Vaccines: Public Policy or Personal Preference? (split from Election 2016 thread)
Quote: TwirdmanWell that is just silly. You could argue a state of lawlessness is how things ought to be but they are clearly not how thing are. You said you had a right to that is a statement of how things are.
I consider the law silly. To understand my point of view I see the law no different than I see the bible. I consider them both gibberish written on some pieces of paper.
It is certainly a "right" to embrace a given opinion or disdain it. But unbridled and unqualified pronouncements, mostly without firm factual bases, on a forum read by hundreds or thousands of passers-by like this one should expect to be vigorously challenged.Quote: rudeboyoiYou can safely assume anything I have to say doesn't take the law into consideration. It means nothing to me and I will never accept it as a premise in an argument.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt is certainly a "right" to embrace a given opinion or disdain it. But unbridled and unqualified pronouncements, mostly without firm factual bases, on a forum read by hundreds or thousands of passers-by like this one should expect to be vigorously challenged.
Then challenge me.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWould we be made privy to said "quick search"?
Quote:
In 2011, the WHO estimated that there were about 158,000 deaths caused by measles. This is down from 630,000 deaths in 1990.[53] In developed countries, death occurs in 1 to 2 cases out of every 1,000 (0.1% - 0.2%).[54] In populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate healthcare, mortality can be as high as 10%. In cases with complications, the rate may rise to 20–30%.[55] Increased immunization has led to an estimated 78% drop in measles deaths among UN member states.[56][57] This reduction made up 25% of the decline in mortality in children under five during this period.[citation needed]
and
Quote:The risk of death among those infected is usually 0.2%,[6] but may be up to 10% in those who have malnutrition.[4] It is not believed to affect other animals.[4]
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles
Feel free to find a different source. I had seen 1 in 500 quoted elsewhere recently in a newspaper article, with no citations.
Your saying that laws, and by implication, their accompanying realities, don't mean anything to you speak volumes louder than any other assertions you could issue.Quote: rudeboyoiThen challenge me.
Quote: SanchoPanzaYour saying that laws, and by implication, their accompanying realities, don't mean anything to you speak volumes louder than any other assertions you could issue.
Because they don't mean anything. All the law is is someone scribbling words down on a piece of paper and declaring it the law. It doesn't matter what rituals (like voting) they go through to accomplish this. It's nothing more than scribbles on a piece of paper. Yet people just to revere the law like it's something holy. There's no difference between politicians writing something down and declaring it the law and me writing something down and declaring it the law. People are easily able to see me writing something down and declaring it the law as ridiculous which it is. But so is what the politicians do but most people aren't able to and are unwilling to see that. The law is nothing. It doesn't mean anything. It's just people believing that the law is something special that gives it it's power. But when you break it down its just scribbles on a piece of paper. Anything can be written down and declared the law. It doesn't mean the statement they write down holds any truth to it. I used an example earlier about 2+2=5. We all know that is wrong but if that was declared law does it suddenly become true? Of course not. The truth is the truth regardless of what the law says. And if you think my example was that far fetched Google the Indiana pi bill.
Even taking the supposed estimates by the WHO at face value, all that shows is that all those countries that the WHO consistently rates as having health systems superior to U.S. actually do not provide either the quantity or quality of care for such an intrinsically minor malady as measles.Quote: thecesspitJust to note, the death rate from measles is betweenn 1 in 500 to 1 in 10, according to the quick search I did. The latter tends to be when the victim is young (under 5) and malnourished.
Such quarantines are not customary in the U.S., as we recently witnessed with all the brouhaha over the immensely more communicable and more dangerous ebola.Quote: thecesspitThose 3 or under will not be fully immunizes. A 15-day old boy, a child of a friend of a friend is currently under quarantine with his sister and Mum, as the surgery he was in had another person with Measles in the same hour he was there... thus he has a risk of infection. He can't be immunized at such a young age. He's at risk of a nasty infection, that can be fatal, and can lead to long term health implications. But some on this thread will happily tell you that the decision not to get immunized only affects them.
As is the case with everyday to apparently insurmountable problems like second-hand smoke and the failure to wash hands.Quote: thecesspitFor some communicable diseases, the decision not be vaccinated maybe personal choice, but it is a choice that will affect those around you as well. It's highly blinkered nonsense to pretend the choice only affects one person.
Quote: rudeboyoiBecause they don't mean anything. All the law is is someone scribbling words down on a piece of paper and declaring it the law.
