Anti-vaxxers

One eyed Jack

1641 wrote: »

Sorry, coming late to this so sorry if the point has been made.



I could accept your choice provide you accepted that your freedom has responsibilities and consequences. The state should enforce these or, at least, enable them to be enforced.

Here’s the thing though, and I don’t mean to be rude when I say this, I’m just making the example - I don’t care whether or not you respect my personal choices when it comes to the safety and welfare of my own child. The State already does enforce certain standards based restrictions upon how I choose to raise my child, such as the mandatory obligation to ensure that my child receives a minimum standard of education. I am not obligated to enrol my child in an educational institution which is in violation of my conscience, nor would I ever wish to do so anyway as I would argue it’s not in their best interests to do so.

Examples, unvaxed kids should not be eligible for state schools or subsidised preschools. Employers should be free to refuse unvaxed job applicants. And if you or yours spread any of the relevant illnesses to vulnerabe others you should be considered legally liable through negligence.
Freedom does not come without responsibility for one's actions.

While the Spider-Man quote makes for a great soundbite, it’s just not very realistic. People have plenty of freedoms which are not predicated on them owing an equal responsibility for those freedoms, and society is moving more in the direction of acknowledging rights than conferring equal responsibility as a consequence of those rights. Examples include the recent abolition of what was commonly referred to as the “baptism barrier”, which allowed schools to discriminate against parents in their admissions policies, and more people will argue that denying children a place in an educational institution is unlikely to have the intended effect of forcing parents to vaccinate their children. It has the opposite effect of making those parents even more vocal and ardent in their skepticism of vaccination programmes.

You’re making the same assumption as your school exclusion example in assuming that employers share your opinion regarding vaccination and would place their personal beliefs above financial opportunities. That might work for an employer who wants to appeal to socially conscious millennials, but it doesn’t work out so well in reality - just ask Google.

As for the idea of holding people criminally liable for something they aren’t responsible for, that’s not going to fly in any Common Law jurisdiction.

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m looking at the issue of vaccine hesitancy from a political and social perspective though as opposed to a medical and scientific perspective. It’s inarguable that vaccine programmes do of course increase the general health among populations, and have been shown to do so throughout history.

But we’re now at a point in Western society at least where there are more people who have the capacity to be more selfish than previous generations, precisely due to better health, education and economic circumstances. There are more and more people questioning the ethics of vaccination programmes. They’re not arguing the science, they’re arguing the ethics, and I think that’s where scientists and medical professionals are simply talking over people’s heads. Their condemnation of people who are hesitant towards vaccines is about as effective as a virus trying to penetrate herd immunity. If I may stretch a rather ironic metaphor - people have become immune to condemnation because it simply doesn’t map to a reality where due to social media, they find that they’re not alone in their hesitancy. This gives them power they didn’t have before to be able to refuse vaccination, and be congratulated and validated for their personal choices for their own children. I hadn’t thought of equating the argument with abortion, but rather with parents raising children who are trans. Abortion is far less controversial (now there’s something I never thought I’d hear myself saying! :pac:).

We don’t force parents to vaccinate their children here in Ireland and I think it would be a terrible road to go down, as I think it would have the opposite of the intended effect given how people have much more resources available to them than before, so the threat of excluding their children from institutes of education which espouse a philosophy they don’t agree with in the first place isn’t likely to have any impact upon any attempt to increase the numbers of people who vaccinate their children. They now have opportunities and supports available to them like homeschooling for example, effectively neutralising the threat of social exclusion.

At this stage even the WHO acknowledges that there isn’t one simple explanation for vaccine hesitancy such as any influence that could be attributed to Wakefield being the sole or even the major factor. There are many contributing factors, founded more in the realms of politics and culture, than any hesitancy based upon medicine and science -

Addressing vaccine hesitancy


In short, IMO, we need to come up with new ways to tackle diseases in societies which are now more concerned with promoting individualism than collectivism. Herd immunity simply isn’t as effective in preventing the spread of disease as it once was in a society where ostracism is no longer a fear that can be held over people’s heads.

We have come up with a very effective way of tackling diseases, one that has been hugely successful. I don't see why a minority grouping lead by vested interests (see all the blogs of "holistic" therapists and other assorted quacks quoted as being sources in this thread) should demand that we use "new ways" to tackle the problem. You are never going to appease these people.

