Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Incidence of measles, mumps and rubella all increase due to anti-vaccine campaign

11011121416

Comments



  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    No doubt you'd use my disagreeing with you as a justification to force me to take them if I didn't...

    How about pretending I suddenly used the word endanger, after having seen in in pretty much every post of mine you've responded to.

    Hmmm...?

    sure, maybe it's not the meds, maybe you just sobered up and have forgotten all those posts of mine you quoted....?

    Or maybe you're just lying....?




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    From that article:

    This is the cost of letting people behave like lunatics... they're playing with the health of others... and no society has laws designed to protect the rights of people who are wilfully endangering their neighbours.

    The key word from your own article there though being "unknowingly". So it wasn't as if they wilfully endangered anyone. You might have a point if they knew they were carrying the infection, but you're still making a leap to suggest that it was guaranteed that by not vaccinating the child they would develop the infection.

    Does non-vaccination put them at higher risk of contracting and spreading the infection? Certainly, but is the risk great enough to force parents to vaccinate their children? Certainly not, or they would've done so already.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    when all I've asked for is evidence that not getting a child vaccinated is guaranteed to cause them to develop MMR. If they cannot provide evidence to back up their claims, then they have no right to force anyone to get vaccinated.

    Laws and rules aren't made on guarantees. If they were, we would have very few

    They are made on risk (in this case net safety of others)

    e.g. give a child a gun, there's no guarantee they will shoot others or themselves but the risk is high

    People can be forced to get vaccinations in the same way they can e.g. be forced not to carry knives on planes or wear seatbelts or hundreds of other examples - risk




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    The key word from your own article there though being "unknowingly". So it wasn't as if they wilfully endangered anyone. You might have a point if they knew they were carrying the infection, but you're still making a leap to suggest that it was guaranteed that by not vaccinating the child they would develop the infection.

    Does non-vaccination put them at higher risk of contracting and spreading the infection? Certainly, but is the risk great enough to force parents to vaccinate their children? Certainly not, or they would've done so already.

    Feel that under your feet? It's quicksand... ?

    Guess who's changing their argument now?

    Hint: it's you.



    You've just decided to claim that the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects people who endanger others, as long as the risk isn't "great enough"....

    And sure, you're the guy that gets to define "great enough"...

    Here let me get Ban Ki-moon on the phone and pass along your newest "acceptable percentage of sick children" figures.




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    How about pretending I suddenly used the word endanger, after having seen in in pretty much every post of mine you've responded to.

    Hmmm...?

    sure, maybe it's not the meds, maybe you just sobered up and have forgotten all those posts of mine you quoted....?

    Or maybe you're just lying....?


    How about you leave the petty personal insults aside? I've tolerated them up to now, but only because I'm interested in the discussion, I couldn't care less about you.

    Let's try and stick to the discussion instead of wasting time with petty playground swipes.


  • Advertisement


  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    How about you leave the petty personal insults aside? I've tolerated them up to now, but only because I'm interested in the discussion, I couldn't care less about you.

    Let's try and stick to the discussion instead of wasting time with petty playground swipes.

    Sorry, just so we're clear - you blatantly lied about what I said. Blatantly.

    So you'll forgive me if I'm not too concerned about your definition of good behaviour.




  • Prickling red rash, this is getting childish! Human rights are like human beings - they exist in a delicate balance with each other and must negotiate constantly, and on a case-by-case basis, for the best outcome. It's not a magic spell where you wave the charter like a Freeman wand and shout "Human Right to Religion!" thus neatly trumping all other rights held by everyone else.




  • Jonny7 wrote: »
    Laws and rules aren't made on guarantees. If they were, we would have very few

    They are made on risk (in this case net safety of others)

    e.g. give a child a gun, there's no guarantee they will shoot others or themselves but the risk is high


    I can quote you plenty of laws from the US, or even Ireland if you prefer, that were made after an incident occurred. These laws were made after the fact, not because of the risk of something happening, but because of the fact that it DID happen. Laws are based on history, not on the future. That's why you'll often hear the expression that law hasn't caught up with society.

