Hey guys, it's cold outsideFollow

We could be like the caribou, and if someone is not immunized (i.e. a weak link to the herd), just leaves them behind, or let them straggle along behind us to be eaten by the predator, while the rest of the herd runs like the wind.

What the malformed yeti said.

I know about tetanus. I grew up in Tennessee; I must have had a tetanus booster every other year until I was 18.

Nevertheless, if we're talking about herd immunity (which is what I was talking about), we shouldn't focus on something about as contagious as a broken limb. It isn't like people getting tetanus increases the risk of OTHER people getting tetanus; the bacteria would be endemic in the soil regardless of the presence of people.

Arguably the use of iron has increased the possibility of infection, but we're not arguing against rust.

I can noodle out a reason for that. My question is whether you can noodle out reasons (or situations if you prefer) where it *doesn't* get trumped. Heck. At this point, all I'm asking for is something simple like "Yeah, you're right. Group health doesn't trump individual liberty in the case of a tetanus shot and it should not be required in order to attend public school".

Can you do that? Seriously. That's all I'm asking for here. Just some acknowledgement that in your worldview there exists *any* limit to the infringement of individual liberty in the context of public health.



Well, my point is about how the need for immunizations for contagious diseases in a school environment becomes the camel's nose for social busy bodies to impose a ton of other stuff they think people ought to be immunizing against. And Bijou is strongly making my case for me.

Instead of full stop, how about "nothing else should be mandatory"? I just find it amusing that there's like this mental block that prevents you from actually saying/writing this down.

We're in agreement on the communicable diseases. I just want to verify with you that we should *only* mandate inoculations for those things and nothing else.



I only make this argument because I consistently see people hem and haw out of actually saying "this is all the government should mandate". It's not enough to say what it *should* require, but also what it *should not* require. Because if you don't actually say "the government should not require X, Y, or Z", then you are allowing the government to do so by the absence of the restriction. Get it? And you might call me paranoid about this, but when I point out the absence of restriction instead of the expected "well, of course the government should not be allowed to mandate anything else", I get tap dancing in response.


Can you just write down that the only immunizations that the government should be allowed to require for attendance at public school are those which immunize against diseases that are communicable within the public school environment itself? Because if you can't, then the rest of my argument is very very relevant.

Instead of full stop, how about "nothing else should be mandatory"?

I don't want to speak for someone, but obviously it's more complicated than that. Declaring absolute things like "nothing....." is idiotic and a child's way to bait someone into a pointless argument. "You said Nothing!! Wakakaka waka waka!"

Does personal freedom include suicide? Should be allow people to die by refusing medical treatment? Should we allow parents to let children die by refusing medical treatment? These are complex issues.

So now you're extending the authority of the government beyond requiring immunizations for people required to work/study in close proximity with each other to every single person? That's a step in the wrong direction IMO.

The rationale for requiring immunizations is based on the idea that people in school have no choice but to be in close proximity with other people who might be carrying diseases. And since its the government that requires people to attend school, the government must provide safeguards for those who attend it. I totally disagree with expanding this to everyone everywhere all the time. That leaves no freedom for the individual.

I listened to this story coming in to work today. tdlr: it's a discussion about requiring vaccination's for daycare attendees.

The beauty of the internet.... you can listen.


Edited, Dec 8th 2014 4:04pm by Elinda

There's no need for a law for this though. If the demand for a vaccine only day care environment is strong enough, parents can shop around for day care facilities which require this, and the day care facilities will fill that need. This is a solution in search of a problem IMO.

Edited, Dec 8th 2014 2:57pm by gbaji

Are you talking about day care facilities providing a vaccination required environment for their customers who demand it? Or are you talking about pharmaceutical companies lobbying governments to mandate the use of their products? Can never really tell with you.

It's amazing how few people on this board think your opinion is worth the paper it isn't printed on. Yet you continue to spew it.



Hey, don't try to infringe on my morning constitutional!!

ETA: Oh, right, closing a quote...

Edited, Dec 8th 2014 9:39pm by stupidmonkey

Are you trying to make subways even more disgusting than they already are? I wasn't sure it was possible until you said that.

It's kind of quaint how often his "if you don't like it, just move!" argument pops up.