• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vaccines and a culture of fear

In general terms, yes I do.

Then you understand getting a flu shot doesn't eliminate one's chances of getting the flu, but it does reduce it, depending on how well they guessed which strains will be making the rounds in a given year. Personally $25 for a shot that won't hurt me and will decrease the risk of contracting the flu is a bargain.
 
I know several friends who take the flu shot every year, and several of them still manage to get the flu. I'll pass on it. :)

Understood. I support your right to put greater weight on anecdotal evidence than you do on science. ;)
 
Understood. I support your right to put greater weight on anecdotal evidence than you do on science. ;)

It's not really anecdotal evidence in this case, it is simply life's experiences. Maybe my luck is about to run out, but as I do not take the flu shots for the last few decades, I've had only 2 cases of the flu. Yes, a few cases of URI and bronchitis, but no flu. Is there an emoticon for "knock on wood"? ;)
 
It's not really anecdotal evidence in this case, it is simply life's experiences. Maybe my luck is about to run out, but as I do not take the flu shots for the last few decades, I've had only 2 cases of the flu. Yes, a few cases of URI and bronchitis, but no flu. Is there an emoticon for "knock on wood"? ;)

I think considering your good luck with the flu, this will suffice. :thumbs:
 
I know several friends who take the flu shot every year, and several of them still manage to get the flu. I'll pass on it. :)

There are a lot of strains of influenza.

Passing on a flu vaccine is like failing to wear a seat belt. Yes, sometimes you really do end up better off without a seat belt. Driving without one is still stupid.

Vaccinations are worse, because your stupidity also endangers others.
 
There are a lot of strains of influenza.

Passing on a flu vaccine is like failing to wear a seat belt. Yes, sometimes you really do end up better off without a seat belt. Driving without one is still stupid.

Vaccinations are worse, because your stupidity also endangers others.

The stupidity of one person endangering another person is not just limited to vaccinations is it?
 
The stupid put countless others at risk. This Dr knows it.

B8uDA-5IcAIYmAf.jpg:large
 
The stupid put countless others at risk. This Dr knows it.

B8uDA-5IcAIYmAf.jpg:large

i'm fine with spacing out the vaccines as a concession to appease the anti vaxers. outside of that, nope. vaccinate your kids or home school them.
 
Just make it mandatory and bring charges against those who refuse. No exceptions except for a valid medical reason. Luckily the anti-vax reaction seems to be yielding a significant amount of legislation and private policy changes precisely along these lines. Roll up those sleeves!
 
Just make it mandatory and bring charges against those who refuse. No exceptions except for a valid medical reason. Luckily the anti-vax reaction seems to be yielding a significant amount of legislation and private policy changes precisely along these lines. Roll up those sleeves!

How very totalitarian of you.
 
I'm not an absolutist on freedom. Sorry. Roll up that sleeve Ockham and take your medicine.

Not an absolutist = totalitarian. You won't be hearing the "Ja vole" from me any time soon. If I roll up my sleeve it will be because I say so, not because some politician needs to make points on his next election. I sorta hope your view comes to pass - it'll make a helluva lawsuit and I could get a few sheckels out of the deal.
 
Not an absolutist = totalitarian. You won't be hearing the "Ja vole" from me any time soon. If I roll up my sleeve it will be because I say so, not because some politician needs to make points on his next election. I sorta hope your view comes to pass - it'll make a helluva lawsuit and I could get a few sheckels out of the deal.

The sign of a fanatic. You're right there is no middle ground between totalitarian and forcing people to get their shots. The constitutionality of mandatory vaccinations is well established with the primary grey area being whether or not a religious exemption is required and what sort of test is needed to prove that.
 
The sign of a fanatic. You're right there is no middle ground between totalitarian and forcing people to get their shots. The constitutionality of mandatory vaccinations is well established with the primary grey area being whether or not a religious exemption is required and what sort of test is needed to prove that.

Really... Constitutionality. Can you show where the Constitution states mandatory vaccinations are necessary please.
 
Supreme Court *yawn*.

Supreme Court does not equal the Constitution - so in fact you were inaccurate.

What SCOTUS ruling do you think embodies mandatory vaccinations and fines for not having them then?
 
Supreme Court does not equal the Constitution - so in fact you were inaccurate.

