World Health Organization says "Anti-Vaxxers are a threat."

[Salandriagado]

People who disagree with me (in general) don't risk the actual, evident, clear and present danger of human extinction.
People who disagree with me (in this situation in particular) do.

Yes we should make it so these people have no rights because one day there is going to a super virus that will be so deadly it kills within a hour like that fungus from A Series Of Unfortunate Events

There are already a great many rapidly-fatal viruses out there. Those aren't the ones you need to worry about, because the carriers don't stick around long enough to spread it much. It's the actual fucking plagues that we need to worry about. This is not a hypothetical situation.

[Hammer Britannia]

Is San Lumen literally trying to defend anti-vaxxers by calling taking away their children, that are having their lives threatened, tyrannical and should be illegal?

[Salandriagado]

So I guess you’re against drunk drivers getting fined? Or having certain rights restricted? Or against people being required to register as sex offenders?

No I’m not

It depends on what rights your referring too

So, now that we've established that there isn't a right to harm children, why do you want to allow anti-vaxxers to harm children?

[Salandriagado]

How the fuck do you jump from mandatory vaccination programs to banning Muslims? I think that speaks more about you than you realize

Because you should not be taking rights away from those you disagree with.
Are anti vaxxers idiots? Yes

Should they be second class citizens? No

Should they have the "right" to harm children in their care?

[San Lumen]

No I’m not

It depends on what rights your referring too

So, now that we've established that there isn't a right to harm children, why do you want to allow anti-vaxxers to harm children?

What do you propose we do?

[Salandriagado]

But the government can put people in prison, so what's to stop the government just imprisoning people they disagree with?

Whatever your answer is, that's what would prevent the government from arbitrarily applying the punishment for failing to vaccinate to anyone they disagree with.

The first amendment

Does not protect child abuse.

[Salandriagado]

So, now that we've established that there isn't a right to harm children, why do you want to allow anti-vaxxers to harm children?

What do you propose we do?

Take children away from people who harm children, and care for them properly, which includes vaccinating them.

[Salandriagado]

TB has a mortality rate of about 12.3%
Whooping cough had a mortality rate of 0.5% for infants under 6 months.
Measles has a mortality rate of 10%, rising to 20-30% in the case of complications.

Not extinction worthy, but in modern populations that’s a staggeringly large number of people dead.

I get that completely but that does not mean we render people second class citizens

So we either:

1. Treat people who neglect their children badly; or
2. Have millions of people die of easily preventable diseases.


Gee, I wonder which of those is the non-insane option?

[Dresderstan]

Is San Lumen literally trying to defend anti-vaxxers by calling taking away their children, that are having their lives threatened, tyrannical and should be illegal?

Considering what he's said numerous times, yes.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yea, you can't do anything about the people who already mistrust science, but you can do something about the future.

I still disagree coercion is the way to go, at least this side of the pond, because the government has clearly shown it doesn't deserve blind trust in terms of policy for vaccinations, considering what they have done. If you can use coercion to get people the vaccines they need, you can also use coercion to get people vaccines that will actively harm them in the name of "scientific experimentation".

It has been done time after time already, so it's not like it's a paranoid conclusion.

So instead we give more stock and credebility to a discredited "doctor" and a retracted article he fabricated? There is no denying the government has done fucked up shit, but to let that prevent us from acting against preventable yet deadly diseases is just as bad if not worse. Vaccines have no reason not to be mandatory. In this day and age, any sketchy shit that goes down will be uncovered, and the government in charge of said shit will be hammered either domestically or internationally.

You can absolutely do something about people who mistrust science. Education is a great preventative measure against ignorance.

Well see, that's just assuming the government won't fuck you when it has already proved it's willing to.

That's also assuming I think vaccination is bad, which I don't.

While I support vaccination, I don't support the government having a say in it, and neither should you if you are American.

As for "In this day and age, any sketchy shit that goes down will be uncovered, and the government in charge of said shit will be hammered either domestically or internationally", reminder that it took decades before the Tuskegee victims and the Guatemalan victims of these experiments were even acknowledged as a bad thing by the US government, and the best the victims got once they were acknowledge was an "oopsie" in 2010.

[San Lumen]

What do you propose we do?

Take children away from people who harm children, and care for them properly, which includes vaccinating them.

I think many would have serious issues with that. I dont think that would even be legal.

I get that completely but that does not mean we render people second class citizens

So we either:

1. Treat people who neglect their children badly; or
2. Have millions of people die of easily preventable diseases.


Gee, I wonder which of those is the non-insane option?

Diseases are bad but we should not be taking children away because of it. Millions aren't going to die from measles, whooping cough or whatever other disease your referring too.

The hyperbole here is getting absurd.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I still disagree coercion is the way to go, at least this side of the pond, because the government has clearly shown it doesn't deserve blind trust in terms of policy for vaccinations, considering what they have done. If you can use coercion to get people the vaccines they need, you can also use coercion to get people vaccines that will actively harm them in the name of "scientific experimentation".

It has been done time after time already, so it's not like it's a paranoid conclusion.

It doesn't matter. A person's ignorance should not be held in higher regard than public health.

This argument only works if you think vaccinating people with syphilis was a good thing for the health of the public.

See, you're not talking here about the government asking me to play badminton, you're talking about the government telling me what I must or musn't put in my body. Needless to say, you shouldn't trust a government that gives you misinformation about a vaccine once to never do it again.

[Hammer Britannia]

Is San Lumen literally trying to defend anti-vaxxers by calling taking away their children, that are having their lives threatened, tyrannical and should be illegal?

Considering what he's said numerous times, yes.

Oof

[The New California Republic]

I get that completely but that does not mean we render people second class citizens

So we either:

1. Treat people who neglect their children badly; or
2. Have millions of people die of easily preventable diseases.


Gee, I wonder which of those is the non-insane option?

Just to frame this with some real numbers, here are some stats provided by the CDC that gives a hint of what would happen if there was a widespread lack of vaccinations:

What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?

Before the middle of the last century, diseases like whooping cough, polio, measles, Haemophilus influenzae, and rubella struck hundreds of thousands of infants, children and adults in the U.S.. Thousands died every year from them. As vaccines were developed and became widely used, rates of these diseases declined until today most of them are nearly gone from our country.

Nearly everyone in the U.S. got measles before there was a vaccine, and hundreds died from it each year. Today, most doctors have never seen a case of measles.

More than 15,000 Americans died from diphtheria in 1921, before there was a vaccine. Only two cases of diphtheria have been reported to CDC between 2004 and 2014.

An epidemic of rubella (German measles) in 1964-65 infected 12½ million Americans, killed 2,000 babies, and caused 11,000 miscarriages. Since 2012, 15 cases of rubella were reported to CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm

[Ifreann]

No they should not. As I have said before that is a very slippery slope and could lead down a very dark path

You're supporting giving parents the power of life and death over their children, and we're the ones going down a dark path?

Not just their children. Lessening our herd immunity threatens everyone who, for whatever reason, cannot be vaccinated.

[Salandriagado]

Take children away from people who harm children, and care for them properly, which includes vaccinating them.

I think many would have serious issues with that. I dont think that would even be legal.

Taking children away from adults who neglect them is perfectly legal.

So we either:

1. Treat people who neglect their children badly; or
2. Have millions of people die of easily preventable diseases.


Gee, I wonder which of those is the non-insane option?

Diseases are bad but we should not be taking children away because of it.

So, I ask again: why should anti-vaxxers have the right to harm their children?

Millions aren't going to die from measles, whooping cough or whatever other disease your referring too.

Yes, they absolutely are. We know this, because they fucking did, before large-scale compulsory vaccination efforts fixed the problem.

The hyperbole here is getting absurd.

Only from you.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Diseases are bad but we should not be taking children away because of it. Millions aren't going to die from measles, whooping cough or whatever other disease your referring too.

The hyperbole here is getting absurd.

Millions of people used to die each year because of measles in my lifetime.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Take children away from people who harm children, and care for them properly, which includes vaccinating them.

I think many would have serious issues with that.

Many people have issues with vaccination. Doesn't mean they're not idiots

I dont think that would even be legal.

Refusing to vaccinate your kid is reckless endangerment. Reckless endangerment is a good reason to take your kid away.

So we either:

1. Treat people who neglect their children badly; or
2. Have millions of people die of easily preventable diseases.


Gee, I wonder which of those is the non-insane option?

Diseases are bad but we should not be taking children away because of it. Millions aren't going to die from measles, whooping cough or whatever other disease your referring too.

The hyperbole here is getting absurd.

In 1980, two million people died from Measles. Today, that number is below 100,000 due to vaccinations.

It is not hyperbole, millions can die from easily preventable diseases, especially children.

[The Free Joy State]

Take children away from people who harm children, and care for them properly, which includes vaccinating them.

I think many would have serious issues with that. I dont think that would even be legal.

