Vaccinations thread.

  • Thread starter Dennisch
  • 436 comments
  • 23,380 views

Dennisch

Humongous member
Premium
31,104
Netherlands
Hilversum
Dennisch
cc333d24-australia-s-health-minister-is-taking-a-stand.jpg


That's how you take action.
 
I agree with this policy... why should public health be endangered by a few mumsnet nutters who believe that vaccinations are bad (with no evidence to show that they are)?
Sounds to me like you'd prefer mandatory vaccination then.
 
Sounds to me like you'd prefer mandatory vaccination then.

Not at all, but I agree that there should be service restrictions on people who refuse vaccinations (or who have them refused on their behalf). That's what this scheme proposes, not that vaccinations should be mandatory. Those who choose to opt out of social healthcare should be free to do so.
 
Those who choose to opt out of social healthcare should be free to do so.
But not without punishment, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that vaccinations are bad.
For me it's a question of whether or not deterring people from exercising their freedom of choice is the right direction.

Do you really have freedom of choice if you get punished by the authorities for exercising it?
 
But not without punishment, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that vaccinations are bad.
For me it's a question of whether or not deterring people from exercising their freedom of choice is the right direction.

Do you really have freedom of choice if you get punished for exercising it?
But that alone would come under, does your freedom of choice effect others?

In this case it very much does and has been proven, especially in places like California where vaccination rates are some of the lowest in the Western world.
 
How, exactly? Aren't vaccinated individuals carriers just like non-vaccinated individuals?
Except when they spread diseases that were part of the Vaccination treatment.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/17/measles-california-disneyland-vaccination-research
Extend to the smokers if they want to.

Difference being smokers have been isolated to areas where non smokers don't have to be.


if they made it so that you could only go to school or be allowed in public places without vaccination then it would equal smoking.
 
For me it's a question of whether or not deterring people from exercising their freedom of choice is the right direction.

Do you really have freedom of choice if you get punished by the authorities for exercising it?

So, let's contrast this to another area where your freedom is restricted, your ability to stab people in the face.

You have the freedom to do it if you want, but you will be punished for exercising this freedom. I think most people would agree that this is for the best for society on the whole, even though some people might really, really like to stab someone in the face.

Now, not vaccinating a child is obviously not as severe as stabbing someone in the face. But it is placing the child in what could be considered unnecessary danger, which could result in significant injury or death, and could place a significant cost on the health system.

Should the government use economics to encourage parents to vaccinate their children in such a case? I think so. It's not as severe as face stabbing, so incarceration shouldn't be on the table, but I think some sort of financial penalty is appropriate to balance the risk that you're putting your child and others at, and the potential cost to the country's health system.
 
That's how you take action.
It's a laudable policy, but there are bigger issues facing our community right now. And the anti-vaccination movement is biggest in the affluent suburbs, among people who don't claim benefits and who won't suffer from the loss of Family Tax Benefit A.

Do you really have freedom of choice if you get punished by the authorities for exercising it?
That's over-simplifying the issue. Say for example that you choose not to vaccinate. That's fine. But every day, you pick up your unvaccinated six year-old from school - as do all of the other parents. And among them is an infant who hasn't been vaccinated yet because they're not old enough. That infant can get sick from your child with something like whooping cough, which is preventable and potentially deadly in infants. That may sound far-fetched, but it is believed to be exactly what happened in Perth quite recently, and a newborn died as a result.

So it's one thing to argue for the freedom of choice - but you're not just making the decision for yourself and your family. You're making a decision that can affect others; in effect making a decision for them. And it's one that goes against medical advice and established medical literature.
 
It's a laudable policy, but there are bigger issues facing our community right now. And the anti-vaccination movement is biggest in the affluent suburbs, among people who don't claim benefits and who won't suffer from the loss of Family Tax Benefit A.

But it's a step in the proper direction. People need to realize that they do more harm by not vaccinating.
 
But it's a step in the proper direction.
It is, but it's only a step. It needs to have more behind it, like education programmes.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the government set about fixing our abhorrent treatment of asylum seekers (which they won't do because that treatment is their policy) and the epidemic of violence against women in the community - thirty-two women have been murdered already this year, and nobody seems to know what to do about it.
 
