Apparently, vaccination is rape

[hobbsyoyo]

The measles wasn't the only disease that has been eliminated due to mandated vaccinations though. There used to be all sorts of potentially deadly diseases going around.

And we should be pushing really hard to eliminate any disease that we can. Vaccines are a huge part of that effort.

There's a reason why no one gets smallpox vaccines routinely anymore, smallpox is gone. In this case, we absolutely do have to silence the anti-vaxxers and force them to get the vaccines because in the long run it's the only way to guarantee these vaccines won't be needed at all in the future.

Which is something the anti-vaxxers don't seem to get or don't care about because apparently protecting their children from imaginary dangers (or extremely minute real dangers) is more important than protecting the species as a whole.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The real problem here is politics and propaganda mixing with sound medical advice. The only reason some parents don't want their kids vaccinated these days is because of the stupid anti drug company, drugs cause autism and every other ailment under the sun these days, crowd. It's just a lot of propaganda for whatever their purposes are. Sometimes it's to get phony research grants, sometimes it's just some political agenda, who knows, the problem is it only takes one quack to start spreading nonsense about how vaccines cause autism and then suddenly a large enough portion of society believes it because of all the seeds of mistrust that have been ingrained into us about big pharma. Which I am not all at saying big pharma are these benevolent beings who only have your best interests, but look at all the anti-GMO stuff out there, how every food additive supposedly causes cancer now and it just goes on and on and on and you cannot get to the truth and get sound education any more because it's all political on both sides. People don't take time to properly educate themselves on anything these days.

Absolutely. Just look at the number of people who are trying to present measles as something on the order of bubonic plague.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If it wasn't for the widespread use of vaccines, measles would still be a widespread illness.

Edit:
And the issue is about vaccines in general, not measles in particular. Because there are diseases out there that do have the potential to be on the same level as black death. Thankfully we immunize against them so they don't.

Again, I point to small pox which was definitely on that same level until it was completely eradicated...through vaccines. You can point to measles not being that bad or there not being that many cases but that's really beside the point.

 

[jackelgull]

If it wasn't for the widespread use of vaccines, measles would still be a widespread illness.

Would measles be a deadly disease? And by that I mean would it have a death rate approaching anything near 1%?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Probably not. See my edit to my last post as to why that's beside the point.

Even given your argument - does the mortality rate of vaccines approach that of measles?

 

[Borachio]

war is peace, ignorance is strength, vaccination is rape, cheese is bread

France is bacon.

(I really enjoy this joke. I don't know why. I especially enjoy not knowing whether I'm the only one who "understands" it, or whether it's such a trite and obvious joke that it's beneath anyone to even notice it. No, no. Don't tell me.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

France is bacon.

(I really enjoy this joke. I don't know why. I especially enjoy not knowing whether I'm the only one who "understands" it, or whether it's such a trite and obvious joke that it's beneath anyone to even notice it. No, no. Don't tell me.)

I enjoyed it as well.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If it wasn't for the widespread use of vaccines, measles would still be a widespread illness.

Edit:
And the issue is about vaccines in general, not measles in particular. Because there are diseases out there that do have the potential to be on the same level as black death. Thankfully we immunize against them so they don't.

Again, I point to small pox which was definitely on that same level until it was completely eradicated...through vaccines. You can point to measles not being that bad or there not being that many cases but that's really beside the point.

And that widespread illness, measles, would still be presenting no particular threat to the species.

Unlike smallpox or polio, which had widespread as well as devastating effects, the only way the measles vaccine can be examined is from the individual's perspective. Is it worth vaccinating (at very small risk) against a disease that in itself carries a slightly larger but still very small risk if you do get it?

Some people are going to say no. Some people are going to carefully consider and say yes. Most people are going to follow the herd without giving it any thought at all and say yes.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And when you let people say no to vaccines against relatively 'harmless' diseases, what's to stop them for saying no to the dangerous ones? You're focusing way too much on measles here, which is my point.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Is it worth vaccinating (at very small risk) against a disease that in itself carries a slightly larger but still very small risk if you do get it?

Some people are going to say no. Some people are going to carefully consider and say yes. Most people are going to follow the herd without giving it any thought at all and say yes.

There's a very good reason why the Grade 12 girls in my high school were vaccinated for measles. Around here the government/school system didn't bury its head in the sand and assume that girls in their mid-late teens don't have sex and get pregnant (not sure what the current rules are). It makes sense to lessen the chances that a girl could get pregnant, get measles, and the fetus would suffer the consequences.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But apparently that's not a devastating enough consequence to override people's right to choose to not get vacinnated, or whatever. Apparently measles is basically benign, or whatever.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And when you let people say no to vaccines against relatively 'harmless' diseases, what's to stop them for saying no to the dangerous ones? You're focusing way too much on measles here, which is my point.

Well, most states actually have varying requirements for different vaccines. In other words, most states acknowledge that there is a huge difference between polio and measles. The current outcry over the recent measles outbreak (over a HUNDRED cases! OMG!) is being directed towards bringing the MMR vaccine requirements in line with the polio vaccine requirements, as if the diseases in question were actually comparable.

Which is supporting my point that the idea is absurd. There is no amount of fearmongering that can justify calling for measles to be treated as if it were smallpox or polio.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, if it's just allowed to run with no vaccines or other measures taken, it very well could become more dangerous.

Some people do die of it, y'know.


It's the same attitude with the flu. Far too many people think it's "just a bad cold." It isn't. Flu can kill, as happened in my family.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Absolutely. Just look at the number of people who are trying to present measles as something on the order of bubonic plague.

