Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 286 of 930 (751783)
03-05-2015 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by ringo
03-05-2015 10:48 AM


As I've said earlier in the thread, I'm against mandatory vaccinations too - but not because of any woo-woo "rights" issues.
What other reason is there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by ringo, posted 03-05-2015 10:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by ringo, posted 03-06-2015 10:35 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 287 of 930 (751785)
03-05-2015 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 1:04 PM


I won't advocate holding them down and shooting them up, but we do need to pressure these people into accepting the program.
It is interesting how many of those who support vaccination would refuse making it compulsory. There is something else here that we perceive as being more important.
How do you think we could apply that pressure? Something like a speeding ticket or more like a luxury tax or something else altogether? Send them all to Somalia for a week or two?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Omnivorous, posted 03-06-2015 11:34 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 288 of 930 (751827)
03-06-2015 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Dogmafood
03-05-2015 4:46 PM


ProtoTypical writes:
ringo writes:
As I've said earlier in the thread, I'm against mandatory vaccinations too - but not because of any woo-woo "rights" issues.
What other reason is there?
As I've said earlier in the thread because a carrot is more effective than a stick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Dogmafood, posted 03-05-2015 4:46 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Dogmafood, posted 03-07-2015 2:44 PM ringo has replied
 Message 295 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2015 1:19 PM ringo has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 289 of 930 (751833)
03-06-2015 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Dogmafood
03-05-2015 5:11 PM


Let's not hit them with sticks until their kids are dead.
Prototypical writes:
How do you think we could apply that pressure? Something like a speeding ticket or more like a luxury tax or something else altogether? Send them all to Somalia for a week or two?
How about quarantine measures that apply when community vaccination rates fall below herd immunity levels? Current and recent outbreaks of whooping cough and measles were predicted by the loss of herd immunity due to falling vaccination rates.
If your kids are cuddly little disease vectors, they shouldn't enjoy the same freedom of movement as kids who are not. Some schools in CA already call non-vaccinated kids' parents to keep their kids home during outbreaks: given incubation periods, that's closing the door behind the horse. Perhaps parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should have to obtain liability insurance to compensate their victims.
When outbreaks become epidemics, all niceties of feeling about parental rights will go out the window. We know why outbreaks occur; as vaccination rates fall epidemics will emerge from outbreaks, and waiting for more compelling laws is merely monitoring the body count.
Carrots are good. Let's line up lots of carrots. But vaccination deniers, like climate science and evolution deniers, apparently become more obstinate the more they are challenged by reason and fact. It behooves us to consider what to do when the carrots fail and faddish resisters form contagious enclaves.
I would reluctantly endorse compulsory vaccines because I find all things coercive odious. But I would rather tread on your liberty than your kid's corpse.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Dogmafood, posted 03-05-2015 5:11 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Dogmafood, posted 03-07-2015 2:48 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 292 by Dogmafood, posted 03-07-2015 3:22 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 290 of 930 (751999)
03-07-2015 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by ringo
03-06-2015 10:35 AM


Wrong About Rights
As I've said earlier in the thread because a carrot is more effective than a stick.
It is still a question of rights. You are just ignoring it.
I argue that whatever right it is that allows us to accept vaccination is the same right that allows us to refuse them. Just because you may be right about the issue it doesn't give you the right to insist that everyone else also be right. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by ringo, posted 03-06-2015 10:35 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by ringo, posted 03-08-2015 2:07 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 313 by Taq, posted 03-12-2015 5:56 PM Dogmafood has not replied
 Message 364 by Theodoric, posted 03-16-2015 2:46 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 291 of 930 (752000)
03-07-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Omnivorous
03-06-2015 11:34 AM


