Vaccines

Measles Outbreak Among Unvaccinated Disneyland Visitors

"The Onion" amusingly takes down anti-vaccine simpletons.

|

vaccination
cdc

At least 15 of the 26 people infected so far in the outbreak among visitors of the "happiest place on earth" are known to have been unvaccinated. Reuters is reporting that six of those who have contracted the disease have been hospitalized. Two of those infected so far are kids who were too young to be vaccinated. USA Today noted that in 2014, health officials diagnosed measles in 554 people, up from 187 cases in 2013 and 55 cases in 2012, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Onion has a nice takedown of anti-vaccination simpletons—a favorite exemplar below:

Onion Satire
The Onion

Go here for an extensive Reason debate over what is the proper libertarian response to vaccination.

NEXT: D.C. Marijuana Initiative Goes to Congress for Review

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Onion straight-faces it with such skill!

  2. I totally don’t agree with Bailey’s stance on compelling vaccinations. However, I really do like that he keeps revisiting this issue. It is a tough one and it forces people to really examine some basic assumptions about how nature and human free agency interact in the NAP. It is a good intellectual exercise. You can see my disagreements with forced vaccination in the comments of the debate linked above.

    Keep it up, Ron.

    1. Vaccination is all well and good. Compulsory vaccination is unequivocally a violation of the NAP, it violates the most fundamental property right in existence, one’s self ownership.

      Now Ron would counter with some variant of “your microbes are an imposition on others’ self-onwership…” which is a fallacious understanding, as I will demonstrate.

      -If you owned some uncultivated land and some wildlife that resided on your land ate the neighboring farmers cows, are you responsible?
      -If wolves from two properties over walked over your unfenced woodlands to get to the farmer’s pastures, are you responsible?
      -If so, is it therefore every person’s duty to exterminate all life residing on his property?
      -Can wildlife or the rest of nature, exercise your agency and force you to assume liability for it’s actions?
      -Is microbial life any less in a state of nature regarding it’s ownership?

      Ron’s argument for compulsory vaccination doesn’t even get around this rudimentary property constraints unless you manufacture entirely new rights and responsibilities out of thin air to satisfy Ron’s concern for the issue.

      1. Free,

        Yes that is exactly the same reasoning I use in the debate Ron links to in his article.

        Pathogens are a natural phenomena and we should not be expected to intervene to stop those natural processes on someone else’s behalf. The only time we should be held to account is if our criminal negligence were proven to be a major contributor to its spread. So, for example, knowingly going out in public after finding out you were infected, or doing something very likely to catch the virus (health care worker going to an epidemic site) and then going out in public. Refusing to vaccinate is not negligence just as it is not negligent to decline to place wolf traps all over your property to keep them from getting to your neighbor’s cows.

        1. Pathogens are a natural phenomena and we should not be expected to intervene to stop those natural processes on someone else’s behalf.

          Edit that to say “we should not be forced…”. I expect all my friends and family to vaccinate their kids. It is a very smart thing to do, and I will happily let them know what an idiot they are for declining based on some deluded pseudo-scientific hysteria-monger. But I will also vehemently defend your right to risk your children dying of a terrible disease.

        2. Pathogens are a natural phenomena and we should not be expected to intervene to stop those natural processes on someone else’s behalf.

          Even if there were never any compulsory vaccination in human history, the existence of one vaccinated person on Earth makes everyone better off, even the unvaccinated. It’s the inverse of what Ron talks about with “herd immunity”. 1 person in a village getting vaccinated provides a positive externality to everyone else in the village. It’s one less person that can transmit deadly disease to them. Can that one villager now demand payment from the rest of the village for this service? Of course not, no more than the village can rightfully demand he provide this benefit at his own expense. His action can only be described as doing everyone (and himself) a favor.

          Refusing to vaccinate is not negligence just as it is not negligent to decline to place wolf traps all over your property to keep them from getting to your neighbor’s cows.

