Antivaxxers

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24502
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Jennifer » 04 May 2019, 18:58

Pham Nuwen wrote:
04 May 2019, 18:39
She's a dishonest, selfish, stupid liar. You should unfriend her. That's how you win, baby. Scorched earth!

But seriously. She's a dishonest, selfish, stupid liar. You will never convince her. And you should unfriend her.
But she is FAR from the only person to make the liberty-flavored antivax argument "Mandatory vaccination is bad because the government has no right to demand any person put X, Y or Z in their bodies ... especially if there's any chance said person might suffer adverse reactions as a result."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27382
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Warren » 04 May 2019, 19:21

Pham Nuwen wrote:
04 May 2019, 18:16
I have a 2 and 1/2 year old and a 4 year old. I feel you. Robbie got an MMR at 8 months. Kaiser wouldn't count it towards his schedule. That's how I know is all.
Wilhelm?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7953
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Pham Nuwen » 04 May 2019, 19:23

Warren wrote:
04 May 2019, 19:21
Pham Nuwen wrote:
04 May 2019, 18:16
I have a 2 and 1/2 year old and a 4 year old. I feel you. Robbie got an MMR at 8 months. Kaiser wouldn't count it towards his schedule. That's how I know is all.
Wilhelm?
That's Emperor to you, English swine.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24502
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Jennifer » 04 May 2019, 19:24

You do shame to your monocle, Warren.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28487
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by thoreau » 04 May 2019, 19:26

Jennifer wrote:
04 May 2019, 18:58
Pham Nuwen wrote:
04 May 2019, 18:39
She's a dishonest, selfish, stupid liar. You should unfriend her. That's how you win, baby. Scorched earth!

But seriously. She's a dishonest, selfish, stupid liar. You will never convince her. And you should unfriend her.
But she is FAR from the only person to make the liberty-flavored antivax argument "Mandatory vaccination is bad because the government has no right to demand any person put X, Y or Z in their bodies ... especially if there's any chance said person might suffer adverse reactions as a result."
If you go far enough into the realm of opposing coercion then she is right by definition.

Any argument for state-mandated vaccination ultimately comes down to doing something for reasons that consider the benefits to others as values placed alongside your own interests. Once you're operating in that sort of moral framework, accepting the small chance of costs to the person being coerced is already, by definition, on the table.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24502
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Jennifer » 04 May 2019, 19:40

thoreau wrote:
04 May 2019, 19:26
Jennifer wrote:
04 May 2019, 18:58
Pham Nuwen wrote:
04 May 2019, 18:39
She's a dishonest, selfish, stupid liar. You should unfriend her. That's how you win, baby. Scorched earth!

But seriously. She's a dishonest, selfish, stupid liar. You will never convince her. And you should unfriend her.
But she is FAR from the only person to make the liberty-flavored antivax argument "Mandatory vaccination is bad because the government has no right to demand any person put X, Y or Z in their bodies ... especially if there's any chance said person might suffer adverse reactions as a result."
If you go far enough into the realm of opposing coercion then she is right by definition.

Any argument for state-mandated vaccination ultimately comes down to doing something for reasons that consider the benefits to others as values placed alongside your own interests. Once you're operating in that sort of moral framework, accepting the small chance of costs to the person being coerced is already, by definition, on the table.
Except, again, that ignores the (copypaste what I wrote upthread) "standard liberty debate over conflicting rights -- when two people or two groups claim conflicting rights, whose rights take priority? Is my presumed right to refuse a vaccination and re-introduce a serious disease into a population more important than a population's presumed right to eradicate a serious disease (or keep it eradicated)? Or vice-versa?

