Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

Not when it so directly endangers others in society.

Have you gone Ted Kaczynski and secluded yourself in a backwoods cabin? I'll assume not. Why are you a part of this society? All of human culture shows an evolution toward greater and larger communities. Why? The benefits to the individual, to the family, of a congregate social structure far outweigh any purported dangers, yes? The rules of social living keep many more people a hell of a lot safer, fed, clothed, healthier and happier then social anarchy, right?You may see yourself worse off in a society than out, but if you look at all the advantages (like having a grocery store to hunt in rather than a dark forest or having hundreds of dentists' offices scattered around for when you get an impacted molar rather than having to go it alone and hope you can survive the pain and the infection, like having a shelter with an up-off-the-floor bed, a refrigerator, furnace/AC and internet rather than trying to maintain a leaking mud hut, sleeping on the ground in the damp cold and having to scrounge roots and berries under the snow every morning) you may see that you and most others around you in society are still comfortably alive rather then being carrion left in the open.In exchange for these advantages you have social obligations. Do not kill, do not steal, drive on the right side of the road and get your kids vaccinated. Lawless, greedy, narcissistic, unvaccinated, disease ridden ... you are, by far, a much greater threat to this society than it is to you. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

As Nosy and jar said.Which is to say they are both threatened and they are a threat.They are threatened by other unvaccinated kids who are pre-symptomatic for a disease because their parents could not understand the reality or would not follow through on their obligation to the well being of the rest of the kids in the school. If they then contract the disease they become threats to the other unvaccinated kids in the same way before you even know they got the bug.The threat is not so much to the usual kids in school who have grown enough to successfully ward off the disease as most of us old guys did when we were kids before there was a vaccine, but to those too young to be vaccinated yet and would be in mortal danger from contracting the disease. Same for the elderly who have not had the disease or the vaccine.BTW, if any of you adult types around here cannot remember having either measles, mumps, rubella or the vaccine you need to be vaccinated. Not because you are a threat but because you are in grave danger if you get one of these things. These are "childhood" diseases where kids can slough it off by playing hooky and staying in bed a few days. Adults do not do so well. Secondary infections and pneumonia are killers.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

What would Jesus do about measles?In the early 1990's two fundy churches in Philadelphia went on a spree against vaccinations. A measles epidemic ran through the city. Instead of seeking medical help many of the parents turned to prayer. After a few kids died Public Health folks received court orders taking the sick kids into custody for medical treatment.Further, the Health folks received court orders to take the rest of the children from their fundy families, the court made them wards of the state, had them vaccinated then released back to their parents. The epidemic stopped.

quote:

---

To prevent doctors from violating his church’s beliefs against vaccination, the pastor of the Faith Tabernacle Church asked the American Civil Liberties Union to represent him. It refused. There is certainly a free exercise of religion claim by the parents, said Deborah Levy, of the Philadelphia chapter of the A.C.L.U., but there is also a competing claim that parents don’t have the right to martyr their children.

---

Of the 1400 people that contracted the disease a third of them were from the two churches. Of the 9 kids that died in the epidemic 6 were from those churches.Your personal beliefs do not matter. The free exercise of your religion does not matter. Not vaccinating your children is a clear and present danger to all the innocent people around you and actively kills.Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations? Oh yes. And any that refuse should have their children forcefully taken from them and vaccinated not just for their children's safety but for the safety of all others around them who would die because of some parent's stupidity.Go practice your religion. Scream it from the pulpit and the town square. You have the right. But when the practice of your religion kills people you lose your right, you lose your children and you lose any claim of damage to any religious or parental privilege.

1. When a potentially deadly disease can be stopped by simple inoculation, to not do so knowing that one might contract the bug simply by walking through a space, is indeed a socially irresponsible act.2. Women do not die from catcalls. Children do die from transmission of disease through unvaccinated fools.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Albeit some years ago, with my two, we would take them to their regularly scheduled visit with the vet pediatrician and they got shot. Actually quite simple.As for "active interference with one's immune system", you do know that bacteria and viruses are ubiquitous on this planet and "active interference with one's immune system" takes place every time one sticks their finger up their nose?This "interfere with" trope sounds like the fear-mongering rhetoric of the anti-vaxers. Vaccines do not "interfere" with the immune system any more than a rhinovirus does. It trains, strengthens, the system. And it does so with considerably less stress on the body than your common cold.The human immune system is one thing we know a hell of a lot about. Vaccines work precisely because we know how the system works and we know we can help it, train it, strengthen it. Women do not die from catcalls, but children do die from unvaccinated disease carriers. The analogy is totally inappropriate.Edited by AZPaul3, : lots o stuff