          Correct because if you did set those wolf traps, that’s obviously a positive externality to the farmer, i.e. you’d be doing the farmer a favor. By definition no one has a right to be done a favor. Ron’s insistence that I owe the rest of the village

          1. …is a motion in support of positive liberty, which isn’t a species of liberty at all.

        3. Refusing to vaccinate is not negligence just as it is not negligent to decline to place wolf traps all over your property to keep them from getting to your neighbor’s cows.

          But if your neighbor is justified in killing or otherwise “dealing with” the wolves because of the threat they pose to his property and livelihood, and since the wolves in this metaphor are taking the place of the microbes in your body, would the neighbor be likewise justified in killing you if he knows you not to be vaccinated, due to the threat you pose to his own health?

          1. But if your neighbor is justified in killing or otherwise “dealing with” the wolves because of the threat they pose to his property and livelihood, and since the wolves in this metaphor are taking the place of the microbes in your body, would the neighbor be likewise justified in killing you if he knows you not to be vaccinated, due to the threat you pose to his own health?

            Both cases you described feature an element of trespassing, so that analogy doesn’t quite stand.

            -The farmer is indeed free to shoot wolves on his property, but not to trudge into your property to do it.
            -Similarly you a free to take all the anti-microbial precautions that you want, but not so far as to kill someone for that purpose.

      2. That depends what you mean by compulsory. Making it a condition of enrollment in a school isn’t really compulsion (and the school does have a legitimate property right to defend, not to mention their potential liability if they allow an unvaccinated child to attend and he causes an outbreak).

        1. Making it a condition of enrollment in a school isn’t really compulsion

          It is when school attendance itself is compulsory.

          1. No schools actually do this. Anyone can be a “contentious objector”. Maybe OK is especially easy in this area. Amazing how few people realize this.

            1. No I had to get the vaccination or be expelled. A kid in my class was expelled in 6th grade for this.

              1. Neither of my children nor I am vaccinated. In every instance when it has been claimed to be compulsory, they have backed down. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, church camp, daycare all accepted a form saying we objected on some grounds or another.

                I really thought that “mandatory” meant just that but that has not been my experience, here in OK.

                It is my understanding that the public schools are the same way. Since socialism is evil, of course my children do not attend and I wouldn’t know from personal experience.

          2. In many state school attendance is no long compulsory. It’s called homeschooling.

            1. Yes I’ll quit my job to homeschool all day, that’s not an unjust imposition or anything.

              Getting raped in prison is optional because you didn’t kill yourself before the rape. You basically had consenting sex. The End.

              1. So, if the state doesn’t agree to educate your kid then it’s an unjust imposition?

                1. Yes, when I am forced to pay taxes for same.

                  1. Being stolen from does not justify stealing from others.

                2. So, if the state doesn’t agree to educate your kid then it’s an unjust imposition?

                  If the state establishes a virtual monopoly of primary education and crowds private alternatives out of existence, then yes it is an imposition when they start setting arbitrary terms of admittance.

              2. Yes I’ll quit my job to homeschool all day, that’s not an unjust imposition or anything.

                Why would I consider taking personal responsibility for the education of my children? Because I am not a thief. Being robbed by government on a regular basis does not justify stealing from my neighbors.

                1. Why would I consider taking personal responsibility for the education of my children? Because I am not a thief. Being robbed by government on a regular basis does not justify stealing from my neighbors.

                  I never said otherwise. I’m talking about a virtual economic monopoly being used as the delivery mechanism for policy. Denial of a monopolized service to punish non-compliance with an unrelated policy is compulsion.

                  Consider the argument actually being made before you start accusing people of being thieves and irresponsible parents.

                  1. I’m talking about a virtual economic monopoly being used as the delivery mechanism for policy.

                    Absurd. My son is 13 and ready to start college. I have educated him without a penny from the government “monopoly”.