Like, even if someone takes THAT extreme a view of "coercion" -- recall, that one particular antivax woman I'm thinking of does, at least, concede that whooping cough can be very dangerous, even deadly, for infants, so that even she CHOSE to get the vaccine, but still thinks nobody should be REQUIRED TO -- that still leaves open the question of quarantine: fine, nobody is forced to get the WC vaccine, but if you don't, you have to stay away from places where too-young-to-vaccinate (or unvaccinated because immuno-compromised) people are likely to be. I'd like a libertarian-based argument for that -- rather, what value if any does "herd immunity" have in this analysis?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24502
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Jennifer » 04 May 2019, 19:59

Tl:dr: in the specific context of addressing the liberty-flavored antivax argument "Government has no right to mandate anyone put XYZ in their bodies," even when discussing contagious-and-often-fatal diseases -- is there a principled libertarian argument in favor of using government power to maintain certain forms of herd immunity?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17531
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by lunchstealer » 04 May 2019, 21:17

I actually strongly support vaccination, but oppose outright mandated/forced vaccination from a purely limits-on-coercion standpoint. If I am to accept that even if you think developing fetuses are people who deserve protection from murder that a woman still has to have such autonomy over her body that she cannot be forced to carry that person to term against her will, and therefore that abortion must be legal and protected from unnecessary state interference, then I can’t easily see my way to making vaccination broadly mandatory.

THAT SAID, I do think that there can be rational consequences such as barment from certain professions or public accommodation - especially schools - for those who are willfully unvaccinated. No public or private school (or preschool or daycare etc) should allow any student who is unvaccinated for any reason other than medical necessity. You want a personal or religious exemption, you homeschool or you suck it up and vaccinate. Hell, I’m okay with airlines and bus lines requiring vaccination to use their services.

Also plague rats should be social pariahs.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27382
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Warren » 05 May 2019, 00:06

lunchstealer wrote:
04 May 2019, 21:17
I actually strongly support vaccination, but oppose outright mandated/forced vaccination from a purely limits-on-coercion standpoint. If I am to accept that even if you think developing fetuses are people who deserve protection from murder that a woman still has to have such autonomy over her body that she cannot be forced to carry that person to term against her will, and therefore that abortion must be legal and protected from unnecessary state interference, then I can’t easily see my way to making vaccination broadly mandatory.

THAT SAID, I do think that there can be rational consequences such as barment from certain professions or public accommodation - especially schools - for those who are willfully unvaccinated. No public or private school (or preschool or daycare etc) should allow any student who is unvaccinated for any reason other than medical necessity. You want a personal or religious exemption, you homeschool or you suck it up and vaccinate. Hell, I’m okay with airlines and bus lines requiring vaccination to use their services.

Also plague rats should be social pariahs.
Yes yes and yes.
Government goons ripping children from the loving arms of their parents to subject them to medical procedures is a line that should not be crossed.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24502
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Jennifer » 05 May 2019, 03:15

Warren wrote:
05 May 2019, 00:06
Government goons ripping children from the loving arms of their parents to subject them to medical procedures is a line that should not be crossed.
I can't support that statement in all cases -- for one obvious example: if a Christian Scientist kid has appendicitis, the parents are free to pray as much as they want, but they also have to take the kid to get an appendectomy.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13831
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 May 2019, 03:26

I admit that mandatory vaccination as a thing makes me cringe. As does forcible quarantine.

But serious, communicable diseases are a situation where I agree it's necessary to say, "OK, accept getting the rather damn innocuous procedure or let the armed men lead you to the quarantine ward."

I mean, dang. If communicable diseases didn't exist, they'd sound like some silly political thought experiment. "Through completely innocuous interactions, these 'germs' can spread through populations and debilitate or kill large fractions of them. If you let random idiots opt out of the preventative treatment, other people who can't safely have the treatment—mostly young, helpless children—will suffer. Where is your preference for consensual interaction now, libertoids???"
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7953
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Pham Nuwen » 05 May 2019, 09:54

Just pointing out that a communicable disease overrides HIPAA and the patient bill of rights. I'm not sure where I am on the forced vaccination stuff but I suspect I'm on the forced vaccination side deep down in my heart of hearts.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27382
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Warren » 05 May 2019, 10:01

