Printable View
So it's perfectly Ok for the goventment to state that if you're on Social Security, you can't own guns?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
Do I understand your position correctly?
I'm just playing devil's advocate. Immunization is a really complex social/rights issue.
O2
I agree with the sentiment that access to public schools should require vaccination. Just to pay devil's advocate for a minute though, it seems to create a bit of a slippery slope argument. If the reasoning behind requiring vaccinations is really to prevent the spread of disease, why limit it's requirement to schools? There is nothing special about schools that helps or prevents the spread of disease. Just like we saw the outbreak from Disney recently. Requiring only for schools would seem like a half measure. [/EndDevilsAdvocate]
I thought vaccinations prevented me from contracting a disease I've come in contact with.
If i'm vaccinated, why do I care if other's are not?
Can I opt out of SS?Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
I can opt out of public education, and in fact do!
Vaccines aren't 100% effective for all people. That's one of the misconceptions that I think amounts to dishonesty because the gov/medical community wants us to accept a conclusion rather than understand the complexity of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
Newborns can't, and shouldn't (risk), be vaccinated until the recommended age.
This is why "herd immunity" is important.
Example of herd immunity thresholds (what it takes to create immunity) is here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanism
So CO is technically below the Measles HIT but above some of the other ones.
My understanding (not a doctor nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night) is: Think of it more like a cup. You start at a regular 8 ounce cup. Someone gets sick near you, they start spreading the germs to those around them. You have 8 ounces of protection naturally, not a lot. Now, you go get vaccinated. Your cup is now a gallon jug, more protection. One person gets sick near you, you have enough protection to fend it off. However, if enough people around you still are using their 8oz, they get overwhelmed and start filling your cup as theirs overflows. You have protection, but as more and more around you get sick, eventually even your gallon jug will fill up.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
Alternatively, think "fire resistant." Sure it'll resist fire up to a certain point, but if it gets hot enough long enough, even that will burn.
So, the govt can force me to be injected with a vaccine that may not be effective in my case, and may cause me to have a severe reaction up to and including death, and if I do suffer a bad reaction, I have no recourse with the medical provider, the vaccine supplier, or the govt? If I refuse, I face financial penalties and possible jail time (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ned-court.html)
I'm not OK with that.
You know, there are some people that have survived car accidents because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. I guess we should let kids not be belted into cars, because it could save their life someday.
Of course, the big difference between seatbelts and measles is if you don't wear a seatbelt, it's your own statistical risk you inherit, you pretty much only risk your own ass. (ETA: and yet, you can get cited for not wearing a seatbelt... hmm, shouldn't that be your right to be stupid?)
Sure, about 4 people have died in the US as complications from the measles vaccine in about the last 70 or so years, to my knowledge. So yeah, technically you can die from it. Your odds of dying from it are somewhere in the magnitute of 4/300,000,000. On the other hand, it's about the most infectious virus out there, and newborns can't be vaccinated (until 1YO). Unlike other pathogens, it doesn't dry out. Unlike other pathogens, it's not actually heavier than air. Someone with measles can display no symptom yet, yet they can fill the air with infectious pathogens that linger for hours long after they are gone, and they do it for many days. Unlike flu, you don't need to touch anything they touched. You just need to take a breath of air in a large, general area where they were to be infected, and your odds of dying from it after infection are somewhere around 1/100 (esp for high risk populations, e.g. the infants that cannot be vaccinated).
If you fail to get the point, I don't know what to tell you - it would make me wonder if your retirement planning is powerball tickets. Be pissed all you want, but this isn't a "rights" issue. People can get themselves killed all they want, but if you want to argue the "reckless spread of highly infectious pathogens" is a constitutionally protected right, by all means explain which one that falls under.
ETA: And I love people who think this is a religious thing, e.g. they are going to "666" you with a vaccine [LOL]. Just like "666" is credit cards, or bar codes, or blah blah blah, but much like every other oft quoted biblical saying by the masses, they haven't ever apparently read it. "Let he who has wisdom understand the meaning..." sadly, wisdom is in scarce supply. We use basically the same vaccine schedule that we've used since most all of your parents were getting vaccines (yes, it's been that long), and they didn't give two shits. They are made by private companies, and they are administered by private hospitals. It is so vital to use our entire brains, not just the RIGHT or LEFT hemispheres.
Helps to read actual studies and cite actual statistics.
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles-faq/
I glanced at it, and you mean "actual" statistics like:Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
Quote:
Since nearly 90% of measles cases are not reported to the CDC, the result is a case-fatality rate of 1 in 10,000 for all measles cases. It is important to measure disease risks based on total measles cases, not just the 10% of cases that are reported.
Their explanation for that "statistic" is back-of-the-hand estimation of pre-vaccine estimations of estimations, and the rest of your link is equally as biased, if not more so, even admitting they cherry pick studies, etc, claiming unvaccinated kids carry no risk to immunocompromised kids, etc.
(ETA: Note they cherry pick from a fraction of a data set with the lowest mortality period, here's the actual stats:)
https://vaxopedia.files.wordpress.co...propaganda.jpg
PS: The biggest reason for the cherry picked decline in 1955-1963 is that a good portion of the population had already had it in the previous 50 years (with much higher mortality), and was entirely immune, stopping epidemics from infecting most of those who were not in that limited time period they cherry picked. Not true for your anti-vaxxing Typhoid Mary's. Not even true for your vaccinated population.
Now, I recognize that your dissonance will make you automatically believe anything you see/read that is in agreement with your "moral" position, so I can see how your dissonance might mistake such a thing for actual research. You have to be pretty ignorant to think that in 2019, 90% of measles cases go unreported. I also recognize that you will go on, until the end of your life, clutching at these "facts" as hard as a flat earther.
https://vaxopedia.org/2018/01/15/mea...ormed-consent/