Maybe in an isolated bubble. Buy anyone driving down a school street posted for 15 or 25 mph at 50 mph will disagree about the "meaning" of given laws.
Quote: rudeboyoiIt doesn't matter what rituals (like voting) they go through to accomplish this. It's nothing more than scribbles on a piece of paper. Yet people just to revere the law like it's something holy. There's no difference between politicians writing something down and declaring it the law and me writing something down and declaring it the law.
You do not have the power to, say, jail me or anyone else. Lawmakers and their employees do have that power and exercise it.
Save that line of speculative wanderi ng to trot out the next time you or loved ones are robbed or cheated or physically attacked or otherwise transgressed and see how far it gets you.Quote: rudeboyoiPeople are easily able to see me writing something down and declaring it the law as ridiculous which it is. But so is what the politicians do but most people aren't able to and are unwilling to see that. The law is nothing. It doesn't mean anything. It's just people believing that the law is something special that gives it it's power. But when you break it down its just scribbles on a piece of paper.
Much as certain figures would like to think that is so, reality doesn't work that way.Quote: rudeboyoiAnything can be written down and declared the law.
No one, including any number of strawmen, ever even put that forward.Quote: rudeboyoiIt doesn't mean the statement they write down holds any truth to it.
Don't have to, what with examples like the Community Reinvestment Act and Dodd-Frank so close at hand.Quote: rudeboyoiI used an example earlier about 2+2=5. We all know that is wrong but if that was declared law does it suddenly become true? Of course not. The truth is the truth regardless of what the law says.And if you think my example was that far fetched Google the Indiana pi bill.
Quote: SanchoPanzaEven taking the supposed estimates by the WHO at face value, all that shows is that all those countries that the WHO consistently rates as having health systems superior to U.S. actually do not provide either the quantity or quality of care for such an intrinsically minor malady as measles.
It shows that Measles can cause death, and the rates are higher than was being supposed. The European rate deaths rates are around 1 in 1200 (see same articles for the cases listed).
Quote:
Such quarantines are not customary in the U.S., as we recently witnessed with all the brouhaha over the immensely more communicable and more dangerous ebola.
Never claimed they were, or that the US has it right or wrong. I merely point out again that the lack of someone's vaccination is not just a risk they take for themselves.
Quote:As is the case with everyday to apparently insurmountable problems like second-hand smoke and the failure to wash hands.
Would you therefore consider it incorrect for the government to create laws requiring basic hand sanitation before preparing food? The idea that you can ignore the rules but have to put up a sign saying that you don't is laughable. I realize one free-market way of dealing this would be to have private inspectors who place a seal of approval on a food-preparation workplace's standards (as it's not just washing hands, but keeping cooked and raw meat seperate, grease cleaning, basic cleanliness, etc etc etc).
(For second hand smoke, I am not convinced it required government action to enforce in private businesses, though I know it has speeded up the change over to smoking indoors being rare. I can understand the laws here that ask smoker's outside to be a certain distance away from doors and windows).
Quote: SanchoPanzaMaybe in an isolated bubble. Buy anyone driving down a school street posted for 15 or 25 mph at 50 mph will disagree about the "meaning" of given laws.
You do not have the power to, say, jail me or anyone else. Lawmakers and their employees do have that power and exercise it.
Save that line of speculative wanderi ng to trot out the next time you or loved ones are robbed or cheated or physically attacked or otherwise transgressed and see how far it gets you.
Much as certain figures would like to think that is so, reality doesn't work that way.
No one, including any number of strawmen, ever even put that forward.
Don't have to, what with examples like the Community Reinvestment Act and Dodd-Frank so close at hand.
There's no difference between that sign and a sign in someone's yard that says trespassers will be shot. They're both warning you violence will be used against you if you don't follow the sign.
I don't have that power but if I did have that power it would be no different than what the politicians and their employees are doing. I don't have the right to jail people. Neither do the lawmakers. They're both criminal acts. You can't delegate rights you don't have to another. Yet somehow the lawmakers claim to have this right. If it's wrong for me to kidnap you and throw you in a cage it's wrong for anyone to. No magical ritual can turn a wrong into a right.
Lol I'm not naive enough to believe the lawmakers and their goons are there to protect me.
The lethal possibility was not in doubt. What was being questioned was the absolute number of cases versus the number of deaths directly attributable to the measles virus. Along, of course, taking into account crucial factors like the availability and quality of care.Quote: thecesspitIt shows that Measles can cause death, and the rates are higher than was being supposed. The European rate deaths rates are around 1 in 1200 (see same articles for the cases listed).