I'm don't buy the individualism vs collectivism argument, that's if I have taken you up correctly? The rise of individualism has nothing to do with the anti-vaxx movement, in fact I see it more of a collectivist quasi-cult style of thinking. Look back through this entire thread, or even any other thread on the net and I guarantee you will get the exact same "arguments" crop up time and time again. Eg. My cousins sisters friends child had their vaccinations and then they had autism. Or a whole host of one post wonders claiming how vaccinations altered their lives etc. When pressed it's the same bluster and bullcrap they come out with, and inevitably when push comes to shove they either disappear or post the exact same links to the exact same debunked stories written by the same discredited sources. This is one constant across this topic on forums and I have heard the same "arguments" in real life too. There is nothing individualist about it, it might go under that guise, but at the heart of it they would be no more individualist than those poor misfortunate Kool-Aid drinkers at Jonestown!!

A few posts back there was a link that showed a 500% increase in vaccinations somewhere in the states after a measles outbreak. It would seem that when the chips are down and things get real, these people know that their healing crystals won't be curing their child's measles. Selfishness and ignorance would be the issue here, but it should not be up to science to bend over backwards to accommodate that.

I reject the idea that science will have to change to suit a minority, especially when their fears are baseless. Measles is highly contagious, and next generation vaccines will have to try and account for that, and only that. But finding a new way altogether just to suit a few that base their opinion on nothing but blog posts and a few myths? That should never happen. Why should science (and the rest of us) kowtow to the whims of the misinformed?

One eyed Jack

Martina1991 wrote: »

The intended effect is to prevent contagious disease. Parents preventing their children from being vaccinated have the opposite intent.

Parents preventing their children from being vaccinated do not have the intent of spreading contagious disease, they have the intent of protecting their children from vaccination. They’re generally thinking of the potential adverse effects of vaccination on their own children as opposed to the wider beneficial effects of vaccination programmes on populations at large. Your argument is similar to Bono clapping his hands because there are children dying in Africa, and expecting people in the Western world to give a shìte.

Science will trump economical and political views because they are not facts.

I’d love to be able to say I agree with you, but empirical evidence suggests otherwise. It’s not coincidence that the social sciences are infested with ideologues of a certain political bent. Economic and political views are by a hefty amount more influential on social and economic policies than the facts provided by hard science and medicine. This is why for example we no longer subject children from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds to pharmaceutical trials, and pharmaceutical companies are having to carry out clinical trials among populations where their efforts (and their bottom line) aren’t hampered by Western ethics founded on economic and political views, as opposed to scientific fact.

They can pay through the nose and home school all they want for their children that may live to the ripe old age of puberty.

Again, that might have made people quake in their boots In Edward Jenner’s time, but nowadays with advances in medicine in the West, the idea of a child dying before they reach puberty is nothing more than an unrealistic and fanciful notion - it’s a threat that has no weight behind it. Consider the probability that a child is more likely to die crossing the road than they are to suffer the effects of an infectious or contagious disease - what you’re suggesting is akin to saying we should ban everyone from driving because it would reduce the risk of children dying before they reach the ripe old age of puberty. You’d be regarded with a healthy degree of “what the hell have you been smoking?”, and rightly so.

Children are not possesions. They are human beings who put their trust into their parents to look after them and prevent them from harm.

I never argued that children were anyone’s possessions in the first place? The State also acknowledges the rights of parents as the primary carers of their children, and there are a whole bunch of human rights relating to familial right to privacy and so on if you want to get into a human rights argument.

Human rights have no scientific basis, but are founded upon political, social, economic and cultural values, and enforced by a legal structure as opposed to any imaginary beliefs about what rights people imagine they should have because they imagine their scientific arguments carry any weight.

Not vaccinating your children goes against the knowledge, experience and advice of countless hours of research and study all over the world.

I haven’t attempted to argue otherwise, and this is the talking over people’s heads I’m talking about. I know for example you have a background in science and medicine, I don’t (well, I have a background computer science, but that’s irrelevant, it doesn’t make me a scientist and I’m still not a scientist), but the point I’m making is that a scientific argument from authority isn’t worth a hill of beans to someone who places no value in scientific argument. That’s why we have so many posters here trying to guilt trip people by using people they imagine those people should care about in order to shame people whose opinions they disagree with. Scientists too, it turns out, are just as human as everyone else, and as prone to irrational thinking as anyone else, and that’s why scientific arguments just don’t mean anything to people whose values aren’t based upon science, but are based upon their political, social and economic philosophies. If you want to reach those people, you’re not going to reach them with scientific arguments and facts.