Re: Let's not hit them with sticks until their kids are dead.
Insurance isn't a bad idea but economic pressure does not press evenly upon the people.
I would reluctantly endorse compulsory vaccines because I find all things coercive odious.
OK say we swallow that bitter pill and make the program compulsory. Should that include the flu shot or one for diabetes in a few yrs. Say we lick the common cold that costs us a fortune. How long before it becomes a purely economic argument and then how long before we just put it in the water?
I know that it sounds paranoid but who here would deny the power of little changes and a bit of time? Add in some uncertainty and a bunch of complexity and voila, a recipe for disaster. Would it be fair to bring up our track record for the introduction of foreign species for biological control like the Cane toad or the Mosquitofish. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
Another thing that bugs me a bit is that if we look at the autism rates. From something like 1 in 5000 in 1976 to 1 in 50 today.
>>>>We don't know what is causing that. <<<<
How much would you bet that the cause is environmental (abe: I should have included life style)? Who or what is most likely responsible for the changes in our environment since just prior to 1976? Something in our environment that we all think is safe is quite probably not safe and we are quite probably responsible for putting it there. Changes to our environment that are as extreme and wide spread as the uptake of vaccination are rightfully considered possible candidates.
As usual you make some really good points with eloquence but I am not so sure that refusing to accept every vaccine that we can create is entirely absurd.
Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.
Edited by ProtoTypical, : spelling and stuff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Omnivorous, posted 03-06-2015 11:34 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Omnivorous, posted 03-08-2015 9:47 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 292 of 930 (752001)
03-07-2015 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Omnivorous
03-06-2015 11:34 AM


Re: Let's not hit them with sticks until their kids are dead.
If your kids are cuddly little disease vectors, they shouldn't enjoy the same freedom of movement as kids who are not.
Quarantine is not a bad idea at all. In fact it is the ideal solution. Rejecting it because of technical difficulties is defeatist. We need toilets that can monitor for threats and lock the doors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Omnivorous, posted 03-06-2015 11:34 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(4)
Message 293 of 930 (752032)
03-08-2015 12:12 AM



  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 294 of 930 (752041)
03-08-2015 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Dogmafood
03-07-2015 2:48 PM