But every day, you pick up your unvaccinated six year-old from school - as do all of the other parents. And among them is an infant who hasn't been vaccinated yet because they're not old enough. That infant can get sick from your child with something like whooping cough, which is preventable and potentially deadly in infants. That may sound far-fetched, but it is believed to be exactly what happened in Perth quite recently, and a newborn died as a result.

So it's one thing to argue for the freedom of choice - but you're not just making the decision for yourself and your family. You're making a decision that can affect others; in effect making a decision for them. And it's one that goes against medical advice and established medical literature.
Then how can you be fine with people opting out of vaccinating their children?

And when it's a life-or-death matter for all the babies, surely a mandatory vaccination program would be a better course of action than relatively mild economic sanctions?
 
It is, but it's only a step. It needs to have more behind it, like education programmes.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the government set about fixing our abhorrent treatment of asylum seekers (which they won't do because that treatment is their policy) and the epidemic of violence against women in the community - thirty-two women have been murdered already this year, and nobody seems to know what to do about it.
Why are you deliberately going off topic so quickly?
 
And when it's a life-or-death matter for all the babies, surely a mandatory vaccination program would be a better course of action than relatively mild economic sanctions?
Because there are some people that are recognised as having legitimate religious or philosophical reasons for not vaccinating.

Why are you deliberately going off topic so quickly?
I'm just pointing out that there are some much, much bigger issues in our country.
 
......I feel like I need to slap a #firstworldproblems here, but may not be appropriate after all.

(Oh wait...)

Personally, why slap someone's wrist, when you can lead 'em back on the right track with, uhm, candies?

....Apologies, I'm not so good with 'em words. I'll try harder next time.
 
......I feel like I need to slap a #firstworldproblems here, but may not be appropriate after all.
No, it wouldn't be appropriate, because although it's a problem of the developed world, it is a genuine issue.
 
Do you really have freedom of choice if you get punished by the authorities for exercising it?

You can do what you want.
But when it comes to your child you must do what is best for that child and any child that comes near your child.

Some daycares to not allow an unvaccinated children to be enrolled.

Because there are some people that are recognised as having legitimate religious or philosophical reasons for not vaccinating.

I don't see how there is any passage in any religious text that says vaccinating is bad as the word vaccinate didn't exist when most religions, and those people have double standards to start with.
My religion says vaccinating is bad, yet I can get blood transfusions, take medications.
 
So, let's contrast this to another area where your freedom is restricted, your ability to stab people in the face.

You have the freedom to do it if you want, but you will be punished for exercising this freedom. I think most people would agree that this is for the best for society on the whole, even though some people might really, really like to stab someone in the face.

Now, not vaccinating a child is obviously not as severe as stabbing someone in the face. But it is placing the child in what could be considered unnecessary danger, which could result in significant injury or death, and could place a significant cost on the health system.

Should the government use economics to encourage parents to vaccinate their children in such a case? I think so. It's not as severe as face stabbing, so incarceration shouldn't be on the table, but I think some sort of financial penalty is appropriate to balance the risk that you're putting your child and others at, and the potential cost to the country's health system.

Sorry Imari but I just wanted to say thanks for the laugh. I took it seriously but that opening was just too funny, and on point.
 
No I don't, and no I wouldn't; I'd be punished for breaking the law.

So if they make it a law that you must vaccinate your child that would be OK? I suspect you'd be saying much the same things about freedom and so on. I don't think the fact that they've gone for "soft" enforcement changes much at all.

Since you don't have a sense of humour, how about you consider something like speeding instead of face stabbing? Mostly not dangerous in the right situations, but has potential negative effects for both yourself and the community, and long term is probably going to burden the health system over not speeding. When caught, you're slapped with a fine (for the first few times anyway), so economic penalty.

Is this something where you feel that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, and pay the costs as appropriate?

P.S. Where are you from? I feel it's relevant if you come from a country without socialised healthcare.
 

Latest Posts

Back