The odds are indeed extraordinarily in your favor. And extraordinarily in the favor of the rest of the society as well. Not at all Proto. A vaccine is exactly like sticking your finger up your nose. Your immune system couldn't care less where the foreign bug came from or whether it is fully active, inactive, weakened or whatever. It "learns" to recognize the bug then kill it. The mechanism is the same whether the bug gets into your leg by injection or by a cut from falling down.In GMOs we are altering the natural systems to produce something unusual. Vaccination is not interfering with a "natural" system but utilizing a natural system already in place without any alteration to that process at all. If you want to consider a lab producing the weaken serum from the lethal bug itself then I guess you can label that as "unnatural" but frankly, who cares? It works. Without harm. Proven.I think the GMO comparison is hyperbole and another anti-vax scare tactic. In comparison with our knowledge of the human immune system? Really?Put 5 economists in a room and ask them about monetary policy and you will get 11 different and contradictory answers. OK, maybe only 8. (Seriously, you see this quite a bit in the minutes of the Fed's meetings.)Put 5 immunologists in a room and ask them about the immune system and you will get the same answer from each of them every time.We know just enough about financial systems to constantly screw things up.We know enough about the human immune system to keep lots and lots of people from dying. That ain't no hyperbole. My apologies here Proto, but I have to vent. I am a feminist. Please excuse me.Your analogy sucks and I will not address it. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Yep. Yep. Glad I could help. Well, Clostridium tetani does not do well with the defensive bacteria in your mouth and the acids in your stomach so probably not. But, if you had an open sore on your lip as the dirt passed by you could get the disease that way.And, yes, once you've had the disease you can build a resistant immune response for the next time you dine. The problem is that for this first exposure you would have to suffer the full course of the disease. Not pleasant. Now, if you had taken the vaccine before this first exposure your immune system would already have the resistant immune response ready and you could go out dancing with your wife without falling down in a spastic fit when she goes to nuzzle on your neck. The point you're missing is that when you poke the bug up your nose without the vaccine you have to run the full course of the disease. Poking the same bug up your same nose having had the vaccine you don't get sick, or not as badly sick. Either way you wind up with the immune response ready to go for the next round assuming the unvaccinated child survives that initial hit. Since we have proven that vaccines have worked over the past 150 years in literally dozens of diseases saving millions of lives then I can say we know a fuckin' hell of a lot about the damn subject and this "we don't know everything" excuse is a load of dead baby disease ridden crap!

Yep #1 has nothing to do with No matter how the bug gets in or what its strength, you can develop an immune response. So, in your nose, your leg, a weakened vaccine, your blood, your dick, a strong vaccine, doesn't matter. If the bug gets in an immune response can be developed.Your source is worthless for the question you asked and I, properly, without error, answered. Yep #2 has nothing to do with Local infection to blood infection (sepsis) can take place when an initial infection (one without a ready immune response built up in the body) spreads away from the initial containment response. That has nothing to do with the immune response system.The immune response system is the body releasing antibodies that attach to the bug so the leukocytes can find and eat it (though the intricate details are quite complex). If sepsis occurs the same process now takes place in the blood! Antibodies attach to bugs and leukocytes eat them. That is the immune response. Sepsis in the face of no ready immune response is what is so dangerous when containment fails. No, your reading comprehension trapped you into believing something that wasn't quite right.As for your view on our knowledge on this subject being minimal to non-existent (the average person's knowledge of how a car works.) this is just plain bull shit.And your attempt to scare up a connection to autoimmune disease is dishonest and disgusting. There is no hint of such a thing. Why even posit such bull? No, don't answer that. I done here.

Obviously a strong positive correlation.

