3 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 10

by 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.

by Crito 13y ago

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.