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.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So a distressing number of GOP voters are stupid idiots?*

Strong words whembly.

*much better to just stick with "a distressing number of voters"

I don't think I've seen anti-vaxx folks voting democrats... unless they're limosine Democrats.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So a distressing number of GOP voters are stupid idiots?*

Strong words whembly.

*much better to just stick with "a distressing number of voters"

I don't think I've seen anti-vaxx folks voting democrats... unless they're limosine Democrats.

I think the "damn government can't tell me what to do" anti-vaxxers are a minority and that most anti-vaxxers are of the "don't put this poison in my child, big phara is evil" liberal kind that would vote Dem or Green.

It does seem that Republican politicians seem to cater to them for some reason though.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So a distressing number of GOP voters are stupid idiots?*

Strong words whembly.

*much better to just stick with "a distressing number of voters"

I don't think I've seen anti-vaxx folks voting democrats... unless they're limosine Democrats.

I think the "damn government can't tell me what to do" anti-vaxxers are a minority and that most anti-vaxxers are of the "don't put this poison in my child, big phara is evil" liberal kind that would vote Dem or Green.

It does seem that Republican politicians seem to cater to them for some reason though.

Ron/Rand Paul seems to attract those types of folks...

Philosophically, the only freedom that matters is the Freedom-to-Be-Wrong™... right??

I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.

If only it worked that way. I'm seeing some recent FB posts from my Canadian friends about some pediatricians who are literally turning away patients and "cancelling" them as a provider, if they refuse vaccination.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.

If only it worked that way. I'm seeing some recent FB posts from my Canadian friends about some pediatricians who are literally turning away patients and "cancelling" them as a provider, if they refuse vaccination.

That sounds pretty dodgy by those doctors. Yeah the people are idiots for refusing (if they are refusing for the regular anti-vax movement reasons and not a legitimate reason), but you should still give them medical care. Is there any reliable stories about this though? Or is it just FB posts. Because facebook is hardly the best place to pick up news...

 motyak wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.

If only it worked that way. I'm seeing some recent FB posts from my Canadian friends about some pediatricians who are literally turning away patients and "cancelling" them as a provider, if they refuse vaccination.

That sounds pretty dodgy by those doctors. Yeah the people are idiots for refusing (if they are refusing for the regular anti-vax movement reasons and not a legitimate reason), but you should still give them medical care. Is there any reliable stories about this though? Or is it just FB posts. Because facebook is hardly the best place to pick up news...

link to the story my friend posted:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/doctors-are-dropping-patients-who-refuse-vaccines-1.2212785

As to the source, I dont know how reliable or not CTV news is.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.

Wouldn't that end up being other unvaccinated folks? Surely the vaccinated folks are safe, right?

I'm pro vaccination (all my kids were vaccinated and I can't tell you how many different shots I got in the Army) but just don't see it as a Federal issue at all. This measles thing is silly. If I read correctly there were like 500 cases last year, so right now this massive outbreak of less than 100 (with zero deaths) started allegedly by a foreign tourist to Disney Land is not that big a deal.

Let insurance companies deny coverage for certain sicknesses and their treatments unless the insured shows vaccination records. If your kid is one of the handful in his school not vaccinated, well he/she and the rest of the handful are at risk, along with any unvaccinated adults. Let the parents of the vaccinated kids sit back and say 'Told you so!'

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So a distressing number of GOP voters are stupid idiots?*

Strong words whembly.

*much better to just stick with "a distressing number of voters"

There is a weird group from both sides that are anti vaxxers.

Frankly I fear there is a vast portion of the population that is becoming increasingly LaRouchite from all spectrums.
The Left is going what could beest be described as populist (again) and still holds the likes of Maxine Waters. They seem to have no problem with abrogating the constitution if their party is in charge.
The Right is starting to go off the deep end. I had a "shouting match" with a fellow on a more conservative website concerning the Abbott/Bennett disussion on Common Core (Bennett won easily). Bennett was being accused of not being a Republican or conseravtive. Excuse me? This was one of Reagan's key players, an Old Guard cultural conservative who was fighting Da Commies before Abbott could pee standing up. Lots of weird pseudo 911 truthers posting that don't have a clue about Common Core, but its attracted every evil government conspiracy known. As Bennett said, read the CC standards, they're actually posted, and not what some nut is saying it says. Its a minimum standards thing that you can disagree with (how some of the math is taught is low hanging fruit and a real issue) but come on, its not an Obama plot to install ISIL in the Whitehouse.