I empathize with your situation. When Mama ain't happy ain't nobody happy. There is not much in this world that is worth alienating ones family over.Presently your law does not compel vaccination so you do not have to do it. You can do what you see as best in your personal situation and I cannot fault that. In fact I support that.Let's set aside your personal situation as settled and get on to what I believe is the greater issue.You acknowledge that vaccinations are effective and are of benefit to children, the population and to society as a whole. Correct me if I have misread this but I think you also agree that unvaccinated children can present a danger to other children and, if the population of unvaccinated is large enough, can present a real danger to society at large. I think both the Pennsylvania and California cases point this up quite dramatically.The problem here is that we are dealing with people and despite the fact that the writing is on the wall in big red letters for everyone to see, nothing becomes a real problem for most of us until it walks up to us personally and kicks us in the balls. Then, of course, the screaming starts, "Well, why didn't you do anything about this before the kids started dying!" oblivious to the fact that they are screaming into a mirror.Eventually the law will catch up to the reality and some requirement for vaccination will come about. At that point the issue of "rights" will come up.What I hear from you is that you see such a requirement as some kind of diminution of your individual rights.I submit that, in this case, you have no such individual right. You have no right to put my children in jeopardy. You have no right to harm me. I deny you any such right to cause me suffering and to place my children in harms way.And you will deny me any such right as well.It is this taking by groups onto themselves an assumption of a "right" to place others in danger just for their own selfish purposes that free people take up arms against.You have no right to harm me and my children by your action or inaction and I have no right to so harm you and yours. We each deny the other, and all others as well, any such individual right.Compulsory vaccination is not some restriction on your "right" to cause harm but is an acknowledgement that no such right ever existed.Agreed? Edited by AZPaul3, : add

Why not both? Why the false dichotomy? We can work on ways to reduce coal usage but that will take time to replace and time to reduce trying to ease the economic disruptions. Vaccine we can do now, today, with no disruptions at all.The two do not relate in any way as any type of example. Ridiculous. You cannot eliminate all threats that are posed. But you can very easily eliminate one of them. The others will still be there whether you vaccinate or not. How can you not eliminate one threat just because you cannot eliminate them all? Vaccinate. Get rid of this one threat. Take it off the table. No matter how great or small all the other threats pose this one is gone. It is no concern any longer. So you're saying the drunk driver is not the threat. Beer is. Bull.Being unvaccinated leaves open a much greater probability of contracting disease than being vaccinated. Everyone in this society, unless they are dumb as a stump, knows this.Unvaccinated people are a threat. There is a much greater probability they will contract, carry and spread disease. How is this not a threat?A simple cheap effective remedy was available and was neglected. Not only are the unvaccinated a threat they themselves are responsible for becoming that threat and are personally negligent in doing so. Some ethicists even go so far as to call them criminally negligent.But now we get back to the questions you did not answer. Do you hold that you have some personal "right" to cause harm to me and my children by being negligent and becoming a carrier and spreader of disease? Do you have some kind of personal "right" to do harm by placing, not just my children, but your own, in danger of death from a preventable disease? Do I, then, also have this personal "right" to cause harm to you and your children by being negligent?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Oh, my god.Since society figured out this addiction we suffer to fossil fuels is harmful that means it's now OK to do more harm and make people suffer in other ways as well?Your argument against mandatory vaccination is the fact that people drive cars?!You justify infecting our kids with deadly diseases because somebody left a fucken light on?!!

The only interest the Bureau of Infectious Diseases, Canada, has in this is to find ways to save the lives of millions of Canucks and they have found one in vaccines. They were the authors of that first study JonF presented. AbstractAnd the other cite he gave was from the Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland. CiteNow, unless you want to submit that these sources are intentional lackeys for big pharma engaged in a world-wide conspiracy to poison and kill children then admit their interest in these studies is to find ways to save lives not, as you would want us to believe, to kill.We know you have problems with science since science negates some of your favorite religious tenants, especially Da Flud. So a complete blindness to the reality of what the best long-standing consensus of the science says is to be expected from a bible worshiping literalist. This a major reason you biblicans cannot be trusted with deciding social policy. Not even for your own children. You're too damn dangerous. You kill people by ignorance and stupidity. See no science, hear no science, speak no science

That is just the point, Faith. These scare mongers do not have any genuine or legitimate concerns and the science shows just that. People by the thousands have bought into this anti-science anti-vax BS out of unfounded fears fanned by charlatans eager to sell their notoriety. And your anti-science bias extends not just to this issue as you have so plainly made known throughout this forum. You are so fearful of the science showing no support for your Flud that it spills over into the anti-vax camp as well. You do not want to see the science, you do not want to know the science because, in both issues, the science tells you the reality that nothing is there and that there never was.As for my snark? You give it right back to me in spades. That's my girl.