Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.**
That is exactly what is happening with these concerns that we shouldn't mandate vaccines now. In the future, we might mandate something else.
This is NOT a thread about medical mistakes. That's another logical fallacy, also called "moving the goalposts". Let's argue about medical mistakes instead of immunizations. No. The thread is about immunizations that are CURRENTLY MANDATED. Not what might happen in Maryland, or what almost happened in Texas.
You've posted that link before and it really doesn't prove your point. It's absurd to say that one thing never leads to another because sometimes it does. You have to take things situation by situation and it's pretty obvious that if we get rid of exemptions, those exemptions won't magically reappear when a vaccine that we may not agree with gets put on the schedule. We know that more vaccines are in development so why wouldn't they eventually be added to the schedule? Think about it. It's a perfectly logical conclusion. This is not an "extreme hypothetical", it's just what will happen.
The things that are happening in various states like Maryland and Texas are relevant since we are talking about public education and these states have public schools and either are or have considered adding vaccines that some consider to be controversial.
You've posted that link before and it really doesn't prove your point. It's absurd to say that one thing never leads to another because sometimes it does. You have to take things situation by situation and it's pretty obvious that if we get rid of exemptions, those exemptions won't magically reappear when a vaccine that we may not agree with gets put on the schedule. We know that more vaccines are in development so why wouldn't they eventually be added to the schedule? Think about it. It's a perfectly logical conclusion. This is not an "extreme hypothetical", it's just what will happen.
The things that are happening in various states like Maryland and Texas are relevant since we are talking about public education and these states have public schools and either are or have considered adding vaccines that some consider to be controversial.
I can post a lot more links about slippery slope, however, that's not the topic of the thread either. Re: the bold, do you have a crystal ball? Can I borrow it soon? I can DM you and we can meet somewhere.
I can post a lot more links about slippery slope, however, that's not the topic of the thread either. Re: the bold, do you have a crystal ball? Can I borrow it soon? I can DM you and we can meet somewhere.
You don't think that any more vaccines will ever be added to the schedule? Why? It has changed a lot over the years, why wouldn't we see changes in the future?
You don't think that any more vaccines will ever be added to the schedule? Why? It has changed a lot over the years, why wouldn't we see changes in the future?
We probably will see some changes and additions to the immunization schedule over the years. When I first got out of nursing school, it was far different than it is now. But we are not discussing new vaccines in the offing.
We probably will see some changes and additions to the immunization schedule over the years. When I first got out of nursing school, it was far different than it is now. But we are not discussing new vaccines in the offing.
OK, so you only want to talk about mandating the vaccines on the current schedule for school entry? Would such laws need to be renewed every time a new vaccine was added? I'm not sure how we can discuss this issue without thinking about the future.
I think this topic is mostly about parental choice and not so much about the individual vaccines and their pros or cons. I think that since education is compulsory and considering we all pay for pubic schools and are all supposed to have access to public schools then we should not place restrictions like these upon entry.
All parents have access to vaccines and can choose to get them for their kids or not. Parents allow their children to go all kinds of places in public that do not have vaccine requirements. Why is all of the focus aimed at schools? If these parents are so afraid of VPD then why don't they keep their child safe at home? I don't see why anyone would feel that they have the right to tell other parents that they must vaccinate their child whether they agree with it or not because they want their child to feel safe at school.
It might be warranted in some extreme scenarios such as an outbreak where people were dying left and right but there is no such emergency warranting such extreme measures at this point in time.
OK, so you only want to talk about mandating the vaccines on the current schedule for school entry? Would such laws need to be renewed every time a new vaccine was added? I'm not sure how we can discuss this issue without thinking about the future.
I think this topic is mostly about parental choice and not so much about the individual vaccines and their pros or cons. I think that since education is compulsory and considering we all pay for pubic schools and are all supposed to have access to public schools then we should not place restrictions like these upon entry.
