Why Vaccinations Shouldn't be Optional

[ananda]

'First Ever' Study Comparing Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children Shows Harm from Vaccines?

Hard to design a more biased study it would seem. But I'm sure the anti-vaxers will see it as a perfect double blind study.

I do not doubt that the pro-vaxxers and the anti-vaxxers uphold different scriptures as authoritative.

 

[Cearbhall]

Anti-virals just aren't good enough for people to rely upon them as an effective treatment.

I completely agree.

Vaccines are our best defense against a variety of viral diseases,

Of course.

and whether you like it or not, they are a preventative measure.

That's exactly what I said...? It's a preventative measure.

It protects EVERYONE'S health. The people that get vaccines benefit, as well as the people that can't get vaccines. But it only works if a large enough portion of the population gets vaccinated.

Yup.

If more and more people choose not to get vaccinated, even though they physically could, it puts populations on the whole more at risk of epidemics.

Yup.

Plus, people seem to not understand that it doesn't take a large portion of the population becoming ill to put the healthy in danger. Anything higher than 5% of a population becoming severely ill would bring the healthcare system to its breaking point, for example.

Yup.

That is, an entire country's healthcare system, assuming that it's a first world country that we are talking about. With people becoming more crowded together and mobile, it has never been easier for a pathogen to spread to millions of people.

Yup.

Think of it as like a civic duty to everyone else in the country as well as yourself.

Sure. But that doesn't meet the standards for a legal mandate that compromises on bodily autonomy. It's an extremely high bar.

 

[jayem]

The introduction of transistor radios?

OK that is a joke, but it is honestly the best idea I can come up with. I was there. Born in 1953. The sanitation system is not significantly different. There were not any new public health measures put in place. In fact one faded away during that time frame. I do remember going to summer mountian camp and there being a short physical a few days before going. That was gone by the mid 70s. Most likely because the Polio vaccine had been effective.

Of course. It must be kept in mind that polio was a seasonal epidemic disease. Like late fall and winter is flu season, the summer was polio season. So graphs of new cases will always show peaks and valleys. And the time to start vaccinating is in the off-season before an outbreak of new infections is expected. What is important is that after the vaccination program began, there was no longer any peak of new cases. And the chart clearly shows that the new case rate not only dropped substantially over the ensuing years but stayed far below levels seen in pre-vaccination days. Which confirms the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Actually it's been speculated that better hygiene and sanitation worsened polio epidemics. Poliovirus is transmitted by water and food. Chlorination of public water supplies began in the early 20th century. The thinking goes that when large numbers of children began drinking clean, sterile water, they were no longer exposed to low levels of viruses and bacteria. Thus, they never developed natural resistance. So paradoxically, good public health measures may have led to a population that was more vulnerable to polio. And that's why serious epidemics were common summer occurrences in the first half of the century. It's an intriguing theory.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I completely agree.

Of course.

That's exactly what I said...? It's a preventative measure.

Yup.

Yup.

Yup.

Yup.

Sure. But that doesn't meet the standards for a legal mandate that compromises on bodily autonomy. It's an extremely high bar.

-_- every single baby born in the United States in a hospital has blood drawn from their foot and is tested for multiple genetic diseases automatically. This has resulted in a significant drop in brain damage from certain metabolic disorders. The benefit outweighs the intrusion.

 

[Zoii]

I would say I understood the article better; I did not, after all, propagate false claims about "no studies/scientists linking autism to vaccines", or imply erroneously that "vaccinated are [not] carriers".

The conflict of interest the article I linked to - explained more fully here - claims that the WHO secretly acted in such a way that benefited certain corporations, likely involving at least millions of dollars. I consider that tyrannical, and yes, perhaps we have different ideas of what is involved in "tyranny". Whether there is small or great amounts of power applied unjustly, it remains a dictionary definition of tyranny.

I'm sorry, but you do not know me or my situation, so please refrain from speculating about either, as you've done repeatedly in this thread. Your credibility has already worn thin in this thread, as demonstrated by your numerous false claims.

It is a definition of tyranny, as I demonstrated.

