Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I agree that its stupid.

But its not cause to take away the children over. That would do far more damage than good.

Children should only be separated from their parents if its an abusive situation.

What, because they had good intentions?

I think Vaccines should be rquired for many things? Want to go to school? Vaccine, Want to get a job? Vaccine, Want to go t a brothel? Vaccine. Want to rule the world? Vaccine. You dont have to do all thoe things, but dont let your beliefs screw us over.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I agree that its stupid.

But its not cause to take away the children over. That would do far more damage than good.

Children should only be separated from their parents if its an abusive situation.

What, because they had good intentions?

Intention has nothing to do with it.

This is not an abusive situation, ergo no reason to take the children away.

I think that it is an abusive situation, it's all a matter of degree.

Some will think that's an acceptable level of abuse, others will not.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I agree that its stupid.

But its not cause to take away the children over. That would do far more damage than good.

Children should only be separated from their parents if its an abusive situation.

What, because they had good intentions?

Intention has nothing to do with it.

This is not an abusive situation, ergo no reason to take the children away.

Providing adequete medical care for your children is pretty high up on the list of what parents should do IMO. Failing in that purely by their own delusions is at least a case of neglect.

Letting your children catch and suffer a disease because your pastor told you not to get a vaccine?

Might not be abuse, but you could argue neglect.

 whembly wrote:
So... you're in favor of the public forcing people to take vaccinations?

o.O

Really.

So tell me... did you have any problems with Texas having a virtual mandate for all women of certain age to get their Gardasil shots (cervical cancer vaccine)?

To be honest, I think an argument could be made to force the population to get vaccinated... I just don't know "at what level" that'll kick in...

You have to let stupid be... stupid for a bit.

I think vaccines for some things, like measles, should be compulsory. These people are a public health risk. When you have a break down in herd immunity you get outbreaks, and everyone is at increased risk, even those already vaccinated. Effective herd immunity prevents most people even coming into contact with the disease. Things like mumps were practically unheard of until Andrew Wakefield published his dubious/fraudulent work and destroyed public confidence in vaccinations, now there are outbreaks and any possibility of it being eradicated are set back years. Even now, fully discredited and struck off, he has supporters funding his continuing 'research'.

 Frazzled wrote:
If the illness can kill you or more importantly kill others I'm more touch and go.

Definitely however schools should have the right to mandate vaccinations. You can always home school or private school if you're a wack job, er deny the efficacy of vaccinations.

I'd follow this line of reasoning for the more dangerous bugs out there. The annual flu shot/mist? I personally think that that ones a horrible idea.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If the illness can kill you or more importantly kill others I'm more touch and go.

Definitely however schools should have the right to mandate vaccinations. You can always home school or private school if you're a wack job, er deny the efficacy of vaccinations.

I'd follow this line of reasoning for the more dangerous bugs out there. The annual flu shot/mist? I personally think that that ones a horrible idea.

Yeah, cause the flu never kills anyone, right?

 Soladrin wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If the illness can kill you or more importantly kill others I'm more touch and go.

Definitely however schools should have the right to mandate vaccinations. You can always home school or private school if you're a wack job, er deny the efficacy of vaccinations.

I'd follow this line of reasoning for the more dangerous bugs out there. The annual flu shot/mist? I personally think that that ones a horrible idea.

Yeah, cause the flu never kills anyone, right?

The purpose of the flu shot/mist is actually to ensure that children don't miss more school days than necessary when it comes to diseases.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If the illness can kill you or more importantly kill others I'm more touch and go.

Definitely however schools should have the right to mandate vaccinations. You can always home school or private school if you're a wack job, er deny the efficacy of vaccinations.

I'd follow this line of reasoning for the more dangerous bugs out there. The annual flu shot/mist? I personally think that that ones a horrible idea.

Yeah, cause the flu never kills anyone, right?

The purpose of the flu shot/mist is actually to ensure that children don't miss more school days than necessary when it comes to diseases.

Oh, and here I thought it was about preventing people from becoming sick. Silly me.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... you're in favor of the public forcing people to take vaccinations?

o.O

Really.

So tell me... did you have any problems with Texas having a virtual mandate for all women of certain age to get their Gardasil shots (cervical cancer vaccine)?

To be honest, I think an argument could be made to force the population to get vaccinated... I just don't know "at what level" that'll kick in...

You have to let stupid be... stupid for a bit.