    People can be forced to get vaccinations in the same way they can e.g. be forced not to carry knives on planes or wear seatbelts or hundreds of other examples - risk


    And we're back to the same thing again -

    None of the things you describe are a breach of Human Rights. They are laws that were made after the fact. The very same as the Declaration of Human Rights was made after the fact. It wasn't just pie in the sky idealism! History has shown us that time and again, forcing people to do something, against their will, is just never a good strategy.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    I can quote you plenty of laws from the US, or even Ireland if you prefer, that were made after an incident occurred. These laws were made after the fact, not because of the risk of something happening, but because of the fact that it DID happen. Laws are based on history, not on the future. That's why you'll often hear the expression that law hasn't caught up with society.

    And we're back to the same thing again -

    None of the things you describe are a breach of Human Rights. They are laws that were made after the fact. The very same as the Declaration of Human Rights was made after the fact. It wasn't just pie in the sky idealism! History has shown us that time and again, forcing people to do something, against their will, is just never a good strategy.

    We force people every day to do things they don't want to...

    Most of us are forced many hundreds of times a day to behave against our will.

    I can't drive as fast as I want, I can't cross the street there, I can't overtake slow drivers around a curve, I can't drink openly in the parks, I can't determine what my kids are taught, etc. etc., etc.

    One of those "I can't" should be: I can't endanger my neighbour by not vaccinating my kids.




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    You've just decided to claim that the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects people who endanger others, as long as the risk isn't "great enough"....

    And sure, you're the guy that gets to define "great enough"...

    Here let me get Ban Ki-moon on the phone and pass along your newest "acceptable percentage of sick children" figures.


    I haven't made any such claim.

    I'm not the guy who gets to define great enough.

    And I'm sure he is well aware of the acceptable percentage already, and the UN has decided that the risk is not great enough.

    I'm still waiting to hear your compelling argument that you could take to the UN to convince them to change their minds.


  • Advertisement


  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    I haven't made any such claim.

    I'm not the guy who gets to define great enough.

    And I'm sure he is well aware of the acceptable percentage already, and the UN has decided that the risk is not great enough.

    I'm still waiting to hear your compelling argument that you could take to the UN to convince them to change their minds.

    Bwahahaha....

    That quicksand is getting deeper huh?

    This shouldn't be funny, but... It is.

    So now you're claiming that the UN has a percentage of children made sick due to allowing vaccines to be voluntary - a right guaranteed in their human rights charter - but anything over that percentage and that human right will be revoked.

    And Ban ki-moon knows all about this.

    At least we know it's not you deciding when my human rights will be rescinded, but someone in the UN.

    Excellent.




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    We force people every day to do things they don't want to...

    Most of us are forced many hundreds of times a day to behave against our will.

    I can't drive as fast as I want, I can't cross the street there, I can't overtake slow drivers around a curve, I can't drink openly in the parks, I can't determine what my kids are taught, etc. etc., etc.

    One of those "I can't" should be: I can't endanger my neighbour by not vaccinating my kids.


    No we don't, you can do ALL those things you mentioned. But there are consequences to your actions.

    You could claim lots of things "should be" on that "I can't" list, but you'd have to come up with a compelling argument first. You've still yet to do that much. The whole "endangering your neighbour" thing as I've said could easily be used to justify keeping me locked up for a very long time.




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    Bwahahaha....

    That quicksand is getting deeper huh?

    This shouldn't be funny, but... It is.

    So now you're claiming that the UN has a percentage of children made sick due to allowing vaccines to be voluntary - a right guaranteed in their human rights charter - but anything over that percentage and that human right will be revoked.

    And Ban ki-moon knows all about this.

    At least we know it's not you deciding when my human rights will be rescinded, but someone in the UN.

    Excellent.

    I didn't say any of that, but that's more of you arguing against a point I haven't made. I'm still holding quite firm btw, no shifting sands under my feet.

    This will be my last post until you can come up with a compelling argument as this is clearly at this point going nowhere and you seem more interested in taking silly pot shots than an adult discussion.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    No we don't, you can do ALL those things you mentioned. But there are consequences to your actions.

