Vaccines

The Voluntarily Unvaccinated Are Harming Other People in California Measles Outbreak

Anti-vaxxers it's past time for you to get over your superstition and get your kids vaccinated.

|

Measles
CDC

The number of cases from the Disneyland measles outbreak has now risen to 88. Of those whose vaccination status is known, the vast majority who have come down with disease have been unvaccinated. One might retort that vaccine refuseniks get what they deserve, but most of them are children who are suffering for their parents' irresponsibility.

Unfortunately, it's not just anti-vaxxers and their kids who suffer. Infants under one year of age cannot be vaccinated. People infected with measles are contagious four days before they experience any symptoms and four days after the characteristic rash has appeared. Virus particles lingering on surfaces and in the air are highly contagious, with perhaps 90 percent of unimmunized people coming down the disease if exposed to it. According to news reports about a quarter of the people infected in the current outbreak have been hospitalized. The Centers for Disease Control reports that there were 644 cases of measles in 2014, up from around 50 in 2012.

Dr. Eric Handler, the public health officer for Orange County, California told NPR's Morning Edition today that he is advising parents to be very cautious about taking their infants to public places like malls right now. But why should responsible people stay home; why not make irresponsible people stay home? NPR further reported:

At the beginning of school Handler told parents that if there were a measles outbreak they would have to prove that their child was vaccinated or their child would be excluded from school for 21 days. At one county high school 24 students have been told to stay home. "We gave them plenty of notice and I'm sure that they are not happy and hopefully this will incentivize them to get vaccinated," said Handler.

A recent study from Kaiser Permanente found undervaccinated children in Northern California tended to live the same area which can magnify outbreaks. Peditrician Tracy Lieu headed the study which found a greater likelihood of undervaccinated children in neighborhoods where more parents had higher education.

A local NPR story reports how vaccine refuseniks in Northern California endanger people like Rhett Krawitt, a six year old who is in remission from leukemia and so cannot be vaccinated yet. As NPR reports:

Rhett lives in Marin County, Calif., a county with the dubious honor of having the highest rate of "personal belief exemptions" in the Bay Area and among the highest in the state. This school year, 6.45 percent of children in Marin have a personal belief exemption, which allows parents to lawfully send their children to school unvaccinated against communicable diseases like measles, polio, whooping cough and more.

Carl Krawitt [his father] has had just about enough. "It's very emotional for me," he said. "If you choose not to immunize your own child and your own child dies because they get measles, OK, that's your responsibility, that's your choice. But if your child gets sick and gets my child sick and my child dies, then … your action has harmed my child."

It is darkly amusing that some parents apparently fretted at a school meeting that children might die from an allergy attack if they are exposed to peanuts in class.

The irony was not lost on [Krawitt]. He told me he immediately responded, "In the interest of the health and safety of our children, can we have the assurance that all the kids at our school are immunized?"

He found out later from a friend that other parents who were present were "mad that you asked the question, because they don't immunize their kids." …

Now Krawitt and his wife, Jodi, have emailed the district's superintendent, requesting that the district "require immunization as a condition of attendance, with the only exception being those who cannot medically be vaccinated."

Finally, at least six people who were vaccinated have also come down with disease as a result this outbreak. As Wired explains, the vaccine is 97 percent effective, but that still means that 3 percent of responsible folk who did get vaccinated can still become infected. Why? Not everybody's immune system manufactures the right amount of antibodies to provide protection against the disease.

Anti-vaxxers it's past time for you to get over your superstition and get your kids vaccinated.

For more background, see Reason's "Should Vaccines Be Mandatory?" debate.

NEXT: Sen. Marco Rubio: Surveillance Now, Surveillance Tomorrow, Surveillance Forever!

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. So, how about that deep dish pizza, eh?

      1. You get opinion in the matter if you have an, un-American, uncircumcised penis.

        1. Janeway rules, Kirk and Picard suck.

          (just kidding)

          1. Abraham Lincoln — uniter or divider?

            1. I’m going with Vampire Hunter.

            2. Warmonger.

        2. NO opinion

          Fucked up a perfectly good jab.

        3. Well, since I pack an anteater, I feel entitled to say that Ronald Bailey is the worst Reason writer ever and should be fired.

  1. These people are scum and deserve nothing but scorn. And fuck various Libertarians who don’t support mandatory vaccination in one breath while prattling on about the “non aggression” in the next. If you don’t get vaccinated, you are putting other people at risk and your behavior violates the non aggression principle. It is therefore okay for the government to tell your dumb ass to stop it and get vaccinated.

    1. Sort of agree John. Mandatory vaccination really only flies because the government has declared so much space to be publicly accessible. If the world were entirely privately owned then each property owner could make decisions regarding who has access.

      Mandatory vaccination is essentially quarantine. “You can’t leave your house until you get vaccinated” vs. “You can’t leave your house until XX days after your exposure to disease”. It’s a fine and arbitrary line and we can have civil discussions about when it should be crossed. For example, how would you feel about mandatory HPV vaccination for children?

      1. We don’t have “mandatory vaccination”. It is not like they come and arrest you. What we do or used to have before society went full retard is mandatory vaccination for school attendance.

        Even in an idea world of only private schools, no way would any private school risk the liability of not requiring kids be vaccinated.

