If the state is going to require my children to be sent to their institution
They don't. You can home-school, or go to a private school. It's just that many private schools have the same requirements because they're not run by idiots.
it seems somewhat unreasonable to me that they should also be able to mandate my children to have needless shots (in many cases, eg. MMR) before hand.
No, because it's been determined that those shots are NOT 'needless'.
Keep in mind that a vaccine does not stop the person from actually getting the illness, and in fact may in some ways make it worse. This is becoming increasingly clear, but it may take a while for the dissonance to clear up before people realize it.
I'd say the ass is the one putting everyone's children at risk for the most retarded, and non-scientifically backable reasons.
Second, I have a doctorate in a scientific field and I'm sure as hell I know more about vaccination than you.
Unless your doctorate is in medicine, microbiology, or the study of viruses and disease transmission, likely not.
Why don't you do a slashdot search and also note that the vast majority of recent outbreaks have occurred in VACCINATED children.
That's what we're talking about. People who are unvaccinated are putting those of us who are vaccinated, but to where the vaccine didn't provide 100% immunity, at higher risk.
Vaccination doesn't result in the body producing its own immunity
Yes, it does.
You need a booster shot to remain immune, unlike if you were to actually catch a virus.
This is false, too. Many people who were "naturally immune" from being exposed to the virus will also have their immunity wear off after time.
For most of the benign (in a modern, sanitary, nourished society) illnesses we vaccinate for these days (MMRs come to mind), why does it even make sense to vaccinate?
Because the infinitesimal chance of something going wrong with the vaccine, and the side effects from it, are far, far, far less than actually CATCHING the disease.
It makes a lot of sense if someone is immunodeficient, such as if the individual is elderly.
You just described the class of people who likely cannot get vaccinated.
It astounds me how so many people who are so avowedly anti-pharma don't even bat an eye at global application of "vaccines are good"!
Because most of us aren't complete fucking retards, and can look at history before and after vaccines, and see what harm those diseases did before vaccines became commonplace.
No, the anti-vaxxer is increasing the population of persons without immunity, giving the disease a much bigger population to take hold in, and possibly mutate in.
Herd immunity requires a certain, high percentage of the population to be vaccinated before it will work. If enough anti-vaxxers take hold, herd immunity is compromised, and the virus has a sizable enough population to take hold.
My point was that coercion is not harmony. It is violence. It is immoral and unjust, the polar opposite of harmony. I will believe this until the day I die.
I'm sorry, but your conclusion is completely off base here. Society having rules for being part of society is NOT coercion. It is part of a people's right to self-determination.
For an even bigger support of this, look at India. They only recently started vaccinating for polio, and this past January, they were able to celebrate their first year without a polio infection.
Yes, but the manufacturer's own warning labels on every vaccine report that immunity is NOT lifelong and in some people the vaccine actually provides NO immunity
Similar to how it works with the real thing, but with a far, far, far greater reduction in risk.
I wish people would stop comparing vaccines with things wildly unrelated.
He was comparing the number of deaths annually from something that is largely preventable. If you can't see how those things are related, then you have no business commenting on here.
The only one failing to think of this logically is you. Your line of thinking demonstrates that you have absolutely no knowledge of how vaccines work at all.
The major forms of transmission for hepatitis b are anal sex and iv drug use. If my newborn son is involved in either one of those then I have much bigger problems to worry about.
Because only an idiot would think that you should wait to get the vaccine until you have to worry about those things. If you're already having anal sex and using intravenous drugs, then it's too late. You want people to have the vaccine BEFORE they'll need it.
Slashdot Mirror
If the state is going to require my children to be sent to their institution
They don't. You can home-school, or go to a private school. It's just that many private schools have the same requirements because they're not run by idiots.
it seems somewhat unreasonable to me that they should also be able to mandate my children to have needless shots (in many cases, eg. MMR) before hand.
No, because it's been determined that those shots are NOT 'needless'.
Keep in mind that a vaccine does not stop the person from actually getting the illness, and in fact may in some ways make it worse. This is becoming increasingly clear, but it may take a while for the dissonance to clear up before people realize it.
Citation or STFU.
Generally not the same ones, though. But nice try with your false equivalence.
First, you're an ass.
I'd say the ass is the one putting everyone's children at risk for the most retarded, and non-scientifically backable reasons.
Second, I have a doctorate in a scientific field and I'm sure as hell I know more about vaccination than you.
Unless your doctorate is in medicine, microbiology, or the study of viruses and disease transmission, likely not.
Why don't you do a slashdot search and also note that the vast majority of recent outbreaks have occurred in VACCINATED children.