I think vaccines for some things, like measles, should be compulsory. These people are a public health risk. When you have a break down in herd immunity you get outbreaks, and everyone is at increased risk, even those already vaccinated. Effective herd immunity prevents most people even coming into contact with the disease. Things like mumps were practically unheard of until Andrew Wakefield published his dubious/fraudulent work and destroyed public confidence in vaccinations, now there are outbreaks and any possibility of it being eradicated are set back years. Even now, fully discredited and struck off, he has supporters funding his continuing 'research'.

There's a lot to be gained from forcing vaccination upon the general population, as well as more specific groups.

A plan already exists that would rid the planet of AIDS over the next century, but it's only manageable if vaccines are mandatory and the authorities aware of who is infected.

 Soladrin wrote:

Yeah, cause the flu never kills anyone, right?

Generally speaking, the only people you see actually dying from the annual flu, are those that are immune compromised already (the super old, super young, and those with various auto-immune disorders)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

Yeah, cause the flu never kills anyone, right?

Generally speaking, the only people you see actually dying from the annual flu, are those that are immune compromised already (the super old, super young, and those with various auto-immune disorders)

Yes, and the vaccination would make spreading it to those people that much harder.

I didn't get the whopping cough booster shot because it might kill me.

I got it because it might kill my daughter if I catch it and spread it to her.

Some vaccinations protect you, some others, and many do both.

 d-usa wrote:


Some vaccinations protect you, some others, and many do both.

I technically fall into one of the immune-compromised categories. I do not get the annual flu shot or mist due to possible side effects.

During the years where I took that particular vaccine, do you know how many times I gotten the flu?? EVERY FETHING ONE!!!!

Since I am no longer able to receive that vaccine, do you know how many times I have gotten the flu?? NOT ONCE.

Some vaccines do protect you, some protect others, and some others just make you get sick, which if you put a tin foil hat on, would tell you is because the government made a deal with pharmaceutical companies and everyone is making a boatload of money off of sick people, because they are preying on the fear of getting a fairly non-lethal virus/bug.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Some vaccinations protect you, some others, and many do both.

I technically fall into one of the immune-compromised categories. I do not get the annual flu shot or mist due to possible side effects.

During the years where I took that particular vaccine, do you know how many times I gotten the flu?? EVERY FETHING ONE!!!!

Since I am no longer able to receive that vaccine, do you know how many times I have gotten the flu?? NOT ONCE.

Some vaccines do protect you, some protect others, and some others just make you get sick, which if you put a tin foil hat on, would tell you is because the government made a deal with pharmaceutical companies and everyone is making a boatload of money off of sick people, because they are preying on the fear of getting a fairly non-lethal virus/bug.

Or some people have bad luck?

The mist can make you sick, the shot can't.

Despite all the anectodal evidence in the world, a shot containing absolutely zero viable flu viruses can't actually infect you.

The mist does contain a live strain of the virus, so it can make you sick.

And both only protect you from the anticipated most common strain that season, it's far from a guarantee.

And as I understand it, there is nothing stopping you having picked up the flu before you get jabbed, and then people blaming the jab for the illness that they already had.

 whembly wrote:
To be honest, I think an argument could be made to force the population to get vaccinated... I just don't know "at what level" that'll kick in...

You have to let stupid be... stupid for a bit.

It's more complicated than that.

There's the theory of 'herd immunity', where some people whom cannot receive a vaccine for whatever reason (illness or condition that suppresses their immune system, allergic reaction to the materials used in said vaccines, etc) whom benefit from as many people as possible being resistant or immune to those viruses.

The more possible carriers, the more at risk those people are, and while I'm not trying to advocate trampling another persons' freedom to choice, agency and self determination, we also need to think long and hard about how important those are when balanced against when those same people act dramatically against their own self interest, and/or in a manner that jeopardizes the safety of others.

"Oh but Forar, you're just advocating an overwhelming Big Brother Is Watching nanny state where alcohol, smoking, recreational drugs, caffeine, driving over 40mph, swimming pools, 90% of the foods we enjoy and basically the entirety of the entertainment industry as we know it are banned!"

Right, but enough about my dreams for next year.

But seriously, I'm asking this aloud. I don't have an answer. I'll be the first to admit I'm overweight, would I take it well if someone said "nope, you flat out are not allowed to eat X, Y or Z until you've lost 50 pounds, enjoy your lettuce and carrots", but my weight issues primarily affect me (yes, yes, health care costs later in life, etc, but "fat" isn't nearly as contagious as "measles") as opposed to potentially dozens, hundreds or countless others with a potentially life threatening condition (a cursory Google search indicates that Measles kills roughly 200,000 people per year).

