You're Still An Asshole, Lady

[Thumpalumpacus]

Darkstar, I think you are being overly generous in your "benefit of the doubt."

But you are quite right to emphasize the herd immunity aspect of this, as selfish assholes view this as an individual rights sort of thing, when what they do is something that very significantly affects others.  If you don't want to vaccinate, you need to fucking move to an island and never interact with others.  If you are a part of society, you need to not be endangering others.  Other people absolutely have a right to object to you endangering them.

Unfortunately, quite a few people with shit for brains have children, and make decisions that one would expect of people with shit for brains.  Vaccinations need to be required for everyone who does not have a legitimate medical exemption.

Again, I haven't made up my mind on this issue.  But here is something I have thought about that you may not have considered.  A vaccination is a body modification.  It modifies a human being's immune system.  Does the state have the right to require anyone to modify their bodies?  Could the state for instance, randomly select 10 percent of all males and force-ably sterilize them in order to control population?  Some would say no, that a person's body is sacrosanct and no one else has any business over it.  If a terrorist release small pox virus, would you want to force everyone to get the vaccine or would you accept the "my body my choice" argument?

Why is it okay for a complete stranger to "modify my body" in a potentially fatal manner, but not okay for government to require its "modification" in schoolkids in order to preclude the fatal outcome of the complete stranger's ignorance?

The school district has a responsibility to all kids in attendance. If antivax parents want the benefits of a public school system, they need to be considerate of the public attending it.

[Esquilax]

Now there is a very real phenomena called herd immunity.  Basically if every other member of the herd is immune to a disease, its not very likely at all you will get that disease even if you are not immune.  Non immune members of the herd gain some protection by the other members being immune.

Now Heywood, I know you're ignoring me because you're an intellectual coward, but I can still use this to make a valid point: herd immunity only works if the herd is, indeed, immune, and we know that at least some segments of it are not. Just leaving aside the anti-vaxxers, there are, as Heywood says, people who don't vaccinate for health reasons; take Luckie, for example. She's immunosuppressed, meaning she can't have so much as a flu vaccine outside of highly specific windows of time between one does of suppression and before another, and that her immune system is low enough that she may still get sick anyway; vaccines may equip the immune system with the means to fight diseases, but if the immune system is lowered anyway that's almost a moot point. And Luckie isn't the only one that has this issue; the immunosuppressed and immunocompromised are out there, and it is to them that these anti-vaccination proponents pose the greatest threat.

Ultimately, it's the best argument for state-enforced vaccination requirements, or state-enforced quarantine of those who insist on harboring deadly diseases: here we have an innocent, unconnected third party being put at potentially fatal risk due directly to the actions of another. In most other cases we'd call that either a crime, or criminal negligence. I fail to see an overriding distinction here; the state has an interest in keeping its citizens safe, that's what laws are for. If people don't want to take the vaccine then fine, but they shouldn't expect that this choice of theirs will have absolutely no consequences for them either: you don't get to just endanger the lives of others, for no verifiable reason, without consequence. Government already has the power to enforce compulsory quarantines, and medical testing within that; if you're that set on making your body a vector for infection, then you can go through the standard procedures necessary to keep others safe from whatever crap you've decided is superior to the vaccine. That's the choice you've made, and free choice does not mean any choice, free of consequences.

[Ravenshire]

---

Again, I haven't made up my mind on this issue.  But here is something I have thought about that you may not have considered.  A vaccination is a body modification.  It modifies a human being's immune system.  Does the state have the right to require anyone to modify their bodies?  Could the state for instance, randomly select 10 percent of all males and force-ably sterilize them in order to control population?  Some would say no, that a person's body is sacrosanct and no one else has any business over it.  If a terrorist release small pox virus, would you want to force everyone to get the vaccine or would you accept the "my body my choice" argument?

Why is it okay for a complete stranger to "modify my body" in a potentially fatal manner, but not okay for government to require its "modification" in schoolkids in order to preclude the fatal outcome of the complete stranger's ignorance?

---

The school district has a responsibility to all kids in attendance. If antivax parents want the benefits of a public school system, they need to be considerate of the public attending it.

(emphasis is mine)

This! Sooooo much, this.

And, before anybody pops off with "all those kids are vaccinated anyway so what's the big deal?"

