Should not vaccinating your child be a criminal offence?

[Coveny]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I look forward to your explanation...

He misdirects instead. It's like interviewing Kellyanne.

[John Cuthber]

21 hours ago, Coveny said:

No one, in fact, died.

That's quite possibly the most wrong thing I have ever seen anyone post

"During the 20th century, it is estimated that smallpox was responsible for 300–500 million deaths."

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smallpox
 

 

21 hours ago, Coveny said:

Any freedom to do something does not always remove other people's freedoms.

OK, show me one that doesn't.

 

[Coveny]

51 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's quite possibly the most wrong thing I have ever seen anyone post

"During the 20th century, it is estimated that smallpox was responsible for 300–500 million deaths."

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smallpox
OK, show me one that doesn't.

Ignoring the "most wrong" grammar thing. Please show me someone who has died because they didn't get a vaccine. Not someone who died from a disease, someone who died because they did NOT get a vaccine. Lets use cars because they seem to be the go to analogy. While you can still be in a car accident, you aren't automatically in a car accident because you drive a car even though it does increase the risk/likelihood. My point is hopping in a car isn't what kills you, and you can't prove otherwise when it comes to vaccines. 

Freedom to think about whatever you wish is unbeatable but the freedom to dance  in your house, the freedom to go in the woods, be alone and enjoy nature, etc also work.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Please show me someone who has died because they didn't get a vaccine. Not someone who died from a disease, someone who died because they did NOT get a vaccine.

Wow. Just wow.

This is beyond straw man argument. 

[John Cuthber]

26 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Ignoring the "most wrong" grammar thing.

Why do you think there's  "grammar thing" there?
 

 

26 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Freedom to think about whatever you wish is unbeatable but the freedom to dance  in your house, the freedom to go in the woods, be alone and enjoy nature, etc also work.

Damn you!

You have just stifled my freedoms to prevent you thinking what you want, to prevent you dancing in your house and my freedom to ban you from the woods.

How dare you destroy my freedoms like that.

 

Now do you realise you were wrong?

Your freedom to do something is a restriction on my freedom to stop you doing it.

 

33 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Please show me someone who has died because they didn't get a vaccine. Not someone who died from a disease, someone who died because they did NOT get a vaccine.

Show me someone who died from smoking.

Yet we know that smoking kills.

[koti]

2 hours ago, Coveny said:

Please show me someone who has died because they didn't get a vaccine. Not someone who died from a disease, someone who died because they did NOT get a vaccine.

You’re joking right?

On 4.12.2017 at 8:53 PM, Coveny said:

I'm personally against seatbelt laws because I believe it infringes on freedom. 

How would you justify to yourself and your wife that your „freedom requirements” killed your son or daughter in a car crash? Your body during a car crash has several thousands of pounds in kinetic energy when flying around without seatbelts. Say your son’s skull gets completely crushed by your leg which gets broken in several places but you end up fine after a few months. Could you elaborate on how you would approach your freedom of not wearing a seatbelt from there in this very plausible scenario? 

Edited December 6, 2017 by koti

[Coveny]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Why do you think there's  "grammar thing" there?

Damn you!

You have just stifled my freedoms to prevent you thinking what you want, to prevent you dancing in your house and my freedom to ban you from the woods.

How dare you destroy my freedoms like that.

Now do you realise you were wrong?

Your freedom to do something is a restriction on my freedom to stop you doing it.

Show me someone who died from smoking.

Yet we know that smoking kills.

Because you are the most wrong. hehe

It's not a freedom to prevent others from doing something, anymore than it's a freedom to be able to fly. You keep confusing your inability to alter reality with a freedom. No I haven't been presented any evidence that I'm wrong, why would I realize I'm wrong when I'm not wrong?

We know no such thing. Smoking increases the chance of lung cancer, but like my grandmother who smoked her whole life and died of an aneurysm doesn't "kill" you, it's just more likely to kill you. (a concept you seem to be struggling with)

 

 

1 hour ago, koti said:

You’re joking right?