Jennifer wrote:
05 May 2019, 03:15
Warren wrote:
05 May 2019, 00:06
Government goons ripping children from the loving arms of their parents to subject them to medical procedures is a line that should not be crossed.
I can't support that statement in all cases -- for one obvious example: if a Christian Scientist kid has appendicitis, the parents are free to pray as much as they want, but they also have to take the kid to get an appendectomy.
I could live with that, but I need the exception to be "the child's life is in imminent danger as a direct result of parental neglect".
I find Baley's "swinging your microbes" argument preposterous and morally bankrupt. Lunchstealer's 'ticket to ride' solution is the right way.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24502
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Jennifer » 05 May 2019, 17:17

Warren wrote:
05 May 2019, 10:01
Jennifer wrote:
05 May 2019, 03:15
Warren wrote:
05 May 2019, 00:06
Government goons ripping children from the loving arms of their parents to subject them to medical procedures is a line that should not be crossed.
I can't support that statement in all cases -- for one obvious example: if a Christian Scientist kid has appendicitis, the parents are free to pray as much as they want, but they also have to take the kid to get an appendectomy.
I could live with that, but I need the exception to be "the child's life is in imminent danger as a direct result of parental neglect".
I find Baley's "swinging your microbes" argument preposterous and morally bankrupt. Lunchstealer's 'ticket to ride' solution is the right way.
I lean more toward the Bailey interpretation (at least, based on what little I know if it from reading your statement here). Especially since we're at the point where "But, what if there are enough antivaxxers to destroy herd immunity" is no longer a hypothetical; it's happening. Measles was declared eradicated from the United States in 2000, until the antivaxxers decided they had the right to bring it back.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24502
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Jennifer » 05 May 2019, 17:36

I also have concerns about a certain nasty strain of antivax parent I've seen, that seems to believe (though never explicitly comes out and says) certain diseases are God's punishment for bad behavior. Like, remember when the HPV vaccine first came out, how many parents said things like "MY daughter does not need a vaccine against sexually transmitted disease; MY daughter is raised to have VALUES!" (And the extra-shitty thing about that is, IIRC, the HPV vaccine is ONLY effective if given BEFORE the kid reaches puberty -- in other words, BEFORE the kid is old enough to realize 'Hmm, y'know, there's a chance I might one day change my mind, from 'kissing is icky and gross and I will NEVER EVER want to do that' to 'Hmm, I think I WOULD like to try kissing. And some other things as well.'")
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17531
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by lunchstealer » 05 May 2019, 18:20

Forced quarantine in outbreaks of truly scary stuff like resistant TB or something is a different story. But that’s emergency stuff. Ebola, where the death rate is high and there’s no vaccine and transmission can be controlled by quarantine, that’s s good case for forced quarantine. But even then it should be the minimal level required to slow the outbreak. That fascist fuckhead from Maine who wanted to lock up a nurse just because she came from Liberia but who didn’t qualify for quarantine under CDC guidelines should be defanged of any power to grandstand like he did.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24502
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Jennifer » 05 May 2019, 18:40

lunchstealer wrote:
05 May 2019, 18:20
Forced quarantine in outbreaks of truly scary stuff like resistant TB or something is a different story. But that’s emergency stuff. Ebola, where the death rate is high and there’s no vaccine and transmission can be controlled by quarantine, that’s s good case for forced quarantine. But even then it should be the minimal level required to slow the outbreak. That fascist fuckhead from Maine who wanted to lock up a nurse just because she came from Liberia but who didn’t qualify for quarantine under CDC guidelines should be defanged of any power to grandstand like he did.
Agreed regarding that bigoted wretch from Maine. My concern is for the possibility of quarantine for people who REFUSE to vaccinate themselves (not people who can't be vaccinated due to immune-system issues) -- but also (if my antivax FB acquaintance is any indication) refuse to admit "Y'know, a LOT of these diseases are contagious before the person starts showing symptoms, so even my pious offer 'I promise to stay home when I know I'm sick' won't be enough to protect people."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24502
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Jennifer » 05 May 2019, 19:06

