To lazy to address this all again so I'll copy/paste my debate responses from this thread: https://atheistforums.org/thread-35880.html page 7
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I've copied and pasted parts of some of your posts (in black type). If you feel they are in error I am willing to correct them if they need correction. My response in blue.
Referencing the OP link: “Did she have a good reason? Yes in my opinion she did [edit] she had a negative experience which is an indication that the healthcare service is inadequate." Opinion based on hearsay and very limited facts. I doubt that the MD only offered her pills. I don't believe there are not enough facts for either of us to come to an objective opinion. I will concede that she had fear/mistrust (justified or unjustified).
“But wait a second. We have (Australia) maybe 93-94% rate of childhood immunisation. Now compare that to say the fact that 20% of women in Australia report that they have experienced childhood sex abuse.” Off topic. Adds no value to the vaccination discussion.
"And I take issue with the statement that "children who don't get vaccinated put other children at risk". [edit] 2. No they don't, they just don't participate in herd protection." Actually yes they do. Children, vaccinated or not, are part of the herd. The non-vaccinated by choice would be considered an anti-participant/anti-protection/free rider. They have the potential to spread disease to other parts of the non-vaccinated herd (members of the herd/community without choice, children under 15 months, persons without immunity due to genetics, disease, disease treatment or old age. Again, please notice that these individuals have no choice). If infected and released into the herd they have the ability to transmit the disease directly or indirectly (produce a subclinical infection in the vaccinated who then have the ability to infect the members of the herd/community without choice).
"4. The so-called harm that people don't vaccinate their children is only a "potential" I agree. However it is a potential that society has deemed an unacceptable risk. That’s why there are vaccination schedules in both our countries.
"Immunisation is about preventing outbreaks, not individual cases. So this whole argument that parents are putting their own children at greater risk is not correct - they are putting the community at greater risk." This is incorrect, it is about both. Don’t think it’s about individuals? Have the child/parent/you take a trip to an endemic area with measles, cholera or yellow fever without being vaccinated and come into direct contact with the infected, taking no extra precautions. Look at the US and Aus requirements for individual vaccination when coming from another country with no proof of vaccination. Those individuals are given a choice, get the required vaccinations or don’t become part of this herd/society.
"Particularly that you shouldn't victim-blame people who have distrust in health services." I won’t blame them. However, they do have a choice, unlike other members of the herd/community. I will state that there should be societal consequences for their actions. The primary one (as stated in an earlier post) isolation. If the isolation is not complied with then other consequences should be enforced.
"Once you get to 95% it doesn't matter about the other 5%. [edit] There's no need to call it selfish, as long as 95% are immunised it doesn't matter whether the last 5% are or aren't. Individual cases do not matter. [edit] Vaccinating 95% or more of the total population provides the maximum possible protection." Herd protection position. Herd protection only applies when the herd remains static, relatively non-changing. In modern society with ability to travel outside the herd, the herd protection logic fails. The non-vaccinated that travel outside the herd (into areas where they become susceptible to infection) if infected then have the ability to bring the infection back to the members of the herd/community that are without choice. Again, this is why the US and Aus have vaccination protocols for individuals that travel to endemic areas. First to protect the individual while there, second to protect the disease from returning to the herd.
"If you want to blame anyone blame doctors, nurses, and pharmacists for not communicating the need to their patients effectively. [edit] They slip through the net often because they don't follow it up by getting advice from their GPs, and their GPs don't bother to actively engage their clients to get their children immunised. [edit] Is an indication that there's something wrong with healthcare delivery." Sounds like everyone is blaming. I agree that both sides have responsibilities. For vaccination, which is regulated by society, the parents/patients have the majority of responsibility. It is not feasible (physically/economically) for healthcare to contact every individual. If the parents/patients want to be a part of the herd/society (without limitations), it is their ultimate responsibility.
"Again this isn't "my view". I'm stating the conventional wisdom of the healthcare professionals." I read the two articles that were online. They are directed at healthcare in general, not vaccination specific. Healthcare in “general” is not a societal requirement, vaccination is (at least in US and Aus). If you can provide an article specific to vaccination I’ll be happy to read it. In fact I’ll provide one myself: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rele...itancy/en/
My only point is that if an individual (or their children), for what ever reason (fear,ignorance,mistrust), knowingly elects to not get vaccinated then they need to be aware that they may not have all of the rights and privileges of those who do vaccinate. That there may/should be consequences. The first is voluntary isolation, restricted movement/contact, i.e. day care, public/private school participation, public transportation, public gathering places, public events (Disneyland comes to mind)....... If the individuals choose not to abide by the imposed isolation/restrictions, then the society needs a vehicle to have them enforced. The second, responsibility for damages caused by infecting others in society who don't have the ability to choose (legal-criminal or civil).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I've copied and pasted parts of some of your posts (in black type). If you feel they are in error I am willing to correct them if they need correction. My response in blue.
