Apparently, vaccination is rape

[warpus]

Yeah okay.. and?

 

[Rashiminos]

Did you post warn against "overwashing?"

 

[Wolfbeckett]

It wouldn't be as simple as a one particular study, but I can start linking sources and you can decide you if want continue or stop looking, or maybe reconsider if vaccines should be mandatory without exception.

So here's a place to start:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...ce-is-weaker-than-the-marketing/#.VUpdCfDuq3s

I have a couple of issues with this.

First, and most importantly, this is not a study. It is one person's interpretation of statistics, which is a very different thing. And, if I may say so, the person doing the analysis, Jeanne Lenzer, is well known for making a career out of demonizing the medical industry, so this is not exactly an unbiased look at what's going on.

Second, I take issue with your characterization of my position as "vaccines should be mandatory without exception". There ARE exceptions that I recognize. People that cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons should be exempt. Vaccines that are designed to prevent diseases that are transferred sexually should not necessarily be mandatory, because I feel that by the time a child is old enough for that to be a problem, they are also old enough to have a conversation with their parents about it and come to a decision together about whether or not to get it. Vaccines that are administered to adults should not be mandatory. All I am saying is that vaccines for children who are too young to be part of the conversation and who do not have medical reasons to not get them should be mandatory, or at the very least, their should be consequences for parents who refuse to do it, like not allowing their kids to attend public school.

 

[Rashiminos]

I have a couple of issues with this.

First, and most importantly, this is not a study. It is one person's interpretation of statistics, which is a very different thing.

Everyone has an interpretation of each study they have encountered (directly or indirectly), and may of those interpretations are pretty flawed (whether by ineptitude, or malice on the part of another). The emphasis on it being "one" interpretation leads me to assume (rightly or wrongly) that you simply place more stock in popular interpretations, all else considered.

And, if I may say so, the person doing the analysis, Jeanne Lenzer, is well known for making a career out of demonizing the medical industry, so this is not exactly an unbiased look at what's going on.

Sure you may say that, but you've basically described an anti-vaccine shill. Biases exist left and right. There's also an association being made with "shilliness" to undercut the interpretation she has of the studies she encountered. So , if it pleases you, would you provide a counter-source demonstrating where Lenzer's interpretations have faltered before?

Second, I take issue with your characterization of my position as "vaccines should be mandatory without exception".

This isn't your position. It is the position of the lobbyists seeking to eliminate the exemptions that are currently in place, including the ones you mention below:

There ARE exceptions that I recognize. People that cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons should be exempt. Vaccines that are designed to prevent diseases that are transferred sexually should not necessarily be mandatory, because I feel that by the time a child is old enough for that to be a problem, they are also old enough to have a conversation with their parents about it and come to a decision together about whether or not to get it.

Vaccines that are administered to adults should not be mandatory.

This is why making a children's vaccination mandatory is strategically valuable. A kid is simply given less room to object. If someone wants the adult to be vaccinated and cannot persuade them to do it of their own volition as an adult, they can circumvent that choice by forcing the decision at an earlier date.

All I am saying is that vaccines for children who are too young to be part of the conversation and who do not have medical reasons to not get them should be mandatory, or at the very least, their should be consequences for parents who refuse to do it, like not allowing their kids to attend public school.

Yes, please do use the risk of socioeconomic hardship from lack of education as a threatpoint (belying the notion that the child's welfare is what's at stake). The threat may become less effective as more parents resort to homeschooling where able.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Vaccines that are designed to prevent diseases that are transferred sexually should not necessarily be mandatory, because I feel that by the time a child is old enough for that to be a problem, they are also old enough to have a conversation with their parents about it and come to a decision together about whether or not to get it.

Keep in mind, however, that these diseases are not necessarily acquired through voluntary participation in sex. Sometimes they're a result of rape, tainted blood, or improperly-sterilized hospital equipment. Sometimes it's a result of accidents or deliberate assault where the offender bites his victim or has unprotected sex with someone without having disclosed their own HIV status or that they have other STDs that can be passed on.

Granted, a careful and responsible person shouldn't have to worry about most of these situations. But the risk still exists.

Vaccines that are administered to adults should not be mandatory.

I disagree. People can get sick from unvaccinated adults passing along the flu, as well as from kids passing it along. And some countries require people to be up to date on some vaccinations before being allowed across their borders.