The onus is upon you to understand their perspective, as opposed to trying to be so heavy handed in using the State as your own enforcer to enforce your ideological standards on people who couldn’t be more socially, politically, culturally and economically different to you, if your intent is to prevent diseases in a population you aren’t familiar with. Nobody takes kindly to outsiders marching in and making demands.

1641

One eyed Jack wrote: »

While the Spider-Man quote makes for a great soundbite, it’s just not very realistic. People have plenty of freedoms which are not predicated on them owing an equal responsibility for those freedoms, and society is moving more in the direction of acknowledging rights than conferring equal responsibility as a consequence of those rights. Examples include the recent abolition of what was commonly referred to as the “baptism barrier”, which allowed schools to discriminate against parents in their admissions policies, and more people will argue that denying children a place in an educational institution is unlikely to have the intended effect of forcing parents to vaccinate their children. It has the opposite effect of making those parents even more vocal and ardent in their skepticism of vaccination programmes.

You’re making the same assumption as your school exclusion example in assuming that employers share your opinion regarding vaccination and would place their personal beliefs above financial opportunities. That might work for an employer who wants to appeal to socially conscious millennials, but it doesn’t work out so well in reality - just ask Google.

As for the idea of holding people criminally liable for something they aren’t responsible for, that’s not going to fly in any Common Law jurisdiction.

The attempt to draw an analogy between exposing children to dangerous, disabling and life threatening illnesses and the admission's policies of schools re:baptism is bizarre and ludicrous. Are you suggesting that non-baptised children infect baptised children?



The citizenship of any society involves a combination of rights and responsibilities (whether enforced informally or formally, by laws and regulations).Ultimately, it the responsibility of the state to maintain and enforce this balance, particularly where public safety is concerned.
I have a right to build a house, but not to build a house anywhere I like, to whatever design, or to arbitrary standards. Your child has a right to education but if he is posing a severe and persistent risk to the safety and wellbeing of other children (eg, by persistent severe violence) then you will not have a right to send him to a school of your choice.


As regards legal responsibility, I was thinking of civil liability. If an oil leak in a neighbour's property caused damage to mine then they would have a civil liability. Your so-called appeal to Common Law is nonesense. However, now you mention it, criminal liability could also be pursued. You have a right to drive a car. But if you drive it negligently an injure someone then you have both a civil and criminal liability.

Martina1991

One eyed Jack wrote:

they have the intent of protecting their children from vaccination. They’re generally thinking of the potential adverse effects of vaccination on their own children as opposed to the wider beneficial effects of vaccination programmes on populations at large .

Your posts are so long winded and full of waffle.
"Protecting " a child from vaccination. What baseless rubbish.

The "potential " effects are in such a tiny tiny minority the benefits will always outweigh the risks.

Im not engaging with your philosophical ramblings. Life's too short, unless you vaccinate
:pacman:

blanch152

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

Who's Jack?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_alright,_Jack

"I'm alright, Jack is a British expression used to describe those who act only in their own best interests even if assistance to others would necessitate minimal effort on their behalf."

Just about sums the anti-vaxxers up.

blanch152

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thanks for letting me know

Seriously though, it’s a double edge sword if people are going to argue that we should respect individuals freedom of choice in areas where they personally agree with the individuals choices, and argue that the State should prohibit people from making individual choices in areas where that person doesn’t agree that they should have to respect an individuals freedom of choice.

Sounds to me like they want to make it all about themselves, while condemning other people for doing exactly the same thing.

That is an argument for anarchy.

The State must step in in many instances. From law and order to social welfare, the State interferes with individuals freedom of choice. Vaccination should fall into those categories as the benefits to society of the restrictions on individual freedom of choice outweigh the cost to the individual.

1641

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, that might have made people quake in their boots In Edward Jenner’s time, but nowadays with advances in medicine in the West, the idea of a child dying before they reach puberty is nothing more than an unrealistic and fanciful notion - it’s a threat that has no weight behind it. Consider the probability that a child is more likely to die crossing the road than they are to suffer the effects of an infectious or contagious disease -
.

I could ask if you are for real, but unfortunately I know the answer.


Children are not dying form polio anymore because of vaccination, not because of some other nebulous "medical advances". It is not that long ago since they were dying. And there are still quite a few survivors from the outbreak in the 50s and early 60s who are still living with the livelong debilating and disabling consequences. This stopped with vaccination.