                    I didn’t “accuse” anyone. I simply stated an opinion. I stand by my opinion that two wrongs do not make a right.

                    1. Absurd. My son is 13 and ready to start college. I have educated him without a penny from the government “monopoly”.I didn’t “accuse” anyone. I simply stated an opinion. I stand by my opinion that two wrongs do not make a right.

                      The nearest private school is 30 miles away. The fact that I have the option to forgo gainful employment to start homeschooling doesn’t change the fact that the public school system is a monopoly in the education market I’m in. If there were only one shoe store within my reach, the fact that I can possibly make my own shoes doesn’t take away from the fact that that shoe store has a virtual monopoly on retail shoe sales in my area.

                      Your situation isn’t a universal possibility for everyone. I’m happy for you that your kids are homeschooled, but if you suck your own dick any harder over that fact, I fear it may fall right off.

      3. Okay. In a free society you are more than welcome to abuse your children by not getting them vaccinated. However, if your children get my children, sick with a deadly disease. I am going to shoot you.

        Not that I would allow my children to associate with people who refuse vaccination in the first place.

        Just saying.

        1. if your children get my children, sick with a deadly disease. I am going to shoot you.

          Even if my children are vaccinated and the vaccine fails, you will still do this, right? You wouldn’t suffer your child dying just because of intentions, would you? If your child was harmed, you would seek revenge. So a failed vaccine should evoke the same response.

          1. I suppose incoherence us all one can expect from someone who hasn’t vaccinated his children.

          2. Yes Mr. Gill. I would seek revenge. In the case of a failed vaccine. I would seek revenge against the maker of the vaccine.

            It is a contentious issue, and I have chosen a side. I would not have anyone forcibly vaccinated, but there are going to be serious consequences for those who make that decision.

    2. My preferred solution is to encourage kids to brutally ostracize those who aren’t vaccinated.
      Children who don’t get vaccinated should be teased relentlessly until their parents give up.

      1. HazelMeade|1.13.15 @ 11:29PM|#
        “My preferred solution is to encourage kids to brutally ostracize those who aren’t vaccinated.
        Children who don’t get vaccinated should be teased relentlessly until their parents give up.”

        +1 NAP

  3. Look, I used to believe everything that Jenny McCarthy told me, especially if she was nude, but as she’s gotten older, her message seems less…compelling. I can’t figure it out.

    1. Ah, yes…the old “Nudity isn’t intelligence” pitfall.

      Well, Epi-live and learn, I guess. Or live and strip, maybe*.

      *not you, bless your heart.

      1. Are you saying I can’t strip any more?!? I make all my money on tips! Just the tip…

      2. Ah, the classic “appeal to nudity” fallacy.

    2. Stupidity seems to endure a lot longer than hotness.

      1. Beauty can be fleeting. I went with a girl for a short time who was smoking hot HOT. Macedonian-French-Canadian.

        But I couldn’t digest being around her. Once we did the deed (I know, I know I’m a rapist) I just couldn’t continue on.

        I don’t know what her views on vaccination were mostly because she was drunk or smoking most of the time.

        1. (I know, I know I’m a rapist) I just couldn’t continue on.

          Did she sign a consent form?

          1. Maybe on my condom she did. I can’t remember.

  4. I read if you vaccinate your kids your dick could get autism.

    1. I think mine already has autism.

  5. Lets roll with it man, I mean like seriously.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

  6. I love how the Onion has been using the same few pictures for their person-on-the-street quotes like this forever.

    1. I remember when they changed.

  7. I don’t care about libertarian Principals when it comes to Vaccines for small pox, chicken pox, etc.

    If you want to not vaccinate your child, fine, send your kids to a private school…which I believe libertarians prefer anyway.

    1. So if someone sends their kid to private school, why should they have to subsidize another kid’s vaccination and public school tuition?

      Riddle me that, Batman.

