Should not vaccinating your child be a criminal offence?

[Coveny]

8 minutes ago, Arete said:

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. 

 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. 

On the point of climate change effecting eradication - http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up

I tend to lead toward keeping it for research, which means it's not really eradicated it's just not currently in circulation, but could come back. I also agree with the point of bio-diversity allowing for better research, and therefore better cures.

Didn't say you "would get cancer" that's a strawman fallacy. I said their smoke would get in your body which infringes on your freedom. 

The article you linked to the CDC does list "protection is complete" (or 100%) it lists "Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles". Please don't spread misinformation. Although I agree 90+% should be considered effective it is NOT "complete" protection.

I wasn't trying to discuss the evolution of illness or the various misfires that some of the less scientifical community accepted vaccines have had. 

[Arete]

16 minutes ago, Coveny said:

which means it's not really eradicated it's just not currently in circulation, but could come back.

That's what eradication means. If it were not present anywhere on the planet it would be extinct. 

16 minutes ago, Coveny said:

The article you linked to the CDC does list "protection is complete" (or 100%) it lists "Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles". Please don't spread misinformation.

Please improve your reading comprehension:

38 minutes ago, Arete said:

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)

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

19 hours ago, Coveny said:

t's not a freedom to prevent others from doing something, anymore than it's a freedom to be able to fly.

Nonsense; it's easy for me to prevent you thinking what you want to- I simply have to shoot you...

However, I'm not granted the freedom to do that.

19 hours ago, Coveny said:

Because you are the most wrong. hehe

Would you like me to start a poll on that?
 

 

19 hours ago, Coveny said:

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)

And, once again, it's you who fails to understand.
Take 1000 smokers and 1000 non smokers picked at random from the population.

Wait 40 years.

Count the survivors in both groups.

There are fewer survivors in the group composed of smoking.

If you choose the groups carefully so that smoking is the only difference then the only thing that could have killed the "extra" dead folk in the smoking group is smoking.

Smoking killed that number of people.

The fact that we can't reliably say which ones were killed by smoking does not affect that.

 

Smoking kills.

Incidentally, is there a reliable way to check that you are not trolling?
 

[Coveny]

2 hours ago, Arete said:

That's what eradication means. If it were not present anywhere on the planet it would be extinct. 

Please improve your reading comprehension:

Please improve your reading comprehension. If something is still in a lab or in the ice somewhere... then it is on the planet.

Please improve your reading comprehension. And I quote from the CDC article AGAIN "Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles". Just because YOU believe it's 100% doesn't mean it is, and the article YOU linked contradicts you...  (I love when people are condescending and accusatory about the exact thing they did)

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Nonsense; it's easy for me to prevent you thinking what you want to- I simply have to shoot you...

However, I'm not granted the freedom to do that.

Would you like me to start a poll on that?
 

And, once again, it's you who fails to understand.
Take 1000 smokers and 1000 non smokers picked at random from the population.

Wait 40 years.

Count the survivors in both groups.

There are fewer survivors in the group composed of smoking.

If you choose the groups carefully so that smoking is the only difference then the only thing that could have killed the "extra" dead folk in the smoking group is smoking.

Smoking killed that number of people.

The fact that we can't reliably say which ones were killed by smoking does not affect that.

 

Smoking kills.

Incidentally, is there a reliable way to check that you are not trolling?
 

You would have to find me, you would have to shoot first, and you would have to hit me in the brain, and unless you got all of it, my brain function would continue thinking. Even in your passive aggressive example you still attempt to bypass reality. Again not being able to fly is NOT a loss of freedom.

Sure man. Start a poll to see if " the most wrong" is correct grammar, knock yourself out.

Smoking does not "kill" or everyone who smokes would die. If someone who was really good at hitting small target blew all the brains out of your skull that would prove bullets kill. (that passive aggressive stuff is fun!) There is a correlation, and it increases the risks, but cancer kills you not smoke.

Sure just look at how I respond to the people who have put forth reasonable discussion points. I've had plenty of civil conversations in this topic. You can of course quit talk about this if you prefer...

[Arete]

12 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Please improve your reading comprehension. If something is still in a lab or in the ice somewhere... then it is on the planet.

Please improve your reading comprehension. And I quote from the CDC article AGAIN "Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles". Just because YOU believe it's 100% doesn't mean it is, and the article YOU linked contradicts you...  (I love when people are condescending and accusatory about the exact thing they did

1) An eradicated disease is no longer circulating in the population. It can still be present in lab stocks. An extinct disease can no longer be present circulating in the population OR  in lab stocks. 

2) See bold underlined text. 

3 hours ago, Arete said:

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 sterilizing vaccine prevents an infection from ever occurring. When it works, it provides complete protection to an individual. It doesn't work in every case. I openly acknowledged that. I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

24 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Again not being able to fly is NOT a loss of freedom.

You keep saying that as if it is important..

Nobody said it was a loss of freedom, so it's not relevant.

24 minutes ago, Coveny said:

You would have to find me, you would have to shoot first, and you would have to hit me in the brain, and unless you got all of it, my brain function would continue thinking.

So? (Though you are wrong, BTW, a bullet passing through your brain would destroy the detailed structures needed for thought).

The point is that, if I did all that I could stop you thinking.

 

24 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Smoking does not "kill" or everyone who smokes would die.

And again; nobody said it kills everyone, just that it kills some.
The logical fallacy you are trying to use there is a false dilemma. (It's sometimes called the excluded middle).

Logical fallacies usually get picked up on quite quickly round here. Don't use them unless you wan to look foolish.

24 minutes ago, Coveny said:

If someone who was really good at hitting small target blew all the brains out of your skull that would prove bullets kill.

Again, not an issue of debate- why mention it?

24 minutes ago, Coveny said:

There is a correlation, and it increases the risks, but cancer kills you not smoke.

In the same way that bullets don't kill you- brain damage does.

You can't claim that a snipers kill  but smoking doesn't.

24 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Sure just look at how I respond to the people who have put forth reasonable discussion points.

Largely with irrelevant nonsense and strawmen; for example this

24 minutes ago, Coveny said:

Sure man. Start a poll to see if " the most wrong" is correct grammar, knock yourself out.

wasn't a sensible response to my question because I was talking about setting up a poll regarding this comment of yours.

 

21 hours ago, Coveny said:

Because you are the most wrong. hehe

(Spoiler alert; look at our reputation scores here)

Edited December 7, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Coveny]

I got a bit of a discussion from Arte but otherwise this the last page or two of response just feels like you guys are trolling me so I'm going to stop responding now. I'll try again in a bit with a different discuss topic and see how it goes. /unfollow

[koti]

59 minutes ago, Coveny said:

I got a bit of a discussion from Arte but otherwise this the last page or two of response just feels like you guys are trolling me so I'm going to stop responding now. I'll try again in a bit with a different discuss topic and see how it goes. /unfollow

Actually, you havent responded to any of the questions and requests for explanation up untill now so your statement that you will seize to respond from now on doesn’t change much. If you continue your rhetoric in your future posts you will end up with the same result as in this thread - pissing people off with your ignorance of evidence and ignorance of basic logic.