Now let me turn it around. Were I on a jury and Megan Campbell was suing YOU for her child's suffering, her hospital bills, and her lost wages accrued due to YOU NOT FOLLOWING STANDARD MEDICAL ADVICE, I'd support her side. If her baby had died and it was a criminal trial, I know that I'd be entirely in favor of a manslaughter charge against you. And your protestations that people with young children should keep up a good enough bubble would not endear you to me at all. Because I'm a parent, I know how hard parents work at it, and I know that the kind of bubble you're recommending is essentially impossible for real working families to do.