]q=thecesspit]Never claimed they were, or that the US has it right or wrong. I merely point out again that the lack of someone's vaccination is not just a risk they take for themselves.[q/]Your example of a 15-year-old's being quarantined is apparently not in the U.S., but is never specified.The scope of the effects of measles is surely limited if the patient and the caregivers are astute and give a damn. The actions and reactions of the patient the patient's team are essential to controlling communicability. As we should have learned from the repeated lessons with ebola.
I view basic sanitary practices as far more necessary than campaigns of limited usefulness like flu and measles vaccines.Quote: rudeboyoiWould you therefore consider it incorrect for the government to create laws requiring basic hand sanitation before preparing food? The idea that you can ignore the rules but have to put up a sign saying that you don't is laughable. I realize one free-market way of dealing this would be to have private inspectors who place a seal of approval on a food-preparation workplace's standards (as it's not just washing hands, but keeping cooked and raw meat seperate, grease cleaning, basic cleanliness, etc etc etc).
And I specifically include in that broad swath the many health care professionals who persistently ignore basic rules of cleanliness.
Are you an AnCap? Or how would you describe yourself?
Although I don't share all of your views, I agree with a few. I'm tired of the two party dominated landscape. The assault on the Bill Of Rights is sickening. It seems all except the 3rd have been trampled on in the past 100 years. From the Sullivan Act and 1934 NFA to the USA PATRIOT Act.
Good to see a different point of view from the norm.
Quote: BoulderDamItRudeboy,
Are you an AnCap? Or how would you describe yourself?
Although I don't share all of your views, I agree with a few. I'm tired of the two party dominated landscape. The assault on the Bill Of Rights is sickening. It seems all except the 3rd have been trampled on in the past 100 years. From the Sullivan Act and 1934 NFA to the USA PATRIOT Act.
Good to see a different point of view from the norm.
Thanks. You could call me an ancap. I believe you should just let the market do its thing. You dont need regulation because an equilibrium will be reached between the producers, the workers, and the consumers simply through interacting with each other. The workers negotiate through refusing to sell their labor. The consumers negotiate through refusing to purchase their product.
It was written by the brother of Dan Bilzerian. A lot of Adam's frustrations are shared by many Libertarians and Anarchist alike.
http://www.amazon.com/America-Love-It-Leave-Left/dp/0615360645
Quote: rudeboyoiThanks. You could call me an ancap. I believe you should just let the market do its thing. You dont need regulation because an equilibrium will be reached between the producers, the workers, and the consumers simply through interacting with each other. The workers negotiate through refusing to sell their labor. The consumers negotiate through refusing to purchase their product.
As long as things stay simple. You build your community, but someone upstream dams the only water source and doesn't need your business or negotiations.
And that's only one possibility.
Quote: SanchoPanza
Such quarantines are not customary in the U.S., as we recently witnessed with all the brouhaha over the immensely more communicable and more dangerous ebola.
As is the case with everyday to apparently insurmountable problems like second-hand smoke and the failure to wash hands.
Immensely more communicable really? This makes me question whether you actually know anything about communicability. There is just the common sense reason your wrong which is Ebola is only carried in bodily fluids while Ebola is an airborne pathogen. Though even ignoring that since common sense is a poor way to do science we can look at the R_0 of the two which is a decent measure of how communicable a disease is Ebola has a 2 or less thus someone who catches Ebola if not properly contained is likely to spread the disease to two other people in comparison measles has an 18. Given 18>2 measles is far far more communicable and is in fact one of the most communicable diseases in existence compared to Ebola which is one of the least.
Also the people in the US were quarantined and there was a grand total of 2 people infected inside the US. But keep trying to go over how Ebola is worse then measles.
NPR article if you want to take a look http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10/02/352983774/no-seriously-how-contagious-is-ebola . I particularly love this quote
"Take, for example, measles. The virus is one of the most contagious diseases known to man. It's R0 sits around 18. That means each person with the measles spreads it to 18 people, on average, when nobody is vaccinated. (When everyone is vaccinated, the R0 drops to essentially zero for measles)."
Quote: rxwineAs long as things stay simple. You build your community, but someone upstream dams the only water source and doesn't need your business or negotiations.
And that's only one possibility.
But just think if we eliminate all regulations all the interesting shows we can have when the rivers literally catch fire like they did before the clean water act. And paying for things would be much easier as companies would no longer have to pay us in cash or anything usable they could just go back to paying company scrips making it impossible to leave but also simplifying the shopping experience. Also who needs nice fresh air I mean has breathing in a bit of pollution ever really killed anyone. What a glorious times these would all be as we are forced to work our 16 hour days.