Of course, polio vacinators are still being assassinated in Afghanistan by the Taliban who spew there own "knowledge" and beliefs about what they are "really at" - spreading infertility as a Western plot, etc. And polio remains prevalent there due to the relatively low uptake.

One eyed Jack

Martina1991 wrote: »

Your posts are so long winded and full of waffle.
"Protecting " a child from vaccination. What baseless rubbish.

The "potential " effects are in such a tiny tiny minority the benefits will always outweigh the risks.

Im not engaging with your philosophical ramblings. Life's too short, unless you vaccinate
:pacman:

When your scientific arguments aren’t of any value, resort to mud slinging, and then try and tell me it’s not about political and social views :rolleyes:

I really don’t have a whole lot of time for your baseless rubbish either, like what do you imagine is a higher priority for most people - their children’s welfare, or the welfare of an entire population?

Your “life’s too short” argument might appeal to someone living in deepest Africa where infectious diseases are an everyday reality (and even then they’re highly unlikely to be as effective as you would hope), but trying to tell someone in a first world Western society that their children are under constant threat of disease and infection unless they vaccinate? I’ll refer you to my previous question which is likely to be the first question you’re asked - the hell are you smoking?

batgoat

I would say your children not ending up with mumps and measles should be a priority for most parents. Ending up with either of them can result in long term disabilities and even infertility. So yep, it's pretty bad parenting to not vaccinate one's children.

Martina1991

One eyed Jack wrote:

When your scientific arguments aren’t of any value, resort to mud slinging, and then try and tell me it’s not about political and social views
I really don’t have a whole lot of time for your baseless rubbish either, like what do you imagine is a higher priority for most people - their children’s welfare, or the welfare of an entire population?

Scientific arguments arent of any value?!
My thoughts are based on scientific fact. They are not baseless nor rubbish.

Welfare of the entire population would include the welfare of children.

One eyed Jack

batgoat wrote: »

I would say your children not ending up with mumps and measles should be a priority for most parents. Ending up with either of them can result in long term disabilities and even infertility. So yep, it's pretty bad parenting to not vaccinate one's children.

Absolutely, and I’m not disagreeing with you that of course their children not contracting mumps and measles is a priority for any parent, it’s why I would never sneer at anyone who disagrees with vaccinations, and it would take a special sort to sneer at a parent who lost their child or children due to an unwillingness to vaccinate their children. However, if I may ask you a question? If someone were to criticise and condemn you for your decisions you make for your children which you believe are in their best interests, would you be more likely to give them a fair hearing, or would you be more likely to instinctively dismiss them out of hand and suggest they do one?

I know which I would be more likely to do, and that’s what you’re dealing with when it comes to parents who’s values don’t align with yours. No amount of scientific argument is going to overcome their experiences, or indeed lack thereof, as the case may be. As I said earlier it’s like Bono expecting people in the West could possibly relate to people in Africa as though we should feel any obligation to people in Africa. My mother used try guilt trip me with that sort of nonsense when she didn’t want me to waste food - “children in Africa are dying and you’re wasting food”. I couldn’t relate to them then, I still can’t relate to them, any more than I can’t relate to people living in countries where diseases are rife and vaccine programmes actually make sense.

One eyed Jack

Martina1991 wrote: »

Scientific arguments arent of any value?!
My thoughts are based on scientific fact. They are not baseless nor rubbish.

Welfare of the entire population would include the welfare of children.

I’m not disputing that your thoughts are based on scientific fact. I just don’t care. I don’t know how you’re having difficulty understanding the fact that your scientific arguments are of no value to people who do not value scientific arguments. It’s hardly rocket science and yet you appear to be struggling to grasp that very basic concept.

Welfare of the entire population would of course include children, but that’s not what I said, is it? I asked which do you imagine is more likely - that a parent would care more about their own children’s welfare as opposed to the welfare of an entire population, or your belief that people would care more about the welfare of an entire population over the welfare of their own children?

Generally speaking when it comes to their own children, parents aren’t nearly so idealistic or altruistic as you are with regard to children who aren’t yours.

1641

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Welfare of the entire population would of course include children, but that’s not what I said, is it? I asked which do you imagine is more likely - that a parent would care more about their own children’s welfare as opposed to the welfare of an entire population, or your belief that people would care more about the welfare of an entire population over the welfare of their own children?

Generally speaking when it comes to their own children, parents aren’t nearly so idealistic or altruistic as you are with regard to children who aren’t yours.