How would you justify to yourself and your wife that your „freedom requirements” killed your son or daughter in a car crash? Your body during a car crash has several thousands of pounds in kinetic energy when flying around without seatbelts. Say your son’s skull gets completely crushed by your leg which gets broken in several places but you end up fine after a few months. Could you elaborate on how you would approach your freedom of not wearing a seatbelt from there in this very plausible scenario? 

Not any more than the person I was responding to. The idea that not vaccinating = death is absurd. If you guys want to go down the absurd road I'll follow ya, but I'd much rather have a rational debate about the topic at hand rather than an emotional one where the supposed "proof" is NOT VACCINATING MEANS YOU ARE KILLING PEOPLE!!!!

I would tell my wife that our son is 25 I respected his decision not to wear a seatbelt, and that decision may have gotten him killed in a car crash. (not sure how my leg is going to crush his skull in the back seat but these type of scenarios aren't really about logic are they?)

[koti]

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

Things like that make me unreasonably angry. We have a tool to limit human suffering, improve public health and it is the only likely way to actually eradicate diseases. And then idiots come and exploit the fear of parents and disease on the brink of extinction now come back. I really wonder about the motivation of these activists. Unless they are getting funded by the iron lung association, I am at a loss why anyone would be an anti-vaccine activist. It is pretty much like a campaign against seat belts.

I share your thoughts on this. As for their motivations, I learned a lot in the last year or so, it’s a combination of misconception and inability/lack of will to learn - all driven by blind fear. It sounds reasonable what I just wrote doesn’t it...then someone like Coveny comes along and I’m back to square one figuring out the reasons and motivations behind irrationality.

[Strange]

I heard something on the radio the other day about Japan. There was an ignorant campaign against HPV vaccination which caused the vaccination rate to drop from 70% to 1%. Apparently, even the government dropped their support for the vaccine, which is unforgivable.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/qa-japanese-physician-snares-prize-battling-antivaccine-campaigners

[koti]

10 hours ago, Coveny said:

Because you are the most wrong. hehe

It's not a freedom to prevent others from doing something, anymore than it's a freedom to be able to fly. You keep confusing your inability to alter reality with a freedom. No I haven't been presented any evidence that I'm wrong, why would I realize I'm wrong when I'm not wrong?

We know no such thing. Smoking increases the chance of lung cancer, but like my grandmother who smoked her whole life and died of an aneurysm doesn't "kill" you, it's just more likely to kill you. (a concept you seem to be struggling with)

 

 

Not any more than the person I was responding to. The idea that not vaccinating = death is absurd. If you guys want to go down the absurd road I'll follow ya, but I'd much rather have a rational debate about the topic at hand rather than an emotional one where the supposed "proof" is NOT VACCINATING MEANS YOU ARE KILLING PEOPLE!!!!

I would tell my wife that our son is 25 I respected his decision not to wear a seatbelt, and that decision may have gotten him killed in a car crash. (not sure how my leg is going to crush his skull in the back seat but these type of scenarios aren't really about logic are they?)

You failed to understand the car accident example. Lets try another one which I hope will be easier to understand and will also be more aligned with the OP;

As your son is dead at this point due to your failure to put your seatbelts on resulting in your body flying around inside the car during the accident and terminally crushing your sons skull - lets use your daughter as an example this time, lets see how you approach this one;

You exercise your freedom to not vaccinate your 1 year old daughter, she contracts a disease which was preventable by a vaccine and she dies.

How do you live with yourself after that? 

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by koti

[Strange]

11 hours ago, Coveny said:

The idea that not vaccinating = death is absurd.

Er, no. It is an evidence-based conclusion. 

If someone has a disease that is easily treatable but will be fatal if not treated, you don't think that withholding treatment will kill them? Or that the person who withholds treatment is not culpable? ("It wan't me, I didn't do anything!")

This sounds like that stupid line in bad action films where the villain says, "if you don't let me go I will blow up the city and it will be your fault". Headbangingly illogical.

1 hour ago, koti said:

You exercise your freedom to not vaccinate your 1 year old daughter, she contracts a disease which was preventable by a vaccine and she dies.