What SCOTUS ruling do you think embodies mandatory vaccinations and fines for not having them then?

Actually if you're so interested I have a great article summarizing relevant case law. Luckily we can have mandatory vaccination policies and many municipalities do! Even more fortunate is that it is becoming more common. =)

Vaccination mandate exemptions: gimme that ol
 
Actually if you're so interested I have a great article summarizing relevant case law. Luckily we can have mandatory vaccination policies and many municipalities do! Even more fortunate is that it is becoming more common. =)

Vaccination mandate exemptions: gimme that ol

There are a lot of cases listed.. My question was which case do you think embodies vaccinations and fines for not having them?
 
There are a lot of cases listed.. My question was which case do you think embodies vaccinations and fines for not having them?

Translation: I'm mad that there is ample precedent for its legality therefore my strategy of last resort is to ask you to parse case law with me.
 
Agreed Radcen.

I think I heard on the TV news regarding the measles outbreak that some of the current victims were vaccinated. If true, was it a bad batch? Or should we consider a booster type vaccine for measles?

My dad was a doctor, so we were vaccinated for everything, and I can remember receiving the occasional tetanus 'booster' shot, as we were raised on a river, frequently going barefoot and getting cut on shells and such.

I felt like your comment was a good jumping off point for what I wanted to say. Every time an outbreak of a vaccine-preventable disease happens, anti-vaxxers cry out "but some of the infected people were vaccinated! So see, vaccines don't work that well after all!" (Not claiming you were saying this) But what they are missing are the rates of infection. Most people are vaccinated, and vaccines are usually effective somewhere above 95% of the time. So sure, you do have a small number of vaccinated people that end up infected. But compare infection rates in the following example:

Say 10,000 people visited Disneyland during the measles exposure period. The percentage of unvaccinated people in California is about 2%, so we can assume about 200 people there were unvaccinated. So say 10 people wind up with measles; 5 were vaccinated and 5 weren't. Someone might look at this and think "hey, it's the same number on both sides. WTF vaccines?!" But when you look at infection rates, you can 5/200 or a 0.025% infection rate for unvaccinated people who were at the park during that period, and 5/9,800 or 0.00051% of vaccinated people there who got sick. That's a magnitude difference of 50. 50!!!

A fun fact about measles is that without heard immunity, the infection rate is 90%. It's one of the most contagious diseases there is. As heard immunity breaks down due to lack of vaccination, the rate of measles will grow exponentially. Which sucks pretty badly for those of us being responsible and getting our shots.
 
Translation: I'm mad that there is ample precedent for its legality therefore my strategy of last resort is to ask you to parse case law with me.

Apparently it is too difficult to pick a case out of the link the best court case. Next time - don't willy nilly cite the Constitution on material you are not familiar. I'll look elsewhere for a discussion with someone who actually knows the material. Have a nice day! :2wave:
 
I felt like your comment was a good jumping off point for what I wanted to say. Every time an outbreak of a vaccine-preventable disease happens, anti-vaxxers cry out "but some of the infected people were vaccinated! So see, vaccines don't work that well after all!" (Not claiming you were saying this) But what they are missing are the rates of infection. Most people are vaccinated, and vaccines are usually effective somewhere above 95% of the time. So sure, you do have a small number of vaccinated people that end up infected. But compare infection rates in the following example:

Say 10,000 people visited Disneyland during the measles exposure period. The percentage of unvaccinated people in California is about 2%, so we can assume about 200 people there were unvaccinated. So say 10 people wind up with measles; 5 were vaccinated and 5 weren't. Someone might look at this and think "hey, it's the same number on both sides. WTF vaccines?!" But when you look at infection rates, you can 5/200 or a 0.025% infection rate for unvaccinated people who were at the park during that period, and 5/9,800 or 0.00051% of vaccinated people there who got sick. That's a magnitude difference of 50. 50!!!

A fun fact about measles is that without heard immunity, the infection rate is 90%. It's one of the most contagious diseases there is. As heard immunity breaks down due to lack of vaccination, the rate of measles will grow exponentially. Which sucks pretty badly for those of us being responsible and getting our shots.

Your example is correct, but you forgot to move your decimals. It should be 2.5% for unvaccinated people and 0.051% for vaccinated.
 
Back
Top Bottom