But your "reasoning" only works if most parents vacinate their children, thereby rendering your children relatively safer from infection. You are, in effect, a "safety parasite". If there were enough "safety parasites" then safety for everyone would disappear, as infections would become more widespread. Would you then, wearing your selfish "I,m only thinking of my own hat" get your children vacinated?

1641

[QUOTE=One eyed Jack;109382461 I don’t know how you’re having difficulty understanding the fact that your scientific arguments are of no value to people who do not value scientific arguments. It’s hardly rocket science and yet you appear to be struggling to grasp that very basic concept.
[/QUOTE]


You value rocket science - just not science?:rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

1641 wrote: »

But your "reasoning" only works if most parents vacinate their children, thereby rendering your children relatively safer from infection. You are, in effect, a "safety parasite". If there were enough "safety parasites" then safety for everyone would disappear, as infections would become more widespread. Would you then, wearing your selfish "I,m only thinking of my own hat" get your children vacinated?

The reality though is that in Ireland at least, there really aren’t enough safety parasites to cause me to consider having my child vaccinated to prevent the spread of a disease which I don’t consider him to be at risk from.

I should clarify that I’m not actually anti-vaccination, I’m more about people having the freedom to make choices for their children which they believe are in their children’s best interests. To that end, my child has received the usual battery of childhood vaccinations, but they will not be receiving the HPV vaccination.

If it became a reality that the risk of contracting or spreading a disease posed a greater threat to their health and welfare than not being vaccinated to prevent the spread of the disease, then I might consider vaccinating them for a particular disease.

Capt'n Midnight

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reality though is that in Ireland at least, there really aren’t enough safety parasites to cause me to consider having my child vaccinated to prevent the spread of a disease which I don’t consider him to be at risk from..

Speaking of parasites you seem to be quite happy to benefit while the rest of society to take risks that you won't

Thanks to others of your ilk the herd immunity has reduced so the risk of disease has gone up, also we have larger numbers of people arriving here from areas where the vaccination rates are lower.

One eyed Jack

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Speaking of parasites you seem to be quite happy to benefit while the rest of society to take risks that you won't

And that is entirely their prerogative to take risks I won’t. I wouldn’t ever think of trying to force them to take risks they weren’t prepared to take, so it stands to reason that I would expect the same courtesy to be extended to me. Of course the reality is that the same courtesy of “live and let live” is mere idealism, and people imagine they have every right to impose their will on other people while imagining that other people should have no right to return the favour, as it were.

Thanks to others of your ilk the herd immunity has reduced so the risk of disease has gone up, also we have larger numbers of people arriving here from areas where the vaccination rates are lower.

I don’t disagree with any of the above, I’ve already pointed out that herd immunity is no longer effective as a preventative measure in modern society, and that’s exactly why I suggested that we need to develop new methods of tackling diseases rather than relying on methods that were easily applied in the past when society wasn’t as educated and people hadn’t as much freedom to reject ideas they weren’t on board with as they do now.

TheRepentent

One eyed Jack wrote: »

there really aren’t enough safety parasites to cause me to consider having my child vaccinated to prevent the spread of a disease which I don’t consider him to be at risk from.

It's people like you that breaks the system that has stopped millions of people dying from preventable diseases.


And the sadly the funny thing is , one of your unvaccinated offspring could be the one to suffer the consequence of your selfish , retarded thought processes.


Zero tolerance....no access to creches or schools unless vacinated.

One eyed Jack

TheRepentent wrote: »

It's people like you that breaks the system that has stopped millions of people dying from preventable diseases.


And the sadly the funny thing is , one of your unvaccinated offspring could be the one to suffer the consequence of your selfish , retarded thought processes.


Zero tolerance....no access to creches or schools unless vacinated.

I’ll make you a deal?

I’ll worry about my children, and you worry about your shìtty attitude rubbing off on your own children.

TheRepentent

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll make you a deal?

I’ll worry about my children, and you worry about your shìtty attitude rubbing off on your own children.

Off ye go.


Again I'll mention zero tolerance...no access to creche or schools for children of idiots.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll make you a deal?

I’ll worry about my children, and you worry about your shìtty attitude rubbing off on your own children.

The problem here is that you don't worry about your children infecting everyone else. ****ty attitude indeed.

beerpong

TheRepentent wrote: »

Off ye go.


Again I'll mention zero tolerance...no access to creche or schools for children of idiots.

Absolutely, you couldn't put an animal into boarding without it having its vaccines!

pjohnson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ll make you a deal?