Another example might be that she contracts a minor infection but because freedom of choice is so important, you decide to go against the doctor's advice and not give her antibiotics. The infection spreads and she dies of septicaemia. But, "yay, liberty!" You didn't kill her the bacteria did. 

12 hours ago, Coveny said:

but I'd much rather have a rational debate about the topic at hand rather than an emotional one where the supposed "proof" is NOT VACCINATING MEANS YOU ARE KILLING PEOPLE!!!!

Hard to have a rational debate with someone who is blind to the evidence. How do explain the increased death rates when vaccination is either not available or is not used? Coincidence?

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Coveny said:

He misdirects instead. It's like interviewing Kellyanne.

You owe me a new keyboard...

When are you going to answer my question (it is pertinent)? 

[Strange]

There seems to be some twisted logic here: the act of not vaccinating only contributes to the (probability of) death of others therefore it doesn't matter. It won't directly cause the death of the person not vaccinated so why should they care. If they catch the disease, it isn't because they weren't vaccinated, it's because diseases spread; it's in their nature.

Sounds a lot like the "climate changes anyway" denial of anthropogenic climate change. Or, "why wear a seatbelt, if your time has come [god has called you] there is nothing you can do about it."

 

 

[Coveny]

1 hour ago, koti said:

You exercise your freedom to not vaccinate your 1 year old daughter, she contracts a disease which was preventable by a vaccine and she dies.

How do you live with yourself after that? 

I vaccine so this isn't a scenario that would happen. Also this discussion isn't about anecdotal evidence. As I have stated several times I personally support vaccinations, so my personal use of vaccines is in line with most of what has been post here. What I would like to discuss is the moral aspect of criminalizing anti-vaxxers when we have high levels of coverage. If the requirement is 86% and we are at 92% how do you morally send someone to jail for not making it 93%? The differences AT THAT POINT are negligible, yet everyone here wants to exaggerate and say that not vaccinating at that point equals death. I don't believe in fear mongering to get my point across.

 

49 minutes ago, Strange said:

Hard to have a rational debate with someone who is blind to the evidence. How do explain the increased death rates when vaccination is either not available or is not used? Coincidence?

So true, but maybe some day you'll get past regurgitating talking points, and we can have that rational debate I desire.

 

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

There seems to be some twisted logic here: the act of not vaccinating only contributes to the (probability of) death of others therefore it doesn't matter. It won't directly cause the death of the person not vaccinated so why should they care. If they catch the disease, it isn't because they weren't vaccinated, it's because diseases spread; it's in their nature.

Sounds a lot like the "climate changes anyway" denial of anthropogenic climate change. Or, "why wear a seatbelt, if your time has come [god has called you] there is nothing you can do about it."

Strawman. Didn't say that it "doesn't matter". Said that the effect on society is minimal between 92% and 91%. (although there is more too it)

Only "sounds a lot like" those if you haven't been listening.

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, Coveny said:

.... What I would like to discuss is the moral aspect of criminalizing anti-vaxxers when we have high levels of coverage. If the requirement is 86% and we are at 92% how do you morally send someone to jail for not making it 93%? The differences AT THAT POINT are negligible, yet everyone here wants to exaggerate and say that not vaccinating at that point equals death. I don't believe in fear mongering to get my point across.

Let's assume it's true what you say. This is the level of compliance we have achieved with the prevailing level of pressure. If we reduced the pressure, the level of compliance will probably fall below effective levels over time and we'll be having more frequent epidemics or more pockets of infection as the number of potential vectors increases.

Edited December 7, 2017 by StringJunky

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Coveny said:

So true

What is true? That it is coincidence?

7 minutes ago, Coveny said:

we can have that rational debate I desire.

A bit hard when you refuse to answer (reasonable) questions.

7 minutes ago, Coveny said:

If the requirement is 86% and we are at 92% how do you morally send someone to jail for not making it 93%?