There are plenty of kids who have valid medical reasons (immune-compromised, allergic to the vaccine, etc...) for not being immunized. The anti-vaxer bullshit artists put these kids at risk.

[Pyrrho]

When I first got enrolled in school (mid 70's), I could not attend class until it was proven that I was current on all vaccinations, period. There were a few allowable exemptions to that policy but they were hard to get and had to be backed up with documentation. That the states backed off on that policy is a huge failing.

What's that? You don't want to vaccinate your kids? Do you have a sound medical reason? No, christer scientism doesn't count. Neither does the bullshit autism claim. So, no sound medical reason then? Right. There a couple private schools that will still take your kids. What's that? Can't afford a private school? So sorry, but you're not putting your kids here.

Yes.  There are some legitimate medical reasons for some people to not be vaccinated, and so their protection is only going to come from herd immunity.  People with legitimate medical reasons should obviously not be vaccinated, but everyone else who goes out in public should be vaccinated, both for their own safety, and for the safety of others.  This second thing, for the safety of others, is the reason why the public has a right to be interested in what a person does regarding this.  If anti-vaccine idiots were only harming themselves, then, I think, they should have a right to do it.  But they do not have a right to endanger everyone else, and so if they are going to interact with others, then they should get vaccinated.

I completely agree that the only exemption for public school ought to be a legitimate medical reason, not just that the parent is a fool who believes that vaccines are harmful.  Any moron who is against vaccines ought to look up "polio" in an encyclopedia to get the idea for why it is that vaccines should be required.

[Heywood]

I completely agree that the only exemption for public school ought to be a legitimate medical reason, not just that the parent is a fool who believes that vaccines are harmful.  Any moron who is against vaccines ought to look up "polio" in an encyclopedia to get the idea for why it is that vaccines should be required.

When I went to school, I knew a kid who had to walk with crutches because he had contracted polio. That was a long time ago and I'm not entirely sure but I seem to remember he said he contracted it from a bad batch of the vaccine(the virus wasn't completely inactivated).

But yeah, the only reason anti vaccination movement is increasing is because our collective memory on the devastation diseases like polio cause is lapsing. There aren't many people alive today who know or knew someone who had polio.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean something like sever allergic reactions (in which case you might be right) and aren't implying that vaccines pose a meaningful risk to the general population.

That was my intent.  However I understand that there are some good, peer reviewed, studies which suggest a link between vaccinations and autism.  There are more studies which suggest there are no links.

There are no 'good' studies that have ever been published that have demonstrated a link between MMR and autism.

There is no link and there never was. Andrew Wakefield conducted a fraudulent and unethical study using unnecessary invasive procedures on children he paid to take part to garner results that were to be approved by vested interests keen on seeing MMR fail:

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

Just in case anyone is interested, here is over 100 published research articles discrediting a link between MMR and autism. No, I haven't read them all:

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptical...-vaccines/

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Here is a study from 2011.  

http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic%202011.pdf

Is this the one you are talking about?  If not this must not be a good study.  Why isn't it any good?

Shaw and Tomljenovic are anti-vaccination advocates funded and supported in their research by anti-vaccination interests:

http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2013/08...-anti.html

All of their 'findings' should be taken with a pinch of salt. Their conclusion that more research needs to be done on the link between MMR and autism is found wanting in light of the literally overwhelming body of evidence already complied prior to that article's publication and since that find 0% link between the two.

[Sterben]

This lady is a complete idiot, for one having seven children is her first mistake; then to add on her lack of education and reasoning skills, let's see here, we as a species used vaccines to get rid of the these disease's. Following a thought and researching a issue is not hard to do, when it comes to a serious issues such as preventing these serious health issues this is no laughing matter. She should of been brought up child endangerment charges for providing a unhealthy environment, then add on being public health hazard spreading disease. People who don't use the internet correctly make me angry, this anti-vaxer movement is a pointless and will only cause more children to die a pointless death cause there parents are complete idiot's!

[Ravenshire]

Well, the Aussies seem to be getting it right:

Starting at the beginning of 2016, the Australian government will deny childcare and family tax payments to parents who refuse to get their children vaccinated against common childhood diseases.

Source

Now, if we could just convince the 'Murrican political fuckwits to do something like this.

[Esquilax]

I am... kinda strangely surprised, seeing the current Aussie PM being on the right side of science for once.