6 ms·

I fully support peoples right to choose for themselves due to the fact that there is a small chance that death or other bad side effects can occur from taking c

I fully support peoples right to choose for themselves due to the fact that there is a small chance that death or other bad side effects can occur from taking certain vaccines. Does it really have to be more complicated than that? (edited for clarity)

ceejayoz 12y ago
> Does it really have to be more complicated than that? It is, because by choosing not to vaccinate, you compromise herd immunity and put others at risk. An unvaccinated child in a school would impact the right of a kid with leukemia to go to school, for example.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  OK, but it's still didn't get more complicated. Are we going to force people to make the same decision as you or not? If you don't want to to that, then you're actually agreeing with me.
  - falcolas 12y ago
    > Are we going to force people to make the same decision as you or not? When it comes to vaccinating children who are medically sound to be vaccinated? Yes. Without hesitation, yes.
  - shifter 12y ago
    We force drivers to have auto insurance coverage.
    - hueving 12y ago
      I get your point, but this is a bad analogy because it's quite easy not to drive. A better analogy would be the recent change to force everyone to buy health insurance.
  - hueving 12y ago
    Yes, it should be forced. It's the same as allowing people to choose if they want to participate in taxation. It doesn't work because of free-riders.
    - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
      There is a small chance of death or severe illness from taking vaccines. So, no...I don't support you making that decision for me. That's the difference between taking a vaccine and paying your taxes or buying car insurance.
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        There is a small chance that the second IRS takes your money your house burns down and that you die in cold and hunger because you didn't have that last thousand dollars that was taken from you as a tax. I'd say it's more less as probable as dying from a vaccine. The example is good.
      - ceejayoz 12y ago
        There's a small chance your decision means death or severe illness to me or my family members. I don't support you making that decision for me. You don't get to drive 100 mph on the highway because it entails risks to other people. Same situation here.
krschultz 12y ago
Yes it does, because your decision has consequences for those around you that may include killing them. We have a history going back hundreds and hundreds of years that effectively says we as a society will reduce your freedom to whatever the hell you want to do if the consequences of it kill other people. That's why "life, liberty, and happiness" is in the order that it is. Life before liberty before happiness. Understand that some people can not get the vaccine. They are protected if everyone who can get the vaccine gets it. Now that a bunch of healthy people are note getting the vaccines, the ones that can not get it are at serious risk of not only illness, but death. The vast majority of society has decided that your freedom is not worth the risk to other people. There was a minor exception for religion, and few people used it so it didn't really impact public health until very recently. Now a lot of people are abusing that provision, it is having a public health impact, and that provision and your freedom of choice on the matter need to be eliminated.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  Endless war, cars and cigarettes cause far more death than non-vaxxers. Are you sure that you've gotten your priorities straight here?
  - kstrauser 12y ago
    That's laughable. The flu of 1918 killed 3% to 5% of the world's population that year, and killed somewhere between 10% and 20% of the people who got it. Your position is only defensible if you don't believe that there are diseases that can kill or cripple you. While I wish that were true, that's not the world we live in.
    - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
      You're conflating "death from the flu" with "death from a low percentage of people who didn't take a flu virus". Can you cite a number of deaths that took place from the latter?
  - dullcrisp 12y ago
sliverstorm 12y ago
That position works for the "what you do in your own bedroom" arguments, but vaccines actually really are a social problem rather than a personal choice. (Disease management usually is) Vaccines are a great example of a personal choice that does hurt other people, despite seeming like something that impacts only you. Why? In short, because herd immunity is far more powerful than individual immunity, and protects even people who cannot be vaccinated. By choosing not to vaccinate, you chip away at herd immunity. Actually, a couple anti-vaxxers would be OK. Herd immunity, as I said, allows for some people to safely be unvaccinated, and that is why it is powerful. The problem is when anti-vax'ing became a movement with the goal of convincing as many people as possible not to vaccinate.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  Do you support a law forcing every eligible person to take vaccines or not?
  - michael_h 12y ago
    I might not support that law. BUT, if you're opting out of society, you can't complain that you're not being treated the same as everyone else. If you voluntarily opt out of the normal schedule of vaccines, you can't go to public school or to my kids' pediatrician's office. I wonder if this would even be an issue if we would flip the equation a bit: you don't have to get your kids vaccinated, but then they have to go to a school filled with other unvaccinated kids. This wouldn't solve the overall problem, but it would do some 'fear aikido', redirecting them to see that they are trading a nebulous risk for a very real one.
    - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
      Thank you. I'm not an anti-vaxxer but if I didn't want my kid to be vaccinated I think it's reasonable to expect me to home-school them and find a pediatrician who supports my freedom to choose even if it meant moving out of the country.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
crocowhile 12y ago
The problem is that they do not choose for themselves, they choose for their children and they endanger the life of their children on the first place. If a child had pneumonia, would you agree that is their parents right to choose to treat it with garlic oil rather than antibiotics?

