Slashdot Mirror
New York City Orders Mandatory Measles Vaccinations in Brooklyn (providencejournal.com)
"New York City officials on Tuesday declared a public health emergency and ordered mandatory measles vaccinations" in an area where most of the state's 285 measles cases have occurred. The Washington Post reports:
New York's mandatory vaccination order in four Brooklyn zip codes is by far the toughest action to date by state or local officials, as the disease's tally grows to 465 cases in 19 states. Officials there and elsewhere have sought to bar unvaccinated children from schools and other public places but have had limited success... The mandate orders all unvaccinated people in four zip codes to receive inoculations, including children as young as 6 months. Anyone who resists faces a misdemeanor charge and could be fined up to $1,000.
Long-time Slashdot reader Major Blud shares a BBC report that under the order, "any person living in the affected areas who has not been vaccinated must be immunised within 48 hours."
Long-time Slashdot reader Major Blud shares a BBC report that under the order, "any person living in the affected areas who has not been vaccinated must be immunised within 48 hours."
Good. Their "rights" to liberty absolutely terminate when they endanger the lives of others.
Citizens must sue the city and file for an emergency injunction!
Injunction from a court has zero weight over the emergency powers of government executives.
(The emergency executive powers override any court issuances while the ordinary civil order is suspended)
I think that a way to fight this would be to "leak" a document to wikileaks pointing out that the autism vaccine rumor was spread by alquaeda as part of a plan to attack the population with measles.
Before the vaccine, measles caused an average of about 2.6 million deaths per year.
You have a very funny idea of what constitutes a dangerous disease"
In a dense dystopia like NYC, you can't do squat without messing up someone else, that's one of the psychological costs of that unsustainable life. You probably need tighter gun laws, restrictions on everything, as what you do impinges on others almost no matter what.
.
However, those of us who chose not to "enjoy" the "benefits" of living like rats in a cage, would prefer to keep our freedoms intact, not needing the restrictions to protect our neighbors as the big-city folk do. Small towns, with little or no anonymity, tend to eject the kinds of people who make NYC dangerous, and SF a place full of homeless, poop and needles in the public spaces. It doesn't take the cops to do this, or really any proactive action by the other citizens. It's just enough harder to make it that losers leave on their own.
.
Often one of the first comments of people who visit my place from some other country- say one in the EU, is how vast the US is, and how utterly varied from place to place. They fly into an airport 60 miles from here in a big city with the usual reprobates and nasty pollution and congestion, and an hour later they are in unspoiled nature like they've never seen at home. This is why one size fits all, and centralized government in general might be a crappy idea. Sure, there are cases where one size IS a decent fit, but mission-creep is inevitable and a function of human nature - governments always become larger and less accountable if it's possible to do - if for no other reason than to create more warm seats under a manager seeking a raise...
If you are vaccinated, shouldn't you not have to worry about getting measles? Only the un-vaccinated will be affected? Where is the problem?
As I said above, these people dont just die in their homes. They then go to some of the most expensive healthcare facilities in the world to be treated, wasting resources which could be better used elsewhere.
Then there is the exposure risk to infants too young to receive the vaccine. Should infants be exposed because some idiots think a measles vaccine is dangerous? Herd immunity only works if the herd all gets vaccinated...
A common misconception about vaccination is that it prevents infection. Vaccination only trains your own body's immune system to attack a disease after your system has been exposed to it. For some their vaccination wasn't good enough to build an immunity and others might have temporary or lasting immunity system problems. Even vaccinated people can get a disease, but it's generally less frequent and more mild overall.
Babies have to grow some before and other people have actual real problems taking a vaccine ever, those people rely on 'herd immunity'. I'm fairly certain that you too were at least once a baby.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
No vaccination is 100% effective. There will always be a small percentage of people who get vaccinated but do not become fully immune. With measles I believe it's 2-3 percent, which is still tens of thousands of people.
Even if you are immune, you can still potentially carry the virus with you. Measles virus can survive outside the body for several hours and still be infectious.
And you contradict yourself within three sentences:
1) "You do not endanger others if you are not vaccinated"
2) "You could spread it to other people who are not vaccinated"
So which is it? Are you not endangering others, or can you spread it?
=Smidge=
Fine. Don't get vaccinated. But remember, even if you tell me your kid, or you, is allergic to peanuts, I'll still eat my PBJ next to you.
You realize that this quite literally contradicts what you say literally two sentences later....
(emphasis mine) Other people who are not vaccinated are still "others"... whether you endanger yourself in the process is irrelevant.