I am not in favour of jailing people for not vaccinating, but your argument doesn't make sense. You can't say it becomes a criminal offence (if one were to do that) only when insufficient numbers have been vaccinated. Public health policy doesn't work like that.

For example, a proportion of people's blood pressure is raised by excessive salt intake. For some people salt has no significant effect. You can't only regulate salt in food (for example) or only target the health message at a subset of the population. You have to target the entire population.

Take the smoking example raised earlier. It isn't guaranteed that smoking a certain amount will kill you. But it makes it much, much more likely that you will dies of related diseases. Some people will suffer no ill effects. You obviously can't target the "no smoking" message (including legislation, taxation, and other deterrents) at just the people who will get ill - you have to target the whole population.

So the goal in vaccination policy might be to achieve, say, 90% instead of the (impractical) 100%. But you can't achieve that except by targeting 100% of the population.

14 minutes ago, Coveny said:

yet everyone here wants to exaggerate and say that not vaccinating at that point equals death.

And yet another straw man argument. What happened to the "rational discussion"?

[dimreepr]

36 minutes ago, Coveny said:

I vaccine so this isn't a scenario that would happen. Also this discussion isn't about anecdotal evidence. As I have stated several times I personally support vaccinations, so my personal use of vaccines is in line with most of what has been post here.

2

That's akin to denying you're a racist because you have a black friend. 

If you already comply with the law, why argue against it? Most people who adhere to the speed limit are incensed by the idiot who passes them at breakneck speed. 

Your thread seems to be an antivaxxer hiding behind freedom as a convenient excuse to spout nonsense because you're incensed at being passed by logic and evidence

[Coveny]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Let's assume it's true what you say. This is the level of compliance we have achieved with the prevailing level of pressure. If we reduced the pressure, the level of compliance will probably fall below effective levels over time and we'll be having more frequent epidemics or more pockets of infection as the number of potential vectors increases.

That's a slippery slope fallacy. Not to mention the laws could be tailor written deal with percentage of coverage that would allow for some percentage of the population to opt out, and still applying pressure to vaccinate. I'm not really sure how to deal with it though, as that's why I started this thread. (wasn't as helpful as I would have liked)

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You can't say it becomes a criminal offence (if one were to do that) only when insufficient numbers have been vaccinated. Public health policy doesn't work like that.

For example, a proportion of people's blood pressure is raised by excessive salt intake. For some people salt has no significant effect. You can't only regulate salt in food (for example) or only target the health message at a subset of the population. You have to target the entire population.

Take the smoking example raised earlier. It isn't guaranteed that smoking a certain amount will kill you. But it makes it much, much more likely that you will dies of related diseases. Some people will suffer no ill effects. You obviously can't target the "no smoking" message (including legislation, taxation, and other deterrents) at just the people who will get ill - you have to target the whole population.

So the goal in vaccination policy might be to achieve, say, 90% instead of the (impractical) 100%. But you can't achieve that except by targeting 100% of the population.

And yet another straw man argument. What happened to the "rational discussion"?

Why can't you make a law exactly that way? It sure seems like to me that it could work that way.

Salt thing doesn't apply as there isn't a coverage requirement and it only applies to yourself. Same is true with smoking.

You don't target the people, you target the percentage. Align laws to apply pressure on those who aren't vaccinate if the percentage falls below a certain point. You may not be familiar with it but there are laws in place that prevent group homes residence levels within an area. It doesn't matter who builds the group home but there is a ratio max residence that area can support. This is very similar if opposite to what I'm talking about. It's cool and the government doesn't care if the coverage is 86%, but at 85% warnings or citations start going out to everyone who isn't vaccinated. Now I don't know that it should be everyone, or if it should be a fine or whatever, but that's what I'd like to discuss. How and where to criminalize not vaccinating from a moral standpoint. To me if the coverage requirement has been met there shouldn't be a requirement to be vaccinated as the chance of spread does NOT increase that much from 92% to 91% so the threat to society (greater good) isn't morally justified to overrule individual freedom in my opinion. 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

If you already comply with the law, why argue against it?

