The Glade 4.0

So then you think it's best for your children, or society at large, to remove children from stable caring households.

It's best for his children, and for society at large, if unvaccinated individuals are not allowed entrance into high traffic public spaces or events.

That's not what he voted for. He voted for "take them if necessary".

Which you should have linked in the first place. That was the main point.



What you found was people citing the policy, without reference to whether that policy is actually being carried out or is being carried out in an effective manner. While Rori didn't qualify his statement that way, it should be fairly obvious that the end result of "they aren't vaccinated at all" and "they aren't vaccinated until after they've already been packed in with hundreds of other people for several days because as a practical matter it's not possible to do anything else" is the same.



There isn't, but that's mainly because the outbreak is new and was already tied to Disney World which isn't really where illegal immigrant children end up, not because the proposal is preposterous on the face of it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I read this as "take them, vaccinate them, then return them", not "keep them after the vaccination for no apparent reason."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, I think there's definitely a tipping point at which the number of unvaccinated people poses a sufficiently serious public health risk for the state to make vaccinations mandatory and, if some parents still flatly refuse to get their kids vaccinated, to take those kids out of their custody to the extent necessary to administer those vaccines. Now, the number of cases in which that would be necessary is likely to be quite small, as I imagine the vast majority of "stable, caring households" would follow the law rather than lose custody of their kids. Also, as DE noted, presumably this wouldn't have to be a permanent removal, since we're just talking about administering a few shots and maybe doing some follow-up, not maintaining a lifelong course of treatment.

Like I said before, I'm overstating my position a bit in that I'm not sure we're there yet in terms of the numbers, but from what I've read, we're headed in that direction. Colorado kindergarten kids have MMR vaccination rates lower than in many Third World countries, and some schools in Los Angeles are reporting opt-out rates (i.e., parents filing for "Personal Belief Exemptions" so they can enroll their kids in school without the required immunizations) as high as 60-70%!

I'm not big on fear-mongering, but people really need to pull their heads out of their asses on this stuff before we get to the point where drastic action is required.

Well, I think that forcibly taking a child away from a parent and injecting a foreign substance into their body against their will is a huge violation of rights (and lazy policy which I'll get into in a minute), but at least having it be temporary instead of permanent pulls you back out of the batshit crazy column where I thought you were.

Now, once this is a forced practice, what do you do when a child has a severe reaction that causes permanent damage? If a parent opts out, and you cause their child permanent brain damage, coma, or deafness, what happens? Oh, that's the breaks? Sorry we broke your child? Below is from the CDC website for adverse reactions to the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine:



As for lazy policy, outreach and education is hard. It's much easier to force people to do what you want rather than try and convince them. I get that. But if there are areas with 60-70% opt out rates, the people in charge of education and outreach are not doing their jobs.

I voted 'Not Sure/Don't Care'. I voted this way because I have not personally researched the danger of the vaccines in question, and wouldn't care to espouse my opinion without doing some homework first. In other words, I'm just not sure... (I do care however).

When I was on active duty in the early to mid 90's, when the first gulf war was getting started, the military was about to start a mandatory bovine anthrax vaccination program for all active and reserve/guard members. I was stationed in Alaska, with no risk of being deployed to the gulf, and about to retire at the time (19 of 20 years served). I was prepared to take a less than honorable discharge (for disobeying an order) and forgo my pension to avoid getting that series of shots. I would have been more than happy to take my chances being deployed to the gulf without the vaccination, but not willing to accept the risk of an untested bovine (series of) vaccination(s).

Fortunately, the plant that was manufacturing the vaccination was temporarily shutdown by the USDA because they didn't meet the standards necessary to give the injection TO CATTLE! (let alone humans), so, because supply was limited, they were only giving it to individuals deploying in theater. I got lucky.

I know these two things are very different, but I still have a bit of a soft spot for people refusing vaccinations. It's pretty hard for me to trust that the federal government is being entirely truthful about the possible risks.

Ignorance can be educated. Stupid is forever. Antivaxxers are the latter.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Isn't that what an unvaccinated child is? Since you're choosing to not have immunity to a disease, you're risking your ability to control exposing others to such a foreign substance.

I would accept the argument (and think it has its own merits) on the basis that the door does indeed swing both ways.

Criminal and civil liability for infecting others with a disease, either through negligence or intentionally, seems appropriate.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I agree it's a major infringement of rights, which is why I'm only on board if the numbers pose a serious public health risk and the risks of the vaccine are comparatively minimal, which they are for the vaccines we're talking about. That said, yes, although the risks of getting the vaccines are very low and the benefits (both to the public and to the person who gets them) outweigh those risks, there is still a non-zero chance of a bad reaction. If that happens, there's not much you can do other than apologize and maybe compensate. Doesn't change the public health calculus though.


I was actually just reading about the difficulties faced by education and outreach programs. A recent study indicates that, basically, they don't work:


The problem is not that the anti-vaxxers are ignorant or uneducated; the problem is that their attitudes are not based on factual analysis at all. I suspect it's more like a combination of personal identity and social signaling, and it's very, very difficult (maybe even impossible) for public education/outreach programs to counter that in anything but the very long-term.

