Zipperfish$1:
...nor do I, to be clear. I think you're setting up a straw dog here.
Frankly, the arguments are identical and equally valid, and I even responded to freedom in this case in particular later on. That bit was about how freedom is an easy argument, and how it's often not defended. A discussion on freedom in this particular case and balancing was included. Anti-vaccination needs to be backed up with something more valid than just your "[belief] in the freedom of the individual to make his or her own choices, good or bad" in my view.
Couching an argument in freedom resulted in me debating freedom directly. Sure, there's value in freedom, but not the same value as vaccination by far. If you see a straw man or dog or whatever, that's fine, I'm younger so my vision is no doubt better (
), but I also posted a man right next to it that's been forgotten.
$1:
It extends quite a lot more broadly than a 20-second shot in the arm. It arose recently with respect to tobogganing restrictions in Canadian cities. It's a constant balance in the effective state response to obesity, smoking, drinking,driving, marijuana, giving blood, AIDS, etc. Whether bikers should wear helmets. Whether there should be warning labels on butter, or margerine, or whichever one is deemed to be unhealthy this week.
I suppose many Canadians will argue that handing over new powers to the state surveillance apparatus is all god because it makes us safer. That it is not, as you put it, a "collosal assault on my freedom." I suppose it will make us safer, and yet I still don't agree with it. Go figger.
For someone who just chastised me for looking too broadly in the last section you really took it broad in response. I'm kind of wondering why my discussion on freedom in general was a strawman, yet your expansion to freedom in general isn't.
My response, however, remains the same in all the medical situations. Demographic, medical and scientific information is available to inform policy decisions. People should have access to information and resources that describe it and media coverage should be freely allowed. The state should intervene when those decisions can cause communal harm or unacceptable risk. Most of our state programs have improved general welfare, imo. Your right to health is essential, and because we live in a community, that right impacts us all. My right to health, and especially those most vulnerable in society, depend on others making the right decisions to. My kid's health should not depend on someone else's power to reject vaccination.
Yeah, I was being a smartass with the colossal bit. Frankly the idea that vaccinations are the hill to stand on in the name of freedom, defending the idea that ignorance, arrogance and laziness can replace medicine, science and good policy, makes no sense to me. The Canadian people should not have to suffer for the beliefs of an irrational minority. We aren't silencing them, just not supporting the actions they want.
I don't agree with surveillance either. Mind, I view it badly because of a lack of evidence such programs work, contrasting my point with vaccinations and preventative medicine.
$1:
So you're saying that people voluntarily getting themselves and thier kids vaccinated has dropped measles to minute levels. I'd say that's great. Where's the argument for state intervention? Sounds like things are going swimmingly.
You say, contrasting the outbreak mentioned in my last post, rising levels of people buying into an anti-vaxxer view, and the risks that are resulting.
We've
done a lot of good in the past voluntarily. We can
do more going into the future. I don't view things as good enough, I think they can be better, especially considering the dangers to those who can't be vaccinated, or haven't been yet (see those poor kids in the daycare from today). Anti-vaxxers want to limit or undo what we have done and their message is opening up children, people and the populace in general to harm. They are succeeding; see the outbreaks.
$1:
Very real, certainly. Also very minute.
Not minute enough imo. In 2014
hundreds of cases appeared in Fraser East. It spread quickly from the Christian School where it was first found. The unimmunized allowed it to move through much of the area quickly.
The broader population was harmed and put at risk as a result. Vaccinations suddenly became important and were how we contained it, but notice vaccination still isn't 100%, and people were still getting infected weeks later. If we hadn't moved as quickly as we did, it would have spread much further.
Exactly how large does it have to be to illicit a response? People saw it was a problem when it was happening and got vaccinated; they knew it was something worth doing, so they should have done it prior to a crisis. Instead we waiting for the harm, and gave it a chance to spread. I think we should act before it has any side with which to gain momentum. The idea that the risks will continue to be minute as more and more choose to become unvaccinated doesn't stick for me, especially since it puts the elderly, the newborns and the immunodeficient at much higher risk. They were problems last century, I'm worried they will be repeated.
$1:
I'm not an anti-vaxxer, so you are busy setting up another straw dog here...
I'm showing you the risks you say other people should be allowed to undertake, not calling you an anti-vaxxer yourself (and I'm not sure where you are getting that from at all; I don't consider you ill-informed or anti-science, even though you have said you don't know much about vaccinations). It's a direct response to part of your paragraph. You stated "measles and the flu don't rate," and "not every risk requires a massive state intervention." This entire paragraph was about the harms and risks of measles and why it does rate, in my view, and why a massive state intervention is smart. Much like we've done with tetanus and so forth.
Since I'm giving you an argument about measles being a health risk (and which you just reiterated as "minute") I figured I'd, you know, give you an argument.
$1:
I don't care if you're short. My issue is that you have completely mischaracterized my argument to suit your rant.
Thanks for calling my post a rant.
You stated "freedom to choose" and "measles doesn't rate" and then, when challenged, stated I was straw manning you for responding to those points.
Here's the section of your post I responded to directly with mine:
"Unlike you, I believe in the freedom of the individual to make his or her own choices, good or bad. A Medical Health Officer can override your fundamental rights (such as freedom from arbitrary detainment) if the risk is sufficient.
Measles and the flu don't rate, in my opinion. Not every risk requires a massive state intervention."My responses were simple. Measles
were and
can be problem. This
is a risk. Anti-vaccination
is a risk and the freedom to choose
doesn't override it. Very straight forward, very much directly related to content in your post. Hell, freedom in general is a problematic response and not a defence in this case, from my perspective, and hence I included it. Even though you yourself talked about freedom in broader contexts, you called my own exploration of it a strawman. It may be my opinion but I explained in detail.
$1:
I don't view mandatory vaccination as a "colossal assault on freedom." These things should be decided on a balance of evidence. In the case of measles and flu, I don't see the risk justifying the action. It will be interesting to see if MMR vaccination rates increase given this recent outbreak. I suspect they will.
I talked about balancing already, and asked why you didn't see this as balanced towards vaccinations. I already knew you don't see the risk and I asked why. Even if there is no risk, I don't see why preventative measures are so bad, and why freedom is more important.
People will get vaccinated more. But not enough, and soon enough memory will fade. I don't like the idea of us waiting for the next traveler to bring back a disease vector for vaccinations to suddenly be important again. Harm coming first is not better than the harm not coming at all, because we vaccinated against that harm in my view. Allowing for religious fervour or firmly held beliefs to continue these risks into the future won't solve very real health issues. My line is firmly on the side that prevention is always best, and for infectious disease the state should definitely intervene.
CKA Uber 
joking, andy.
CKA Super Elite 