So far theres not a single claim you've made that has a shred of evidence.

You state that those with Ebola should be allowed in the community if they want to. Or for that matter anyone with highly virulent infectious diseases. You allow them into child care centres, shopping malls, and other public places.
You don't agree with government quarantining.

You believe an immunised person is infectious.
You believe health agencies are a tyranny to society.
You believe coordination of vaccines world wide is a conspiracy linked to WHO

You support the Lord Buddha yet historically he placed contageous people outside of the city walls making your stance somewhat hypocritical.

In all Yea you blew your credibility

 

[ananda]

So far theres not a single claim you've made that has a shred of evidence.

You state that those with Ebola should be allowed in the community if they want to. Or for that matter anyone with highly virulent infectious diseases. You allow them into child care centres, shopping malls ... You believe coordination of vaccines world wide is a conspiracy linked to WHO

False witness. I never claimed any of the above in this thread.

You support the Lord Buddha yet historically he placed contageous people outside of the city walls making your stance somewhat hypocritical. In all Yea you blew your credibility

Siddhatta supposedly renounced his kingdom, so he was in no position as the Lord Buddha to order people outside of the city walls.

Thanks for the conversation, but your credibility is zero after this thread, IMO.

 

[Zoii]

False witness. I never claimed any of the above in this thread.

Siddhatta supposedly renounced his kingdom to become the Lord Buddha, so was in no position to order people outside of the city walls.

Thanks for the conversation, but your credibility is zero after this thread, IMO.

Dude you now are deliberately falsifying the Buddhas history. That's a new low. He was a prince and as such had governance of his region and it's towns. I recommend you read the four noble truths and be less inclined with your false statements

 

[ananda]

Dude you now are deliberately falsifying the Buddhas history. That's a new low. He was a prince and as such had governance of his region and it's towns. I recommend you read the four noble truths and be less inclined with your false statements

False witness, yet again!

Earlier, you claimed that "the Lord Buddha ... placed contagious people outside of the city walls". Now, you've changed your story to say that the "prince ... had governance of his region ..."

I stated that the "Lord Buddha" was not in any position to order people outside of any walls - something which you claimed. Note my precise use of the term "Lord Buddha", and not "prince Siddhatta" - the Lord Buddha held no temporal powers over his former realm. When he was previously "Prince Siddhatha" he may have had such powers, but the Lord Buddha no longer did.

Prince Siddhatha was not fully enlightened as a samma-sambuddhassa. The Lord Buddha was.

I tend to be very precise in my use of words.

 

[Zoii]

False witness, yet again!

Earlier, you claimed that "the Lord Buddha ... placed contagious people outside of the city walls". Now, you've changed your story to say that the "prince ... had governance of his region ..."

I stated that the "Lord Buddha" was not in any position to order people outside of any walls - something which you claimed. Note my precise use of the term "Lord Buddha", and not "prince Siddhatta" - the Lord Buddha held no temporal powers over his former realm. When he was previously "Prince Siddhatha" he may have had such powers, but the Lord Buddha no longer did.

Prince Siddhatha was not fully enlightened as a samma-sambuddhassa. The Lord Buddha was.

I tend to be very precise in my use of words.

So you obviously agree he did exercise quarantining. Look I'm not being disrespectful to Prince Siddatha (now referred to as Buddha). On the contrary I'm very respectful of him n the philosophy. Let's drop it as it's now fallen into semantics. We've stated our positions, frustrated each other, so I'm happy to give you the last word n sorry if I've annoyed the hell out of you.

 

[ananda]

So you obviously agree he did exercise quarantining.

I have no idea if he did or didn't - first, because I never came across that story in any of the tens of thousands of suttas or jatakas; second, because I didn't witness it for myself; and on a related note, even if he did do so (as Siddhattta or during a previous life), it wasn't necessarily an enlightened action, as he wasn't fully enlightened yet.

Finally, Mv 8.26 in the Vinaya suggests that the fully enlightened Lord Buddha himself personally attended to a sick monk with highly contagious dysentery and asserted that we should all do likewise; there was no suggestion as to quarantine.