That would only work if you could readily identify which specific person transmitted the disease to another specific person. In most cases, that would be next to impossible.

It appears that for the anti-vaxxers, a large part of it is "I'm going to refuse simply because I can and will latch onto any reason not to, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will stop them. Essentially, it's just people who want to scream "you're not the boss of me!" at someone.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Now that WDW lets Mickey Mouse talk to guests, you can ask him.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Genomic markers in viruses, including genetic sequence, can determine in some instances with a fair amount of certainty, when and where a virus infected hosts. Forensic phylogentics in transmission of HIV is just such an example and has been used legally where as before it was a tool for characterizing the outbreak and spread of HIV.

Furthermore, since we're suggesting scenarios of outbreak of near-eradicated disease, genetic analysis for transmission might not need to be used, particularly where civil liability is being discussed as the burden of proof isn't beyond any reasonable doubt.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Maybe in a situation where a handful of kids in one particular daycare get the measles it could be traced back to the first kid who brought it in, but what about situations like the Disneyland outbreak? Or if a kid happens to pick it up from the ball pit at a McDonald's playground? Barring a CDC/WHO-style search for Patient Zero, there'd be fairly little chance of ever finding out who's responsible, no?

This. There is no education or outreach that will fix this.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

These are the same types of people that think Freemasons = Illuminati = Lizard People = Our Overlords. Facts do not matter.

Mm, some are definitely like that, but there are also plenty of the fundi-Christian types, and the organic/vegan/yoga types, and the Dr. Oz/self-help types, and so on. It's a mix, and I think it's really more a personality type than anything else - i.e., the kind of person who latches onto some non-mainstream group or idea and then wholeheartedly commits to it, even making it a part of their core self-identification. For example, my niece has always been a bit of a "joiner" of non-mainstream things, and since she moved to southern California a couple of years ago, she's started getting really invested in all the organic cleansing shakes, yoga-cures-everything, most illness is caused by your own mind, crap, so I could easily see her jumping on the anti-vaxxer bandwagon at some point.

From what I've read, the only really consistent trend among anti-vaxxers is that they skew young. Basically, older people remember what it was like when some of these diseases were still a threat (e.g., my mother remembers being sent to stay with relatives in the country during a polio outbreak in her home city when she was a kid, and she grew up hearing about the much worse **** her parents lived through), but the younger generations never had to deal with any of that, so there's no visceral understanding of the danger.

I lump them in with the GMO/Chemtrail/Monsanto crowd. They're all morons. Unable to think cogently about actual data.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I don't really see the benefit of going through all this bullshit just so we can sue people after the fact. I'm leery of forcible vaccinations, but this sort of thing makes the alternatives sound just as unattractive.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Their kids their choice.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Excuses. If a strategy doesn't work, you find a new one - you don't just give up and say "too hard, let's violate some rights".

So what if it's long term? We currently have an immunization rate of about 92%, with pockets of resistance. As long as you can hold the trend (i.e. not reducing that 92%), then you just work harder to bring that up. I might say differently if we were looking at a disease like small pox or ebola, but it's measles. The benefits of going from 92% to 96% (you'll never get 100%) are not high enough to implement the type of policy you are proposing.

Lastly, so what if you never convince some people? I think 94% is where you want to be from a scientific perspective - beyond that you get diminishing returns.

Frankly, I think you're underestimating the seriousness of the public health threat and exaggerating the seriousness of the infringement of rights. Measles is a highly contagious airborne disease that can result in severe complications. And the anti-vaxxers generally oppose the raft of other standard vaccinations as well, so it's not just measles. On the flipside, the violation of rights is more abstract than tangible - we're not talking about requiring people to be harmed for the greater good here or even requiring them to accept a significant risk of harm; we're talking about requiring a few shots that have very, very low risks of harm and actually provide them with a significant net benefit.

Yes, people have the right to be stupid and undermine their own best interests, and if that's all it was, I would obviously not advocate doing anything about it. People should be absolutely free to eat as many Big Macs as they want regardless of what it does to their own arteries. However, people don't have a right to put others at risk with their own idiotic choices, so when that happens, a balance has to be struck. I'm inclined to think that preventing people from becoming potential vectors for serious diseases by requiring them to get a few shots that are largely harmless in the vast majority of cases is not a crazy balance to strike.

While you're right about the diminishing returns, the issue appears to be one that we are starting to NOT hold the line on the 92% - which is clearly less than the 94% anyhow.

And what do you mean "excuses? You do not get to dismiss a course of action just because you personally classify it as an "excuse". One could just as easily say "Excuses. If people don't want to get vaccinated, you make them. You don't just let them go without because of abstract concerns about 'rights'."

Lastly, there seems to be a presumption that you have a right not to be vaccinated. While there's a legitimate argument that "the government should not be able to put foreign substances in your body without your consent", there's also a legitimate argument that when doing so is overwhelmingly safe and beneficial and negative effects somewhere between exceedingly rare and nonexistent, AND the consequences have a direct effect on the well-being of everyone else, that no, you do not have that right. At the time the Constitution was written and the philosophical ideas of rights were developed things like communicable disease simply weren't understood yet.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."