34 ms·

Extreme and stupidly ignorant of how vaccines actually work... no vaccine is 100% effective - the MMR vaccine is claimed 95% effective with 1 dose and near 100%

Extreme and stupidly ignorant of how vaccines actually work... no vaccine is 100% effective - the MMR vaccine is claimed 95% effective with 1 dose and near 100% with 2. But the MMR vaccine is one of the oldest and most effective. Other vaccines have as low as 67% immunity (or even worse) - so, out of a class of 30 kids, with 1 kid not vaccinated, there would still be 10 possible "suspects". And you would automatically charge the unvax'ed - turning many of the foundational concepts of law upside down in your hysterical crusade.

Retric 13y ago
Only sick people are disease vectors. So, in a normal outbreak they track who infected whom with a fair amount of accuracy. Granted, nothing is perfect but the legal system is designed for an imperfect world so that's hardly a problem. Also, if for some reason your child can't be vaccinated due to say immune issue well that's a reasonable exception, but trusting in herd immunity while failing to contribute to it is not. Edit: As to why it's important, not vaccinating your children risks their heath, but the larger risks are to society and not you. So, much as vehicular manslaughter is far more serious than a simple speeding ticket if you take the risks and someone dies then it's your fault. Because, despite the fact thousands of people may do the same thing without issue, if you do it and someone dies then your responsible and they where unreasonably risking others lives end of story. PS: Personal responsibility anyone?
- Crito 13y ago
  > Only sick people are disease vectors. That is not true for the casual meaning of "sick"; Typhoid Mary is the classic example of an asymptomatic carrier. Of course she is also an example of how responsibility can be traced even when asymptomatic carriers are involved, and an example of how negligence and refusal to take measures to prevent the spread of disease is antisocial behavior that can (or even must) be dealt with harshly.
Crito 13y ago
> Extreme and stupidly ignorant of how vaccines actually work... no vaccine is 100% effective - the MMR vaccine is claimed 95% effective with 1 dose and near 100% with 2. But the MMR vaccine is one of the oldest and most effective. Your kid is unvaccinated, should have been, and transmits something to somebody else who is then injured? You should have some degree of liability. Your kid is unvaccinated, could not be vaccinated *(too young, or had an existing medical condition that made it impossible) , and transmits something to somebody else who is then injured? Well, that's a shit situation, but there is not much that should be done in that situation. Your kid is vaccinated, catches something anyway, and transmits something to somebody else who is then injured? Well, that's a shit situation, but there is not much that should be done in that situation. These complexities are not intractable.
- patrickg_zill 13y ago
  How do you intend to "prove" in a court of law, on a murder charge (which of course has a high degree of proof required), that a child in a room with 30 kids, in a school with say 600, that traveled on a bus with 60+ other kids, only had contact with exactly 1 kid? Given that you cannot necessarily determine the exact day of exposure in many cases, and that the kid who gets sick could have gone to e.g. McDonald's (exposure to another 100-200 visitors during busy times) or the mall (how many 1000s)... what sane person could be convinced?
  - Crito 13y ago
    That is a problem for the lawyers and any expert witnesses they can find to solve. If such a thing cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (if we are talking criminal charges) or beyond a preponderance of the evidence (if we are just talking about a lawsuit), then the case would not go through. If it could be proven, then such cases should be permitted. We are actually quite good at tracing infections back to their source, but that is not my specialty.

Retric 13y ago

Only sick people are disease vectors. So, in a normal outbreak they track who infected whom with a fair amount of accuracy. Granted, nothing is perfect but the legal system is designed for an imperfect world so that's hardly a problem. Also, if for some reason your child can't be vaccinated due to say immune issue well that's a reasonable exception, but trusting in herd immunity while failing to contribute to it is not. Edit: As to why it's important, not vaccinating your children risks their heath, but the larger risks are to society and not you. So, much as vehicular manslaughter is far more serious than a simple speeding ticket if you take the risks and someone dies then it's your fault. Because, despite the fact thousands of people may do the same thing without issue, if you do it and someone dies then your responsible and they where unreasonably risking others lives end of story. PS: Personal responsibility anyone?

Crito 13y ago
> Only sick people are disease vectors. That is not true for the casual meaning of "sick"; Typhoid Mary is the classic example of an asymptomatic carrier. Of course she is also an example of how responsibility can be traced even when asymptomatic carriers are involved, and an example of how negligence and refusal to take measures to prevent the spread of disease is antisocial behavior that can (or even must) be dealt with harshly.

Crito 13y ago

> Extreme and stupidly ignorant of how vaccines actually work... no vaccine is 100% effective - the MMR vaccine is claimed 95% effective with 1 dose and near 100% with 2. But the MMR vaccine is one of the oldest and most effective. Your kid is unvaccinated, should have been, and transmits something to somebody else who is then injured? You should have some degree of liability. Your kid is unvaccinated, could not be vaccinated *(too young, or had an existing medical condition that made it impossible) , and transmits something to somebody else who is then injured? Well, that's a shit situation, but there is not much that should be done in that situation. Your kid is vaccinated, catches something anyway, and transmits something to somebody else who is then injured? Well, that's a shit situation, but there is not much that should be done in that situation. These complexities are not intractable.

patrickg_zill 13y ago
How do you intend to "prove" in a court of law, on a murder charge (which of course has a high degree of proof required), that a child in a room with 30 kids, in a school with say 600, that traveled on a bus with 60+ other kids, only had contact with exactly 1 kid? Given that you cannot necessarily determine the exact day of exposure in many cases, and that the kid who gets sick could have gone to e.g. McDonald's (exposure to another 100-200 visitors during busy times) or the mall (how many 1000s)... what sane person could be convinced?
- Crito 13y ago
  That is a problem for the lawyers and any expert witnesses they can find to solve. If such a thing cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (if we are talking criminal charges) or beyond a preponderance of the evidence (if we are just talking about a lawsuit), then the case would not go through. If it could be proven, then such cases should be permitted. We are actually quite good at tracing infections back to their source, but that is not my specialty.