Hey guys, it's cold outsideFollow

Interesting. So, just for the sake of argument. Would you support a law requiring that people provide proof of immunization in order to be allowed to enter a polling place (public property with lots of people you might infect, correct?). Not so simple really. Let's go a step further. In order to appear in court, you must be immunized (another public area with people you might infect). So much for the right to face your accuser. Do we just automatically assume you plead guilty if you choose not to receive the full list of immunizations some government organization has decided are necessary for you to be safe to appear in a public place?

It's always about a balance of rights.

Hey. You were the one who seriously went with "made you respond!". Which kinda has to be about the lamest jab one can make on a board like this. What's next? "Made you breathe!" Lol...

Right. And I raised the counter point because you are required to send your child to school. So if you can't afford a private school, or don't have the time for home schooling, you have no choice but to put your child into public school. So for those people, you're saying they have a right, but that they are legally required not to exercise it. Which is kinda pointless.

Oh. And ironically, you've created a situation where in many cases, your "right" is based on how wealthy you are (or how much free time, I suppose). So poor working class folks don't get the right, but wealthy middle class folks, or those with a dedicated stay at home spouse do. Does this fall squarely under the heading of "unintended consequences"?



As I suggested earlier. It's a matter of degrees. I presented my counter to get across the point that there must be some point at which the "public health" angle has to bend to personal freedom. Because we could technically argue for *any* restriction on the grounds of public health. It only depends on how far down the absurd rabbit hole we're willing to go. Can you define a stopping point? Can we pass a law requiring everyone to shave their heads because they might be carrying lice? How about requiring everyone to wear government provided paper clothing all the time they are in public. Heck. Let's color code the outfits so that they represent important health status information about each person to everyone else. How far do we go? Where does it stop? I don't know because you wont say "ok. This is too far".

Is there a point at which it's too far?

Immunization against what?

Polio, measles, tetanus and all the other usual suspects.

In this part of the world, what with all the barbed wire and fishhooks and whatnot a tetanus shot every 10 years starting ate age 10 is considered de rigueur.

Yes, but it's not contagious, as we generally speak of contagion. If gbaji wants to die of lockjaw, that would be ironic but not my immediate concern.

Oh, you.

The end point is immunizations, since that what I'm writing about in this thread.

That's an impossible standard considering how you proudly go out of your way to disagree with everyone.

I understand it fine. The problem is that your explanation does not match your original stated reason for why immunizations should be required to attend public school (or court, voting, etc). You stated that the reason was because the non-ummunized would spread diseases among the rest of the population. But, as has been pointed out to you, tetanus isn't contagious. So your justification does not support requiring tetanus shots. Yet, you think we should.

Hence why I'm asking you to define your criteria. How do you go about deciding which things we should require of individuals in the name of public health?



I did. Did you? This is the problem. Too many people fall into an associative logic trap. You believe that public health trumps individual liberty. You then accept that immunizations help promote public health. But then you fail to question which kinds of immunizations actually fit the original requirement. You just hear "immunization" and say "yes" because you've associated one with the other.

And, yes...sometimes individual liberty gets trumped. If you can't noodle out a reason for that, I can't help you.