Yes, please do use the risk of socioeconomic hardship from lack of education as a threatpoint (belying the notion that the child's welfare is what's at stake). The threat may become less effective as more parents resort to homeschooling where able.

Isn't it cheaper to just let the kid have the shot than scrape up the $$$$ for private school for some silly notion that a simple inoculation = rape?

 

[Rashiminos]

Isn't it cheaper to just let the kid have the shot than scrape up the $$$$ for private school for some silly notion that a simple inoculation = rape?

I do suppose one option is cheaper than the other.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I do suppose one option is cheaper than the other.

I assume the eyeroll is because "one option is cheaper than the other" is the defining characteristic of "threat of socioeconomic hardship."

 

[Rashiminos]

I assume the eyeroll is because "one option is cheaper than the other" is the defining characteristic of "threat of socioeconomic hardship."

No, it's because the suggestion of choosing the option that costs less to someone who is concerned about the well-being of their child comes across as tone deaf.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, it's an old institutional tactic.

"Nice family you have there. Would be a shame if something... difficult were to happen. Wouldn't it?"

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I assume the eyeroll is because "one option is cheaper than the other" is the defining characteristic of "threat of socioeconomic hardship."

No, it's because the suggestion of choosing the option that costs less to someone who is concerned about the well-being of their child comes across as tone deaf.

If a kid can't have a vaccination for legitimate medical reasons (ie. allergy) I have no problem with them opting out. But if it's because of some belief in pseudoscience, selfishness, laziness, or fear of a brief instance of "ow!" then I do have a problem with that.

And if someone is going to whine that they'll have to put their kid into an expensive private school to avoid a simple vaccination that they don't want for some reason other than being allergic to it (or some other verified medical reason), then yeah, it's a case of "the vaccination is cheaper and your kid won't have the hassle of changing schools."

 

[Rashiminos]

If a kid can't have a vaccination for legitimate medical reasons (ie. allergy) I have no problem with them opting out. But if it's because of some belief in pseudoscience, selfishness, laziness, or fear of a brief instance of "ow!" then I do have a problem with that.

It's fine that you have a nice set of ready excuses, but I'm lost on how "selfishness" fits into it.

And if someone is going to whine that they'll have to put their kid into an expensive private school to avoid a simple vaccination that they don't want for some reason other than being allergic to it (or some other verified medical reason), then yeah, it's a case of "the vaccination is cheaper and your kid won't have the hassle of changing schools."

I didn't make much of it in the last post, but it's bizarre that you're discussing private schools (which often would require vaccines anyway) when I mentioned homeschooling (ie by the parents or someone within the parents' circle of acquaintances). Would "Home Education" be a more familiar term to you?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If a kid can't have a vaccination for legitimate medical reasons (ie. allergy) I have no problem with them opting out. But if it's because of some belief in pseudoscience, selfishness, laziness, or fear of a brief instance of "ow!" then I do have a problem with that.

And if someone is going to whine that they'll have to put their kid into an expensive private school to avoid a simple vaccination that they don't want for some reason other than being allergic to it (or some other verified medical reason), then yeah, it's a case of "the vaccination is cheaper and your kid won't have the hassle of changing schools."

This is exactly the socioeconomic threat that was mentioned. A simple use of coercion to get one's way. No more, no less. "Do what we want (which we make no better case for than you do for not doing it) or we will visit unpleasant consequences upon you." Maybe it is my experience as a thug that makes it so obvious to me that that is what you are saying...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's fine that you have a nice set of ready excuses, but I'm lost on how "selfishness" fits into it.

These are anti-vaccine adherents' excuses, not mine. Of course when I was a little kid I had an aversion to needles - after all, they hurt. And it was undignified getting it in the bare backside. Nowadays they try not to humiliate kids like that, I hope.

Once I actually understood the purpose and importance of vaccinations, I didn't mind them. And yeah, it is pretty damn selfish of someone to not make sure they/their child are immunized against diseases. By not doing so, they're putting other people at risk.

I didn't make much of it in the last post, but it's bizarre that you're discussing private schools (which often would require vaccines anyway) when I mentioned homeschooling (ie by the parents or someone within the parents' circle of acquaintances). Would "Home Education" be a more familiar term to you?