The scary thing, these people vote (when they accidently stumble into a voting booth). I guess the optimist would say this has always been the case. You used to buy votes with a beer legally. Man I miss those days.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.

If only it worked that way. I'm seeing some recent FB posts from my Canadian friends about some pediatricians who are literally turning away patients and "cancelling" them as a provider, if they refuse vaccination.

That sounds pretty dodgy by those doctors. Yeah the people are idiots for refusing (if they are refusing for the regular anti-vax movement reasons and not a legitimate reason), but you should still give them medical care. Is there any reliable stories about this though? Or is it just FB posts. Because facebook is hardly the best place to pick up news...

Articles about doctors in L.A. doing the same. Works for me.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.

Or, if the measles, the lost earning power of the children who go blind? or cover the funerals for the children who die?

The way I see it, there are 2 groups of people:

1.) People who have kids that are too young for vaccinations, or immunocompromised, or have a medical issue, and

2.) People who think vaccinations cause autism or some other illness, or think there are too many too soon, or whatever

And you know what? That's great. This is America, you're free to choose, you know? And if you're in group 2, then you should have your kids taken from you, and you should get charged with child neglect. Because your choice isn't any different than the parent who chose not to feed their kids, or who tried to pray away their kids cancer instead of taking them to the hospital, or any other complete nonsense that unfit parents do. Your "choice" isn't any different than me getting drunk and driving down a sidewalk. Your choice has endangered the lives of the people around you.

As a society we've long established that there are limitations to your freedom to choose for your minor children, especially when you are making choices that are manifestly bad for them (malnutrition, refusing to school them, abusing them, whatever). I'm totally OK with the state impinging your freedom to be a public health menace and seriously injure or kill those around you because of your stupid fething ideas about how science works.

Politicians who advocate on behalf of the latter group are a disgrace to a first world country.

Its scary when I agree with Ouze. Someone hold me.

Does somebody need a hug? *opens arms*

Here in Australia some schools will refuse your kid if they're not vaccinated. And a number of government parental payments are denied if you don't get your kid vaccinated.

 Frazzled wrote:
The Left is going what could beest be described as populist (again) and still holds the likes of Maxine Waters. They seem to have no problem with abrogating the constitution if their party is in charge.
The Right is starting to go off the deep end.

I agree with you entirely Fraz. The only thing I'd change is to say that the populism on the left is nothing new, but it seems to doubling down more and more on some very destructive stances (race relations especially, but their stance on economic issues is increasingly problematic).

 Frazzled wrote:
(how some of the math is taught is low hanging fruit and a real issue)

I've heard/seen a lot of complaints about the common core math...Most of it boils down to 'It's different, thus it's wrong'. However, looking at some of it, it's actually teaching kids how math works rather than just memorization. The process actually reflects how my brain processes math problems.

I'm pretty good at math, but that is partially because I realized HOW numbers interact. Looking at the sample problems that were part of the outrage, yes, they were confusing or complicated at first. However, once I looked at what the problem was trying to do, it made perfect sense to me. Yes, an ordinary person would do it easier another way, but making the children do it a different way teaches them a new way of thinking about how things work. Similar to how, in the karate kid, the hero was made to do chores in a certain way. Plus, with theory, you start with a simple example but once things get more complex, the theory still holds.

Here in the US, every state and many counties have immunization requirements for schools, though some offer waivers. Even the private school my daughter goes to strictly enforces the county immunization requirements.

Again, it isn't a Federal issue, and those making it one are being silly in my opinion. If the states and counties can't enforce it, how do you expect some bureaucrat in DC to do so?

