Two Up

[MrsEddieBetts]

I'm extremely thankful for the pharmaceutical companies and researchers and doctors and scientist that were able to create these vaccines and eradicate these diseases for the most part

But that's not the 'big pharma' that I'm talking about, I'm talking about the type that pray on the sick for profits, and in a world where vaccines are required by law and politicians accept donations, its foolish to think there isn't a massive risk factor that a particular vaccine may find its way on to the mandatory list that isn't required

And when/if this were to happen I want the right to refuse the injection, but it will be too late by then

Ideally I want to live in a world where I have the right to choose and I choose correctly and get the vaccines I need, and not be forced to take whatever I get told to take by the people who profit from me taking it.

I'm speaking about prevention here, I'm not saying this is happening now, I'm saying if vaccines becomes forced and we remove peoples ability to choose, we open up a whole other bunch of doors where we are exposed.

You could make hypothetical situations out of any proposed law though, it's a total strawman. It's like when people who oppose marriage equality say "what's next? I'll be able to marry my toaster?!" in an attempt to discredit those who support it.

The facts are the facts. Society needs herd immunity. Making a choice not to vaccinate your children for the sole purpose of exercising that right is selfish.

 

[JuddsABlue]

You could make hypothetical situations out of any proposed law though, it's a total strawman. It's like when people who oppose marriage equality say "what's next? I'll be able to marry my toaster?!" in an attempt to discredit those who support it.

The facts are the facts. Society needs herd immunity. Making a choice not to vaccinate your children for the sole purpose of exercising that right is selfish.

Not any proposed law, but a lot of them, and it should be done, its important to ask those questions and look at the risks.

That analogy is obviously insanely absurd, I'm not sure why you thought it had any point.

It may be determined that the risks of being exposed and duped for profits is better than the risk of outbreaks of certain diseases by having a % of the population not vaccinated.

If that's the case so be it, but I don't see many people asking that question, I just see a mob mentality of do what we say or suffer the consequences of our choosing

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Not any proposed law, but a lot of them, and it should be done, its important to ask those questions and look at the risks.

That analogy is obviously insanely absurd, I'm not sure why you thought it had any point.

It may be determined that the risks of being exposed and duped for profits is better than the risk of outbreaks of certain diseases by having a % of the population not vaccinated.

If that's the case so be it, but I don't see many people asking that question, I just see a mob mentality of do what we say or suffer the consequences of our choosing

I guess the reason most pro-vaxxers are so vocal and damning about their stance (myself included) is because we're basing it off the current situation. There are increasing numbers of anti-vaxxers who are reducing the herd immunity, which is resulting in increased numbers of people contracting illnesses such as whooping cough, which has incredibly deadly potential.

Obviously we can't predict the future and see how this will pan out with regards to the hypothetical that you posed, but judging it off historical events we can posit that each vaccination will be developed, tested, and reviewed before it becomes compulsory. We can't hold back and allow the anti-vaccination movement to grow just because there's a slight possibility that the compulsory vaccination law could be exploited.

 

[JuddsABlue]

I guess the reason most pro-vaxxers are so vocal and damning about their stance (myself included) is because we're basing it off the current situation. There are increasing numbers of anti-vaxxers who are reducing the herd immunity, which is resulting in increased numbers of people contracting illnesses such as whooping cough, which has incredibly deadly potential.

Obviously we can't predict the future and see how this will pan out with regards to the hypothetical that you posed, but judging it off historical events we can posit that each vaccination will be developed, tested, and reviewed before it becomes compulsory. We can't hold back and allow the anti-vaccination movement to grow just because there's a slight possibility that the compulsory vaccination law could be exploited.

I agree

I wonder if forcing vacs though would increase anti vaxers? People like choice, they like the option of freedom, there will certainly be a % of people that hate the idea of being told to be vaccined, and will lose trust in the process onces its in the hands of lawmakers

It could increase the anti vaxxer movement somewhat, but I don't really know, I'm just throwing out ideas

Education and understanding is the best way forward imo, not brute force. We should teach and talk to antivaxers and explain why they should do it

If they still believe what they believe, what can we do? Its their right as a human being living in a free country, despite it being bad for the rest of us.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

I agree

I wonder if forcing vacs though would increase anti vaxers? People like choice, they like the option of freedom, there will certainly be a % of people that hate the idea of being told to be vaccined, and will lose trust in the process onces its in the hands of lawmakers

It could increase the anti vaxxer movement somewhat, but I don't really know, I'm just throwing out ideas

Education and understanding is the best way forward imo, not brute force. We should teach and talk to antivaxers and explain why they should do it

If they still believe what they believe, what can we do? Its their right as a human being living in a free country, despite it being bad for the rest of us.

I agree with you that it could increase the amount of anti-vaxxers, but surely removing their entitlement to the childcare rebate would minimize this somewhat.

