Wouldn't the libertarian answer to this be to leave it up to the parents to choose whether to have their kids vaccinated, and then if their kid gets another kid sick, those parents can sue them into the gutter?
Yes. Although I also support the school making vaccination a requirement for attendance, which means any parent choosing to not get their kids vaccinated would also be choosing not to send their kid to school.
Looks as if there's some push-back at the epicenter: An End to Major Vaccine Exemption in California? Lawmakers hope to eliminate 'personal belief' vaccine exemptions
Doubtful, since even with the relatively high numbers of measles outbreaks, I can't imagine there being more than one kid in a class to initially get it. I did catch chickenpox from my best friend in 2nd grade because her idiot parents decided to send her to school after five days when the spots faded instead of wait out the two week incubation period. So did everyone else that sat at our table in class, and most likely so did these kids' siblings at home. Said friend also had two sisters in other classes that probably spread it to more kids.
The argument for forcing--and that's what law is, like it or not--people to be vaccinated is to provide "herd immunity" for...people who are not vaccinated? I recommend he get his kid vaccinated. Don't misunderstand. I'm not against vaccinations. I've had all mine and if I had kids they'd have them, too. But, as always, there's a difference between a good idea and a mandatory good idea.
No. What part of "the kid's immune system is compromised so that he can't be vaccinated" did you not understand? A year or so from now, when his bone marrow recovers, he may be able to be vaccinated, but not now.
Holy fuck, did you miss the part about the kid going through FUCKING CHEMO? Last I checked, the body's immunity gets raped like a white chick at a Bill Cosby party when you're going through it. That being said, if I were this kid's dad, I would have moved our of this city of morons by now.
Unless there's some realistic opt-out (i.e., vouchers for private school), this amounts to the same thing. If the law allows you to choose not to be vaccinated, but not being vaccinated prevents you from doing something else that is legally compelled, it is the same as if the law does not allow the choice.
Then explain why "herd immunity" justifies your position. Parents should be aware that not vaccinating their kids may carry some serious--albeit very low probability--consequences.
To protect people who cannot be vaccinated, for example children under the age of one year, and people who have been vaccinated, but might still be suseptible to the disease anyway. I think like five people have already explained this. Even if getting them vaccinated will kill them?
Subtle difference, in that what I said was that the anti-vax position fits the same criteria as the standard libertarian position. Smarter, more thoughtful libertarians than you (eg O2C) can see that dilemma, but you think it means I believe libertarians are anti-science. I make no judgment on that particular issue. At any rate, do you disagree, that the libertarian position underlies the anti-vax concept? If so, how does it differ? Both ignore harm to social good in favor of individual free choice.
Which is, of course, the usual problem with libertarianism. It's rarely so easy as noticing whose fists hits somebody's nose.
Yep, there has been a lot of recent push back by public health advocates. The vaccination rules have got watered down in the last 30 years due to claims of religious freedom and due to anti-vaxxer misinformation but it seems doctors want the rules tightened up again because they are seeing old diseases which we had virtually eliminated making come backs.
It may surprise you to learn that there wasn't always a vaccine. A large portion of the population over 50 has had measles, but not all. Measles is a far more serious disease in adulthood than in childhood and, as has been pointed out repeatedly, not everyone in the adult population can be immunized. Some of those who had measles in childhood may have had mild cases that might not have provided 100% immunity. They're not eligible for the MMR vaccine (and why should they be obligated to compensate for Stupid Parent Syndrome?). Infants under six months (the earliest the vaccine can be given), people undergoing chemo, transplant patients, people with compromised immune systems for a host of other reasons cannot be vaccinated. Real Life sucks like that.
His kid was vaccinated but the chemo eliminates the antibodies as well as compromises his immune system. The doctors are saying the kids immune system won't be strong enough for newvaccinations until one year after chemo is over. So there is all the time while he is in chemo plus one year after the chemo is done where medically vaccination cannot be carried out.
Understood. But the child's situation is highly exceptional: he's especially vulnerable to many diseases. If measles are a specific threat to him, he needs to be isolated from anyone who doesn't have an active measles immunity.
Not at all. If you choose not to have your kid immunised, a consequence is that you either need to find a private school that will take them, or home school them. Do you honestly believe that a person has a right to easy choices?
The law should not allow any choice. The unvaccinated result in innocent people dying. Your freedom of choice doesn't include getting other people killed. Vaccination needs to be compulsory and universal with only medical needs exempting someone.
I don't disagree. No, not at all. Especially where the rights of others are impediments to those easy choices. Other people's susceptibility to disease gives them no claim on my body.
I can't wrap my head around people being OK with knowingly endangering others based on a lie being OK. IOW, Paladin, you are just wrong. Period.
If you did this under some hugely unlikely and uncommon circumstances in which you knew that this was a very likely outcome, and you were asked to and easily able to refrain from infecting him, then definitely yes. Forcing peanuts down the throat of a man with an extreme peanut allergy isn't harmless just because it's peanuts.
How so? (It's enough if you explain why you think it's a strawman, as hyperbole doesn't negate an argument.)
See no evil. You can see bruises, cuts, and missing teeth, but you can't see microscopic germs, so it's not abuse. Out of sight, out of mind. It really is caveman thinking.
Sure. How about if it wasn't an unlikely/uncommon experience? You simply infected a vulnerable person and they died. Not the same thing at all. How about bringing a peanut butter sandwich near a person with a peanut allergy? Knowingly or unknowingly.