Quote: rudeboyoiThere's no difference between that sign and a sign in someone's yard that says trespassers will be shot. They're both warning you violence will be used against you if you don't follow the sign.
I don't think anyone is debating this.
Quote:I don't have that power but if I did have that power it would be no different than what the politicians and their employees are doing. I don't have the right to jail people. Neither do the lawmakers. They're both criminal acts. You can't delegate rights you don't have to another. Yet somehow the lawmakers claim to have this right. If it's wrong for me to kidnap you and throw you in a cage it's wrong for anyone to. No magical ritual can turn a wrong into a right.
Lol I'm not naive enough to believe the lawmakers and their goons are there to protect me.
Yes a "magic ritual" can.
We live inside a country where as citizens we agree to live under the established system (constitutional Republic in the case of America). The threat of violence for breaking laws that we agree upon, is carried out by Law Enforcement Workers who are hired to enforce the laws that are agreed upon.
You are right it is the same as shareholders agreeing to rules for their property and enforcing them on their property. Except the property is all public land and roadways inside U.S. borders (or whatever country you are referring to).
Quote: GandlerI don't think anyone is debating this.
Yes a "magic ritual" can.
We live inside a country where as citizens we agree to live under the established system (constitutional Republic in the case of America). The threat of violence for breaking laws that we agree upon, is carried out by Law Enforcement Workers who are hired to enforce the laws that are agreed upon.
You are right it is the same as shareholders agreeing to rules for their property and enforcing them on their property. Except the property is all public land and roadways inside U.S. borders (or whatever country you are referring to).
No one currently alive has agreed to it.
That is neither necessary nor does it really matter. But as we've seen, reality supposedly does not matter to any significant extent for those inside their bubbles.Quote: rudeboyoiNo one currently alive has agreed to it.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat is neither necessary nor does it really matter. But as we've seen, reality supposedly does not matter to any significant extent for those inside their bubbles.
Of course it matters. It shows that the government is illegitimate.
Quote: rudeboyoiNo one currently alive has agreed to it.
And there are rules for changing the rules that govern those who live under them. If enough people agree, the rules can be changed or even repealed. Hmm. It may have even happened a few times.
Quote: Dalex64And there are rules for changing the rules that govern those who live under them. If enough people agree, the rules can be changed or even repealed. Hmm. It may have even happened a few times.
How's that working out for you? Show me a year where more laws were removed than created.
Quote: rudeboyoiHow's that working out for you? Show me a year where more laws were removed than created.
What does that have to do with it?
If enough people agree, more laws are passed. If enough people agree, laws are repealed, or expire, or are not renewed.
It is astounding to me that you believe we would be better off without a government. I wonder which would happen first - the druglord wars, or the religious wars.
If I recall correctly, I voted to renew most, if not all, of the government milliages that came up this last time. And they passed. So to answer your question, things have been working out just fine for me.
You seem to be rating the quality of a government in inverse proportion to the number of laws. Dictator law 1 of 1: What I say, goes. No rules? The strongest take what they wNt.
Band together with your commnity. Guess what? You just made rules. The community next fo you is bigger and stronger than you and wants to impose their rules on you. I guess you better band together with a few other commnities for mutual protection. Hmm, that will take more rules, and possibly some compromises in order to get the other communities fo agree to defend themselves with you.
There will always be someone bigger than you out there who you can't stop. If there isn't, you just became what you want to dismantle.
Do you like that education that everyone collectively paid for? Or howabout those highways? The economic impact of those is huge. And then there is defense. Druglords, taliban, sharia law or even christian fundamentalists or scientologists. Who is going to keep them at bay?
Quote: Dalex64What does that have to do with it?
If enough people agree, more laws are passed. If enough people agree, laws are repealed, or expire, or are not renewed.
It is astounding to me that you believe we would be better off without a government. I wonder which would happen first - the druglord wars, or the religious wars.
If I recall correctly, I voted to renew most, if not all, of the government milliages that came up this last time. And they passed. So to answer your question, things have been working out just fine for me.
You seem to be rating the quality of a government in inverse proportion to the number of laws. Dictator law 1 of 1: What I say, goes. No rules? The strongest take what they wNt.
Band together with your commnity. Guess what? You just made rules. The community next fo you is bigger and stronger than you and wants to impose their rules on you. I guess you better band together with a few other commnities for mutual protection. Hmm, that will take more rules, and possibly some compromises in order to get the other communities fo agree to defend themselves with you.