    2. Simple question: Define VACCINATION? Does that mean ANY disease the government designates? Any disease for which a vaccine exists?

    3. “I don’t care about libertarian Principals when it comes to Vaccines for small pox, chicken pox, etc.”

      Of course you don’t….or regarding any other issue.

  8. Not getting your kid vaccinated is even more of a public concern than drinking and driving. Drinking is a private choice and private act. Driving while drunk changes that. It’s more obviously a matter of public interest than a lot of perfectly acceptable preventative measures we take in society. Mandating vaccines is obviously a practical necessity. If it runs afoul of libertarian dogma, the problem is with the dogma. It usually is.

    1. Ich wage am Ende meines Lebens mich noch zu einer Frage zu ?u?ern, die lange Jahre mein Denken besch?ftigt hat, an der aber die meisten scheu vor?bergehen, weil sie als heikel und ihre L?sung als schwierig empfunden wird, so da? nicht mit Unrecht gesagt werden konnte, es handle sich hier ?um einen starren Punkt in unseren moralischen und sozialen Anschauungen?.

      Sie geht dahin: soll die unverbotene Lebensvernichtung, wie nach heutigem Rechte ? vom Notstand abgesehen ?, auf die Selbstt?tung des Menschen beschr?nkt bleiben, oder soll sie eine gesetzliche Erweiterung auf T?tungen von Nebenmenschen erfahren und in welchem Umfange?

      Ihre Behandlung f?hrt uns von Fallgruppe zu Fallgruppe, deren Lage jeden von uns aufs tiefste ersch?ttert. Um so notwendiger ist es, nicht dem Affekt, andererseits nicht der ?bertriebenen Bedenklichkeit das entscheidende Wort zu ?berlassen, sondern es auf Grund bed?chtiger rechtlicher Erw?gung der Gr?nde f?r und der Bedenken gegen die Bejahung der Frage zu finden. Nur auf solch fester Grundlage kann weiter gebaut werden.

      Ich lege demnach auf strenge juristische Behandlung das gr??te Gewicht. Gerade deshalb kann den festen Ausgangspunkt f?r uns nur das geltende Recht bilden: wieweit ist denn heute ? wieder vom Notstande abgesehen ? die T?tung der Menschen freigegeben, und was mu? denn darunter verstanden werden? Den Gegensatz der ?Freigabe? bildet die Anerkennung von T?tungsrechten.

      1. Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens: ihr Mass und ihr Ziel

        Damn, HM, you are one erudite dude.

        1. I try.

          Still, with the exception of Bailey, I can’t think of one bioethicist who isn’t a horrible human being. Jacob M. Appel, maybe? But even he has some spit-takes.

      2. Ich hatte kein Ahnung dass Sie Deutsch sprechen k?nnen. Geil!

        1. Well, like my French, it has been reduced to just reading knowledge after 10 years or so of Thai and Laotian pushing everything else out of my brain.

          1. Shit man. Thai and Laotian? I thought I’d go easy on myself and just focus on a couple of West Germanic languages.

        2. He can copy and paste it at any rate.

          1. And you are unable to read and understand it, German aside.

      3. There is something of a difference between the right not to be executed and the right to be free of being vaccinated. One is trivial, one is the opposite of trivial. That’s why people who aren’t morons weigh costs and benefits instead of having dogmas.

        1. That’s why people who aren’t morons weigh costs and benefits instead of having dogmas.

          Indeed, and despite the fact that you misspelled “deontology”, I shall point out that none other than such august personages as Dr. Hoche and Prof. Binding agree with you.

          Now if you will excuse me, I shall join my wife for dinner.

        2. That’s the only difference huh?

          1. Do you have a right to drive drunk?

            1. terrible analogy once again.

              1. Implying the question is easy and you can answer it. So do.

                1. Do you have a right to drive exhausted?

                  Do you have a right to drive distracted by your two tug rats in the back seat?

