Vaccinations thread.

[UKMikey]

I just don't understand how the risk of an adverse reaction outweighs that of going unvaccinated and exposing the population to the loss of herd immunity. To me it sounds ignorant and dangerously selfish.

 

[TVR27]

Samoa arrests anti-vaxxer as immunisation drive continues

Samoa warned it will not tolerate anti-vaccine misinformation on Friday, after a prominent activist was arrested for opposing a mass immunisation drive launched to contain a deadly measles epidemic in the Pacific nation.

 

[Danoff]

Samoa arrests anti-vaxxer as immunisation drive continues

Samoa warned it will not tolerate anti-vaccine misinformation on Friday, after a prominent activist was arrested for opposing a mass immunisation drive launched to contain a deadly measles epidemic in the Pacific nation.

One would think that freedom of speech would be universal.

 

[Barra333]

One would think that freedom of speech would be universal.

Are you in support of people spreading blatant lies and misinformation that directly leads to the death of children?

 

[Danoff]

Are you in support of people spreading blatant lies and misinformation that directly leads to the death of children?

Is that what you think is happening here? You think the person that was arrested doesn't believe what they are saying and is trying to kill children? Is there some evidence to support that?

 

[Dotini]

Samoa warned it will not tolerate anti-vaccine misinformation on Friday

This is a brilliant solution. Allow free speech on weekends, but not tolerate lies and misinformation Monday through Friday.

 

[Barra333]

Is that what you think is happening here? You think the person that was arrested doesn't believe what they are saying and is trying to kill children? Is there some evidence to support that?

Every argument that the antivaxxers make is demonstrably false and thoroughly disproven (dozens of times with regard to the autism argument). It is also quite well established that vaccines prevent infection with deadly diseases (measles in this case). I have no idea what the motivation of the anti-vaxxers is but their arguments are false, and the outcomes deadly.

 

[Danoff]

Every argument that the antivaxxers make is demonstrably false and thoroughly disproven (dozens of times with regard to the autism argument). It is also quite well established that vaccines prevent infection with deadly diseases (measles in this case). I have no idea what the motivation of the anti-vaxxers is but their arguments are false, and the outcomes deadly.

It needs to be intentionally false in order for it to be a "blatant lie". Otherwise it's just someone stating something they think is true, which is kinda what freedom of speech is all about.

 

[Barra333]

It needs to be intentionally false in order for it to be a "blatant lie". Otherwise it's just someone stating something they think is true, which is kinda what freedom of speech is all about.

If someone says that they believe toys painted with lead paint are fine for their kids despite all of the proof to the contrary, is it still OK?

I'm fine with freedom of speech, if the opinions put forward are not demonstrably false and causing direct harm to innocent people.

 

[Danoff]

If someone says that they believe toys painted with lead paint are fine for their kids despite all of the proof to the contrary, is it still OK?

You're trying to conflate speech with action here. You're insinuating that handing a lead toy to a child in your care and having them get lead poising, despite the presence of laws against lead in toys is the same as speech. So let's keep this clearly on speech and not conflate it with action. I'm the same person that says parents should be prosecuted for not vaccinating their children when those kids come down with the disease.

Questioning whether lead poising exists, and stating that it's a hoax, if you truly believe it, is free speech. Handing lead toys to a child and having them contract lead poising is not.

 

[Scaff]

You're trying to conflate speech with action here. You're insinuating that handing a lead toy to a child in your care and having them get lead poising, despite the presence of laws against lead in toys is the same as speech. So let's keep this clearly on speech and not conflate it with action. I'm the same person that says parents should be prosecuted for not vaccinating their children when those kids come down with the disease.

Questioning whether lead poising exists, and stating that it's a hoax, if you truly believe it, is free speech. Handing lead toys to a child and having them contract lead poising is not.

What if the free speach, and the falsehoods contained within it, has a direct link to the reduction in vaccination rates and the resultant deaths?

These for example is are just two of his posts on how to cure measles, made during an epidemic.




The specific charge was incitement to break the law, after vaccines were made mandatory, which I believe would not be covered by the first amendment in the US.

 

[Danoff]

What if the free speach, and the falsehoods contained within it, has a direct link to the reduction in vaccination rates and the resultant deaths?

These for example is are just two of his posts on how to cure measles, made during an epidemic.




The specific charge was incitement to break the law, after vaccines were made mandatory, which I believe would not be covered by the first amendment in the US.

I don't think it would violate the first amendment even in the presence of a mandatory vaccination law. Incitement to break the law as an exception to freedom of speech appears to be limited to violence. "False statements of fact" looks like a better angle if you want to limit this particular type of speech (I don't think it falls under that exception either).

You could make the same argument with guns if you wanted to. Speaking out against gun control could have a direct link to an increase in firearm-related suicide, for example, and it should still be constitutionally protected. Similarly, speaking out against driverless cars could have a direct link to automobile deaths. There is no end to this.

 

[Scaff]

I don't think it would violate the first amendment even in the presence of a mandatory vaccination law. Incitement to break the law as an exception to freedom of speech appears to be limited to violence. "False statements of fact" looks like a better angle if you want to limit this particular type of speech (I don't think it falls under that exception either).

You could make the same argument with guns if you wanted to. Speaking out against gun control could have a direct link to an increase in firearm-related suicide, for example, and it should still be constitutionally protected. Similarly, speaking out against driverless cars could have a direct link to automobile deaths. There is no end to this.

It's a grey area I agree, however the case of incitement to suicide, which wasn't protected, looks closer to this case to me. In that it's inciting someone to take an action that will result in harm or death.

 

[Danoff]

It's a grey area I agree, however the case of incitement to suicide, which wasn't protected, looks closer to this case to me. In that it's inciting someone to take an action that will result in harm or death.

I was against that ruling. I didn't think incitement to suicide should be criminal.

 

[Scaff]

I was against that ruling. I didn't think incitement to suicide should be criminal.

OK, on that point we differ.

 

[Danoff]

OK, on that point we differ.

I'm not sure I see the grey area you're pointing at either. Instances of fraud, and incitement of violence seems pretty significantly distinct from instances of factually inaccurate statements where the person is unaware of the inaccuracy.

In the Samoa case it appears as though we have someone who thinks he is correct, attempting to do something that, from his perspective, is a service to the people around him. To criminalize this brings up the prospect of a government criminalizing its critics. Not everyone should be trusted as an authority. It's the people who are acting on this that are to blame for the outcome.

 

[Barra333]

You could make the same argument with guns if you wanted to. Speaking out against gun control could have a direct link to an increase in firearm-related suicide, for example, and it should still be constitutionally protected. Similarly, speaking out against driverless cars could have a direct link to automobile deaths. There is no end to this.

There are valid uses for guns and driverless cars. I can't think of a single use to not vaccinating. I'll leave you and @Scaff to get into the weeds of the constitution - I'm out of my depth there.