Anti-vaxxers

VicMackey1

TheRepentent wrote: »

Yep...no access to childcare or schools till the children are vaccinated.

The child is innocent and shouldn't have to miss out on school. There should be warnings given to parents who don't have their child vaccinated. If they ignore the warnings, then vaccination should be forced for the good of the child and society.

TheRepentent

VicMackey1 wrote: »

The child is innocent and shouldn't have to miss out on school.

Sorry you misunderstood me...I'm not punishing the unvaccinated kid...i'm protecting the 25+ other kids.

hcf500

paul71 wrote: »

I hope the government open a discussion on criminalizing anonymous anti vaxxers who deliberately mislead people online and directly cause the deaths of children. Now that would be real progress.

There will be a new year election and I will bring it up with election canditates.

Track down the websites, the trolls who repost the lies from those websites and lock them up.

Would you lock me up???

VicMackey1

TheRepentent wrote: »

Sorry you misunderstood me...I'm not punishing the unvaccinated kid...i'm protecting the 25+ other kids.

Why have 25 vaccinated kids when you can have 26 vaccinated kids.

paul71

hcf500 wrote: »

Would you lock me up???

I have read the thread and would conclude that you would be the kind that I would allow a jury to make a decision upon.

Igotadose

VicMackey1 wrote: »

The child is innocent and shouldn't have to miss out on school. There should be warnings given to parents who don't have their child vaccinated. If they ignore the warnings, then vaccination should be forced for the good of the child and society.

But, the parent isn't innocent. Other countries don't pay child payments without vaccination - like Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Jab,_No_Pay

That would be a welcome set of legislation in Ireland - no jab, no kid benefits, no school uniform subsidies, etc.

VicMackey1

Igotadose wrote: »

But, the parent isn't innocent. Other countries don't pay child payments without vaccination - like Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Jab,_No_Pay

That would be a welcome set of legislation in Ireland - no jab, no kid benefits, no school uniform subsidies, etc.

But do you think that the child should be protected from the misled parents? Forced vaccination would protect these children as well as all other children.

Igotadose

VicMackey1 wrote: »

But do you think that the child should be protected from the misled parents? Forced vaccination would protect these children as well as all other children.

If that can be managed, of course. It's not just other children that will be protected - there are plenty of immunocompromised people out there. The no pay would probably pass the Dail more readily since it's a removal of a free benefit, something the Dail has jurisdiction over. Forcing vaccination would be a harder legal hurdle to overcome.

TheRepentent

VicMackey1 wrote: »

Why have 25 vaccinated kids when you can have 26 vaccinated kids.

this is tedious...the 25+ meant every other vacinated child whether it was 25 or 34 children or any number in between or above.


No matter.....no access to childcare or schooling for children that don't have a medical reason for not taking.

VicMackey1

TheRepentent wrote: »

this is tedious...the 25+ meant every other vacinated child whether it was 25 or 34 children or any number in between or above.


No matter.....no access to childcare or schooling for children that don't have a medical reason for not taking.

I know what you are saying. I'm arguing that all those vaccinated children can be protected and the children whose parents have been misled can be protected also. 100% vaccination of children.

VicMackey1

Igotadose wrote: »

If that can be managed, of course. It's not just other children that will be protected - there are plenty of immunocompromised people out there. The no pay would probably pass the Dail more readily since it's a removal of a free benefit, something the Dail has jurisdiction over. Forcing vaccination would be a harder legal hurdle to overcome.

Maybe they could be treated like any other case of child neglect.

paul71

VicMackey1 wrote: »

Maybe they could be treated like any other case of child neglect.

Which goes back to prosecution of parents who have been deliberately mislead by online trolls and websites. Equates to prosecuting the addict but not the dealer.

iamwhoiam

VicMackey1 wrote: »

The child is innocent and shouldn't have to miss out on school. There should be warnings given to parents who don't have their child vaccinated. If they ignore the warnings, then vaccination should be forced for the good of the child and society.

The other 25 kids in the class are also innocent . So they deserve to be protected from horrible diseases
Maybe stop children Allowance for unvaccinated children ? Or no free ECCE places for example

VicMackey1

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The other 25 kids in the class are also innocent . So they deserve to be protected from horrible diseases

And they would be protected even more so with forced vaccination

VicMackey1

paul71 wrote: »

Which goes back to prosecution of parents who have been deliberately mislead by online trolls and websites. Equates to prosecuting the addict but not the dealer.

It's the parents that owe the child a duty of care though. After that, the state owes the child a duty of care.

Dohnjoe

paul71 wrote: »

Which goes back to prosecution of parents who have been deliberately mislead by online trolls and websites. Equates to prosecuting the addict but not the dealer.