Referencing the OP link: “Did she have a good reason? Yes in my opinion she did [edit] she had a negative experience which is an indication that the healthcare service is inadequate." Opinion based on hearsay and very limited facts. I doubt that the MD only offered her pills. I don't believe there are not enough facts for either of us to come to an objective opinion. I will concede that she had fear/mistrust (justified or unjustified).
“But wait a second. We have (Australia) maybe 93-94% rate of childhood immunisation. Now compare that to say the fact that 20% of women in Australia report that they have experienced childhood sex abuse.” Off topic. Adds no value to the vaccination discussion.
"And I take issue with the statement that "children who don't get vaccinated put other children at risk". [edit] 2. No they don't, they just don't participate in herd protection." Actually yes they do. Children, vaccinated or not, are part of the herd. The non-vaccinated by choice would be considered an anti-participant/anti-protection/free rider. They have the potential to spread disease to other parts of the non-vaccinated herd (members of the herd/community without choice, children under 15 months, persons without immunity due to genetics, disease, disease treatment or old age. Again, please notice that these individuals have no choice). If infected and released into the herd they have the ability to transmit the disease directly or indirectly (produce a subclinical infection in the vaccinated who then have the ability to infect the members of the herd/community without choice).
"4. The so-called harm that people don't vaccinate their children is only a "potential" I agree. However it is a potential that society has deemed an unacceptable risk. That’s why there are vaccination schedules in both our countries.
"Immunisation is about preventing outbreaks, not individual cases. So this whole argument that parents are putting their own children at greater risk is not correct - they are putting the community at greater risk." This is incorrect, it is about both. Don’t think it’s about individuals? Have the child/parent/you take a trip to an endemic area with measles, cholera or yellow fever without being vaccinated and come into direct contact with the infected, taking no extra precautions. Look at the US and Aus requirements for individual vaccination when coming from another country with no proof of vaccination. Those individuals are given a choice, get the required vaccinations or don’t become part of this herd/society.
"Particularly that you shouldn't victim-blame people who have distrust in health services." I won’t blame them. However, they do have a choice, unlike other members of the herd/community. I will state that there should be societal consequences for their actions. The primary one (as stated in an earlier post) isolation. If the isolation is not complied with then other consequences should be enforced.
"Once you get to 95% it doesn't matter about the other 5%. [edit] There's no need to call it selfish, as long as 95% are immunised it doesn't matter whether the last 5% are or aren't. Individual cases do not matter. [edit] Vaccinating 95% or more of the total population provides the maximum possible protection." Herd protection position. Herd protection only applies when the herd remains static, relatively non-changing. In modern society with ability to travel outside the herd, the herd protection logic fails. The non-vaccinated that travel outside the herd (into areas where they become susceptible to infection) if infected then have the ability to bring the infection back to the members of the herd/community that are without choice. Again, this is why the US and Aus have vaccination protocols for individuals that travel to endemic areas. First to protect the individual while there, second to protect the disease from returning to the herd.
"If you want to blame anyone blame doctors, nurses, and pharmacists for not communicating the need to their patients effectively. [edit] They slip through the net often because they don't follow it up by getting advice from their GPs, and their GPs don't bother to actively engage their clients to get their children immunised. [edit] Is an indication that there's something wrong with healthcare delivery." Sounds like everyone is blaming. I agree that both sides have responsibilities. For vaccination, which is regulated by society, the parents/patients have the majority of responsibility. It is not feasible (physically/economically) for healthcare to contact every individual. If the parents/patients want to be a part of the herd/society (without limitations), it is their ultimate responsibility.
"Again this isn't "my view". I'm stating the conventional wisdom of the healthcare professionals." I read the two articles that were online. They are directed at healthcare in general, not vaccination specific. Healthcare in “general” is not a societal requirement, vaccination is (at least in US and Aus). If you can provide an article specific to vaccination I’ll be happy to read it. In fact I’ll provide one myself: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rele...itancy/en/
My only point is that if an individual (or their children), for what ever reason (fear,ignorance,mistrust), knowingly elects to not get vaccinated then they need to be aware that they may not have all of the rights and privileges of those who do vaccinate. That there may/should be consequences. The first is voluntary isolation, restricted movement/contact, i.e. day care, public/private school participation, public transportation, public gathering places, public events (Disneyland comes to mind)....... If the individuals choose not to abide by the imposed isolation/restrictions, then the society needs a vehicle to have them enforced. The second, responsibility for damages caused by infecting others in society who don't have the ability to choose (legal-criminal or civil).
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
