Abstaining from Vaccination should NOT be a right

[The Grand Nudger]

And that is my point. Just as sex education is proven more effective than abstinence, vaccination education may prove more effective than attempting to force compliance. With that in mind, most people do get vaccinated, so it may eventually happen, as it has with other diseases, that no one gets the disease, vaccinated or not. Giving people an option is not going to inevitably lead to the medical thriller doom you present.

Giving these people (anti-vaxxers) an option is the only thing that is required for "medical thriller doom". Our entire history is "medical thriller doom". Downplay it if you like but these little nasties have been killing us since before we care to remember. We can do something about it, but apparently it's unthinkable. Vaccine education is worthless without actually taking the vaccine.

Huh?

They don't have to take precautions and you should not be able to make them.

Seat belt laws, drivers licensing tests, building codes, food safety regulations. They do have to take precautions, and we do force this (or enact fines/imprisonment).

Bullshit, though they do have a point. It is their right to refuse. I'm not anti-vaccination. I'm anti-forced medicine of any kind.

As am I, but that doesn't mean that the law is against forcing medications (it isn't) or that our shared distaste for involuntary or forced medical procedures is a universally applicable ideology (it isn't).

That is very, very unlikely. Pandemics have never been that deadly. Even the 1918 endemic and the plague were only deadly because of pneumonia, which can now be treated with antibiotics.

You and I have different metrics for determining how deadly pandemics have been. It seems to me from your posts that you view them as sort of function of this rock that is inescapable and, apparently, not that deadly. The dead disagree on the latter, the developers of vaccines disagree on the former.

Yes, I absolutely am. I am arguing that the intelligent use of vaccinations by most of the population will suffice. Quarantining sick individuals prevents spread of infection when it happens and the list goes on.

Now who's expecting too much? Intelligence, as a group..from us.....

Yes, I don't see why you have any expectations of people you don't even know.

It's called civil law, and public health policy. We all have many, many expectations of people we don't know, yourself included.

Wanting them to is not unreasonable. Insisting that they do is overstepping.

Why? We want and insist in many areas of public health and human interaction..codify it by law, and merrily go about our business. Just because you have personal convictions in this specific case does not mean that you and I and every swinging Richard aren't engaged in insisting this or that from others all day, every day, in law.

If you prefer me change that to "you are trying to control everyone," I would be more than happy to do that.

Almost there, getting closer. I'm actually suggesting that we attempt to control the spread of infectious disease, but however you want to interpret that is your own business.

Because whilst making that argument you are imposing your will on others, which is the precise argument I am sure you make against pro-lifers. It's fucking hypocritical. And, yes, if it has been harmful for even one person, it can be argued to be harmful. Why the fuck do you think sick people shouldn't take vaccinations? They certainly aren't fucking candy. It has to be an informed decision.

I don't make any such argument. I've said time and time again that my own will is decidedly pro-life, but that my vote would be pro-choice. My will, and what I would impose on others are not tied at the hip. I don't always have good ideas (I'd go so far as to say that my bad ideas outnumber my good ones exponentially). This just isn't one of those "bad idea" moments. I absolutely would (and do) impose my will on others. We all do, so this objections seems more like grandstanding than serious discussion. The issue is whether or not what happens to be "my will" is a good idea or not. That's how law is decided. So, we're arguing that if it could be harmful for even one person then it is harmful? Circle back around to that one person infected by an otherwise toothless disease. Anti-vaxxing is harmful if one single person suffers from an illness. Checks google. My, my, I guess it's already harmed more than one person.

Why would I? I have absolutely no desire to impose population control on people. Care to cherry pick what risks to humans you care to regulate by forced medical procedures? Hey, forced sterilizations of people with genetic disorders would eradicate those disorders! Let's do that!! Fuck, yeah. World police!

Sure, np. Infectious disease, for starters. World police my ass. Successful and beneficial public health policy, more like. I'm trying to have a discussion about infectious disease and public health policy and you're invoking the shadowy spectre of the "world police"? Should I go get my tinfoil hat..how far are we going to take this?

So . . . those "fuck-ups" are acceptable as long as it is for the greater good? Haha, fuck your right to life and health if it has the slight potential to hurt my right to life and health.

Acceptable? I wouldn't say that, unavoidable, at present, yes. It would be nice if no eggs were broken when baking a cake, but that's not how it pans out. In any case, you don't have an inch of ground here (or anywhere you suggest the dangers inherent in vaccination as an argument against vaccination) because those dangers are well known, and statistically irrelevant (little to no possibility means little to no possibility) and that's -before- we compare them to what they are designed to prevent.

Yeah, if you want to eat something that can kill you, that is your fucking choice. I am also okay with suicide and don't consider it murdering yourself. Sure, it was successful. Is it necessary to force everyone? No.

The issue, again, wasn't just that it killed you, but that you also ended up catching shit you could give to others. That's the crux of the thing here. There are decisions that you can make that may never harm you, but may directly or indirectly lead to harming someone else (or an entire group of someone else's) instead. If we understand these risks, and the associated mechanisms, and do nothing, it is negligence, in the very least, and possibly something much, much worse. It was necessary in that case Shell. People kept ending up sick (and or dying, it's kind of counter-intuitive but milk was unfit for human consumption for most of our history even though we have entire swaths of the planet that we call "cattle cultures"), we imposed legislation from every angle all at once, people stopped getting sick. The entire world clapped their hands . The policy became almost universally adopted in developed countries. Good was done. All from an evil mandate sent down by the Fed on what people could or could not do with not only their own private property, but also their own bodies.

Yep, I do. I wouldn't do it and I certainly wouldn't give it to my children. Do I think people should have a choice what they want to do to themselves . . . yup.

So do I, until their choices put others at risk, which they did, hence legislation. Which is exactly what I'm talking about with vaccinations.

To make a very long story short. Infectious disease doesn't give a shit about your rights. You have none as far as it is concerned (unless you count your right to be a host). Your rights do not protect you from infectious disease (unless we legislate vaccination policy..and then they would..fancy that), and you cannot make an ideological case that would compel infectious disease to pass you over. Vaccination can do this, but not in the long term, unless we all get vaccinated. I'm all for people getting up in arms over their rights, but I don't think that this is very fertile ground for that particular objection.