Look I'm not being disrespectful to Prince Siddatha (now referred to as Buddha). On the contrary I'm very respectful of him n the philosophy. Let's drop it as it's now fallen into semantics. We've stated our positions, frustrated each other, so I'm happy to give you the last word n sorry if I've annoyed the hell out of you.

Take care.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In game theory, you may for example choose between implementing

Game one:

A) "lack of choice and collective well being" (pro-vaccination)
or
B) "freedom of choice and more collective risk" (anti-vaccination).

Its like the issue with guns:

Game two:
Gun control (less freedom, low risk) versus freedom to bear arms (more freedom, high risk).

Its like the issue with taxation.

Game three:
Public goods and services (less freedom, low risk to public) versus maximising private control of finances (more freedom, higher risk to public).

Game four:
Climate pollution prevention (low freedom high risk) versus freedom to pollute (high freedom high risk).

IIRC In Husserl's phenomenology in a group there is an interpenetration of wills and the group can act on the person.

We live in social groups. Even legislating to preserve or to increase individual liberties, that's a group level choice.

Rawls theory of the "veil of ignorance" can be applied, because the game outcomes can be assessed in advance. So it seems that in general if you multiply freedoms, you're bound to multiple risks.

For example, you have a preventable but serious disease outbreak, floods, angry parents, limited police and no public health care system, and people shooting one another as a result.

It gets more and more like Russian roulette every time....

 

[Cearbhall]

-_- every single baby born in the United States in a hospital has blood drawn from their foot and is tested for multiple genetic diseases automatically.

Giving birth in a hospital is not required by law, and religious exemptions for newborn screenings are allowed. Some states don't even require a religious justification.

This has resulted in a significant drop in brain damage from certain metabolic disorders.

I know, it's fantastic.

The benefit outweighs the intrusion.

Certainly, but I can't agree with you that something should be forced on people by law just by virtue of being the best course of action.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Giving birth in a hospital is not required by law, and religious exemptions for newborn screenings are allowed.

Doctor: "Would you like your baby screened for a ton of genetic diseases, many of which would result in brain damage if you gave the child a regular diet?"
Parents: "Nah, if the child is going to be stupid due to a genetic disease that can be treated via change in diet, so be it. Tis the will of Cthulhu."

And that's what I call parents that don't deserve to be parents. Plus, I can't think of a single religion that has any tenants that would be against this type of preventative measure aside from maybe Jehovah's witnesses... and even that would be a stretch of their thing against blood products being used on them.

Certainly, but I can't agree with you that something should be forced on people by law just by virtue of being the best course of action.

Why? Tons of other things have been forced into law on that premise. Like the fact that meth is illegal. Oh, that's another type of decision that endangers more than oneself; being high on meth makes one more of a potential danger to other people, due to the altered mental state.

 

[Cearbhall]

Doctor: "Would you like your baby screened for a ton of genetic diseases, many of which would result in brain damage if you gave the child a regular diet?"
Parents: "Nah, if the child is going to be stupid due to a genetic disease that can be treated via change in diet, so be it. Tis the will of Cthulhu."

And that's what I call parents that don't deserve to be parents.

Fine, but that has zero legal weight.

Though I'm curious, would you say that individuals who live in parts of the world where these screenings aren't offered have a moral obligation to abstain from sex for their entire lives, lest they give birth to a newborn who isn't granted the highest level of healthcare that currently exists?

Not that this has anything to do with the actual topic. I'm not sure why you're trying to equate two entirely different sets of procedures, especially when the legal status of this one doesn't support your argument.

Why? Tons of other things have been forced into law on that premise. Like the fact that meth is illegal. Oh, that's another type of decision that endangers more than oneself; being high on meth makes one more of a potential danger to other people, due to the altered mental state.

Surely you can see the difference between not allowing someone to put a substance into their body and forcing someone to accept a substance into their body. What is your understanding of bodily autonomy?