    You could claim lots of things "should be" on that "I can't" list, but you'd have to come up with a compelling argument first. You've still yet to do that much. The whole "endangering your neighbour" thing as I've said could easily be used to justify keeping me locked up for a very long time.

    You can ALSO choose to break a law forcing you to vaccinate your children and there would be consequences for that. Same exact difference.

    As for finding a justification for you being locked up... this thread wouldn't be a bad place to start.

    About coming up with a compelling argument; the vast majority of people find the argument made compelling, which is why they've voted yes on the poll.

    You are not - on a moral level - normal. Which is why you have no problem lying or justifying the endangerment of society. Multiple people have told you that your arguments are nonsensical, but that doesn't phase you. You've created an entire fantasy where you lie about what I've said i.e. that I've changed my argument, to cover up you changing your own argument.

    Here, I'll go on and let you have this thread - you need it more than me.

    And remember, struggling only makes you sink faster.




  • Those who do not vaccinate their children are negating all the work of researchers and scientists who spend millions of man hours sequencing the vaccine and billions of dollars to manufacture it with the sole purpose of rendering the disease harmless to man. It's defeating the whole purpose when incubators for the disease still remain in the population with the potential harm and negate all the efforts make and give rise to a mutated form of the disease.

    What the hell is the point of the whole exercise if skeptical idiots won't follow through? I'd love to see them change their tune if a deadly disease were to evolve with no vaccine available for it. They'd cry for immunity against it then.




  • It shouldn't be mandatory, but unvaccinated children (without certified medical reason) shouldn't be allowed in publicly funded schools or take an ECCE place in a playschool/ creche/ montessori (although many places insist on childrens vaccinations being up to date anyway). Sports clubs and other groups (dance classes, beavers/ cubs etc) should be told to refuse admission to unvaccinated children.

    The choice should be there, but that doesn't mean it should be without consequence.




  • _Redzer_ wrote: »
    What the hell is the point of the whole exercise if skeptical idiots won't follow through? I'd love to see them change their tune if a deadly disease were to evolve with no vaccine available for it. They'd cry for immunity against it then.

    There is no effective vaccine available for HIV. I don't see anyone crying for immunity against it either. Most people are still of the ignorant mentality that "it'll never happen to them", and that's where I say information and education comes in.




  • Jernal wrote: »
    This one should be easy:
    Find a scientific study that irrefutably states the earth doesn't go round the Sun. Using the exact same criterion you are using for the supposed vaccine studies.
    but.... the earth does go around the sun..
    I think

    :)




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    There is no effective vaccine available for HIV. I don't see anyone crying for immunity against it either. Most people are still of the ignorant mentality that "it'll never happen to them", and that's where I say information and education comes in.

    They are crying for immunity, who wouldn't? Have you seen those suffering in sub-Saharan Africa?

    But, HIV is predominantly a sexually transmitted disease, so greater caution can be executed in order to avoid it than a virus which is transmitted through the respiratory system, in which case it is made more contagious, dangerous and infinitely more difficult to avoid. So when it comes to diseases spread through the air, of course they are going to take higher priority due to them being more dangerous to a larger group of people.
    If smallpox, a airborne virus, was to suddenly reemerge you can bet people would be hysterical for a vaccine against it, even those who oppose them.



    -HIV vaccines are in trials and the complex protein structures have been found, it's only a matter of time. HIV is a highly unstable virus which makes if difficult to establish a protein which can inhibit it effectively




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    I can quote you plenty of laws from the US, or even Ireland if you prefer, that were made after an incident occurred. These laws were made after the fact, not because of the risk of something happening,

    A law does not require an example of that specific incident happening in order to be passed prohibiting or restricting it

    Unvaccinated children have been repeatedly shown to put others at risk, that is more than enough to pass a law


  • Advertisement


  • _Redzer_ wrote: »
    ............
    But, HIV is predominantly a ............

    Dengue fever might be a better one ? Spread by mosquitos - no vaccine yet i think




  • gvn wrote: »
    Nope.

    The idea of The State forcing an individual to receive a vaccination against his or her will (or against the will of his or her parents in the case of a child) makes me queasy. My view stems not from a distaste for or distrust in vaccinations, but from a belief in individual liberty.