ceejayoz 12y ago

> Does it really have to be more complicated than that? It is, because by choosing not to vaccinate, you compromise herd immunity and put others at risk. An unvaccinated child in a school would impact the right of a kid with leukemia to go to school, for example.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago
OK, but it's still didn't get more complicated. Are we going to force people to make the same decision as you or not? If you don't want to to that, then you're actually agreeing with me.
- falcolas 12y ago
  > Are we going to force people to make the same decision as you or not? When it comes to vaccinating children who are medically sound to be vaccinated? Yes. Without hesitation, yes.
- shifter 12y ago
  We force drivers to have auto insurance coverage.
  - hueving 12y ago
    I get your point, but this is a bad analogy because it's quite easy not to drive. A better analogy would be the recent change to force everyone to buy health insurance.
- hueving 12y ago
  Yes, it should be forced. It's the same as allowing people to choose if they want to participate in taxation. It doesn't work because of free-riders.
  - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
    There is a small chance of death or severe illness from taking vaccines. So, no...I don't support you making that decision for me. That's the difference between taking a vaccine and paying your taxes or buying car insurance.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      There is a small chance that the second IRS takes your money your house burns down and that you die in cold and hunger because you didn't have that last thousand dollars that was taken from you as a tax. I'd say it's more less as probable as dying from a vaccine. The example is good.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      There's a small chance your decision means death or severe illness to me or my family members. I don't support you making that decision for me. You don't get to drive 100 mph on the highway because it entails risks to other people. Same situation here.

krschultz 12y ago

Yes it does, because your decision has consequences for those around you that may include killing them. We have a history going back hundreds and hundreds of years that effectively says we as a society will reduce your freedom to whatever the hell you want to do if the consequences of it kill other people. That's why "life, liberty, and happiness" is in the order that it is. Life before liberty before happiness. Understand that some people can not get the vaccine. They are protected if everyone who can get the vaccine gets it. Now that a bunch of healthy people are note getting the vaccines, the ones that can not get it are at serious risk of not only illness, but death. The vast majority of society has decided that your freedom is not worth the risk to other people. There was a minor exception for religion, and few people used it so it didn't really impact public health until very recently. Now a lot of people are abusing that provision, it is having a public health impact, and that provision and your freedom of choice on the matter need to be eliminated.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago
Endless war, cars and cigarettes cause far more death than non-vaxxers. Are you sure that you've gotten your priorities straight here?
- kstrauser 12y ago
  That's laughable. The flu of 1918 killed 3% to 5% of the world's population that year, and killed somewhere between 10% and 20% of the people who got it. Your position is only defensible if you don't believe that there are diseases that can kill or cripple you. While I wish that were true, that's not the world we live in.
  - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
    You're conflating "death from the flu" with "death from a low percentage of people who didn't take a flu virus". Can you cite a number of deaths that took place from the latter?
- dullcrisp 12y ago

sliverstorm 12y ago

That position works for the "what you do in your own bedroom" arguments, but vaccines actually really are a social problem rather than a personal choice. (Disease management usually is) Vaccines are a great example of a personal choice that does hurt other people, despite seeming like something that impacts only you. Why? In short, because herd immunity is far more powerful than individual immunity, and protects even people who cannot be vaccinated. By choosing not to vaccinate, you chip away at herd immunity. Actually, a couple anti-vaxxers would be OK. Herd immunity, as I said, allows for some people to safely be unvaccinated, and that is why it is powerful. The problem is when anti-vax'ing became a movement with the goal of convincing as many people as possible not to vaccinate.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago
Do you support a law forcing every eligible person to take vaccines or not?
- michael_h 12y ago
  I might not support that law. BUT, if you're opting out of society, you can't complain that you're not being treated the same as everyone else. If you voluntarily opt out of the normal schedule of vaccines, you can't go to public school or to my kids' pediatrician's office. I wonder if this would even be an issue if we would flip the equation a bit: you don't have to get your kids vaccinated, but then they have to go to a school filled with other unvaccinated kids. This wouldn't solve the overall problem, but it would do some 'fear aikido', redirecting them to see that they are trading a nebulous risk for a very real one.
  - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
    Thank you. I'm not an anti-vaxxer but if I didn't want my kid to be vaccinated I think it's reasonable to expect me to home-school them and find a pediatrician who supports my freedom to choose even if it meant moving out of the country.
- dragonwriter 12y ago

crocowhile 12y ago

The problem is that they do not choose for themselves, they choose for their children and they endanger the life of their children on the first place. If a child had pneumonia, would you agree that is their parents right to choose to treat it with garlic oil rather than antibiotics?