The primary conundrum -- from a libertarian/personal-liberty POV -- is like, when I've tried giving a capsule description of "libertarianism" to people (the sort of people who apparently have difficulty understanding things like "Well, if you can't be trusted to obey the law against smoking marijuana, how can you be trusted to obey laws against MURDER and RAPE, huh?"), my basic rule was "It's fine for the government to pass laws protecting you from other people, but NOT to pass laws protecting you against yourself -- such as laws forbidding you to take certain intoxicants, gamble your money on a game, or (if you're an adult) exchange sexual services for money."

The well-duh issue with vaccination is that it's not merely YOU in danger if you choose not to vaccinate; it's every unvaccinated person in contagion-range of you. And for many diseases, that "contagion range" is far beyond line-of-sight. I recently read, IIRC about measles, that it's contagious enough that an unvaccinated person can catch it up to two hours AFTER a sick-n-contagious person leaves a given room. If anyone's going to be banned from, say, a supermarket, I'd sooner ban Madam "I'm too precious to vaccinate myself because Jenny McCarthy told me it's bad" than "Hey, parents: if your kid's too young to vaccinate, sucks to be you (or, more precisely, your kid) if you bring home a little measles in addition to the Gerber cereal you bought your baby." And, of course, "free will" and "freely chosen behaviors" play no part in such things: if you invite me to your house, I can give you ironclad guarantees about my behavior: no, I will NOT steal or vandalize your stuff, I will NOT assault you or any members of your household ... but of course it is not possible for me to promise "I will NOT infect you or your kids with any airborne-contagious diseases I might have, including those I don't even KNOW I have because I've not yet started to show symptoms."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28487
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by thoreau » 05 May 2019, 19:23

One problem with locking up people who could get vaccinated but choose not to is that you can't hide behind a safety rationale. The people with compromised immune systems are at least as likely to get the contagious disease as a healthy non-vaccinated person, yet you're allowing them to run around in public. They are more of a danger, but no reasonable person would lock them up. So the only reason to lock up anti-vaxxers who lack medical excuses is punitive rather than precautionary (except to the extent that punitive measures also serve as deterrents, and hence prevent harm).

So then you have to decide how long you're going to punish the anti-vaxxer before letting them out to wander among us.

The prevention case for locking up anti-vaxxers only works during outbreaks. You can also justify barring them from certain high-risk settings (e.g. schools), but even then only on a cost-benefit level, that values public health enough to offset the liberty concerns. You can't justify it in a value system that makes liberty the only value.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24502
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Jennifer » 05 May 2019, 19:32

thoreau wrote:
05 May 2019, 19:23
One problem with locking up people who could get vaccinated but choose not to is that you can't hide behind a safety rationale. The people with compromised immune systems are at least as likely to get the contagious disease as a healthy non-vaccinated person, yet you're allowing them to run around in public.
Yes, but the people with compromised immune systems (or the babies below a certain age) CAN'T get the vaccine, which is why herd immunity is so important, and herd immunity is exactly what these selfish antivax fucks are trying to destroy.

Which means that we as a society basically have a choice: tell the "could vaccinate, but don't" types "Either get the vaccine or go quarantine" .... or, effectively, we tell the much larger number of immuno-compromised people (plus family members of too-young babies): "ALL OF YOU will effectively have to go under quarantine to make sure you don't infect your family members."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13831
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 May 2019, 23:55

thoreau wrote:
05 May 2019, 19:23
One problem with locking up people who could get vaccinated but choose not to is that you can't hide behind a safety rationale. The people with compromised immune systems are at least as likely to get the contagious disease as a healthy non-vaccinated person, yet you're allowing them to run around in public.
Except people opting not to get vaccinated are the ones imposing the greater danger on those with compromised immune systems. The danger isn't as high without them, and babies too young to get vaccinated, etc. are less likely to be moving around and infecting other people than plague-rat older children and adults.