Getting a court order to compel necessary medical treatment for minor children when their parents' beliefs prevent it is legal and has precendent.

The children of Jehovah's Witnesses can become subject to court orders when their parents refuse to allow them to have a necessary blood transfusion.

The child wouldn't even have to be taken away permanently. They would only have to become a ward of court for the duration of necessary treatment (especially for serious vaccines like measles and polio).

[Earthbound Immortal Squad]

Got to agree with the W.H.O there vaccines have reduced a lot of medical problems I can understand medical reasons for not getting vaccinated but if people are not doing doing it for a 1 in a billion chance of a complication then that's just naivety really. As someone in the scientific field I can respect that not everyone will know the in's and out's of vaccines but to jeopardize the safety of children based of the result of one bad story (probably MMR) I can't understand.

[San Lumen]

I think many would have serious issues with that. I dont think that would even be legal.

Getting a court order to compel necessary medical treatment for minor children when their parents' beliefs prevent it is legal and has precendent.

The children of Jehovah's Witnesses become subject to court orders when their parents refuse to allow them to have a necessary blood transfusion.

The child wouldn't even have to be taken away permanently. They would only have to become a ward of court for the duration of necessary treatment (especially for serious vaccines like measles and polio).

That is a little different as its essential care,

I dont think in this case the state ought to be forcing treatment and ordering seizure of children. If its the ideal solution as some have proposed why hasn't it been done?

[North German Realm]

I think many would have serious issues with that.

Many people have issues with vaccination. Doesn't mean they're not idiots

I dont think that would even be legal.

Refusing to vaccinate your kid is reckless endangerment. Reckless endangerment is a good reason to take your kid away.

Diseases are bad but we should not be taking children away because of it. Millions aren't going to die from measles, whooping cough or whatever other disease your referring too.

The hyperbole here is getting absurd.

In 1980, two million people died from Measles. Today, that number is below 100,000 due to vaccinations.

It is not hyperbole, millions can die from easily preventable diseases, especially children.

People used to die in hundreds of thousands and millions despite the general difficulty in travel before vaccines were invented. It's not that hard to imagine if a previously vaccinated disease (a virus in the level of the Bubonic Plague, as I'm not sure if bacteria can evolve and mutate as easily as viruses can) managed to mutate into something vaccinated people aren't immune to, and started millions-people-killing epidemics in, multiple unconnected regions at the same time. Even if it's not human extinction, millions of people dying is no joke (maybe not human extinction)

[Ifreann]

Getting a court order to compel necessary medical treatment for minor children when their parents' beliefs prevent it is legal and has precendent.

The children of Jehovah's Witnesses become subject to court orders when their parents refuse to allow them to have a necessary blood transfusion.

The child wouldn't even have to be taken away permanently. They would only have to become a ward of court for the duration of necessary treatment (especially for serious vaccines like measles and polio).

That is a little different as its essential care,

I dont think in this case the state ought to be forcing treatment and ordering seizure of children. If its the ideal solution as some have proposed why hasn't it been done?

Because it hasn't been necessary previously. It used to be that people were only too happy for their children to get their jabs.

[Area 6-Z]

Can't we just fine Anti-Vaxxers? Singapore does it when people refuse to get vaccinated. And all of this money goes to the CDC to make more vaccines. Last time I checked Singapore is the only WHO region with the lowest outbreaks.

[The Free Joy State]

Getting a court order to compel necessary medical treatment for minor children when their parents' beliefs prevent it is legal and has precendent.

The children of Jehovah's Witnesses become subject to court orders when their parents refuse to allow them to have a necessary blood transfusion.

The child wouldn't even have to be taken away permanently. They would only have to become a ward of court for the duration of necessary treatment (especially for serious vaccines like measles and polio).

That is a little different as its essential care,

I dont think in this case the state ought to be forcing treatment and ordering seizure of children. If its the ideal solution as some have proposed why hasn't it been done?

I don't personally see it as the ideal solution. The ideal solution is that enough people stop believing bullshit anti-vaxxer theories, the next generation is properly taught from childhood to look for proper well-sourced peer-reviewed evidence, and that vaccination uptake is as high as possible voluntarily.

But, in epidemics, compelled vaccination has been used. It was used in the smallpox epidemic. Exemptions were available (with a magistrate's consent -- but rarely used; because magistrates were unwilling to sign-off on them without good cause).

I prefer an ounce of prevention to a pound of cure, but if there's an epidemic, I would support steps to curtail serious and disabling diseases (even temporary court orders to allow vaccines to be given).