There will always be someone bigger than you out there who you can't stop. If there isn't, you just became what you want to dismantle.
Do you like that education that everyone collectively paid for? Or howabout those highways? The economic impact of those is huge. And then there is defense. Druglords, taliban, sharia law or even christian fundamentalists or scientologists. Who is going to keep them at bay?
Your very laws are what brought about the drug lords. Drugs are cheap to produce. It's prohibition that makes them expensive. Anarchy doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers.
Quote: Dalex64And the rest? What is to keep someone else from taking over?
Decentralization. There's no target.
Quote: Dalex64I see you have not thought this through. Do let me know when you come up with a cogent argument.
There's no central "authority" to speak/act for others. You literally have to defeat everyone that decides to resist.
Quote: rudeboyoiDecentralization. There's no target.
Sure no government for me to take over but whats to stop me from forcing you and really whoever I want into slavery and taking their land. Would be relatively easy all I'd have to do is kidnap your family and say I'll kill them if you don't cooperate. I also take all your land. Or if I don't have any desire for you as a slave I just kill you and take your land. Maybe I partner up with some other sociopathic marauders to make it more easy to kill and enslave people.
For comparisons sake this is actually in some ways how warlords come into power. What is to stop them from taking over in your anarchic society I mean sure I guess you could band together with other people to try to take them out but then you would in essence form your own pseudo society with rules of its own.
Quote: TwirdmanSure no government for me to take over but whats to stop me from forcing you and really whoever I want into slavery and taking their land. Would be relatively easy all I'd have to do is kidnap your family and say I'll kill them if you don't cooperate. I also take all your land. Or if I don't have any desire for you as a slave I just kill you and take your land. Maybe I partner up with some other sociopathic marauders to make it more easy to kill and enslave people.
For comparisons sake this is actually in some ways how warlords come into power. What is to stop them from taking over in your anarchic society I mean sure I guess you could band together with other people to try to take them out but then you would in essence form your own pseudo society with rules of its own.
How many times do I have to say this. Anarchy simply means no rulers not no rules. You're free to agree to any set of rules you wish to follow and free to opt out if you no longer wish to follow those rules. Maybe at first you decide to live in a more communal setting then decide it's not for you.
Quote: TwirdmanSure no government for me to take over but whats to stop me from forcing you and really whoever I want into slavery and taking their land. Would be relatively easy all I'd have to do is kidnap your family and say I'll kill them if you don't cooperate. I also take all your land. Or if I don't have any desire for you as a slave I just kill you and take your land. Maybe I partner up with some other sociopathic marauders to make it more easy to kill and enslave people.
For comparisons sake this is actually in some ways how warlords come into power. What is to stop them from taking over in your anarchic society I mean sure I guess you could band together with other people to try to take them out but then you would in essence form your own pseudo society with rules of its own.
You mean like our own already established government did until up to 150 years ago?
Quote: rudeboyoiHow many times do I have to say this. Anarchy simply means no rulers not no rules. You're free to agree to any set of rules you wish to follow and free to opt out if you no longer wish to follow those rules. Maybe at first you decide to live in a more communal setting then decide it's not for you.
If you know what you want, why do you not have it?
Quote: FaceIf you know what you want, why do you not have it?
Indoctrination. The majority of the populace has been indoctrinated that government is necessary for society to function. The liberty movement is gaining ground though as more people are starting to question those deeply rooted beliefs.
Quote: rudeboyoiThere's no central "authority" to speak/act for others. You literally have to defeat everyone that decides to resist.
Kinda like what happened here:
Quote:These campaigns were often accompanied by wholesale massacres of the civilian populations – especially in the Khwarezmian and Xia controlled lands. By the end of his life, the Mongol Empire occupied a substantial portion of Central Asia and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan
Quote: rxwineKinda like what happened here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan
Not at all alike. Those areas were controlled by government. I'm guessing either the civilians own government had their people disarmed or there just weren't the materials available for the populace to be armed. Either way we are armed here and there are plenty of arms available.
Quote: rudeboyoiNot at all alike. Those areas were controlled by government. I'm guessing either the civilians own government had their people disarmed or there just weren't the materials available for the populace to be armed. Either way we are armed here and there are plenty of arms available.
I think history has shown that people had trouble living in peace as others showed up and had different ideas.
Quote: rxwineI think history has shown that people had trouble living in peace as others showed up and had different ideas.
I think it goes to show that government is the biggest perpetrator of violence.