Where does that balance lie? When do the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few or the individual? I know there are laws in place regarding requirements to provide appropriate care to dependents, regardless of beliefs (or some variation thereof, based on the untold legal cases over the years where, ah, non-standard practices have led to otherwise preventable deaths). If someone decides they personally do not wish to have, say, a transplant to save/extend their life, I can't argue with that, but when it comes to communicable disease, we're potentially talking about a lot more than just the well being of an individual, but a community.

If you're anti-vaccine, you're a blithering idiot.

It's a fact, and I think if you don't vaccinate your children they should be taken from you and given to people with sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I agree that its stupid.

But its not cause to take away the children over. That would do far more damage than good.

Children should only be separated from their parents if its an abusive situation.

What, because they had good intentions?

Intention has nothing to do with it.

This is not an abusive situation, ergo no reason to take the children away.

It's arguable that not giving your children routine medical care is abuse, if not at the very least neglect.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I'm not familiar with law, but can you charge someone for giving hazardous advice?

No, but theoretically someone who has standing (was infected, or is the guardian of someone infected) could sue civilly. I don't believe this has actually ever happened but there is injury, evidence, and so on.

 Ouze wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I'm not familiar with law, but can you charge someone for giving hazardous advice?

No, but theoretically someone who has standing (was infected, or is the guardian of someone infected) could sue civilly. I don't believe this has actually ever happened but there is injury, evidence, and so on.

Here's a pretty good read on the subject, actually.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2553651/

 Soladrin wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:



Anyway, if this gets people out of Church

Fixed.

Hey, we're not all this stupid. Prayers are nice and all, but if you can solve a problem through action, take action.

To quote my pastor:

"Always pray and talk to God. Ideally while driving to the doctor!"

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Tell me more about how I'm wrong.

Are we about to see some serious internet-tough-guy'ing?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Letting your children catch and suffer a disease because your pastor told you not to get a vaccine?

Might not be abuse, but you could argue neglect.

Yep... I could argue that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If the illness can kill you or more importantly kill others I'm more touch and go.

Definitely however schools should have the right to mandate vaccinations. You can always home school or private school if you're a wack job, er deny the efficacy of vaccinations.

I'd follow this line of reasoning for the more dangerous bugs out there. The annual flu shot/mist? I personally think that that ones a horrible idea.

Yeah, cause the flu never kills anyone, right?

The purpose of the flu shot/mist is actually to ensure that children don't miss more school days than necessary when it comes to diseases.

Erm... say wat?

Flu shots can kill you man. It has nothing to do with "keeping kids in schools". o.O


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I didn't get the whopping cough booster shot because it might kill me.

I got it because it might kill my daughter if I catch it and spread it to her.

Some vaccinations protect you, some others, and many do both.

Exactamudo dude.

What "D" says ya'll!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The mist can make you sick, the shot can't.

Despite all the anectodal evidence in the world, a shot containing absolutely zero viable flu viruses can't actually infect you.

The mist does contain a live strain of the virus, so it can make you sick.

And both only protect you from the anticipated most common strain that season, it's far from a guarantee.

Dayum... D's on a roll here ya'll... pay attention!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:

 whembly wrote:
To be honest, I think an argument could be made to force the population to get vaccinated... I just don't know "at what level" that'll kick in...

You have to let stupid be... stupid for a bit.

It's more complicated than that.

There's the theory of 'herd immunity', where some people whom cannot receive a vaccine for whatever reason (illness or condition that suppresses their immune system, allergic reaction to the materials used in said vaccines, etc) whom benefit from as many people as possible being resistant or immune to those viruses.

The more possible carriers, the more at risk those people are, and while I'm not trying to advocate trampling another persons' freedom to choice, agency and self determination, we also need to think long and hard about how important those are when balanced against when those same people act dramatically against their own self interest, and/or in a manner that jeopardizes the safety of others.

"Oh but Forar, you're just advocating an overwhelming Big Brother Is Watching nanny state where alcohol, smoking, recreational drugs, caffeine, driving over 40mph, swimming pools, 90% of the foods we enjoy and basically the entirety of the entertainment industry as we know it are banned!"

Right, but enough about my dreams for next year.