And not all of these others even had any choice in the matter. You endanger people who could not receive a vaccination for medical reasons, and you endanger those for whom the vaccination was not 100% effective. This is not generally a problem by itself because the number of people who have a legitimate medical reason to not get a vaccination plus the number of people for whom the vaccination would not actually be effective in the event of exposure is quite small, small enough that if they were the only ones vulnerable, the danger to any of them is actually negligible.
Adding choice to be vaccinated or not changes the dynamic of this effective "herd immunity" entirely, and with every additional person that gets ill, the danger to everyone else who was vulnerable rises exponentially. In theory, it wouldn't be a problem if nobody ever contracted the illness in the first place, but as soon as one person does, the more unvaccinated or otherwise vulnerable people there are around them, the more quickly the virus will spread. The fact that it only will tend to affect these otherwise vulnerable people completely ignores the fact that not all of them had a choice in the matter, and in practice while the number of people who might choose to be unvaccinated may tend to outnumber those who did not make a choice to be vulnerable, during an outbreak, it is noteworthy that they rarely outnumber the ones who die, not surprising often owing to the same medical reasons for why they could not have received the vaccination in the first place, or why the vaccination they did receive was not effective.
And while I say the number of these people may be quite small, I only mean so statistically... in absolute terms, the number of people is still actually quite large,. so yes....you *DO* endanger others if you are not vaccinated. At the very least, you can certainly say that you endanger others if you should *choose* to not be vaccinated.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If you are vaccinated, shouldn't you not have to worry about getting measles? Only the un-vaccinated will be affected? Where is the problem?
1> No vaccine is 100% effective. But vaccination can reduce the risk or the severity of the disease.
2. The population of Brooklyn is 2.65 million. You do not want a dangerously infectious disease to gain a foothold in a population that size.
3. There are legitimate medical reasons why everyone cannot be vaccinated. But you can protect the most vulnerable by immunizing those around them. Consider it a firewall..
4. We came within a hair of eliminating measles as we did smallpox. We could all-but-eliminate cervical cancer in the next generation. If we fail, the reason will there for veryone to see,
Really? Seriously? I'd like to see some backup on that.
>"and ultimately costs our health system through resource utilization and direct/indirect costs that could be spent in far better ways.."
I will preface by saying I think it is crazy to not get vaccinations. And I certainly support developing them, making them available, and strongly encouraging their use through education. But your logic can easily lead to government control (banning or compulsory action) over just about anything- motorcycle driving, eating sugar, drinking alcohol, walking alone at night, having children, construction work, swimming, bicycling, having unprotected sex, using a mobile phone when not seated, most competitive sports, obsessively playing video games, using power tools, etc.
Everything we do has some amount of risk- and taking some risks is what makes live worth living. We can't have a free society if the argument that anything people do affects "other people" due to healthcare "direct and indirect costs" prevails. It is a very dangerous path- it can put too much power in the hands of not only government, but also private insurance companies.
Cannabis traces stays in the blood for a about a month, showing up in blood tests. So you smoked a joint the other day, get killed in an accident and blood work shows cannabis by products in blood, so marijuana related accident.
It's very hard to tell if someone is/was actually marijuana impaired with sobriety tests seeming the best and hard to do when someone is unconscious, concussed, or dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Most of the Jewish people there are natural born citizens . They do lead an insular lifestyle, but last I heard, that is not illegal.
You need to be more careful, your Nazi armband was showing just a bit there...
Forced-vax nazis bring out the iron boot, force people to undergo controversial medical procedures against their will
You're a fucking moron.
I don't respond to AC's.
The vaccine is only 97% effective and herd immunity requires about 93...95% immunity. There are people that cannot be vaccinated due to no fault of their own, in particular children too young. They will get sick though and have a real risk of permanent problems or long-term problems and a small risk of death. Want to restate your question?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Today is the measles vaccine, tomorrow is Mr.Mengele trying out his concoctions on your kids. The State should not have a right to force to you ingest/inject anything into your body.
I think you may be mixing up percentage driving under the influence with percentage involved in fatal crashes. From the study in the first link in your Google search:
The proportion of persons driving under the influence of alcohol is estimated at 2.1% (95% CI: 1.4–2.8) and under the influence of cannabis at 3.4% (2.9%-3.9%). Drivers under the influence of alcohol are 17.8 times (12.1–26.1) more likely to be responsible for a fatal accident , and the proportion of fatal accidents which would be prevented if no drivers ever exceeded the legal limit for alcohol is estimated at 27.7% (26.0%-29.4%). Drivers under the influence of cannabis multiply their risk of being responsible for causing a fatal accident by 1.65 (1.16–2.34) , and the proportion of fatal accidents which would be prevented if no drivers ever drove under the influence of cannabis is estimated at 4.2% (3.7%-4.8%).