If you comply with the law... why argue against it? Are you trolling me? You know that the holocaust was legal right? Legal does not equate to moral. This isn't about CAN we force vaccination, it's about SHOULD we force vaccination. There are some VERY stupid laws on the books. Why argue against laws? Really? You're trolling me now aren't you?

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, Coveny said:

If you comply with the law... why argue against it? Are you trolling me? You know that the holocaust was legal right? Legal does not equate to moral. This isn't about CAN we force vaccination, it's about SHOULD we force vaccination. There are some VERY stupid laws on the books. Why argue against laws? Really? You're trolling me now aren't you?

1

Godwin's law write large, it's noticable that yet again you haven't answered my question.

[Arete]

10 minutes ago, Coveny said:

it only applies to yourself.

1) For sterilizing vaccines like MMR, a minimum compliance rate required to eradicate disease, especially in the last "mile" (i.e. when the disease is persistent at very low incidence rates) is very high e.g. >99% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720046/ This means that even extremely low rates of non-compliance increase the disease burden on the population as a whole. We need assess our endgame with regards to vaccination - is it a maintenance program that we continue indefinitely, or is the goal disease eradication? If it's the latter compliance enforcement may be necessary. 

2) A proportion of the population is immunocompromised such that they either cannot be vaccinated (e.g. HIV patients, selective IgA patients, etc) or have had their immunity eroded (e.g. chemotherapy patients, organ transplant recipients, etc). These are the people most at risk due to a transmissible infection. If we are comparing to smoking, it IS legislated against in instances where it affects others - in public buildings, restaurants, on planes, etc. The difference of course being that one can decide not to smoke for a period of time, but one cannot switch on or off their vaccine acquired immunity. So do we legislate people who choose not to vaccinate out of public spaces permanently, or do we legislate to enforce compliance? 

 

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Arete said:

1) For sterilizing vaccines like MMR, a minimum compliance rate required to eradicate disease, especially in the last "mile" (i.e. when the disease is persistent at very low incidence rates) is very high e.g. >99% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720046/ This means that even extremely low rates of non-compliance increase the disease burden on the population as a whole. We need assess our endgame with regards to vaccination - is it a maintenance program that we continue indefinitely, or is the goal disease eradication? If it's the latter compliance enforcement may be necessary. 

2) A proportion of the population is immunocompromised such that they either cannot be vaccinated (e.g. HIV patients, selective IgA patients, etc) or have had their immunity eroded (e.g. chemotherapy patients, organ transplant recipients, etc). These are the people most at risk due to a transmissible infection. If we are comparing to smoking, it IS legislated against in instances where it affects others - in public buildings, restaurants, on planes, etc. The difference of course being that one can decide not to smoke for a period of time, but one cannot switch on or off their vaccine acquired immunity. So do we legislate people who choose not to vaccinate out of public spaces permanently, or do we legislate to enforce compliance? 

 

I fear your logic, reason, and evidence is wasted here, other than my +1.

[koti]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I fear your logic, reason, and evidence is wasted here, other than my +1.

+1

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Coveny said:

Salt thing doesn't apply as there isn't a coverage requirement and it only applies to yourself. Same is true with smoking.

The same isn’t true for smoking. Smoking harms others, as well. 

[Coveny]

1 hour ago, Arete said:

1) For sterilizing vaccines like MMR, a minimum compliance rate required to eradicate disease, especially in the last "mile" (i.e. when the disease is persistent at very low incidence rates) is very high e.g. >99% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720046/ This means that even extremely low rates of non-compliance increase the disease burden on the population as a whole. We need assess our endgame with regards to vaccination - is it a maintenance program that we continue indefinitely, or is the goal disease eradication? If it's the latter compliance enforcement may be necessary. 

2) A proportion of the population is immunocompromised such that they either cannot be vaccinated (e.g. HIV patients, selective IgA patients, etc) or have had their immunity eroded (e.g. chemotherapy patients, organ transplant recipients, etc). These are the people most at risk due to a transmissible infection. If we are comparing to smoking, it IS legislated against in instances where it affects others - in public buildings, restaurants, on planes, etc. The difference of course being that one can decide not to smoke for a period of time, but one cannot switch on or off their vaccine acquired immunity. So do we legislate people who choose not to vaccinate out of public spaces permanently, or do we legislate to enforce compliance? 