                2. It’s easy to answer a reasonable person. To answer and obtuse person who ignores every question I pose him, is time consuming. How drunk is too drunk, Tony? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

                  Gun ownership doesn’t mean you can go onto a playground and start shooting randomly in every direction. But unlike drunk driving, you can reasonably set the standard for what constitutes “too much random shooting on the playground” to be any random shooting at all. So maybe don’t pose the question as though the implications of drunk driving are determined by an absolute moral position.

      4. +1 T-4 Euthanasia Program

      5. It was better in the original German.

    2. Tony;

      Not getting your kid vaccinated is even more of a public concern than drinking and driving. Drinking is a private choice and private act. Driving while drunk changes that. It’s more obviously a matter of public interest than a lot of perfectly acceptable preventative measures we take in society. Mandating vaccines is obviously a practical necessity. If it runs afoul of libertarian dogma, the problem is with the dogma. It usually is.

      Me not repeating myself:

      1 person in a village getting vaccinated provides a positive externality to everyone else in the village. It’s one less person that can transmit deadly disease to them. Can that one villager now demand payment from the rest of the village for this service? Of course not, no more than the village can rightfully demand he provide this benefit at his own expense. His action can only be described as doing everyone (and himself) a favor.

      You have no moral theory for your policy preferences, which means you prefer arbitrary power to justice. Morally you have no claim to the persons and property of others. Your contention that you do, is why some call you ‘slaver’.

      1. The person not getting vaccinated imposes a negative externality on everyone. The problem with your dogma is that it has no room for negative externalities. Not because there is a “moral theory” that justifies this, but because your dogma can’t handle it without falling apart.

        1. The person not getting vaccinated imposes a negative externality on everyone.

          Is that the case in a remote jungle with no access to the vaccines? Would it be the case if vaccines were more expensive?Would it be the case if vaccines hadn’t been invented? The point is that if a moral/ethical principle isn’t universalizable to be applicable at all times and places, it’s not a valid principle. Meaning a would-be lawmaker has not legitimate right to make such a law.

          The problem with your dogma is that it has no room for negative externalities. Not because there is a “moral theory” that justifies this, but because your dogma can’t handle it without falling apart.

          Utterly false. If you’ve read even one chapter of any one book of libertarian economic theory that you’ve claimed to have read, you’d know perfectly well that externalities are accounted for and described in sorts of ways on all sorts of issues in economics. And you literally claim libertarians ignore it? But you’re a liar so what else can I expect.

          1. The point is that if a moral/ethical principle isn’t universalizable to be applicable at all times and places, it’s not a valid principle.

            The universal principle here is “get as few people killed as possible.” Whatever else you’re talking about falls into the category of definitely subject to change depending on circumstances. Meaningless principles (such as what informs the right not to get vaccinated) aren’t plausibly universal so by your own standards are invalid.

            you’d know perfectly well that externalities are accounted for and described in sorts of ways on all sorts of issues in economics.

            I suppose the parents of dead children could simply sue the unvaccinated perpetrator. Hell maybe that would be an incentive. But then the tort reformers inevitably show up and it turns out not to work so well in the real world and, you know, all the preventably dead children.

            1. The universal principle here is “get as few people killed as possible.”

              And that utilitarian impulse could justify virtually any amount of killing if it can be hypothetically construed as “as few people as possible”. It’s the same moral defense used to defend the firebombing of Dresden and various other incinerations of men, women and children.

              Meaningless principles (such as what informs the right not to get vaccinated) aren’t plausibly universal so by your own standards are invalid.

              Moral principles don’t become meaningless by virtue of your wishful thinking.

              I suppose the parents of dead children could simply sue the unvaccinated perpetrator.

              Sure, dodge the issue altogether, Tony. Since when have you gave a fuck about dead children ? You only care about the relative utility of dead children to make your obfuscated point.