That's what we're talking about. People who are unvaccinated are putting those of us who are vaccinated, but to where the vaccine didn't provide 100% immunity, at higher risk.
Vaccination doesn't result in the body producing its own immunity
Yes, it does.
You need a booster shot to remain immune, unlike if you were to actually catch a virus.
This is false, too. Many people who were "naturally immune" from being exposed to the virus will also have their immunity wear off after time.
For most of the benign (in a modern, sanitary, nourished society) illnesses we vaccinate for these days (MMRs come to mind), why does it even make sense to vaccinate?
Because the infinitesimal chance of something going wrong with the vaccine, and the side effects from it, are far, far, far less than actually CATCHING the disease.
It makes a lot of sense if someone is immunodeficient, such as if the individual is elderly.
You just described the class of people who likely cannot get vaccinated.
It astounds me how so many people who are so avowedly anti-pharma don't even bat an eye at global application of "vaccines are good"!
Because most of us aren't complete fucking retards, and can look at history before and after vaccines, and see what harm those diseases did before vaccines became commonplace.
No, the anti-vaxxer is increasing the population of persons without immunity, giving the disease a much bigger population to take hold in, and possibly mutate in.
Herd immunity requires a certain, high percentage of the population to be vaccinated before it will work. If enough anti-vaxxers take hold, herd immunity is compromised, and the virus has a sizable enough population to take hold.
Except those children are largely innocent, and as has been shown by this article, not everyone who suffers is the kid of an anti-vaxxer.
Oh, I grasp it. The solution to human nature is coercion. Violence. Threats. Physical force. Am I right? It sure works for the animal kingdom.
But there's absolutely none of that at play here. So your conclusion is completely wrong.
My point was that coercion is not harmony. It is violence. It is immoral and unjust, the polar opposite of harmony. I will believe this until the day I die.
I'm sorry, but your conclusion is completely off base here. Society having rules for being part of society is NOT coercion. It is part of a people's right to self-determination.
For an even bigger support of this, look at India. They only recently started vaccinating for polio, and this past January, they were able to celebrate their first year without a polio infection.
Yes, but the manufacturer's own warning labels on every vaccine report that immunity is NOT lifelong and in some people the vaccine actually provides NO immunity
Similar to how it works with the real thing, but with a far, far, far greater reduction in risk.
The late George Carlin offered an anecdote
Anecdote. Not data.
You'll forgive me if I'd much rather have policy decisions made on the basis of data, and not anecdotes.
Drunk driving vs. flu deaths? Wow....
I wish people would stop comparing vaccines with things wildly unrelated.
He was comparing the number of deaths annually from something that is largely preventable. If you can't see how those things are related, then you have no business commenting on here.
Then why develop a vaccine for Chicken Pox?
Because it can have complications which cause some really, really bad effects?
That's assuming they actually survive.
The only one failing to think of this logically is you. Your line of thinking demonstrates that you have absolutely no knowledge of how vaccines work at all.
What about someone for whom the vaccination doesn't take, or who cannot get the vaccine?
Mandated vaccines are a form of corporate welfare.
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read in this discussion.
Chicken Pox vaccine? Fuck that, it used to be a right of passage
Why don't you actually do some research on what Chicken Pox can do, especially in older people, before you say that.
Hey, if they really are stupid then not getting it will be evolution in action and humans will become smarter - you should be happy.
That's not evolution.
And lastly, if you get your kid vaccinated and they catch the shit anyway please don't run around blaming those who didn't vaccinate.
But in most cases, it is their fault, and they should shoulder the blame.
So we are doing something detrimental to kids health
You're going to have to prove this is actually the case.
Not if it leads to the death or disability of a larger portion of the population than the vaccination saves.
Good thing this DOESN'T FUCKING HAPPEN.
Not all tests are accurate, and it doesn't show up on tests from the first minute you have the disease.
I've never heard of newborns having no allergies.
You could do just a bit of actual, you know, THINKING about what allergies are.
Instead, I'm saying something they are unlikely to contract as a newborn shouldn't be in their vaccine schedule.
And you've been proven wrong on the idea that it is something they are "unlikely to contract as a newborn".
He's an anti-vaxxer. They aren't trying to be "more informed". They're trying to act smug about their ignorance.
Your entire post is nothing but an ad-hominem attack.
The major forms of transmission for hepatitis b are anal sex and iv drug use. If my newborn son is involved in either one of those then I have much bigger problems to worry about.
Because only an idiot would think that you should wait to get the vaccine until you have to worry about those things. If you're already having anal sex and using intravenous drugs, then it's too late. You want people to have the vaccine BEFORE they'll need it.