#1 Understand that with global warming we have many diseases that have long since been "eradicated" possibly coming back into circulation. If we plan for that and keep cultures there is always the chance that the disease could be released again by a malicious agent. So I would be interest in your thoughts on the feasibility of eradicating a disease. I like the direction though, it's a respectable one. I don't see a way to make it happen, but maybe you do, so my view is that vaccines must be indefinite.

#2 And then we are back to something that isn't analogous. When you smoke you put it in the air, and it WILL get in others lungs, it's not a "risk" it's an inevitability. This is a case of your freedoms infringing on my freedoms. Vaccination isn't that way in that it may or may not matter, and it's not 100% effective so vaccinated people can still "smoke" as you put it, and in both vaccinated and unvaccinated the "smoking" is against the individuals will. (if they infected themself on purpose that would remove them from the group I'm referring too) 

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

The same isn’t true for smoking. Smoking harms others, as well. 

In the context of the response it is personal use by yourself not public use, in that context they are the same thing.

[Arete]

15 minutes ago, Coveny said:

#1 Understand that with global warming we have many diseases that have long since been "eradicated" possibly coming back into circulation. If we plan for that and keep cultures there is always the chance that the disease could be released again by a malicious agent. So I would be interest in your thoughts on the feasibility of eradicating a disease.

The only two diseases ever eradicated globally are smallpox and rinderpest. Polio is close. All have been eradicated via vaccination campaigns. I'm unsure of how climate change will result in the reintroduction of these diseases - care to clarify? 

While there is genuine controversy over the maintenance of live Variola strains for research, it should be noted that modified poxviruses are some of the most promising for oncolytic viral therapy in clinical trial.We don't keep smallpox cultures just for posterity, they can be used to save lives. 

Since it's been done before, I see no reason why sterilizing vaccines cannot be used to eradicate infectious diseases in the future. 

23 minutes ago, Coveny said:

#2 And then we are back to something that isn't analogous. When you smoke you put it in the air, and it WILL get in others lungs, it's not a "risk" it's an inevitability. This is a case of your freedoms infringing on my freedoms. Vaccination isn't that way in that it may or may not matter, and it's not 100% effective so vaccinated people can still "smoke" as you put it, and in both vaccinated and unvaccinated the "smoking" is against the individuals will. (if they infected themself on purpose that would remove them from the group I'm referring too) 

 You may or may not get cancer from breathing second hand smoke - both are risk factors. However you are correct in that they aren't entirely analogous - one is an environmental pollutant, the other is an infectious agent. It should be noted that the primary reasons vaccines work is that they reduce the rate of susceptible hosts in a population - the ultimate agent of protection is the fact that the chances of encountering a carrier for a disease are drastically reduced, to the point where the agent cannot be transmitted from a terminal host and goes extinct in the population. Also, for a sterilizing vaccine like MMR, protection is complete - unless an underlying condition (e.g. immunodeficincy) prevents an immune response to the vaccine from mounting (about 3% of the population for MMR), a vaccinated individual cannot be a carrier. 

In the smoking case, you elevate the risk of cancer for those around you by increasing exposure to a carcinogenic pollutant. For vaccines, you increase the risk of infection for those around you by increasing the incidence of susceptible hosts in a given population. I agree with legislation mitigating the overall population risk in both scenarios. 

An aside, a case can be made against non-sterilizing vaccines (i.e. vaccines which reduce the impact of an infection, but not necessarily the risk of infection)such as those in development for malaria and HIV, in that pathogens generally evolve in a trade off between transmission and virulence, and by artificially lowering the costs to the pathogen of virulence, we allow for the evolution of a more virulent pathogen to evolve which causes more serious disease in unvaccinated individuals. https://www.nature.com/articles/414751a. However, this argument does not apply to sterilizing vaccines.