If it's practical, I'm willing to stipulate that they should only get quarantined in the event of a disease outbreak. At their own homes? Sure, though I doubt the effectiveness in an apartment complex. But if they break that quarantine to go have "measles parties" or whatever, send armed men to grab them and put them in quarantine wards.

Of course, some sort of force is inherent to any "mandatory" vaccine. You have to have a response ready when the McCarthy twits say "no", or it ain't actually mandatory.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17531
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by lunchstealer » 06 May 2019, 04:59

thoreau wrote: The people with compromised immune systems are at least as likely to get the contagious disease as a healthy non-vaccinated person, yet you're allowing them to run around in public. They are more of a danger, but no reasonable person would lock them up. So the only reason to lock up anti-vaxxers who lack medical excuses is punitive rather than precautionary (except to the extent that punitive measures also serve as deterrents, and hence prevent harm).
Trigger warning I may sound strident but because I don’t want my message misunderstood due to excessively moderate language.

What wait no!

The involuntary unvaccinated are not the same thing at all. They are precisely the people we are trying to protect. People whose immune systems don’t work well enough to prevent disease contraction and transmission or would be at specific elevated risk from vaccination or those who were vaccinated but for whatever reason did not get protected by that vaccine are the people who are through no fault of their own relying on herd immunity. A small percentage of non immune people in a population will not be sufficient for widespread disease transmission. A larger percentage will allow that disease to spread throughout the vulnerable population. The medically exempt and those who have been vaccinated unsuccessfully are almost always too small a percentage of the overall population to allow diseases to spread widely.

So the point of exclusion of the voluntarily unvaccinated is to prevent unnecessary vectors for disease transmission to protect those for whom there is not alternative. If I’ve been vaccinated and the vaccine has been effective, there is no risk to me from willfully unvaccinated people. If there are no willfully unvaccinated to provide additional disease vectors, the medically unvaccinated or otherwise unprotected are no threat.

Now, just forever quarantining the voluntarily unvaccinated is nuts, so I assume this would only be during outbreaks. But I won’t speak for those who are willing to force vaccination on the unwilling. But there is a non retributive rationale for penalizing the willfully unvaccinated while withholding those consequences from the unwillingly unvaccinated.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24841
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Mo » 06 May 2019, 07:29

I am team lunch with one addition. The voluntarily unvaccinated have financial liability of treatment for those that are infected despite being a) vaccinated or b) unvaccinated for medical reasons if they were part of the outbreak.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9862
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by nicole » 06 May 2019, 07:32

Jennifer wrote:
05 May 2019, 17:36
I also have concerns about a certain nasty strain of antivax parent I've seen, that seems to believe (though never explicitly comes out and says) certain diseases are God's punishment for bad behavior. Like, remember when the HPV vaccine first came out, how many parents said things like "MY daughter does not need a vaccine against sexually transmitted disease; MY daughter is raised to have VALUES!" (And the extra-shitty thing about that is, IIRC, the HPV vaccine is ONLY effective if given BEFORE the kid reaches puberty -- in other words, BEFORE the kid is old enough to realize 'Hmm, y'know, there's a chance I might one day change my mind, from 'kissing is icky and gross and I will NEVER EVER want to do that' to 'Hmm, I think I WOULD like to try kissing. And some other things as well.'")
That’s not true at all. The HPV vaccine is still effective in adults. Insurance still covers it in people’s 20s. I know because it was offered to me.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16137
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Antivaxxers

Post by Aresen » 06 May 2019, 08:39

Mo wrote:
06 May 2019, 07:29
I am team lunch with one addition. The voluntarily unvaccinated have financial liability of treatment for those that are infected despite being a) vaccinated or b) unvaccinated for medical reasons if they were part of the outbreak.
In principle, I agree, but tracing the vector in a disease outbreak is difficult and IIRC, is really a calculation of probabilities, not a X -> Y -> Z causal chain. Not sure it would rise to the level required for a judgment, especially as juries tend to be selected for ignorance and stupidity.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests