I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.
Why protect the right of people not to have a vaccine enter their system over the right not to have a preventable disease enter your system?
There's a philosophical difference between how we weight the right choose what enters our bodies. I choose to vaccinate, but think being able to choose is important. Do we want to relinquish that much control over lives to governments?
Okay, what responsibilities do you want to take on for your* decision?
I think I know what you did there *
Merely that I get that you're not you.
Why is this issue being discussed. Vaccination has eliminated so many diseases in this country. Go back 60 years and every eight child had polio. Now thanks to Sabin it is non existent in this country. Rubella, whooping cough, tB... the list goes on.
I am firmly of the belief that if you do not have your children vaccinated, you forfeit your children's right to attend school or have contact with other children.
I don't care what your religion is; I don't care what books you read. For your children to have a right to an education, you, as a parent have an obligation to have your children immunised.
I do not feel it necessary explain why. It is self explanatory.
I don't get the not go to school bit. If you are immunised against say TB and someone has TB only those who are NOT vaccinated need worry and if a child does get it because their parents didn't vaccinate their child it's as harsh a punishment as it gets.
See HMs response above.
Most of the problem is that even though your kids are immune, they can still be carriers (at least in the time window until their vaccine-boosted immune system kicks in and knocks off the bug). So they can carry the diseases from their unvaccinated schoolmates and transmit them on to any immune-suppressed or too-young-to-vaccinate relatives or passers-by they might encounter, even though your kids - thanks to their vaccinations - might not ever suffer so much as a sniffle from the disease they're carrying.
And of course some people are just medically unable to be vaccinated (allergies) or have been vaccinated but are currently immune-compromised (people undergoing chemo) and if your kids are unfortunate enough to be one of these people, then going to school with unvaccinated types is a big risk.
I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.
Why protect the right of people not to have a vaccine enter their system over the right not to have a preventable disease enter your system?
There's a philosophical difference between how we weight the right choose what enters our bodies. I choose to vaccinate, but think being able to choose is important. Do we want to relinquish that much control over lives to governments?
I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.
Why protect the right of people not to have a vaccine enter their system over the right not to have a preventable disease enter your system?
There's a philosophical difference between how we weight the right choose what enters our bodies. I choose to vaccinate, but think being able to choose is important. Do we want to relinquish that much control over lives to governments?
you are not answering the question of right to perpetuate a communicable disease that kills people. Or the question of governments do not allow total freedom of choice already. why is this particular issue a line in the sand.
I know where you are coming from but is this really the line in the sand that needs to be drawn? because their is a limit to individual freedom already. why is ban drink driving fine, ban suicide fine, gaol people who knowingly pass on aids fine, but the personal freedom to choose to stop herd immunity is a freedom of individual choice is necessary to protect? and why must mandatory vaccination be defended for fear of further incursions on liberty beyond that line, isn't that similar to drawing a line before gay marriage to avoid the legalised pedophilia that must necessary follow if we don't fight gay marriage now*?
* not to misrepresent you, but to characterize another public debate where I assume you realise you can allow one thing without fear of illogical consequences being an inevitability as the result.
so if the theories are true and those high up are manipulating, controlling and poisoning us slowly, what's the downfall of the system currently? other countries find themselves in terrible predicaments, but surely here we're not doing too badly for ourselves. maybe i'm brainwashed, but my life is pretty good and if i'm being railroaded i sure as hell am not seeing any downsides at this point in time. make sense much...
I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.
Why protect the right of people not to have a vaccine enter their system over the right not to have a preventable disease enter your system?
There's a philosophical difference between how we weight the right choose what enters our bodies. I choose to vaccinate, but think being able to choose is important. Do we want to relinquish that much control over lives to governments?
I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.
Why protect the right of people not to have a vaccine enter their system over the right not to have a preventable disease enter your system?
There's a philosophical difference between how we weight the right choose what enters our bodies. I choose to vaccinate, but think being able to choose is important. Do we want to relinquish that much control over lives to governments?
you are not answering the question of right to perpetuate a communicable disease that kills people. Or the question of governments do not allow total freedom of choice already. why is this particular issue a line in the sand.
I know where you are coming from but is this really the line in the sand that needs to be drawn? because their is a limit to individual freedom already. why is ban drink driving fine, ban suicide fine, gaol people who knowingly pass on aids fine, but the personal freedom to choose to stop herd immunity is a freedom of individual choice is necessary to protect? and why must mandatory vaccination be defended for fear of further incursions on liberty beyond that line, isn't that similar to drawing a line before gay marriage to avoid the legalised pedophilia that must necessary follow if we don't fight gay marriage now*?
* not to misrepresent you, but to characterize another public debate where I assume you realise you can allow one thing without fear of illogical consequences being an inevitability as the result.
Surely that's covered by existing laws (i.e. manslaughter, attempted murder). Not saying that those laws should be used in relation to vaccination, however they certainly have been used in relation to HIV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV
How would people feel about fining parents who chose not to vaccinate?
A speeding fine, for example, is effectively a fine for acting in a way that increases the risk of damage to others in society. The damage itself doesn't have to occur (and is covered by other measures under the law), merely the increased risk level is enough to trigger the fine.
I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.
Why protect the right of people not to have a vaccine enter their system over the right not to have a preventable disease enter your system?
There's a philosophical difference between how we weight the right choose what enters our bodies. I choose to vaccinate, but think being able to choose is important. Do we want to relinquish that much control over lives to governments?
I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.
Why protect the right of people not to have a vaccine enter their system over the right not to have a preventable disease enter your system?
There's a philosophical difference between how we weight the right choose what enters our bodies. I choose to vaccinate, but think being able to choose is important. Do we want to relinquish that much control over lives to governments?
you are not answering the question of right to perpetuate a communicable disease that kills people. Or the question of governments do not allow total freedom of choice already. why is this particular issue a line in the sand.
I know where you are coming from but is this really the line in the sand that needs to be drawn? because their is a limit to individual freedom already. why is ban drink driving fine, ban suicide fine, gaol people who knowingly pass on aids fine, but the personal freedom to choose to stop herd immunity is a freedom of individual choice is necessary to protect? and why must mandatory vaccination be defended for fear of further incursions on liberty beyond that line, isn't that similar to drawing a line before gay marriage to avoid the legalised pedophilia that must necessary follow if we don't fight gay marriage now*?
* not to misrepresent you, but to characterize another public debate where I assume you realise you can allow one thing without fear of illogical consequences being an inevitability as the result.
Surely that's covered by existing laws (i.e. manslaughter, attempted murder). Not saying that those laws should be used in relation to vaccination, however they certainly have been used in relation to HIV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV
How would people feel about fining parents who chose not to vaccinate?
A speeding fine, for example, is effectively a fine for acting in a way that increases the risk of damage to others in society. The damage itself doesn't have to occur (and is covered by other measures under the law), merely the increased risk level is enough to trigger the fine.
I was meaning more though choosing to risk the disease rather than already having it and deliberately passing it on.
Fines don't work as a once a lifetime fee.
unless you're gonna fine people once a year or so for not doing it.
Merely that I get that you're not you.
Who am I if not myself?
No, you idiot, you're James Hird!
Merely that I get that you're not you.
Who am I if not myself?
No, you idiot, you're James Hird!
age headline : james hird hates vaccination!
so if the theories are true and those high up are manipulating, controlling and poisoning us slowly, what's the downfall of the system currently? other countries find themselves in terrible predicaments, but surely here we're not doing too badly for ourselves. maybe i'm brainwashed, but my life is pretty good and if i'm being railroaded i sure as hell am not seeing any downsides at this point in time. make sense much...
I don't really get why people think *this* is how a Government (or some uber controlling body) would use something they have to pay for.
There are all sorts of mechanisms of control of one sort or another (economic system, taxes, banking etc etc). A government could literally put stuff in the water and that would hit 99% of the population, so why the ■■■■ tell everyone about it and provide peer-reviewed data?
That's why I'm very suspicious of conspiracy theorists. There are all sorts of real things that are, or at least could be, underhanded... so why make all these things up? What are thye hoping to gain?
I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.
Why protect the right of people not to have a vaccine enter their system over the right not to have a preventable disease enter your system?
There's a philosophical difference between how we weight the right choose what enters our bodies. I choose to vaccinate, but think being able to choose is important. Do we want to relinquish that much control over lives to governments?
I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.
Why protect the right of people not to have a vaccine enter their system over the right not to have a preventable disease enter your system?
There's a philosophical difference between how we weight the right choose what enters our bodies. I choose to vaccinate, but think being able to choose is important. Do we want to relinquish that much control over lives to governments?
you are not answering the question of right to perpetuate a communicable disease that kills people. Or the question of governments do not allow total freedom of choice already. why is this particular issue a line in the sand.
I know where you are coming from but is this really the line in the sand that needs to be drawn? because their is a limit to individual freedom already. why is ban drink driving fine, ban suicide fine, gaol people who knowingly pass on aids fine, but the personal freedom to choose to stop herd immunity is a freedom of individual choice is necessary to protect? and why must mandatory vaccination be defended for fear of further incursions on liberty beyond that line, isn't that similar to drawing a line before gay marriage to avoid the legalised pedophilia that must necessary follow if we don't fight gay marriage now*?
* not to misrepresent you, but to characterize another public debate where I assume you realise you can allow one thing without fear of illogical consequences being an inevitability as the result.