Re: Let's not hit them with sticks until their kids are dead.
ProtoTypical writes:
As usual you make some really good points with eloquence but I am not so sure that refusing to accept every vaccine that we can create is entirely absurd.
I stand accused of eloquence, by which I take it my rhetoric, while not empty, exceeds its contents.
So let me be plainer.
We aren't debating whether everyone should be compelled to accept every vaccination we can possibly devise--at least I'm not, and I'm not sure why you do.
I'm not aware of any currently recommended childhood vaccines that can be considered trivial. There's not much profit for Big Pharm in vaccine development; governmental encouragement, funding and/or liability protection is often needed to move them along. We are discussing the possibility of mandatory vaccines because their acceptance is slipping below herd immunity levels. As recent events show, that rapidly translates into outbreaks; if the trend continues, outbreaks will grow, and people will die.
OK say we swallow that bitter pill and make the program compulsory. Should that include the flu shot or one for diabetes in a few yrs. Say we lick the common cold that costs us a fortune. How long before it becomes a purely economic argument and then how long before we just put it in the water?
I know that it sounds paranoid but who here would deny the power of little changes and a bit of time? Add in some uncertainty and a bunch of complexity and voila, a recipe for disaster. Would it be fair to bring up our track record for the introduction of foreign species for biological control like the Cane toad or the Mosquitofish. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
My, that's not just a slippery slope, it's downright friction-free. By that standard, we would be frozen in place, too terrified of what our future selves might make of our discoveries: Should we have eschewed antibiotics due to the unknowns of complexity and futurity? As it turns out, they are abused: prescribed for inappropriate maladies, generally at the insistence of parents motivated, like vaccine deniers, by an amalgam of ignorance and concern; used as growth enhancers by industrial agriculture, thereby creating antibiotic-resistant microbes.
Now we educate parents and are at least starting to regulate antibiotic use in agriculture. Yes, antibiotics made the future more complex, but they continue to save countless lives. If it was a bargain with the devil of unforeseen consequences, it was a good deal.
No, the introduction of species from one ecological niche to another is not a good comparison. Vaccines address species already freely roaming the world; we merely introduce inactive bits of them to forewarn immune systems already residing in the same niche.
Another thing that bugs me a bit is that if we look at the autism rates. From something like 1 in 5000 in 1976 to 1 in 50 today.
>>>>We don't know what is causing that. <<<<
How much would you bet that the cause is environmental (abe: I should have included life style)? Who or what is most likely responsible for the changes in our environment since just prior to 1976? Something in our environment that we all think is safe is quite probably not safe and we are quite probably responsible for putting it there. Changes to our environment that are as extreme and wide spread as the uptake of vaccination are rightfully considered possible candidates.
Well, it's true we don't know what causes autism--nor do we yet know whether rates are actually increasing rather than children being more closely screened with new diagnostic criteria. If exposure to the proteins of vaccine-targeted organisms causes autism, then one would think past rates of autism would be quite high, especially in the eras of epidemics. There seems to be no evidence for this notion. The one somewhat plausible target--thimerosal--was removed from vaccines; autism rates continued to rise.
And, yes, our environment (including our bodies) is mighty polluted. When what little regulatory framework was put in place in the 20th century, thousands of chemicals were grandfathered from scrutiny: hey, nobody's complained yet, they must be okay. The introduction of new chemicals is a slipshod affair. In fact, if I had to hazard a guess about autism, I'd guess that autism, like schizophrenia, is likely caused by a combination of genetic susceptibility in the presence of some biological stressor, with chemical pollution a strong--but not our only--candidate.
For example, one correlation with schizophrenia is a pregnancy complicated by influenza--another case where near-universal vaccination might reduce horrific tolls. Another correlation with schizophrenia is having an older father--I'm sure some autism researchers look at those demographics, too.
Life is complex, good intentions pave the road to hell, etc. Sure. We might get it wrong. OK.
But we know some things. We know vaccines save millions of lives every year. We know vaccination rates below herd-immunity levels threaten the lives of not just those refusing vaccines but others as well. We know there is no evidence that autism correlates with vaccines.
As I noted before, I hold liberty dear: a fave T shirt said, "You are entering a liberated zone." But the notion of absolute individual sovereignty fails the test of modernityand logic: the notion that within my skin is a sovereign nation appeals, romantically, but it is falsified by knowledge. A quaint portrait of the limits of liberty places the end of your right to swing your fist at precisely the tip of my nose.
But we know that skin is not the limit of our interaction. We breathe, sweat, shed, piss, ooze and defecate particles of our internal states into the world and into each other. Your right to harbor diseases in the presence of efficacious prevention ends not at my skin, but within the limits of your own, and you can't keep them there. No one would argue that a flea-ridden plaque victim should have rights to daily kindergarten attendance, yet increasing numbers of parents argue their children have the right to shed infectious diseases anywhere at any time, as chance allows. They lack evidence and are armed with only fear and ignorance.
Btw, I don't propose quarantines of the non-vaccinated only when disease strikes--whether detected through a diagnostic toilet (your other reply) or not. Parents of non-vaccinated children have weaponized their kids. If they want to live that way, they cannot live among us. In a social species, that's where the logic of total personal sovereignty leads: if you cannot accept our public health compact, go form your own public.
Arguments from ignorance can seem weighty, because our ignorance is infinite and towers over all our endeavors--but knowledge proves a better guide. I'm not swayed by the frightened person, tearing at his hair, crying out, "Who knows? Who knows?" We know some things. When vaccine critics can offer knowledge in support of their position, rather than fear and ignorance, I'm all ears.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.
Edited by Omnivorous, : Human fallibility.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Dogmafood, posted 03-07-2015 2:48 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Dogmafood, posted 03-08-2015 4:23 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 930 (752086)
03-08-2015 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by ringo
03-06-2015 10:35 AM