But seriously, I'm asking this aloud. I don't have an answer. I'll be the first to admit I'm overweight, would I take it well if someone said "nope, you flat out are not allowed to eat X, Y or Z until you've lost 50 pounds, enjoy your lettuce and carrots", but my weight issues primarily affect me (yes, yes, health care costs later in life, etc, but "fat" isn't nearly as contagious as "measles") as opposed to potentially dozens, hundreds or countless others with a potentially life threatening condition (a cursory Google search indicates that Measles kills roughly 200,000 people per year).

Where does that balance lie? When do the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few or the individual? I know there are laws in place regarding requirements to provide appropriate care to dependents, regardless of beliefs (or some variation thereof, based on the untold legal cases over the years where, ah, non-standard practices have led to otherwise preventable deaths). If someone decides they personally do not wish to have, say, a transplant to save/extend their life, I can't argue with that, but when it comes to communicable disease, we're potentially talking about a lot more than just the well being of an individual, but a community.

That's some good stuff there dude...

Honestly, I don't think being "fat" would allow the gubmint any say what you can/can't do... (see the epic faceplant Bloomberg went through with is attempt to ban "large soft drinks).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
To quote my pastor:

"Always pray and talk to God. Ideally while driving to the doctor!"

Yep... now that's a smart pastor.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I'm not familiar with law, but can you charge someone for giving hazardous advice?

You can if they gave advice from a recognised position of trust. So a doctor or financial advisor who gave bad advice could be found liable for the harm that bad advice produced.

The problem here is that most of the people making the anti-vaccination stuff aren't from formally recognised positions of authority. They're just 'activists'. The issue then is whether someone taking on a position like that, setting up a foundation and going on speaking tours should be just as liable for their harmful lies as a doctor would be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So... you're in favor of the public forcing people to take vaccinations?

I think forced vaccinations just aren't going to happen. I'm not in favour of themself, though I haven't really made my mind up on the issue, but ultimately it doesn't matter because they're never going to happen.

What needs to happen instead, I think, is that we look to punish people who give out bad medical advice. Not the idiot at the barbecue who starts sounding off about it, but the people who set up foundations and go about giving talks about how vaccines are dangerous. We need to take those people and their media content, and pick each and every factually incorrect claim and punish them for taking on a position of authority and making false statements that are likely to lead to harm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Think of it like this.

What is the probability of catching Measles in the US. Pretty damn low.

Weigh that against a perceived risk of causing Autism.

That's a pretty big risk to take. It is a logical reaction if you make the assumption that Vaccines do cause Autism.

Sure, but whether you were right or wrong on vaccines causing autism isn't a matter of luck as to which side you end up landing on. The medical findings on that issue have been pretty clear for a long while now, and to put it simply, choosing to ignore medical evidence in favour of oddjobs and conspiracy nuts is stupid.

Now, wind back 15 years or whatever to the release of that Lancet study and things were different - there seemed to be a legitimate question about autism. But in the dozens of studies performed since then, which produced no similar results, and then the uncovering of the dodgy nature of that original study and its covert financial motivations... well the reality is clear now, and choosing to ignore that is choosing to be stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I think that it is an abusive situation, it's all a matter of degree.

Some will think that's an acceptable level of abuse, others will not.

No, just seriously no. Taking kids away from parents is a major, major thing. It will likely define the rest of that kid's life. Taking a kid away from a stable, happy home because Mum and Dad read some stupid lies on the internet about vaccines is a massive over-reaction.

I came for the mega church.... I stayed for the in-depth discussion of the the flu vaccine. I think I missed the days in highschool where they trained everyone to be a pharmacist :(

 d-usa wrote:
Letting your children catch and suffer a disease because your pastor told you not to get a vaccine?

Might not be abuse, but you could argue neglect.

Given that most vaccines use questionable agents to improve uptake of vaccine...there are non-religious reasons to avoid certain vaccines. Most have so-so efficacy, while certain diseases who need a vaccine lack anything to catalyse a reaction from the host.

Vaccinology definitely needs a shake-up, as its ethically unsound at the moment.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Letting your children catch and suffer a disease because your pastor told you not to get a vaccine?

Might not be abuse, but you could argue neglect.

Given that most vaccines use questionable agents to improve uptake of vaccine...there are non-religious reasons to avoid certain vaccines. Most have so-so efficacy, while certain diseases who need a vaccine lack anything to catalyse a reaction from the host.

Vaccinology definitely needs a shake-up, as its ethically unsound at the moment.

I'd like to see some evidence of this.