Hundreds quarantined for measles in 2 CA universities.

[Chernoslavia]

Wrong.

So, your main argument about why you oppose mandatory vaccination is that they don't always work? What kind of argument is this? Are you saying that you'd rather risk the death of dozens of immunocompromised people and babies just because there's a one in a million chance that vaccines don't work?

Nope, try again.

[Chernoslavia]

Read above.

This is like being against seatbelts because not every death is prevented.

Again implying that I'm against vaccines.

[Inkopolitia]

So, your main argument about why you oppose mandatory vaccination is that they don't always work? What kind of argument is this? Are you saying that you'd rather risk the death of dozens of immunocompromised people and babies just because there's a one in a million chance that vaccines don't work?

Nope, try again.

That's essentially what you're saying. "Vaccines are bad because they only owrk 99.3813% of the time, so i'd rather gamble with the lives of babies, immunocompromised individusls and elders because of my own selfish ambition!"

[Chernoslavia]

Nope, try again.

That's essentially what you're saying. "Vaccines are bad because they only owrk 99.3813% of the time, so i'd rather gamble with the lives of babies, immunocompromised individusls and elders because of my own selfish ambition!"

You're welcome to go back and read my previous reponses to those strawman claims.

[Chernoslavia]

I agree with requirements for proof of vaccinations before attending school, summer camp, dance class, sports teams, etc., and registration for these makes that easy and normalizes the idea. When you say it’s mandatory, people get scared.

I don’t give a fuck about what they feel

Cool, just don't bitch and call them terrorists when you meet armed resistance.

[Inkopolitia]

I don’t give a fuck about what they feel

Cool, just don't bitch and call them terrorists when you meet armed resistance.

I'm so scared of the anti-vaxxer armed resistance! They're gonna throw essential oils at me! I'm so dead!

[Chernoslavia]

Of course, I support insurrections against government overreach. and for their own sake they'd best not implement what you propose.

I sense that you’d very likely change your tune really quick if there was another Spanish flu-level pandemic that killed hundreds of millions of people and the governments of the world mandated vaccination programs to stop it.

Nope.

[Chernoslavia]

Coming from the guy who says being vaccinated will guarantee you won't be infected with measles.

... what insane logic is this? "Vaccines don't prevent infection in every case, therefore ditch vaccines and YOLO like before"?

Bear in mind that, in the case of measles, "before" meant a disease so common someone once quipped that catching it was as inevitable as death and taxes. You're saying a few deaths for the sake of bodily autonomy... is acceptable.

Nice strawman.

[Scomagia]

Sigh, come on... mandatory vaccinations work. How about we fine $100 per week against anti-vax parents when they refuse to do so?

YES PLEASE SIGN ME UP

Would you support mandatory treatment for illnesses, as well? Supposing someone had Herpes, would you support mandatory antiviral treatments?

[Scomagia]

YES PLEASE SIGN ME UP

Clearly fines don't work on people who've set themselves on infecting as many as possible.

Come now, you're lying. That is not their goal and you know it. It's really pathetic how it's not enough for some of the people in this thread to be right about vaccinations, they have to be downright hateful and shitty. Newsflash: opposing anti-vaxxers doesn't mean you have to lie about them or talk about putting them in Gulag or any of the other bullshit that comes up in these threads.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Clearly fines don't work on people who've set themselves on infecting as many as possible.

Come now, you're lying. That is not their goal and you know it. It's really pathetic how it's not enough for some of the people in this thread to be right about vaccinations, they have to be downright hateful and shitty. Newsflash: opposing anti-vaxxers doesn't mean you have to lie about them or talk about putting them in Gulag or any of the other bullshit that comes up in these threads.

Goal or not, that is the outcome of their actions and they refuse to cease actions that would lead to that outcome.

[Tetradimensional Overworld]

I was banned from the forum for 72 hours because of anti-vaxxers flamebaiting me...

[Galloism]

I was banned from the forum for 72 hours because of anti-vaxxers flamebaiting me...

I’m sure if you were banned it was based on your actions. No one gets banned for something someone else did.

[Tetradimensional Overworld]

I was banned from the forum for 72 hours because of anti-vaxxers flamebaiting me...

I’m sure if you were banned it was based on your actions. No one gets banned for something someone else did.

yeah, but aren't anti-vaxxers objectively wrong?

[NeoOasis]

YES PLEASE SIGN ME UP

Would you support mandatory treatment for illnesses, as well? Supposing someone had Herpes, would you support mandatory antiviral treatments?

I don't think preventative medicine is the same as treating a disease, but there are cases in which parents have refused treatment based on whatever grounds. This refusal either led to death or disability of the child.

[Tetradimensional Overworld]

Would you support mandatory treatment for illnesses, as well? Supposing someone had Herpes, would you support mandatory antiviral treatments?

I don't think preventative medicine is the same as treating a disease, but there are cases in which parents have refused treatment based on whatever grounds. This refusal either led to death or disability of the child.

I'm going to debunk the "religious" reason. Where in the Torah did it say "Thou shalt not vaccinate your child?" Where in the Bible and where in the Quran?

[Neanderthaland]

I’m sure if you were banned it was based on your actions. No one gets banned for something someone else did.

yeah, but aren't anti-vaxxers objectively wrong?

Look, I get it. I really do. But there's a difference between "you're objectively wrong" and "you're objectively wrong and stupid."

The second one will get you a time-out.