I’ll worry about my children, and you worry about your shìtty attitude rubbing off on your own children.

Think they are right to be more concerned about what diseases your own shítty spawn has that could infect their child. Your negligence/under education affects them.

whatdoicare

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reality though is that in Ireland at least, there really aren’t enough safety parasites to cause me to consider having my child vaccinated to prevent the spread of a disease which I don’t consider him to be at risk from.

Hold on, you're actually wrong there - Limerick had a severe outbreak of Measles last year that took an absolute emergency situation to get under control! There is an ongoing outbreak in Dublin as I type and Mumps is having an outbreak somewhere too - Dublin aswell, I think....There was also multiple toddler deaths in Limerick from Men C not so long ago.

One eyed Jack

TheRepentent wrote: »

Off ye go.

Again I'll mention zero tolerance...no access to creche or schools for children of idiots.

This “zero tolerance” and no access to public services comes up quite a bit. You do realise that policy if it were ever implemented in Ireland (about as likely as every child who hasn’t yet reached puberty being wiped out by smallpox), that it would only affect those people who are dependent upon public services?

I am not one of those people, and not many people who are opposed to vaccination programmes actually are dependent upon public services, so your far too costly to implement and police policy would be unlikely to have the desired effect. It would only affect people who are so socioeconomically deprived that they are wholly dependent upon public services, and those are exactly the type of people we already have policies in place to encourage them to value things like education and health and so on.

In short - you’re purely thinking about the issues involved from your own perspective, as opposed to thinking about the issues from the perspective of the people you hope to encourage to vaccinate their children. That strikes me as less of an imperative to have people vaccinate their children, and more of an ignorant opinion and dismissal of people who don’t share your ignorant opinions.

TheRepentent

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This “zero tolerance” and no access to public services comes up quite a bit. You do realise that policy if it were ever implemented in Ireland (about as likely as every child who hasn’t yet reached puberty being wiped out by smallpox), that it would only affect those people who are dependent upon public services?

I am not one of those people, and not many people who are opposed to vaccination programmes actually are dependent upon public services, so your far too costly to implement and police policy would be unlikely to have the desired effect. It would only affect people who are so socioeconomically deprived that they are wholly dependent upon public services, and those are exactly the type of people we already have policies in place to encourage them to value things like education and health and so on.

In short - you’re purely thinking about the issues involved from your own perspective, as opposed to thinking about the issues from the perspective of the people you hope to encourage to vaccinate their children. That strikes me as less of an imperative to have people vaccinate their children, and more of an ignorant opinion and dismissal of people who don’t share your ignorant opinions.

Nice wall of text explaining your ignorance.

I feel sorry for your kids.

One eyed Jack

whatdoicare wrote: »

Hold on, you're actually wrong there - Limerick had a severe outbreak of Measles last year that took an absolute emergency situation to get under control! There is an ongoing outbreak in Dublin as I type and Mumps is having an outbreak somewhere too - Dublin aswell, I think....There was also multiple toddler deaths in Limerick from Men C not so long ago.

I’m not wrong. I’m well aware of the handful of hotspot outbreaks there have been in Ireland recently, and as I already pointed out, my child has received their vaccinations for the strains of the diseases you mentioned above. I also said that the risk is not great enough to have me consider vaccinating my child with the HPV vaccine.

Paddy Cow

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thanks for letting me know

Seriously though, it’s a double edge sword if people are going to argue that we should respect individuals freedom of choice in areas where they personally agree with the individuals choices, and argue that the State should prohibit people from making individual choices in areas where that person doesn’t agree that they should have to respect an individuals freedom of choice.

Sounds to me like they want to make it all about themselves, while condemning other people for doing exactly the same thing.

If someone wanted to bleed to death, rather than accept a blood transfusion, that's fine. They are an adult and have body autonomy. If they want their child to bleed to death, rather than give them a transfusion, the state steps in and says the child gets the transfusion.

batgoat

whatdoicare wrote: »

Hold on, you're actually wrong there - Limerick had a severe outbreak of Measles last year that took an absolute emergency situation to get under control! There is an ongoing outbreak in Dublin as I type and Mumps is having an outbreak somewhere too - Dublin aswell, I think....There was also multiple toddler deaths in Limerick from Men C not so long ago.

Plus even if we weren't having these outbreaks, if less people vaccinate. You're increasing the likelihood of an outbreak. Eg the US had eradicated measles, vaccination rates dropped because of conspiracies and now look.