    Parent refuses MMR for their son. Son gets mumps later in life and is rendered sterlie because the parents didn't like the idea of a vaccine.
    Huge affect on now grown child. Parents not affected at all.

    Measles kills. Myself and my brother are too old to have been part of the MMR vaccine. I got measles and was fine, my brother almost died and was in Temple Street for ages as a result.

    Rubella- can have dreadful last results. My aunt was never vaccinated, got Rubella while pregnant and as it crosses the placental barrier the unborn baby got it too. The baby boy was born almost blind as a result.

    Vaccines save lives. Some I believe people should have a choice about but those such as the MMR should be mandatory IMHO.




  • Vaccines save lives. Some I believe people should have a choice about but those such as the MMR should be mandatory IMHO.


    This is exactly the problem I have with forced vaccination.

    So you have your standards of what should and shouldn't be forced vaccination, but then someone else comes along and says "well this, this and this should be mandatory too!", and then you might not agree with them, but you'll have already set the precedent of forcing people to get vaccinations for those diseases that were personal to you.

    Consider this if you will -

    Executive Order -- HIV Care Continuum Initiative

    It's an order to commit to mandatory screening of all citizens from the ages of 15 to 65 for HIV/AIDS. I'm all for it, but, do you think American citizens will go for it, and if it was introduced here in Ireland, how many do you think would support it?

    After mandatory screening comes mandatory vaccinations, and how many people who are asking for mandatory MMR vaccines, will advocate for mandatory HIV vaccines?

    Despite absolute, concrete, scientific evidence about vaccines that contradicts the prevailing social attitude to HIV/AIDS, it is because of this attitude that you're not going to have too many campaigning for HIV vaccines to be made mandatory.


    Hell, it's hard enough to encourage grown adults to go for a simple fcuking STI test, let alone the idea of a mandatory HIV vaccine!




  • I still don't get why on earth someone would choose to not get their child vaccinated. I don't.

    My ex's dad had a thing about vaccines; none of his kids got any of the jobs most babies get as standard practice. These were lads in their 20s and 30s, so it wasn't part of the whole movement of recent times.

    I had to get the swine flu as a priority patient (as a young person with an underlying severe respiratory condition I fit the profile of people who were dying) and he even gave out to me over that. I told him my own family doc had told me that if I contracted it I stood a high chance of either ending up in ICU or not making it at all.

    That shut him up...temporarily anyway.




  • I can only speak from my own experience here but I hace a young nephew who contracted Whooping Cough within about a month from being born prior to his having had an opportuinity to get Vaccinated, and the Doc in Tallaght was saying he is seeing this more and more and that while people may think that its ok for THEIR kids to go without a vaccine the result is ultimately a higher proliferation of these problems and the condition is effectively imposed on children whether their parents like it or not because of peoples own beliefs and selfishness.




  • To those selfish enough to not vaccinate their kids who think it won't affect others: vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a chance, small as it is, that a vaccinated person can still get sick.

    The unvaccinated are the people who will spread these diseases to others, and the more there are of these wilfully negligent, selfish people the more people who will get sick, be hospitalised, and perhaps die.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    This is exactly the problem I have with forced vaccination.

    So you have your standards of what should and shouldn't be forced vaccination, but then someone else comes along and says "well this, this and this should be mandatory too!", and then you might not agree with them, but you'll have already set the precedent of forcing people to get vaccinations for those diseases that were personal to you.

    Consider this if you will -

    Executive Order -- HIV Care Continuum Initiative

    It's an order to commit to mandatory screening of all citizens from the ages of 15 to 65 for HIV/AIDS. I'm all for it, but, do you think American citizens will go for it, and if it was introduced here in Ireland, how many do you think would support it?

    After mandatory screening comes mandatory vaccinations, and how many people who are asking for mandatory MMR vaccines, will advocate for mandatory HIV vaccines?

    Despite absolute, concrete, scientific evidence about vaccines that contradicts the prevailing social attitude to HIV/AIDS, it is because of this attitude that you're not going to have too many campaigning for HIV vaccines to be made mandatory.


    Hell, it's hard enough to encourage grown adults to go for a simple fcuking STI test, let alone the idea of a mandatory HIV vaccine!