Actually, taking into account the Patient Zero for this outbreak seems to have been a tourist from outside the US, perhaps there is a Federal component. Don't issue visas to enter the US unless vaccinations are current, and work to stop the flow of illegals.

When trying to bring our kids into the US (they are adopted from overseas) we sure as hell had to do the immunization dance to get visas.

I think the kids should wear something that says they where not vaccine ated, and the parents too. Some thing like " my principles are more important then my child's health"

I also agree that schools should not enroll children who have not been vaccinated for nonmedical reasons. The idea of a personal exemption is ridiculous and never should have been allowed.

 CptJake wrote:
Here in the US, every state and many counties have immunization requirements for schools, though some offer waivers. Even the private school my daughter goes to strictly enforces the county immunization requirements.

Again, it isn't a Federal issue, and those making it one are being silly in my opinion. If the states and counties can't enforce it, how do you expect some bureaucrat in DC to do so?

Actually, taking into account the Patient Zero for this outbreak seems to have been a tourist from outside the US, perhaps there is a Federal component. Don't issue visas to enter the US unless vaccinations are current, and work to stop the flow of illegals.

When trying to bring our kids into the US (they are adopted from overseas) we sure as hell had to do the immunization dance to get visas.

It could be argued as a federal issue because these children are not confined to their own state, and diseases don't really recognize state borders.

I'm firmly in the "if you don't vaccinate, you should lose your children" camp. Having seen what polio is doing to my uncle, I really don't understand how anyone could advocate for allowing diseases that were on the brink of eradication to suddenly resurface. It's completely ridiculous, and selfish on a psychopathic level; it basically requires you to completely ignore the people around you. Not just on a "I don't care what you want" level, but on a "I am willing to frelling KILL YOU" level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I also agree that schools should not enroll children who have not been vaccinated for nonmedical reasons. The idea of a personal exemption is ridiculous and never should have been allowed.

That's California for you though.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.

If only it worked that way. I'm seeing some recent FB posts from my Canadian friends about some pediatricians who are literally turning away patients and "cancelling" them as a provider, if they refuse vaccination.

That sounds pretty dodgy by those doctors. Yeah the people are idiots for refusing (if they are refusing for the regular anti-vax movement reasons and not a legitimate reason), but you should still give them medical care. Is there any reliable stories about this though? Or is it just FB posts. Because facebook is hardly the best place to pick up news...

link to the story my friend posted:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/doctors-are-dropping-patients-who-refuse-vaccines-1.2212785

As to the source, I dont know how reliable or not CTV news is.

CTV is probably the most reliable news agency up here. While they are most definitely Conservative in their political leanings, they go after every party equally hard when they do stupid things.

CBC is the closest thing we have to Fox News... they're nothing but a taxpayer funded Liberal mouthpiece who take every chance they can get to portray all Conservatives as power mad, moustache twirling villains.



As for doctors being allowed to drop patients who refuse vaccines, it's mainly a personal choice by the doctor/s in question as keeping these kinds of dangerous clients can open that individual up to all kinds of legal troubles.

Anyone who refuses to vaccinate their kids because they buy into the junk science reasons should have their kids taken from them.

sebster wrote:
I agree with you entirely Fraz. The only thing I'd change is to say that the populism on the left is nothing new, but it seems to doubling down more and more on some very destructive stances (race relations especially, but their stance on economic issues is increasingly problematic).

I think you're onto something there.

In local news, Maryland is already reaping what it sowed:

Hogan to cut state pay and education aid.

It's like frelling clockwork. Republican barely in the door, already cutting education. Primarily to Baltimore City and Prince George's County. Guess what the majority population is for those two counties.

Oh but wait! We're making all these cuts to balance the budget right!

So of course once that's balanced we need to cut taxes on the wealthy!

It still boggles me that this man got elected in Maryland. But hey, at least it's only for 4 years!

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
(how some of the math is taught is low hanging fruit and a real issue)

I've heard/seen a lot of complaints about the common core math...Most of it boils down to 'It's different, thus it's wrong'. However, looking at some of it, it's actually teaching kids how math works rather than just memorization. The process actually reflects how my brain processes math problems.

I'm pretty good at math, but that is partially because I realized HOW numbers interact. Looking at the sample problems that were part of the outrage, yes, they were confusing or complicated at first. However, once I looked at what the problem was trying to do, it made perfect sense to me. Yes, an ordinary person would do it easier another way, but making the children do it a different way teaches them a new way of thinking about how things work. Similar to how, in the karate kid, the hero was made to do chores in a certain way. Plus, with theory, you start with a simple example but once things get more complex, the theory still holds.

It depends. The way some of it sounds yea thats how I do it in my head without a calculator kind of thing.

But its taken to a weird degree. When the kids went through it they couldn't figure it either (note the Boy is a 3rd Dean's List in...Math AND DEAR GOD HE"S TWENTY TODAY!) and had to learn the "old" method first.
Teach it the quick way, then teach the cool concepts. Frankly many of us aren't built to handle a high level of math.

 streamdragon wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Here in the US, every state and many counties have immunization requirements for schools, though some offer waivers. Even the private school my daughter goes to strictly enforces the county immunization requirements.

Again, it isn't a Federal issue, and those making it one are being silly in my opinion. If the states and counties can't enforce it, how do you expect some bureaucrat in DC to do so?

Actually, taking into account the Patient Zero for this outbreak seems to have been a tourist from outside the US, perhaps there is a Federal component. Don't issue visas to enter the US unless vaccinations are current, and work to stop the flow of illegals.

When trying to bring our kids into the US (they are adopted from overseas) we sure as hell had to do the immunization dance to get visas.

It could be argued as a federal issue because these children are not confined to their own state, and diseases don't really recognize state borders.

I'm firmly in the "if you don't vaccinate, you should lose your children" camp. Having seen what polio is doing to my uncle, I really don't understand how anyone could advocate for allowing diseases that were on the brink of eradication to suddenly resurface. It's completely ridiculous, and selfish on a psychopathic level; it basically requires you to completely ignore the people around you. Not just on a "I don't care what you want" level, but on a "I am willing to frelling KILL YOU" level.

And when you move to the new state and try to enroll your kids in schools, there will be an immunization check. As for that 'I'm willing to frelling KILL YOU' hyperbole, you're perfectly welcome to get immunized and to immunize your kids. I did.

I'm really not sure how expanding Federal Gov't control when every state already has laws/regs covering it is going to make any difference and amount to anything more than a waste of taxpayer dollars. The feds already publish guidelines that the states take into account when they pass their laws and regulations and when they enforce them. To seriously advocate a federal mandate to take kids from families is a very scary idea to me. There are so many more examples of poor/bad parenting that result in the injury or death of many many more children than lack immunization. Should the Feds get involved in all of them?

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

The reality is, most measles cases affecting the US population originate overseas. In the cases where they don't, they have been limited to communities (like the Amish) where the outbreaks remain pretty localized. The Feds can and should enforce immunization standards when processing visas, and reevaluate how they allow folks without visas coming from countries with outbreaks to enter the US.

But when you look at the magnitude of the problem, it just isn't one that requires federal resources when the states and counties are already handling it.

 streamdragon wrote:
In local news, Maryland is already reaping what it sowed:

Hogan to cut state pay and education aid.

It's like frelling clockwork. Republican barely in the door, already cutting education. Primarily to Baltimore City and Prince George's County. Guess what the majority population is for those two counties.

Oh but wait! We're making all these cuts to balance the budget right!

So of course once that's balanced we need to cut taxes on the wealthy!

It still boggles me that this man got elected in Maryland. But hey, at least it's only for 4 years!

I'm fine with cutting education budgets on a targeted basis of eliminating admin positions. As for teachers I'm different. Put in a simple model that weeds out the bad and promotes the good teachers. Give the good teachers a substantial bonus. Give them the tools to do what they need to do.
Inversely if you don't pass your classes you should be ineligible for government aid for 20 years.

 Ouze wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I quite like the freedom to face the consequences. If you are opposed to vaccination, then you get to pay the medical bills of anyone your child gets sick.

Or, if the measles, the lost earning power of the children who go blind? or cover the funerals for the children who die?

The way I see it, there are 2 groups of people:

1.) People who have kids that are too young for vaccinations, or immunocompromised, or have a medical issue, and

2.) People who think vaccinations cause autism or some other illness, or think there are too many too soon, or whatever

And you know what? That's great. This is America, you're free to choose, you know? And if you're in group 2, then you should have your kids taken from you, and you should get charged with child neglect. Because your choice isn't any different than the parent who chose not to feed their kids, or who tried to pray away their kids cancer instead of taking them to the hospital, or any other complete nonsense that unfit parents do. Your "choice" isn't any different than me getting drunk and driving down a sidewalk. Your choice has endangered the lives of the people around you.

As a society we've long established that there are limitations to your freedom to choose for your minor children, especially when you are making choices that are manifestly bad for them (malnutrition, refusing to school them, abusing them, whatever). I'm totally OK with the state impinging your freedom to be a public health menace and seriously injure or kill those around you because of your stupid fething ideas about how science works.

Politicians who advocate on behalf of the latter group are a disgrace to a first world country.

I'm pro-vaccination. But you are missing the point imo.

Tthe last half of your post... feth no man... I mean... really? Think about what you're really saying.

I mean, if you wanna go that far, how long do you think home schooling would be taboo? Don't you think the public school system would love it if society can "force" families to send their kids to accredited schools? (public or private) Thus ensuring their revenue streams.

Won't you think of the children?!?!? I mean, we're practically there ya know:
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/connecticut-teen-curable-cancer-fights-stop-chemo-n281511


The point is this:
People should be free, to the maximum extent bearable, to be as foolish, shortsighted, gullible and dumb as people naturally are.

And corollarly...

The fact that a choice is good is not evidence that it should also be mandatory.
...
...

I'm going to dial back the rhetoric a bit...

This is the classic example of an issue where both sides believe they have a rational argument. The state has the duty to adjudicate between the two conflicting points of view. Right?

It is a conflict between public health and the duty of the state, and individual freedom and the responsibilities that result from risk taking.

That's all this is really about.

Now, yeah... I think the anti-vaxxers are paranoid and doing wrong by their children, and in fact doing wrong by other people's children, by giving these diseases a habitat to thrive in. It's really a stupid stance (hello! Jenny McCarthy!).

But we all live to some extent in pools of risk created by our neighbors and other citizens. Right? We have to accept the risk that an 80 year old driver may have a stroke and plow into us or our kids. We do not subjugate him to the DMV every month for a check-up or demand that they relinguish their drivers license and mandate that they use taxis (gak, the taxis organizations would LOVE this! )

Having said that, if you choose to not immunize your children, the state has an obligation to protect the other citizens who might suffer as a result of your choice. The problem isn't that your child might contract the measles, rather the problem is some disinterested third party, a pregnant woman, might be exposed by your child's measles and her baby might then be born with a serious birth defect. Or it might be a lethal exposure to senior citizen or immuno-compromised individuals.

If you want the freedom to take risk, then you bear the liability for that decision. This liability question has already been addressed by the courts when people with aids were prosecuted for unprotected sex with unsuspecting partners. So, we're really not talking about freedom from consequence here. It's simply a debate of risk managment with individual freedoms.

Now don't get me wrong... I firmly believe that if you don't immunize your kids, then the state can prohibit your children from attending public schools, public venues, etc... and it is the parent's responsibility to find some other means. Don't throw hissy fit if Disneyland sues you for bringing the disease into their park when you knowinging don't immunize your kids! (since it's probably a fine print on their ticket, contractually when you purchase said tickets to affirm that the kids are immunized).

One thing to keep in mind is that polio and measles are human-only viruses i.e. there are no animal reservoirs for them to hide out in. So once the last case of these diseases has been treated/prevented, the viruses are gone forever. So there is a benefit to universal forced vaccination because it gets us closer and closer to ending these diseases once and for all. So, I understand that argument and whole heartedly support it.