I think the current approach is moving in the right direction. Anti-vax video channels are being demonitized. Anti-vax media is being classified as disinformation and pseudo-science. Search algorithms from the likes of Google are bringing up accurate information and relegating anti-vax disinfo to the tail-end of search results

Yes it's not perfect, but it doesn't give them direct bans and curbs of free speech which they crave so they can cry persecution and launch lawsuits

paul71

VicMackey1 wrote: »

It's the parents that owe the child a duty of care though. After that, the state owes the child a duty of care.

Co-operation of parents who have been properly informed of proven medical studies would "in my opinion" achieve better results than obligation. In order to obtain herd immunity we need 80% to 90% coverage rates not 100%, easier to prosecute and eliminate the conspiracy theorists to achieve that. And you dont even need to prosecute that many, jail a few the rest will find another safer conspiracy theory to propagate out fear of consequences of their stupidity.

paul71

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I think the current approach is moving in the right direction. Anti-vax video channels are being demonitized. Anti-vax media is being classified as disinformation and pseudo-science. Search algorithms from the likes of Google are bringing up accurate information and relegating anti-vax disinfo to the tail-end of search results

Yes it's not perfect, but it doesn't give them direct bans and curbs of free speech which they crave so they can cry persecution and launch lawsuits

I know we disagree only in semantics but the term "free speech" is a bugbear of mine. There is an old legal ethical/debate on the difference between Licence to speak and free speech. Licence being the tolerance of allowing someone to say whatever they please irrespective of evidence/consequence/harm done. In general in Europe we allow freedom of speech not licence to say what you want.

hcf500

paul71 wrote: »

I have read the thread and would conclude that you would be the kind that I would allow a jury to make a decision upon.

And what would warrant putting me in front of a jury in the first place?

iamwhoiam

VicMackey1 wrote: »

And they would be protected even more so with forced vaccination

Yes , I agree . I would be all for no admission to creche or ECCE without an up to date vaccination record . Hit the parents where it hurts

paul71

hcf500 wrote: »

And what would warrant putting me in front of a jury in the first place?

As I said I want to lobby election candidates to introduce a law targeting individuals and websites making them criminally responsible for deliberately disseminating misinformation on vaccination. Track ip addresses establish who has multi user accounts spouting this rubbish, prosecute under a new law for endangering public health and bring them to account for causing the deaths of children.
I would be happy then to allow those people to justify the claims such as those made here in front of a jury who hear counter arguments from medical professionals.

hcf500

paul71 wrote: »

As I said I want to lobby election candidates to introduce a law targeting individuals and websites making them criminally responsible for deliberately disseminating misinformation on vaccination. Track ip addresses establish who has multi user accounts spouting this rubbish, prosecute under a new law for endangering public health and bring them to account for causing the deaths of children.
I would be happy then to allow those people to justify the claims such as those made here in front of a jury who hear counter arguments from medical professionals.

I would fear such a plan, especially if people like you were involved, putting me in front of a jury having done absolutely nothing wrong!

paul71

hcf500 wrote: »

Not my words but a statement I mostly agree with

"No wonder vaccine products, which have not been properly safety tested, are being increasingly rejected. Shunned not because of misinformation, but because of the government’s self-inflicted loss of faith, coupled with its deep collusion with pharmaceutical companies where profits over people is their modus operandi."

This

paul71

hcf500 wrote: »

I would fear such a plan, especially if people like you were involved, putting me in front of a jury having done absolutely nothing wrong!

Why fear defending such an action in front of a jury of your peers if you can back up your assertions with facts?

paul71

hcf500 wrote: »

I understand that drug companies bottom line is to make profit and please the shareholders. I don't hold that against them. However the state should not be using taxpayers money to help them and their shareholders profit, and at the same time neglect some of the most vulnerable in the country, children who have had their lives ruined because of a vaccine.

When they were rolling out that vaccine, there is plenty evidence that they blatantly lied and claimed that the vaccine was fully tested when it was not. Are people expected to trust these health authorities that were caught out lying and publishing false information. The public must have lost a lot of faith in the health services and that is completely the fault of the state. There is a huge amount of vaccine dis information also but it is not the sole cause for vaccine hesitancy.

This

hcf500

paul71 wrote: »

This

Yes, whats wrong with that?

Seth Brundle

VicMackey1 wrote: »

The child is innocent and shouldn't have to miss out on school.

It has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. Its about disease risk! :rolleyes:

hcf500

This conversation has gone off the rails. There are posters wanting to lock people up for posting online and more wanting to kick doors down to forcibly vaccinate children!

paul71

hcf500 wrote: »

Yes, whats wrong with that?

Dissemination of disinformation, deliberate smoke and mirrors, refusal to answer direct questions asking for links to credible science sources, only a moderate basis for what I would suggest to be the start of an investigation under a possible future law. But if it were to be proven to be a pattern of such posting on different sites using different user names then a basis for prosecution.

paul71

hcf500 wrote: »

This conversation has gone off the rails. There are posters wanting to lock people up for posting online and more wanting to kick doors down to forcibly vaccinate children!

No There are posters asking for reasonable criminal laws to be introduced to prevent the deaths of children like my cousin.