Abstaining from Vaccination should NOT be a right

[Autumnlicious]

Where the fuck did I say, hey, we should just let people launch pandemics? Oh, I didn't say that. I said people should not be injected with anything if they are unwilling.

You are not connecting cause and effect. Neither do you seem to comprehend that if enough people refuse to vaccinate for a common virus subfamily (or group thereof formed by hybridization), you launch pandemics through increasing the frequency of mixing events in a healthy population.

In short, by giving people the right to decrease herd immunity, you are directly increasing the chances for highly virulent strains to form, spread and kill.

You keep on living in a microcosm. Of rights, of free will.

Why don't you look at the interaction between viruses and the population?

The fact that you feel secure in "when did I specifically state that". That's a rhetorical trick, and a shitty one at that.

You never said anything about the right to launch a pandemic, only the right to arbitrarily refuse vaccinations.

Just like those people at the Superbowl launched a measles pandemic by exercising their right to refuse vaccines.

Cause meet effect.

The last time we disagreed, you geeked the fuck out about someone getting hit by a car saying the person who hit them should get the death penalty, flip-flopped and then geeked on those who agreed with you.

Oh, so changing your position based on new information is now something negative?

I find it repulsive that anyone would force a needle into another human being for any reason.

For any reason, eh? Last I checked you were pro-death penalty, which some forms of execution entail needles.

What about cases where a patient is flailing in the ER but doesn't want sedatives? Oh wait, they're injected anyways.

What about cases where the parents prevent their child from getting cancer treatment? They stuck needles into the damn kid regardless of his parents or his own objection.

I'm sorry Shell, but your binary position is not only unreal, untenable, but illogical and out of step with reality.

I find it inconsistent with your pro-choice stance and find the "logic" behind it often involves some sort of blown out of proportion version of the spread of disease.

ಠ_ಠ

Because these epidemics started out not in areas of high vaccination? Because these epidemics are the end result of giving the influenza virus time to mix in the population and their livestock?


Because not reducing the virulence of a disease helps it attain optimal virulence after enough time has passed?


Yes. I am "soooo" illogical by understanding the roots and spread of disease....

The last pandemic of a disease with a very high mortality rate that was not AIDS was nearly a hundred fucking years ago and can be treated now with antibiotic. Refuckinglax.

No. This ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic ) is not treated with antibiotics. In fact, aspirin poisoning may have contributed to the deaths of some of the victims.

What you need is a cytokine inhibitor in the 1918's case ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm#Treatment ) to prevent overreaction. However, there were no vaccines existing for that subfamily of influenza.

Sorry if I'm being touchy. You're obviously one of my favorites, but geez, dude. Debate, don't freak out on me.

Hm. Now that I've had to paw through more papers, it's somewhat calmed me down. Still, I find it hard to communicate the implications of virulence theory, which at the most base summation, states that small actions on a system done on repetitive basis can provoke extremely discontinuous changes in the host environment.

To be clear, I said "a lot." I was paraphrasing. Either way, my point that you should probably chill stands. She's most certainly not an idiot and absolutely knows more about medicine than you do, unless you have a degree in medicine of which I am unaware.

Then she'll clearly be able to set me straight and present evidence (i.e. papers). I would like to have my knowledge regarding such bettered.