        2. The ‘externality’ is trivial compared to the evil of force.

          1. Except when you need force for something, of course.

          2. It isn’t a negative externality to not provide others with a positive externality, so he’s actually wrong on his moral math and his logic.

            1. Maybe, maybe not. Transmissible disease is a negative externality, however.

              1. Inoculating yourself against disease is a benefit to yourself and an external benefit to others. It’s not a negative externality to not provide a positive externality. No maybe about it, that is a categorically true statement.

        3. Incorrect – you are reversing the concept of herd immunity.

    3. Mandating vaccines is obviously a practical necessity. If it runs afoul of libertarian dogma, the problem is with the dogma. It usually is.

      What if there is no vaccine? Wouldn’t your “practical necessity” involve quarantining –imprisoning — carriers of a potentially deadly disease, for the rest of their life? Say, for the HIV virus?

      Oh, wait, you mean only if that “practical necessity” involves coercing people unlike you?

      1. Gray areas really are impossibly difficult for you people aren’t they? If there is no vaccine, then quarantine when appropriate is indeed what we do. Or should ebola patients not be required to sacrifice their precious freedom of movement and association for a time?

        1. Actually, in practical terms vacs aren’t mandatory and haven’t been for along time. Exemptions have always existed.

          We don’t need to mandate vaccinations because the huge majority of people willingly vaccinate.

          But, by all means, go ahead and use violence to force people to do what they’ll do willingly.

          1. If the anti-vaccination crowd gains real steam, we will have real problems on our hand. People significantly increasing the risk of other people deserve to be forced into changing their behavior.

            1. Yeah, except that they’re not gaining steam; they’re losing it. Popular opinion on this topic has turned and turned hard.

              But, hey, I’m sure you can jerk one off to the thought of unnecessarily forcing people to doing something because they “deserve to be forced”.

            2. “People significantly increasing the risk of other people deserve to be forced into changing their behavior.”

              Ah, so we can ban sodomy and quarantine HIV+ people then? That is what the Surgeon General wanted to do in the 1980s.

              Scratch a prog, find a socon.

            3. ” People significantly increasing the risk of other people deserve to be forced into changing their behavior.”

              No they do not deserved to be forced into doing anything. However they do deserve to face the consequences of their actions, just like people who drink, smoke, and do various drugs.

        2. Grey areas are super easy for those such as yourself, operating without any moral regard for others. Being the advocate of arbitrary power that you are, you wouldn’t know the difference between a grey area or any other.

          1. Since I’m the only one in this conversation advocating for a right of people not to needlessly die, I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, and neither do you.

            1. Your advocating that people be forcibly separated from the ownership of themselves. It’s the most fundamental class of transgressions you could possibly propose. I realize this may all be above your head.

        3. Tony sees 50 shades of gray.

    4. Tony, I and my two children live in OKC and we are not vaccinated! Want to go to dinner? We could meet for drinks at Angles, but I obviously couldn’t bring the kids.

      BOOOO!

  9. This really is a non-issue.

    Currently we have de facto vaccination requirements. It’s impossible to send your kid to any school – public or private – without vac history. But, most states allow delayed vac schedules or religious exemptions. Those really dedicated to NOT doing it don’t have to.

    I’m betting we’re going to reach peak-no vac soon because of stories like this – little unvaccinated kids getting horrible but completely preventable diseases.

    No, vaccinations don’t need to be compulsory. Parents really don’t want their kids to get sick and die. Common sense will win out.

    1. They did not mention the vector for this disease. I wonder what it was?

    2. There is a difference between an absolute “no vaccine” stance and rational examination of new compulsory vaccines. Acceptance of new, untested (translate – multi-generational) vaccines based-on legislation is absurd on many levels.

      Also, as a parent of a home-schooled child (vaccinated and atheist), and having resided in multiple states, I can attest to the fact that the so-called “opt-outs” are not easily executed.