Surely that's covered by existing laws (i.e. manslaughter, attempted murder). Not saying that those laws should be used in relation to vaccination, however they certainly have been used in relation to HIV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV
How would people feel about fining parents who chose not to vaccinate?
A speeding fine, for example, is effectively a fine for acting in a way that increases the risk of damage to others in society. The damage itself doesn't have to occur (and is covered by other measures under the law), merely the increased risk level is enough to trigger the fine.
I was meaning more though choosing to risk the disease rather than already having it and deliberately passing it on.
Fines don't work as a once a lifetime fee.
unless you're gonna fine people once a year or so for not doing it.
Exactly.
It's a "choice" that is going to cost the taxpayer (through the health system) X millions of dollars per year... unless you have a medical reason, there is no really good reason why most people shouldn't vax. Tax the crap out of them
No problem with that.
While we have a very large proportion of the community who are naive enough to get taken in by swindlers, delusion and snake oil salesmen so easily I'm afraid it is necessary for the community's health that an authoritative decision be made for them.
While we have a very large proportion of the community who are naive enough to get taken in by swindlers, delusion and snake oil salesmen so easily I'm afraid it is necessary for the community's health that an authoritative decision be made for them.
Do you propose that the military or police get involved to round-up and forcibly vaccinate dissenters, or do you think it's best we just marginalise those who disagree through punitive measures and sanctions?
While we have a very large proportion of the community who are naive enough to get taken in by swindlers, delusion and snake oil salesmen so easily I'm afraid it is necessary for the community's health that an authoritative decision be made for them.
Do you propose that the military or police get involved to round-up and forcibly vaccinate dissenters, or do you think it's best we just marginalise those who disagree through punitive measures and sanctions?
There is a well-defined process for dealing with those parents who neglect or abuse their kids (though it needs to be better-funded, of course). Child protective services, neglect and endangerment charges, etc etc. Refusal to vaccinate is no different to refusal to feed or care for your kids properly, and would come under the same umbrella.
I do have one (probably stupid) question though. If my kids are vaccinated, and I send them to school with kids who aren't, why is that an issue? Aren't my kids vaccinated and therefore protected anyway?
Most of the problem is that even though your kids are immune, they can still be carriers (at least in the time window until their vaccine-boosted immune system kicks in and knocks off the bug). So they can carry the diseases from their unvaccinated schoolmates and transmit them on to any immune-suppressed or too-young-to-vaccinate relatives or passers-by they might encounter, even though your kids - thanks to their vaccinations - might not ever suffer so much as a sniffle from the disease they're carrying.
And of course some people are just medically unable to be vaccinated (allergies) or have been vaccinated but are currently immune-compromised (people undergoing chemo) and if your kids are unfortunate enough to be one of these people, then going to school with unvaccinated types is a big risk.
There's another part to this, which I would argue is actually more important, and that's that immunisations aren't magic. According the CDC (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Themajorityofpeople) "Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients."
A huge part of what makes vaccinations so effective is the herd immunity. Once you get the percentage of vaccinated individuals in the community up to a certain level it effectively controls outbreaks if a member of the community gets infected. This means that 85% to 95% effective individually can translate to a higher level of protection for the community.
The upshot is that a small handful of individuals who aren't vaccinated can easily infect a much larger number number of vaccinated children. And a lot of parents feel pretty strongly when someone else's dumbarsery threatens to hurt their children.
While we have a very large proportion of the community who are naive enough to get taken in by swindlers, delusion and snake oil salesmen so easily I'm afraid it is necessary for the community's health that an authoritative decision be made for them.
Do you propose that the military or police get involved to round-up and forcibly vaccinate dissenters, or do you think it's best we just marginalise those who disagree through punitive measures and sanctions?
There is a well-defined process for dealing with those parents who neglect or abuse their kids (though it needs to be better-funded, of course). Child protective services, neglect and endangerment charges, etc etc. Refusal to vaccinate is no different to refusal to feed or care for your kids properly, and would come under the same umbrella.
Basically this. Making the community better informed about crackpot beliefs and how harmful they can be wouldn't hurt either.
While we have a very large proportion of the community who are naive enough to get taken in by swindlers, delusion and snake oil salesmen so easily I'm afraid it is necessary for the community's health that an authoritative decision be made for them.
Do you propose that the military or police get involved to round-up and forcibly vaccinate dissenters, or do you think it's best we just marginalise those who disagree through punitive measures and sanctions?
There is a well-defined process for dealing with those parents who neglect or abuse their kids (though it needs to be better-funded, of course). Child protective services, neglect and endangerment charges, etc etc. Refusal to vaccinate is no different to refusal to feed or care for your kids properly, and would come under the same umbrella.
Voluntary vaccination has been a huge success since the 1920s. Why do we need to introduce draconian laws now? Do you really think putting children into state care because their parents don't believe in vaccinating them is beneficial to anyone?