In my experience anti-vaxxers are nigh on impossible to have a serious discussion with regarding immunisations before they start spouting anecdotal evidence and start demanding that others educate themselves. I know a lot more through reading actual medical and pharmaceutical journals (my sister is the head infectious diseases pharmacist at a major hospital) than through Dr. Google.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

I feel like those who don't want to immunize, are the the "wannabe progressive" types

 

[moses]

Yep. Andrew Wakefield was the guy's name and he has basically been stripped of his right to practice medicine because of demonstrated medical fraud.

The movement continues because it appeals to
a) Evil Big Pharma conspiracy theorists.
b) Extreme natural health "my body is a pure temple, every drug is a poison" types.
c) D-grade celebrity attention seekers
d) Graduates of Google University who arrogantly believe that 10 minutes internet surfing makes them more qualified than a PhD or MD.

Nail head - medical science and big pharma spent alot more time researching these things than someone looking for "evidance" on google.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

I feel like those who don't want to immunize, are the the "wannabe progressive" types

As far as I can see it goes hand in hand with movements like attachment parenting, only feeding your kids green smoothies, etc.

 

[MisterMarcus]

I am all for vaccines, but in a free country do we not respect peoples right to choose and make their own decisions knowing the risk?

I'm not comfortable with forced vaccinations, which means there must be choice, and if there is a choice then some people will say no, but having choice is the essence of living in a free country

I don't really trust governments and I especially don't trust big pharma, so scepticism is important, even if in this instance it may be wrong, in all instances we need to allow the people to decide for themselves

"I'm all for speed limits, but in a free country do we not respect people's right to choose and make their own decisions knowing the risk? Having a choice to drive at 200km/h down a local street is the essence of living in a free country".

When your "choice" directly causes significant risk of harm or death to others, then it's perfectly reasonable that your free will be curtailed for the greater good.

 

[MisterMarcus]

I feel like those who don't want to immunize, are the the "wannabe progressive" types

There is an extreme Religious Right "Jesus will cure you" type element, but yes the bulk of the anti-vax crowd could be termed "progressive".

It's basically the alternative medicine and libertarian/anti-establishment idea taken to its most extreme.

 

[moses]

"I'm all for speed limits, but in a free country do we not respect people's right to choose and make their own decisions knowing the risk? Having a choice to drive at 200km/h down a local street is the essence of living in a free country".

When your "choice" directly causes significant risk of harm or death to others, then it's perfectly reasonable that your free will be curtailed for the greater good.

Good analogy. Was going to post something similar, but with the requirement to have a license before you can drive.

 

[HBF]

I cannot deal with anti-vaxxers.
They should go live on deserted island with other anti-vaxxers and keep their ******* killer germs away from everyone else.

I wondered if you would have posted in this thread..

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

I wondered if you would have posted in this thread..

You know me, nothing riles me up like an anti-vaxxer.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I am all for vaccines, but in a free country do we not respect peoples right to choose and make their own decisions knowing the risk?

you seriously overate people's ability to make informed choices.

 

[HBF]

You know me, nothing riles me up like an anti-vaxxer.

Oh yes, heard you on many times voice your opinions about anti-vaxxers.

 

[JuddsABlue]

you seriously overate people's ability to make informed choices.

Maybe I do, maybe I don't, either way I respect free will to decide

 

[JuddsABlue]

"I'm all for speed limits, but in a free country do we not respect people's right to choose and make their own decisions knowing the risk? Having a choice to drive at 200km/h down a local street is the essence of living in a free country".

When your "choice" directly causes significant risk of harm or death to others, then it's perfectly reasonable that your free will be curtailed for the greater good.

This is a poor analogy for several reasons

First of all, having a car and driving it on roads you did not build is not a basic human right. Its a privilege, one you decide to use. When you choose to register a car to use the roads that the registration covers then you agree to abide by the rules of the road. That's a choice, you make the decision to abide by the rules in order to use their product

The right to refuse an injection you don't understand is a human right, you don't agree to anything when you are born, and you don't agree to anything when having a child. We don't have child licences, giving birth is a human right.

Again, I'm not an anti vaxxer, I'm glad im vaccinated and I hope everybody that's able gets vaccinated, but there are human rights at work here and its concerning to see how many people are willing to throw them out the door using bad analogy's and a lack of discussion or thought

What more of a suitable weekend than this one to discuss the freedoms our soldiers fought for, they didn't fight for just the freedoms you agree with, but the freedoms of all.

I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Maybe I do, maybe I don't, either way I respect free will to decide

commitments to esoteric ideals are worthless. context is everything.

anti vaxxers prove that some people are thoroughly unable to make their own decisions "knowing the risk". so your commitment to that ideal is immaterial as they don't even suffice one of your prerequisites.

 

[JuddsABlue]

anti vaxxers prove that some people are thoroughly unable to make their own decisions "knowing the risk".

No it doesn't, it proves people are willing to take on the risks. They are able to make a decision, just in your eyes and many others, including mine, its the a bad one

 

[Long Live HFC]

No it doesn't, it proves people are willing to take on the risks.

incorrect. it proves that they do not understand the risks of vaccination or not vaccinating.