      1. Absolutely simple here in Oklahoma. Even the national organizations BSA, GSA claimed “mandatory, mandatory” and then when we said “well, they were not vaccinated” they always have said “OK, then sign this form”.

        I only have experience with this in Oklahoma, so perhaps they are an exception.

        1. Gotta ask; why no vaccinations?

          1. Because Jenny McCarthy has enormous brains. Duh.

          2. Mostly it is because I was never vaccinated when I was born in 1966. My mother doubted that they had really studied the long term effects. Back then you got something like 4 one of those for polio and one for smallpox. It is truly miraculous that I never got one of these diseases. Oh, no it isn’t.

            Today, I trust the CDC about as far as I can throw the Pentagon. There is very little information about negative side effects. There is even less about death. I can find hundreds of pages about the “cause” of lung cancer but very little in actual studies about negative side effects of vaccines. The CDC website has a ton of static, little in actual facts.

            Risk is another reason. I have about a 100,000 times greater chance dying in an auto accident. Strangely, I still drive and live. Smoking and drinking are also much riskier, yet I heavily engage in both.

            It is also partly my base hatred of collectivization. Nothing confirms this more than when someone says the term “herd immunity”. I am not cattle, so anyone who wishes to place me as a part of a herd can go fuck themselves.

            I am not anti-vaccine by any measure, though. If I believed that there was an epidemic, for instance, I would certainly consider getting vaccinated for that individual disease.

            1. 1) herd immunity is just a term. There are multiple terms conflating human activity with animals. Would you be upset if a marketer labeled your business a “cash cow”? Or would you try to weasel out of that?

              2) Your risks of many of the vaccine preventable diseases are quite low in the US. However, you may not want to visit other countries then, particularly in Asia & Africa. You’re not likely to die from mumps but you’d have your day ruined by orchitis. Many of the infections are transmissible before the carrier starts showing symptoms.

              3) The long terms effects of most childhood vaccines are essentially zero. We have decades of data now; use PubMed for your searches. The side effects of concern tend to happen rather quickly: anaphylaxis, Guillan Barre, etc. Skepticism is healthy, but please don’t become paranoid.

              4) You’re a free rider. Congrats. And you’re welcome.

    3. I’m betting we’re going to reach peak-no vac soon because of stories like this – little unvaccinated kids getting horrible but completely preventable diseases.

      I’m not sure. A market for vaccines in equilibrium would require a somewhat constant background level of minor outbreaks and preventable deaths to serve as a disincentive to opting out of the critical vaccines. Otherwise there might emerge a critical mass of complacency.

      1. I should have said an unregulated market for vaccines…

  10. “Go here for an extensive Reason debate over what is the proper libertarian response to vaccination.”

    Go here and we will tell you what to say/think? Uh…no.

    Ron, I am yankin’ your chain. You know better than that. Bad wording, right?

  11. Already got measles over with. Any one know of a mumps outbreak?

  12. That’s an awfully high rate of hospitaliz’n for measles.

    1. I better clarify: Out of the 26 infected, 6 hospital cases is an awful lot. I don’t remember its being like that before the vaccine.

      1. That’s because back in the 70s when you were a kid, people didn’t rush their children to the hospital every time they had a fever.

  13. OH YEAAAAAHHHHHHHH ….. I FORGET that we get vaccinations for a medical REASON, and not just because of the vast conspiracy to give our kids autism.

    DOH!!!!!

  14. So, 11 of 26 people who got the disease HAD been vaccinated? Great work!!!

    1. Reading comprehension problem.

      11 of 26 where we don’t know if they were vaccinated or not.

      And yes, vaccines not 100% effective – but NOT having them is 0% effective.

  15. Just before I saw the paycheck which was of $9215 , I did not believe that my brothers friend was really making money part time from their computer. . there sisters neighbor has done this 4 only about seven months and recently paid for the loans on their home and purchased a great Fiat Panda .
    all visit this page ******** http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.