Hyperbolizing other people's points doesn't help to make yours, Tim. Nobody is saying that the measles is plague level dangerous. But it is a real disease that can have serious consequences for those who get it, and even for those for whom it is only an inconvenience and not a life threatening issue, it's still an inconvenience that does not have to exist because we have a highly safe safe and effective method to get rid of it. Head lice is also very unlikely to cause you any real long term health issues, but you'd still go out of your way to avoid them, wouldn't you? You'd still preemptively kill them before they infest your children's scalp if you could, wouldn't you? And you'd expect other people who's children are in close proximity to yours in public spaces to do the same so that they wouldn't be transferred to your household.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, if it's just allowed to run with no vaccines or other measures taken, it very well could become more dangerous.

Some people do die of it, y'know.


It's the same attitude with the flu. Far too many people think it's "just a bad cold." It isn't. Flu can kill, as happened in my family.

Some people do die from the vaccine. But it is so rare that you are more than willing to call it negligible.

Meanwhile, you are equating the extremely limited 'success' of the anti-vax crowd with "allowing it to run with no vaccines at all," which is not now and never is likely to be anything like reality. Thus while it "could become more dangerous" (up to the limit of how dangerous it was in the 1950s, ie not very) it is in fact not even that dangerous now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hyperbolizing other people's points doesn't help to make yours, Tim. Nobody is saying that the measles is plague level dangerous. But it is a real disease that can have serious consequences for those who get it, and even for those for whom it is only an inconvenience and not a life threatening issue, it's still an inconvenience that does not have to exist because we have a highly safe safe and effective method to get rid of it. Head lice is also very unlikely to cause you any real long term health issues, but you'd still go out of your way to avoid them, wouldn't you? You'd still preemptively kill them before they infest your children's scalp if you could, wouldn't you? And you'd expect other people who's children are in close proximity to yours in public spaces to do the same so that they wouldn't be transferred to your household.

Are you sure I'm hyperbolizing? I put to you that if you peruse even a small slice of the commentary on last year's measles outbreak you will find it hard to believe that people are talking about a disease that I and everyone that I grew up with had and survived. I have been routinely called a liar for saying that, because "everyone knows that if measles were allowed to just run without taking action against it the death toll would be staggering". It seems like people have a very hard time remembering that there was a time when there was no vaccine, and about half the current population survived that time handily without staggering death tolls.

On the head lice thing...if everyone older than twelve months old in my household were immunized against the head lice there isn't much chance of them being transferred to my household. So if a bunch of dummies want to run around scratching it really won't affect me. There is no vaccine against head lice, but there is one against measles which I am free to use if I wish, so the comparison breaks down.

 

[onejayhawk]

This. Is. Not. About. Abortion.

Yes, there is a "my body, my decision" reasoning here. But refusing to be vaccinated means deliberately putting other people at risk. Some other woman's pregnancy doesn't affect me in the slightest. But if she refuses to get her kid vaccinated and that kid brings measles or the flu or something else into the vicinity, it's possible that I could end up sick. I'm part of the population that is considered "at risk" as far as the flu is concerned. Therefore, I take a very dim view of people who refuse vaccinations for any reason other than it would likely kill them.

You keep saying that third parties are affected by non-vaccination. By the old debate tactic, expressio unius, to raise one is to exclude another. By implication, an abortion only affects one life. That is a straw argument, always has been. In both cases third parties are affected.

Nice try. Only it doesn't resemble the typical debate about abortion at all because in this case other persons' health is involved.

Case on point. This does not work because the fetus' life is involved.

J

 

[Evie]

Assuming, of course, that the fetus is a living person. Both of which (living and person) are highly questionable assertions. I notice you skate very quickly over the part where that's actually the freaking crux of the entire abortion debate and just act like your opinion is an agreed-upon fact.

If it's not living, then a life is not at stake. If it's not a person, then third parties are not impacted.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I think more people are afraid not of how effective the anti-vax movement has been to this point but how fast it's growing, and the future consequences of a rapid decline in vaccination rate.

We actually eliminated measles temporally in the United States in the 90s IIRC. Because of the decline in mandatory vaccinations this disease where we had gone something like a full decade without a single kid exposed to it is now a) here again at all, and b) outbreaks are getting worse rapidly. It's really really scary to think if trends continue and herd immunity collapses how much worse things can get.

Think about what yearly large outbreaks of once virtually eliminated diseases such as measles and whooping cough mean. Immunodeficient people are suddenly exposed from all sides, even healthy vaccinated people still have a low chance of getting them because vaccines fail. Even if things like measles and whooping cough don't kill many people it easily will cost billions extra on our already massive healthcare spending.

I don't like to go all fear monger but most people are way way too young (including myself) to understand what used to be a fairly common occurrence watching a loved one dieing from a completely preventable disease like measles. Not to mention what would happen if Polio which sadly still exists in various Islamic counties came back to the Western World.

This is a link to Roald Dahl's essay he wrote in 1988 abut his daughter dieing to measles now that a vaccine was readily available.

 

[Borachio]

Assuming, of course, that the fetus is a living person. Both of which (living and person) are highly questionable assertions. I notice you skate very quickly over the part where that's actually the freaking crux of the entire abortion debate and just act like your opinion is an agreed-upon fact.

If it's not living, then a life is not at stake. If it's not a person, then third parties are not impacted.

If the fetus isn't living, then it's dead. And any further discussion is moot.

As for whether it's a person or not is a matter of how you define person, I guess.

But it's undeniably human. Assuming that it's a human fetus.

(If that's any help. It probably isn't.)

I'd go with an organism being a person if it exhibits characteristics peculiar to it as an individual i.e. whether it has a "personality". And, under that kind of vague definition, a fetus could certainly be considered a person, if tales of how some behave "this way" and some behave "that way" are to be believed. Though certainly only after a certain stage of development.

Still, it always entertains me how "upset" both sides of the abortion issue can get.