But I also understand the people are not unwitting herds and there will be some segments of the population who won't participate in this because of their anti-vaxxing positions, religious reasons, or simply because you'd want to "Stick It To The Man".

In short, this encapsulates one of my favorite fiction writer Robert Jordan's "Wizard's Rules":
Wizard's First Rule: People are dumb.

Now... to circle back to this being a "political thread"... screw the attack on Christie imo. They laugh because Christie is uncomfortable with government forcing people to vaccinate??? I can't say I know what's in Cristie's head, but I would certainly hope that those in power judiciously and deliberately review each case accordingly.

CptJake wrote:And when you move to the new state and try to enroll your kids in schools, there will be an immunization check. As for that 'I'm willing to frelling KILL YOU' hyperbole, you're perfectly welcome to get immunized and to immunize your kids. I did.

Which completely ignores how vaccines work through herd immunity. I'll let wiki explain it, because it will do a better job than I can.

And I'm not being hyperbolic with "I'm willing to kill you". Some of the diseases that we immunize for can be fatal. Polio, which as I said my uncle still suffers from, being a shining example. That anyone would advocate behavior that could lead to a return of such an awful disease showcases a mentality that the lives surrounding them do not matter one iota. It's psychopathy at its most base.

Frazzled wrote:I'm fine with cutting education budgets on a targeted basis of eliminating admin positions. As for teachers I'm different. Put in a simple model that weeds out the bad and promotes the good teachers. Give the good teachers a substantial bonus. Give them the tools to do what they need to do.
Inversely if you don't pass your classes you should be ineligible for government aid for 20 years.

And if I thought for one second that was what was happening, I would be okay with it. But it's not, and I think you are smart enough to realize it's not. He's literally saying "those areas that need more money shouldn't be getting more money". He's cutting teacher pay after years without raises, and rolling back the only cost of living increase they've seen in years. He's actually cutting the Merit raises program. Cutting it. Great incentive there Hogan.

 whembly wrote:

If you want the freedom to take risk, then you bear the liability for that decision.

And that is where the entire argument falls apart.

Because the result of this whole anti-vaxxers idiocy is that "your freedom to take risk" places not only the child at direct risk of harm, but also everybody around that child that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. The parent who is to stupid to vaccinate their child does not bear the liability for their decision, that liability is born by their child.

Frazzled wrote:I'm fine with cutting education budgets on a targeted basis of eliminating admin positions. As for teachers I'm different. Put in a simple model that weeds out the bad and promotes the good teachers. Give the good teachers a substantial bonus. Give them the tools to do what they need to do.
Inversely if you don't pass your classes you should be ineligible for government aid for 20 years.

And if I thought for one second that was what was happening, I would be okay with it. But it's not, and I think you are smart enough to realize it's not. He's literally saying "those areas that need more money shouldn't be getting more money". He's cutting teacher pay after years without raises, and rolling back the only cost of living increase they've seen in years. He's actually cutting the Merit raises program. Cutting it. Great incentive there Hogan.

Agreed. Wowsa I'm feeling too agreeable today.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If you want the freedom to take risk, then you bear the liability for that decision.

And that is where the entire argument falls apart.

Because the result of this whole anti-vaxxers idiocy is that "your freedom to take risk" places not only the child at direct risk of harm, but also everybody around that child that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. The parent who is to stupid to vaccinate their child does not bear the liability for their decision, that liability is born by their child.

That's whole part of risk management in our society.

*shrug* I'm not so sure it totally falls apart, because you can argue that in just about every scenario.

I guess I just had a visceral reaction to the idea that some folks are advocating the government to TAKE YOUR child away from you if you refused to vaccinate your child.

The visceral scenario should be the spike in tiny coffin sales due to idiotic parents.

If I am provided with two possible scenarios where parents shed tears because their child is gone, I will choose the one where a healthy child is alive over the one where a child is dead.