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.
No vaccine is 100% effective & as long as vaccinated people are also 'adversely affecting the health of others through preventable infections'; you can take your liability theory & stick it. Humans are inter-evolutionary & so are pathogens. Your health is your responsibility; not mine & certainly not some random child's.
I think people should keep their immunocompromised kids at home & homeschool them; to not do so is irresponsible parenting.
Vaccination is part of the social contract to protect as many people as possible.
The fact is that "vaccinated people"are not the ones "adversely affecting the health of others through preventable infections". Even if the vaccine is not 100% effective in preventing someone from catching a disease, it often modifies the course of the disease and the infected, vaccinated person does not give it to someone else.
Why should an immunocompromised child have to stay home because someone refuses to vaccinate his healthy child, when the risk to that child is astronomically low?
.....part of the social contract to protect as many people as possible.
Uh oh. You shouldn't have brought that up. You do realize that a good fraction of the posters here are libertarians and don't believe in such a contract? This will be interesting....
Great opening two posts that illustrate the reality of what is going on here.
Both posters believe those issues through their own eyes.
Awesome. Have it.
Problem comes when both posters condone and actively support the State using violence to implement policy in seeing that these issues are carried out as they see fit for all of us (collectivism).
In short, will you allow me to believe what I want if I do not initiate force on others?
I won't answer for either poster, or any other poster, but if you have the guts...take a stab at it (no pun intended).
I would love to hear more people answer this question.
I don’t condone the state using violence or force to implement policy. I will allow people to believe what they believe and make decisions for themselves.
If a person believes that man is a major cause for climate change then I support them in changing their lifestyle so that they reduce their impact. I also support those who don’t believe it and am ok with them keeping their cars, commuting from the suburbs, eating, meat, etc.
I support people who choose to vaccinate to do so and I support those who choose not to, to not do so.
I really can’t see any impact of people who believe that the earth is flat. Let them believe what they believe.
I would not favor measures that forced people to give up their cars, big homes meat eating ways, etc. nor do I support vaccine mandates and the elimination of exemptions.
I’m for choice.
Last edited by MissTerri; 09-16-2019 at 04:50 PM..
Vaccination is part of the social contract to protect as many people as possible.
Let’s switch things up and talk about the “social contract” in regards to climate change.
Will you agree to give up your vehicles and instead utilize public transport in order to help save the planet? Will you give up your single family home and move into an apartment in order to save the planet? Will you convert to vegetarianism? Remember that your choices impact all of us. It’s your duty to comply.
Scientific hypothesis and prediction
Established science makes useful predictions which are often extremely reliable and accurate; for example, eclipses are routinely predicted.
Vaccination is part of the social contract to protect as many people as possible.
The fact is that "vaccinated people"are not the ones "adversely affecting the health of others through preventable infections". Even if the vaccine is not 100% effective in preventing someone from catching a disease, it often modifies the course of the disease and the infected, vaccinated person does not give it to someone else.
Why should an immunocompromised child have to stay home because someone refuses to vaccinate his healthy child, when the risk to that child is astronomically low?
As I have said my immune compromised adult daughter hasn't gotten your message. Mom, Dad, Sis, I DEMAND you be fully up to date on your vaccinations to protect ME? Oh, H no, let alone strangers. If anything, she says to us STAY AWAY from ME, because I have the Flu, or Pneumonia.
Can immune compromised people also be "anti-vaxxers", Suzy? I would nominate my pro-choice daughter for that.
If my child was immunocompromised I’d keep them out of school. There’s a constant exchange of germs at school for many things, even things for which vaccines don’t exist. Strep Throat, Norovirus, colds, flu (yes I know that there’s a vaccine but not a particularly effective one). Why would I risk my kid’s health like that?
I would love to hear more people answer this question.
I don’t condone the state using violence or force to implement policy. I will allow people to believe what they believe and make decisions for themselves.
If a person believes that man is a major cause for climate change then I support them in changing their lifestyle so that they reduce their impact. I also support those who don’t believe it and am ok with them keeping their cars, commuting from the suburbs, eating, meat, etc.
I support people who choose to vaccinate to do so and I support those who choose not to, to not do so.
I really can’t see any impact of people who believe that the earth is flat. Let them believe what they believe.
I would not favor measures that forced people to give up their cars, big homes meat eating ways, etc. nor do I support vaccine mandates and the elimination of exemptions.
I’m for choice.
Total strawman. No one is doing that now, and there are no proposals to do so in the US. Some countries do have fines and imprisonment in place for non-vaxers (France).
I do not believe in jeopardizing the public's health by refusing to vaccinate against contagious diseases. I do not "support" others not vaccinating. I support exemptions for medical reasons.
Not really interested in discussing climate change right now.
Total strawman. No one is doing that now, and there are no proposals to do so in the US. Some countries do have fines and imprisonment in place for non-vaxers (France).
I do not believe in jeopardizing the public's health by refusing to vaccinate against contagious diseases. I do not "support" others not vaccinating. I support exemptions for medical reasons.
Not really interested in discussing climate change right now.
Why don’t you address NoRecess’ post to which I was responding to?
Climate change is a part of this overall discussion.
If my child was immunocompromised I’d keep them out of school. There’s a constant exchange of germs at school for many things, even things for which vaccines don’t exist. Strep Throat, Norovirus, colds, flu (yes I know that there’s a vaccine but not a particularly effective one). Why would I risk my kid’s health like that?
Severely immunocompromised kids do have to stay out of school. However, there are varying degrees of immune compromise. You'd be surprised what diseases are immunocompromising, at least temporarily at times. There is also the expectation that one should be able to go out in public and not pick up a deadly disease, immunocompromised or not. The Supreme Court already decided this back in 1905, Jacobson vs Mass.
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.