As I've said earlier in the thread because a carrot is more effective than a stick.
Is not allowing people to work without getting immunized a carrot or a stick? After all, the current policy is that your immunizations are not checked before you are hired. And certainly an immunization does not get you a job.
Definitely a stick.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by ringo, posted 03-06-2015 10:35 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by ringo, posted 03-08-2015 2:10 PM NoNukes has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 296 of 930 (752100)
03-08-2015 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Dogmafood
03-07-2015 2:44 PM


Re: Wrong About Rights
ProtoTypical writes:
It is still a question of rights. You are just ignoring it.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm disagreeing with you. I don't think you have a right to infect people any more than you have a right to punch people in the face.
ProtoTypical writes:
Just because you may be right about the issue it doesn't give you the right to insist that everyone else also be right.
Again, that's what society means - the willingness to go along with what society thinks is right. You have a right to your dissenting opinion but that right doen't extend to killing people, either directly or indirectly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Dogmafood, posted 03-07-2015 2:44 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Dogmafood, posted 03-12-2015 10:03 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 297 of 930 (752101)
03-08-2015 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by NoNukes
03-08-2015 1:19 PM


NoNukes writes:
Is not allowing people to work without getting immunized a carrot or a stick?
Allowing people to work is a carrot. Allowing people to drive a car is a carrot. Allowing people to go to school is a carrot.
NoNukes writes:
After all, the current policy is that your immunizations are not checked before you are hired.
We're talking about what's wrong with the current policy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2015 1:19 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by NoNukes, posted 03-12-2015 11:56 AM ringo has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 298 of 930 (752112)
03-08-2015 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Omnivorous
03-08-2015 9:47 AM


Re: Let's not hit them with sticks until their kids are dead.
I stand accused of eloquence, by which I take it my rhetoric, while not empty, exceeds its contents.
No not at all. I only meant it as a compliment.
We aren't debating whether everyone should be compelled to accept every vaccination we can possibly devise--at least I'm not, and I'm not sure why you do.
Mostly because the facts won't allow me to make any well substantiated argument against the immediate benefits of vaccination so I have to rely on doubt and conjecture about the murky future.
if you cannot accept our public health compact, go form your own public.
Oh come on let me stay please. I'll help pay for your ill conceived plans of universal healthiness and provide control data for safety studies.
Arguments from ignorance can seem weighty, because our ignorance is infinite and towers over all our endeavors--but knowledge proves a better guide.
My nebulous concerns do rest on the fact that society manages to fuck up a lot of things with the greatest of confidence. I fully agree that this is no reason not to press on but I wonder what we miss because we have decided that there is only one course. Things like spontaneous remission of cancer possibly brought on by an immune response to other infections.
quote:
Could infection be the key to stimulating spontaneous remission more generally? Analyses of the recent evidence certainly make a compelling case for exploring the idea. Rashidi and Fisher’s study found that 90% of the patients recovering from leukaemia had suffered another illness such as pneumonia shortly before the cancer disappeared. Other papers have noted tumours vanishing after diphtheria, gonorrhoea, hepatitis, influenza, malaria, measles, smallpox and syphilis. What doesn’t kill you really can make you stronger in these strange circumstances.
Cancer: The mysterious miracle cases inspiring doctors - BBC Future
I guess the point I feel strongest about is that systems that have come to a point of balance after a billion yrs are tricky to fiddle with. Gains in one area always come at a cost to some other.
Somehow I think that I would rather tolerate the risk of disease over the risk of allowing other people to make my risk judgements for me without retaining veto authority. I usually go looking for the official assessment but I occasionally find myself in opposition to an official assessment of risk.
(By the way, I was expecting a scathing rebuke for even suggesting that you might be defeatist.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Omnivorous, posted 03-08-2015 9:47 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Omnivorous, posted 03-08-2015 6:43 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 299 of 930 (752117)
03-08-2015 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Dogmafood
03-08-2015 4:23 PM