    Anyone - anyone at all can contract measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, the common cold, the flu, pneumonia, etc etc just by mixing with other people - HIV (save for the cases of blood transfusions where neglect causes the transmission) can be prevented by practicing safe sex and not sharing needles. It is more avoidable as a result and so the need for mandatory vaccinations is lessened greatly.
    The cervical cancer vaccine is a good recent example. Its contentious because cervical cancer is viewed as something that relates to adults who are sexually active (in most cases) and so parents don't want to get their children vaccinated - some because they feel it is going to sexualise their children, some because they feel their daughters will go out and freely have sex with anyone and everyone as a result, some because they are unsure of the safety of the vaccine.
    I have time for those who are hesitant because of the latter but none for those who believe the former.
    This is a vaccine that could well save the life of your child why wouldn't you avail of it? Cervical cancer is horrendous (not that there is a cancer thats "good") why anyone wouldn't go all that they can to prevent it where and when possible I don't know.




  • Anyone - anyone at all can contract measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, the common cold, the flu, pneumonia, etc etc just by mixing with other people - HIV (save for the cases of blood transfusions where neglect causes the transmission) can be prevented by practicing safe sex and not sharing needles. It is more avoidable as a result and so the need for mandatory vaccinations is lessened greatly.


    Anyone can contract HIV too, that's the whole point of mandatory screening for ALL American citizens aged 15-65. The need for mandatory vaccinations has increased, and will continue to increase, because the number of people contracting HIV due to being ill informed is increasing.

    The cervical cancer vaccine is a good recent example. Its contentious because cervical cancer is viewed as something that relates to adults who are sexually active (in most cases) and so parents don't want to get their children vaccinated - some because they feel it is going to sexualise their children, some because they feel their daughters will go out and freely have sex with anyone and everyone as a result, some because they are unsure of the safety of the vaccine. I have time for those who are hesitant because of the latter but none for those who believe the former.


    All three attitudes are as ill informed as each other tbh, an issue that should be addressed through education.

    This is a vaccine that could well save the life of your child why wouldn't you avail of it? Cervical cancer is horrendous (not that there is a cancer thats "good") why anyone wouldn't go all that they can to prevent it where and when possible I don't know.


    Well you gave three justifications earlier in your post, I gave another- lack of education and information, which keeps people ignorant, which keeps people fearful. Another reason whether we like it or not, is people's basic human rights, another is because it is in direct conflict with their religious beliefs, and I'm sure I could come up with a few more I've heard over the years.

    Those reasons can all be dismissed as "nonsense", but is dismissing people's ignorance or beliefs as nonsense and forcing them to get vaccinated really the best strategy? It might be the quickest way to eradicate these diseases in the short term, but if forcing people to do something they don't believe in has shown us anything, it's that such a strategy only perpetuates ignorance in the long term, and the short term goal has come at too high a cost.




  • HIV is transmitted in very different ways, so you're really just comparing apples and oranges, but if a vaccine was made and worked, I'd be all for mandatory vaccination against it. It would mean we would've eradicated a vicious disease from the face of the earth.

    So now what's your next point?


  • Advertisement


  • _Redzer_ wrote: »
    HIV is transmitted in very different ways, so you're really just comparing apples and oranges, but if a vaccine was made and worked, I'd be all for mandatory vaccination against it. It would mean we would've eradicated a vicious disease from the face of the earth.

    So now what's your next point?


    That makes one of you Redzer, but how would that poll look if we were to do a Yes/No on mandatory HIV vaccination? I know you're suggesting I'm making an apples and oranges comparison, but what I'm actually doing is asking adults would they feel the same way if they themselves were faced with mandatory vaccination for HIV?

    You and I would have no issue with voluntarily having the vaccine administered on ourselves, but as much as I'd rather see the back of an insidious disease, I think it would be nothing shy of hubris to speak for anyone else, or to impose my moral and ethical standards on another person, let alone 6.5 billion people.

    Like I said earlier -
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Hell, it's hard enough to encourage grown adults to go for a simple fcuking STI test, let alone the idea of a mandatory HIV vaccine!


Advertisement