Reminds me of a post of mine from a few years back....
His argument was that he had never heard of anybody among his family or friends that had died from...
This statement is quite prejudiced. Global vaccination programs reach many in Africa as well. How do you think diseases such as polio are fought? There is only one country left in Africa where polio is endemic, the Democratic republic of Congo.Africa does not seem like the most vaccinated area of the world, is herd-immunity even possible with such a scenario?
And as you have been told already, this does not work due to incubation times for highly contagious diseases such as measles. By the time you would realise that someone has been infected, they can already have infected several other people and so the measure would not stop the outbreak.I am pro isolating sick people from society, until a doctor says ok for them to return.
A fine does not stop the spread of the disease. A person without any medical counter indications that chooses not to get vaccinated is knowingly endangering fellow human beings. Would you allow people to carry around bombs that would randomly (even with a very small frequency) go off in crowded areas just because they have deeply convinced themselves that it is the right thing to do? Of course you would not, in many societies that would be criminal.I am pro, that a doctors opinion should be heard, if you have doubts, and I now believe, that some moderate pressure from society, like a fine, is ok.
That was my opinion. Why is that scary? Quarantine would be entirely at their choice. If they do not enjoy being in quarantine at any time all they have to do is be vaccinated.I read, an opinion, where non-vaccinated, but un-infected people should be isolated from society, to secure herd-immunity. That is a very scary opinion
of interest:This statement is quite prejudiced. Global vaccination programs reach many in Africa as well. How do you think diseases such as polio are fought? There is only one country left in Africa where polio is endemic, the Democratic republic of Congo.
You can also just visit the page of the global polio eradication program that I linked earlier in this thread for the latest statistics.of interest:
(I hope there's still 2 free online articles per month and not everything is behind a pay wall)
Scary because I don't think it is realistic to convince all.That was my opinion. Why is that scary? Quarantine would be entirely at their choice. If they do not enjoy being in quarantine at any time all they have to do is be vaccinated.
I do, of course, recognize that this is an untenable position. The better position is simply to make vaccination mandatory. However, in the event that someone insists on having the choice, then that is the choice that I think should be offered.
And you are basing this on what information? This is not something that you can should have unsubstantiated opinion on. If everybody that are medically fit for the vaccine get the vaccine, herd immunity is not problematic to achieve.The herd-immunity of 95% seems unrealistic within the modern structure of society, imo.
And you are basing this on what information? This is not something that you can should have unsubstantiated opinion on. If everybody that are medically fit for the vaccine get the vaccine, herd immunity is not problematic to achieve.
Why? Do you think vaccines do not exist in other countries? It is not difficult to secure vaccination.Like I said earlier, the potentially growing number of refugees, are also hard to control and to secure vaccinated.
I got confused with many inputs, some while I posted.Why? Do you think vaccines do not exist in other countries? It is not difficult to secure vaccination.
80% of all the world's children are vaccinated against measles.
Granted, that is less than the 95% required for herd immunity, but the 20% are mainly in the absolutely hardest to reach areas.
Not if you otherwise threaten the well being of me or others. Such as if your nose has the potential to spread a deadly and highly contagious pathogen to unsuspecting fellow humans.Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
>there is some risk involved<On a rational level I completely agree with the standard approach to vaccination and I recognize that any adverse effects to vaccines have been historically limited.
I am conflicted about the personal liberty aspect of this and, while it may be true that 'most' 'anti-vaxxers' are 'fundamentalist' I think that things are more nuanced than this. First, I think 'anti-vaxxer' itself is an oversimplification and that there are well-educated folk who have good reason for questioning the standard vaccine protocols that might be labeled as this even though they are not against vaccines, but question the timing and safety of some vaccines based on the current CDC guidelines.
As I said above, I don't follow this stuff much and am not very knowledgeable about the details. However, my wife is a doctor (veterinarian) and she is. In her practice (which schedules 60 minute appointments so that is already unusual) she discusses the potential risks of vaccine protocols with clients and that is just for dogs and cats. So, my understanding is that there is some risk involved with vaccination based on genetics and other aspects of health. I think that risk associated with medical treatment should be communicated to patients and if certain factors put a person at high risk of complications I support the person's right to refuse treatment.
I definirely agree, but if anything I think it's even more fundamental: people just don't understand and don't care to learn about or attempt to do risk analysis. Big/intense problems are a matter of emotions/feelings, to be dealt with in a way that feels good, not by analyzing the risk and finding the best solution.>there is some risk involved<
I think this is another example of a proxy domain in which the genesis of conflict is ideological disagreement about the nature of risk and how its management ought to addressed (and by whom). Here the radical fundamentalists are those who ignorantly suppose that we could live risk-free lives in a risk-free world were it not for Monsanto/the medical establishment/the nuclear cartel/capitalism/etc. ad infinitum
I am alive to the sense and purpose of your closing caveat, as well as to the fact that political stuff is at some level both technical and unavoidable. Just as justice delayed is justice denied, so procrastination and temporizing can serve to kick the can down the road long enough that somebody else gets to deal with it (surviving, perhaps thriving, as a species) because you get to die first. I'm not sure who remarked that science makes progress one funeral at a time, but I think that there is a duality here regarding progress in the moral domain. That said, I hear you and won't need a second admonishment.I definitely agree, but if anything I think it's even more fundamental: people just don't understand and don't care to learn about or attempt to do risk analysis. Big/intense problems are a matter of emotions/feelings, to be dealt with in a way that feels good, not by analyzing the risk and finding the best solution.
That's the only way I can make any sense of in particular the anti-vax and anti-nuclear stances.
....let's try to keep the political stuff out of this, though and just focus on technical examples.