 

[Hillsage]

Won't hang here long, just accidentally found this Forum/thread and am not going to 'catch up';

The Swedish Parliament (the Riksdag) rejected 10 motions in May that would have incorporated 'forced vaccinations' into law stating "it would violate our Constitution if we introduced compulsory vaccinations or mandatory vaccinations." The Parliament noted the "massive resistance (by Swedes) to all forms of coercion with regard to vaccination." And they made reference to "Frequent serious adverse reactions" in children who receive vaccinations.

Congratulations to a government that rejected unconstitutional medical tyranny. It takes a search warrant for the law to get into my car trunk. It should take a heck of a lot more for them to get into my body. My 2 kids were never vaccinated (other than my daughter's first AND LAST one), neither were their 5 grandkids EVER vaccinated. And my son's wife is a nurse. She was a pediatric nurse, but now is a school nurse. She too was medically brainwashed when she married my son. He told her if she could convince me, then they would vaccinate their kids. I told him not to put me in the middle of 'their' marriage. But I agreed to give her all the educational material she'd need to make an informed decision. God bless her, she took the challenge.

 

[Cearbhall]

Congratulations to a government that rejected unconstitutional medical tyranny. It takes a search warrant for the law to get into my car trunk. It should take a heck of a lot more for them to get into my body. My 2 kids were never vaccinated (other than my daughter's first AND LAST one), neither were their 5 grandkids EVER vaccinated.

Please don't think that having the legal right to refuse vaccinations makes you right about vaccines not being worth the risk. You're still wrong. You just have the right to be wrong and to live your life according to your wrongness.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Fine, but that has zero legal weight.

There is some legal precedent to children being taken away from parents that refused to give them the treatment necessary for them to be healthy on the basis of religion or whim.

Though I'm curious, would you say that individuals who live in parts of the world where these screenings aren't offered have a moral obligation to abstain from sex for their entire lives, lest they give birth to a newborn who isn't granted the highest level of healthcare that currently exists?

No, because they don't have the opportunity. Why would I hold it against people to not get medical tests literally unavailable to them? That'd be unreasonable and stupid.

Surely you can see the difference between not allowing someone to put a substance into their body and forcing someone to accept a substance into their body. What is your understanding of bodily autonomy?

That it equally violates bodily autonomy to restrict actions to one's own body just as much as it does to demand one do something to their body. Either way, health choices are being made on your behalf without your input.

 

[Cearbhall]

No, because they don't have the opportunity. Why would I hold it against people to not get medical tests literally unavailable to them? That'd be unreasonable and stupid.

Why wouldn't you? Knowing that the tests aren't available to them, choosing to create a child is functionally the same as refusing the tests. The newborn is in the same situation.

There is some legal precedent to children being taken away from parents that refused to give them the treatment necessary for them to be healthy on the basis of religion or whim.

Then you've missed the entire point of where I stand. This is about preventative treatment.

We could go back and forth forever. The point is that the threshold at which I support legally mandating something is apparently higher than the threshold at which you support it. You can keep trying to make it about this, that, or the other thing, but it's the principle of the matter. The way I approach such issues is fundamentally different than the way you approach them. Providing more examples and comparisons will only further demonstrate the source of our disagreement.

 

[Hillsage]

Please don't think that having the legal right to refuse vaccinations makes you right about vaccines not being worth the risk. You're still wrong. You just have the right to be wrong and to live your life according to your wrongness.

As a fellow Universalist, though not Unitarian, I could say the very same thing concerning your opinion on this topic. So at least we have one thing in common....well OK sorta. Thank GOD that being brothers...and sisters 'in the Lord' doesn't mandate we be twins. and again I say

As I said earlier, sorry to do a drive by shooting here, but am going to Texas tomorrow for mountain bike ride and camp-out in Palo Dura Canyon. Won't be back til Sunday evening and am trying to pack.

 

[Cearbhall]

As a fellow Universalist, though not Unitarian, I could say the very same thing concerning your opinion on this topic. So at least we have one thing in common....well OK sorta. Thank GOD that being brothers...and sisters 'in the Lord' doesn't mandate we be twins. and again I say

Just for future reference, Unitarian Universalist does not indicate Christianity, and I am not Christian. But thank you for the kind sentiment.