Re: Let's not hit them with sticks until their kids are dead.
My nebulous concerns do rest on the fact that society manages to fuck up a lot of things with the greatest of confidence. I fully agree that this is no reason not to press on but I wonder what we miss because we have decided that there is only one course.
We could call those metaphysical doubts, maybe, or epistemological doubt: I understand those. I share them about many things, but my feelings change with calculations of risks and consequences.
For example, I support the mandatory labeling of GMO foods, in large part because I don't want to give the same agribusiness concerns that have turned our food into tasteless pap that is bad for us the power to tell us what to eat, shut up and like it, any more than I want to give the state the power of execution.
But another part of my position on GMOs is the same skeptical response to claims of mastery over complex systems that you describe. In this case, the downside risk of that skepticism is low: GMOs may prove an unalloyed boon, but any delay in their adoption will do no great harm.
The risk assessment of vaccine refusal is totally different: rapid and increasingly widespread disease, misery and death; nor do vaccines have any qualitative baggage. I see no reason for the metaphysical doubts, no advantage to indulging them, and a terrible and certain down side.
Somehow I think that I would rather tolerate the risk of disease over the risk of allowing other people to make my risk judgements for me without retaining veto authority. I usually go looking for the official assessment but I occasionally find myself in opposition to an official assessment of risk.
Do you mean you disagree with the numbers?
Do you claim that same personal sovereignty ace on other issues? Could you find yourself justified in defying vaccination and/or quarantine laws?
(By the way, I was expecting a scathing rebuke for even suggesting that you might be defeatist.)
Rebuke? Moi?

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Dogmafood, posted 03-08-2015 4:23 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Dogmafood, posted 03-09-2015 9:01 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 301 by Dogmafood, posted 03-10-2015 12:34 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 300 of 930 (752143)
03-09-2015 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Omnivorous
03-08-2015 6:43 PM


Re: Let's not hit them with sticks until their kids are dead.
Do you mean you disagree with the numbers?
I am highly sceptical about the numbers yes. Not just for vaccination related problems but for recognized medical blunders in general. We have personally had two incidences of medical kloosterfuken that nearly killed someone. One was a late administration of opiates during delivery and another was a missed diagnosis of an obstructed bowel. I doubt that either one made it onto a list of mistakes made. We have also had less severe mistakes of improper prescriptions and my father had the wrong lens put in his eye. So I think that mistakes and problems happen a lot more often than we care to admit and I raised the issue up thread without many replies.
What do the numbers say about our drug policy? How many people have we killed or lives have we ruined because smoking grass is illegal? How many junkies have died because they couldn't get a clean needle? Where are those numbers? How many have we killed with our response to the threat of terrorism?
I do question numbers like the 500,000 deaths attributed to measles every yr. How many of these are dying from a lack of basic medical attention and nutrition? If 40 million Americans contracted the measles would 500k of them die?
I do not dispute the fact that vaccination has saved millions of lives.
Do you claim that same personal sovereignty ace on other issues? Could you find yourself justified in defying vaccination and/or quarantine laws?
I do claim personal sovereignty and I am not sure that I relinquish it in any case ever. I don't send my kids to school because it is the law to do so. I send them because I think that it is the right thing to do. Certainly I can be coerced by the law and it changes my cost/benefit calculations. Were I to blatantly defy a governmental edict it would likely be in the shape of civil disobedience. Not only do I consider it a personal right to follow my conscience but also a civic duty.
To be clear, I might not stand in front of the police station and smoke a joint but when I was arrested for growing it in my back yard I spent thousands of $ to defend my right to do so and was vindicated. Slowly society begins to see their error and only because people refuse the conventional wisdom and defy the law. This is the engine of progress and it almost never comes from the top down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Omnivorous, posted 03-08-2015 6:43 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024