They are able to make a decision

being able to make a decision is not the same thing as actually understanding anything.

 

[JuddsABlue]

incorrect. it proves that they do not understand the risks of vaccination or not vaccinating.

Lol, no it does not prove that, that's just wrong

It suggests things, and a number of things, such as a lack of understanding but also a lack of care

They can completely understand the risks of not vaccinating and choose to take on those risks

It does not at all prove anything, there is a still a wealth of different reasons they make the decision they do.

being able to make a decision is not the same thing as actually understanding anything.

I never said it was?

 

[Morganashlee]

I am all for vaccines, but in a free country do we not respect peoples right to choose and make their own decisions knowing the risk?

I'm not comfortable with forced vaccinations, which means there must be choice, and if there is a choice then some people will say no, but having choice is the essence of living in a free country

I don't really trust governments and I especially don't trust big pharma, so scepticism is important, even if in this instance it may be wrong, in all instances we need to allow the people to decide for themselves

Not when your choice that stems from a place of fear puts at risk the lives of innocent people.

Think of the people you grew up with, the ones who have had children so far. Do you trust them to have made informed decisions in immunising their children? Knowing that their choices could directly effect the health of other children too young to be protected?

The majority of people may make the right decision given the opportunity, but it will only take the actions of a few to cause absolute chaos when it comes to anti vaxxing.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Lol, no it does not prove that, that's just wrong

perhaps we're talking about different groups of people. i'm talking about anti vaxxers. who are you talking about? in all my years I have yet to meet an informed anti-vaxxer. so please excuse me for thinking they don't understand s**t, as they have never demonstrated otherwise.

It suggests things, and a number of things, such as a lack of understanding but also a lack of care

i'm happy with how I've worded it, but you can be pedantic if you like.

They can completely understand the risks of not vaccinating and choose to take on those risks

they can, but they don't. evidence of that is littered across the internet for your perusal.

It does not at all prove anything, there is a still a wealth of different reasons they make the decision they do.

the single biggest "reason" is that they are ill-informed morons.

I never said it was?

yes you did. you said they can make a decision as they understood the risks. they don't.

 

[MisterMarcus]

This is a poor analogy for several reasons

First of all, having a car and driving it on roads you did not build is not a basic human right. Its a privilege, one you decide to use. When you choose to register a car to use the roads that the registration covers then you agree to abide by the rules of the road. That's a choice, you make the decision to abide by the rules in order to use their product

The right to refuse an injection you don't understand is a human right, you don't agree to anything when you are born, and you don't agree to anything when having a child. We don't have child licences, giving birth is a human right.

Again, I'm not an anti vaxxer, I'm glad im vaccinated and I hope everybody that's able gets vaccinated, but there are human rights at work here and its concerning to see how many people are willing to throw them out the door using bad analogy's and a lack of discussion or thought

What more of a suitable weekend than this one to discuss the freedoms our soldiers fought for, they didn't fight for just the freedoms you agree with, but the freedoms of all.

Um....the right of babies, the elderly, the immuno-compromised, or those allergic to vaccines to be able to live a healthy life without dying of some preventable disease is a pretty fundamental human right as well. Many of these people have no "choice". So no, your premise is flawed.

BTW the whole "I'm not anti-vacc, I'm pro-choice" is a very typical anti-vaxxer argument point. So for someone who's supposedly not anti-vaccine, you're doing a good impersonation of one.

 

[JuddsABlue]

perhaps we're talking about different groups of people. i'm talking about anti vaxxers. who are you talking about? in all my years I have yet to meet an informed anti-vaxxer. so please excuse me for thinking they don't understand s**t, as they have never demonstrated otherwise.

Have you met every anti vaxxer? I can say I've never met a smart Saints support, but I haven't met every Saints supporter so I wont be saying theyre all dumb.


i'm happy with how I've worded it, but you can be pedantic if you like. But the way you have worded it is wrong, we both mean different things. Saying Im being pedantic about it suggest we are saying the same thing but I want you to say it differently. I don't, I completely disagree with what you said.



they can, but they don't. evidence of that is littered across the internet for your perusal. Huh? If they can understand, then they can. You cant 'un-understand' something. Once its explained to you, you know it. You can ignore it, or you can not believe it, but that's the choice. Just like I choose not to believe a priest when he tells me the story of the bible is real. They are able to look at the information and make a decision about it, that's one of many freedoms we enjoy in this country.



the single biggest "reason" is that they are ill-informed morons. lol. I mean I agree that theyre making a poor decision, but this comment just shows what level you're arguing on.



yes you did. you said they can make a decision as they understood the risks. they don't. They don't? How do you know that? Are you sure there isn't somebody out there who understands vaccines but choses not to? Quite simply, there are people out there that do. This is a rubbish blanket statement

This whole thing is blanket statements that are incorrect, its rubbish.