All parents have access to vaccines and can choose to get them for their kids or not. Parents allow their children to go all kinds of places in public that do not have vaccine requirements. Why is all of the focus aimed at schools? If these parents are so afraid of VPD then why don't they keep their child safe at home? I don't see why anyone would feel that they have the right to tell other parents that they must vaccinate their child whether they agree with it or not because they want their child to feel safe at school.
It might be warranted in some extreme scenarios such as an outbreak where people were dying left and right but there is no such emergency warranting such extreme measures at this point in time.
Why do the anti-vaxers like to taunt people who are scientifically literate about vaccines with this "fear" issue? There are those few people who really cannot get some/all vaccines. These people are few in number. Some people are too young/old to get some vaccines, or to have received the full series, e.g. infants. Adults cannot get DTaP, and can only get one dose of Tdap in their lifetime, except during pregnancy.
Some vaccines require 2-3 doses to gain immunity, for ex. DTaP, Hepatitis A and B; Hib (only required for preschool/daycare); Prevnar (ditto); Rotateq (not required for any age by any state); MMR and chickenpox vaccines require two doses to obtain immunity for almost all people (99.7% for measles). AND, it takes ~ two weeks for any vaccine to provide full immunity. So waiting until "people dying left and right" is not good practice.
Why do the anti-vaxers like to taunt people who are scientifically literate about vaccines with this "fear" issue? There are those few people who really cannot get some/all vaccines. These people are few in number. Some people are too young/old to get some vaccines, or to have received the full series, e.g. infants. Adults cannot get DTaP, and can only get one dose of Tdap in their lifetime, except during pregnancy.
Some vaccines require 2-3 doses to gain immunity, for ex. DTaP, Hepatitis A and B; Hib (only required for preschool/daycare); Prevnar (ditto); Rotateq (not required for any age by any state); MMR and chickenpox vaccines require two doses to obtain immunity for almost all people (99.7% for measles). AND, it takes ~ two weeks for any vaccine to provide full immunity. So waiting until "people dying left and right" is not good practice.
I wasn't taunting you in the least. I was stating my opinion in regards to the question asked in the original post. I don't know what else other then fear would be the motivation behind legislation such as mandating vaccinations without any exemptions in order for students to attend public schools.
The stories about Gardasil are just that --- stories. The vaccine is extremely safe. But you have been told that before and place more weight on internet stories than on the scientific evidence.
As far as flu is concerned, 90% of the kids who died from flu during the 2013 season were unvaccinated.
Perhaps you underestimate the severity of vaccine preventable diseases, including flu and rotavirus. Those of us who advocate for vaccines believe the scientists rather than unverified internet stories. We would also prefer to prevent children from getting sick enough to go to the hospital rather than treating them after they get extremely sick, even if the disease is not fatal.
By the way, vaccinated people who get sick because the vaccine did not protect them tend to have milder illnesses. They do not end up in the hospital or dead. In fact, admission to the hospital for flu after receiving the vaccine is a sentinel event monitored by the infectious disease experts because it may be a sign the virus is changing.
You posted the exact same thing in post #41, word for word and I already responded to it. Why are you repeating yourself, word for word here?
I wasn't taunting you in the least. I was stating my opinion in regards to the question asked in the original post. I don't know what else other then fear would be the motivation behind legislation such as mandating vaccinations without any exemptions in order for students to attend public schools.
The motivation is to protect the public's health. But you've been told that before, too, and you don't believe it. Your response is always that if people are so "afraid" of disease, they should just stay away from the public.
The motivation is to protect the public's health. But you've been told that before, too, and you don't believe it. Your response is always that if people are so "afraid" of disease, they should just stay away from the public.
Considering that most of the public can get vaccinated if they choose to and that vaccination rates are already high, I see no need to take away the exemptions that allow the small minority to opt out for philosophical or religious reasons. There is no emergency that warrants forcing that small minority into getting vaccinated in the name of "public health".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