[Tetradimensional Overworld]

yeah, but aren't anti-vaxxers objectively wrong?

Look, I get it. I really do. But there's a difference between "you're objectively wrong" and "you're objectively wrong and stupid."

The second one will get you a time-out.

That does makes sense.

[Highever]

I sense that you’d very likely change your tune really quick if there was another Spanish flu-level pandemic that killed hundreds of millions of people and the governments of the world mandated vaccination programs to stop it.

Nope.

This would prevent a global pandemic that would kill potentially billions? No, because I don't like the gubment.

What a sound and perfectly sensible stance.

[Tetradimensional Overworld]

Nope.

This would prevent a global pandemic that would kill potentially billions? No, because I don't like the gubment.

What a sound and perfectly sensible stance.

Put him on the foe list and do not respond. He would stop this willy-nilly once we ignored him.

[The Free Joy State]

YES PLEASE SIGN ME UP

Would you support mandatory treatment for illnesses, as well? Supposing someone had Herpes, would you support mandatory antiviral treatments?

There is an interesting comparison there.

People cannot be forcibly treated (and I would be concerned about compelled treatment of competent adults, due to the issues that presents with body autonomy), however they can be prosecuted in some places if they intentionally transmit an STI.

I stress I am not actually in favour of criminal prosecution and removal of children from non-vaccinating parents (though I am in favour of supervision orders to compel parents to vaccinate, if there's no medical reason -- for serious diseases like measles and polio), and I would prefer for such an approach to be augmented by greater public education to tackle misinformation so that, over time, such measures hardly needs to be used.

But the presence of laws that allow people to be prosecuted for deliberately transmitting an STI does suggest that it would not be out of order for anti-vaccination parents to be encouraged to consider the wider good (of children too young to be vaccinated, the pregnant, the immunocompromised, the elderly).

[Highever]

I don’t give a fuck about what they feel

Cool, just don't bitch and call them terrorists when you meet armed resistance.

Yes the dreaded anti-vaxxer defense force...their mighty high fenced suburban citadels will prove no match once we send them blankets that were used by children with chicken pox.

[Telconi]

Would you support mandatory treatment for illnesses, as well? Supposing someone had Herpes, would you support mandatory antiviral treatments?

There is an interesting comparison there.

People cannot be forcibly treated (and I would be concerned about compelled treatment of competent adults, due to the issues that presents with body autonomy), however they can be prosecuted in some places if they intentionally transmit an STI.

I stress I am not actually in favour of criminal prosecution and removal of children from non-vaccinating parents (though I am in favour of supervision orders to compel parents to vaccinate, if there's no medical reason -- for serious diseases like measles and polio), and I would prefer for such an approach to be augmented by greater public education to tackle misinformation so that, over time, such measures hardly needs to be used.

But the presence of laws that allow people to be prosecuted for deliberately transmitting an STI does suggest that it would not be out of order for anti-vaccination parents to be encouraged to consider the wider good (of children too young to be vaccinated, the pregnant, the immunocompromised, the elderly).

But those laws only effect those who knowingly transmit the disease. Anti-Vaxxer folks aren't doing that AFAIK.

[The Free Joy State]

There is an interesting comparison there.

People cannot be forcibly treated (and I would be concerned about compelled treatment of competent adults, due to the issues that presents with body autonomy), however they can be prosecuted in some places if they intentionally transmit an STI.

I stress I am not actually in favour of criminal prosecution and removal of children from non-vaccinating parents (though I am in favour of supervision orders to compel parents to vaccinate, if there's no medical reason -- for serious diseases like measles and polio), and I would prefer for such an approach to be augmented by greater public education to tackle misinformation so that, over time, such measures hardly needs to be used.

But the presence of laws that allow people to be prosecuted for deliberately transmitting an STI does suggest that it would not be out of order for anti-vaccination parents to be encouraged to consider the wider good (of children too young to be vaccinated, the pregnant, the immunocompromised, the elderly).

But those laws only effect those who knowingly transmit the disease. Anti-Vaxxer folks aren't doing that AFAIK.

If they knowingly don't have their child vaccinated -- despite their child being medically fit for vaccination -- and their child gets ill with the disease they didn't vaccinate for, and they then take their ill child outside (to the park, to school, to one of the disease parties that anti-vaxxers still hold), that would be knowing transmission to unknowing parties.

But that wasn't the comparison I was making. It was more about the individual -- the person with an STI, the parent who doesn't wish to be vaccinated -- may have medical autonomy (different rules should apply with children, who precedent shows have a right to be protected from their parents' decisions), but there is also legal precedent for them having a duty to protect other people from things that may cause them medical harm.

[Telconi]

But those laws only effect those who knowingly transmit the disease. Anti-Vaxxer folks aren't doing that AFAIK.

If they knowingly don't have their child vaccinated -- despite their child being medically fit for vaccination -- and their child gets ill with the disease they didn't vaccinate for, and they then take their ill child outside (to the park, to school, to one of the disease parties that anti-vaxxers still hold), that would be knowing transmission to unknowing parties.

But that wasn't the comparison I was making. It was more about the individual -- the person with an STI, the parent who doesn't wish to be vaccinated -- may have medical autonomy (different rules should apply with children, who precedent shows have a right to be protected from their parents' decisions), but there is also legal precedent for them having a duty to protect other people from things that may cause them medical harm.

Only if they knew they had a serious infectious disease.

There's a legal precedent that you must protect people from acts that *will* cause medical harm, for certain.