Whether private school or home school, they are whining about spending ALL THAT MONEY!!! to avoid something that would be a lot cheaper, and over and done with in minutes.

Your condescension is noted.

This is exactly the socioeconomic threat that was mentioned. A simple use of coercion to get one's way. No more, no less. "Do what we want (which we make no better case for than you do for not doing it) or we will visit unpleasant consequences upon you." Maybe it is my experience as a thug that makes it so obvious to me that that is what you are saying...

That's ridiculous. Is it "thuggish" or "threatening" to refuse to allow people without current immunizations to travel freely between countries if the destination country requires travelers to have those immunizations?

Then why is it "thuggish" or "threatening" to require kids to have current immunizations to attend school?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Then why is it "thuggish" or "threatening" to require kids to have current immunizations to attend school?

If you don't recognize "do this or your kids don't get the public education benefit that everyone else does" as a threat I can't really think of a way to explain it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If you don't recognize "do this or your kids don't get the public education benefit that everyone else does" as a threat I can't really think of a way to explain it.

It's the reasonable consequence for irresponsible parents who refuse, for reasons other than those of legitimate medical necessity, to consider the health and well-being of other people's children as well as their own.


Taking other peoples' health into account is not some wacky thing to do - it's the civilized thing to do, and applies to many situations besides that of vaccines. I used to be a feast organizer in our local SCA branch. One of our members was deathly allergic to garlic, the way some people can die from a miniscule exposure to peanuts. I could have told the cooks "who cares about him - we love garlic, it's a common ingredient in our recipes, it's what a lot of people like, and if this guy doesn't like it he can stay home, or eat his own food outside." But I didn't do that. I told the cooks "we are going to do our utmost to accommodate peoples' allergies. So find a substitute." And we did. All feasts that I was in charge of planning were completely garlic-free.


I get that you breezed through your childhood diseases with no trouble at all, at least that's the impression you give. Well, that's fine for you, but other people aren't that lucky. I knew someone who died of measles - he was 13 years old. Babies too young to be vaccinated can die of whooping cough if they catch it from someone else. My great-grandmother died of the flu. I myself had one of the worst times of my life when I had mumps, and the consequences of getting that as an adult are with me 30+ years later.

 

[warpus]

@Tim That's like saying that "Don't murder this person or you're going to jail" is a threat.

Which in a way it is, but labelling it as a "threat" makes less sense than labelling it as other things. If a cop told you that, most people wouldn't call it a threat. It's just a re-stating of the laws, as they apply.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Tim That's like saying that "Don't murder this person or you're going to jail" is a threat.

Which in a way it is, but labelling it as a "threat" makes less sense than labelling it as other things. If a cop told you that, most people wouldn't call it a threat. It's just a re-stating of the laws, as they apply.

Right. And the discussion at hand is "should we make a law (with attendant threat of consequences) to make people do what Valka wants them to do?" In favor we have "it would reduce a risk that is already minimal." In opposition we have "it would force people who don't want to take a different but also minimal risk to do so."

I think any effort to use the already overloaded with stupid minutiae legal system to resolve an issue that is of minimal consequence either way is silly.

 

[warpus]

If you're going to call a punishment for someone breaking a law a "threat", then sure, this is a threat. But most people wouldn't call "Hey, if you deal drugs, you're going to go to jail" a threat.

Or maybe they would. *shrug*. It seems that calling it a "threat" is putting a spin on it. It seems sensationalist. Something Fox news would do, etc.

 

[Farm Boy]

Conform to our will over this issue of minor threat. If you don't, we're going to make it more difficult for your children to have a prosperous life? Public education is a right, but only if you're right-minded.

How is this not a threat?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you're going to call a punishment for someone breaking a law a "threat", then sure, this is a threat. But most people wouldn't call "Hey, if you deal drugs, you're going to go to jail" a threat.

Or maybe they would. *shrug*. It seems that calling it a "threat" is putting a spin on it. It seems sensationalist. Something Fox news would do, etc.

The question of whether to call it "punishment" or "threat of punishment" isn't really a major issue, is it?

The point is that the discussion at hand is about creating or modifying law so that Valka gets her way or not. I do not find Valka's argument that there should be a law that adds a minimal risk there in order to further reduce a minimal risk here. I think such a law would have a minimal effect not worth the effort of creating it and enforcing it.