        Ultimately, if you want to send your kid to school or to be around other kids, your failure to vaccinate them is a harm to the other kids. You are putting the other kids at risk. And thus, telling you that you have to get them vaccinated is a proper thing for government to do.

        1. your failure to vaccinate them is a harm to the other kids.

          I fail to see how one person not getting vaccinated has any affect on someone who does get vaccinated.

          1. I fail to see how one person not getting vaccinated has any affect on someone who does get vaccinated.

            The explanation is in the article. If you don’t vaccinate then you are more likely to get the disease and then expose other people to it. Add that to the fact that vaccines are not 100% effective and that not all people can be vaccinated (due to age and immune disorders) and the exposure poses real risks for certain people.

            1. “you are more likely to” – makong laws and pronouncements based on probable consequences is problematic. I would wager that people who drinl alcohol are more likely to violently assault another person. I would even wager that likelihood is much more significant than the measles vaxx scenario. Should we entertain prohibition based on that argument? I say this as someone who supports vaxx while simultaneously being highly skeptical of govt required medical procedures.

          2. As Wired explains, the vaccine is 97 percent effective, but that still means that 3 percent of responsible folk who did get vaccinated can still become infected. Why? Not everybody’s immune system manufactures the right amount of antibodies to provide protection against the disease.

          3. That is because

            A) You completely failed to read the article.

            B) You completely failed to understand the the article.

            C) You are a complete moron

            D) All of the above

            1. I’m familiar with the argument being made. I just do not consider it to be valid when considering that the vaccines, themselves, may come with various risks that some people may find unsatisfactory. This goes especially for new ones that may not be fully understood. (**I am NOT “anti-vaccine”. I believe it is wise to get vaccinated, but it should not be mandatory/state enforced.**)

              1. I just do not consider it to be valid when considering that the vaccines, themselves, may come with various risks that some people may find unsatisfactory.

                Then don’t vaccinate, and take the consequences, including that your kids won’t be able to attend public or private schools and you will have to homeschool them.

                Sometimes, when you pass up one risk, you take on another. This is one of those times.

              2. I just do not consider it to be valid when considering that the vaccines, themselves, may come with various risks that some people may find unsatisfactory.

                In that case, to protect your unvaccinated children from the risk that also comes with measles (and other people from the risk that comes from your children), it only makes sense for your kids to be denied access to public places. Since you’re so concerned about risk and all.

                Personally, while I think there’s a valid argument to be made that some vaccines should not be mandatory (e.g. HPV, which can usually only be spread through active, intentional contact) I don’t think that should apply in the case of highly communicable, often lethal diseases that can be spread passively (e.g. measles, mumps, scarlet fever, whooping cough, etc.). When the consequences of choosing vaccinations is going to affect only your kids, I’ll tend towards the parents’ prerogative on choosing to vaccinate…when it’s a direct danger to other people, that’s a different story.

                1. (e.g. HPV, which can usually only be spread through active, intentional contact)

                  Yeah, a local story that made news here a while back…

                  Mom leaves 12 year daughter at home while she runs errands, comes home to find daughter being raped by neighbor

                2. Often Lethal?
                  I don’t think so. The only thing that is often lethal is the vaccine. More deaths have occurred from vaccine complications than the actual virus.
                  And by the way, measles is a virus, not a disease.
                  Just ask CDC.

          4. Wise up. You’re wrong. It DOES create a very real threat to public health. And the more we find out about things like triggers for cancer, diabetes, etc, they have to do with viral infections that could potentially have been avoided. HPV is one that we know is a strong predictor for cancer. Any highly contagious virus with a stable genome that we can make a vaccine for is probably one worth avoiding.

        2. Again, I agree in the context of public places like schools. The schools should decide who is allowed in.

          Your original comment spoke broadly of mandatory vaccination. I assumed you meant universal mandatory vaccination, which would essentially be a mandatory quarantine.

          But the question about where you draw the line and who gets to draw that line still stands. It is (apparently) easy to support mandatory vaccines for measles in the modern US, but what about HPV or polio, or malaria?

          1. As is always the case in school issues, separation of school and state is the solution.

            Do that, and vaccination mandates are privately negotiated issues.

            1. Agreed again. But we work with what we’ve got. Given public schools I think the local government/school board should be making the decisions on whether vaccinations are required. At least they are directly elected by the people who are sending their kids to that school. It’s as close to private negotiations as we can get at present.

              1. I refuse to work from the premise of “given public schools”.

                IT ISNT A FUCKING GIVEN.

                1. I refuse to work from the premise of “given public schools”.

                  I know, I know. But do you see them disappearing in your lifetime?

                2. Well, it is actually a fucking given in the sense that we can’t just wish it away. It’s part of the political terrain.

                  We can work towards it not being part of that terrain, but until we achieve that we have to work with or around it.

                  1. We can work towards it not being part of that terrain

                    That is the point. You cant work towards it if you accept it as a given. Every time it comes up, be obnoxious about the real problem.

                    That is why in virtually every school thread I post in, I point out the problem would be solved by separating school and state.

                    Someone has to be the gadfly or the Don Quixote.

                3. It is for the next, say, five years.

                  In any case, the idea that privatizing schools will solve the problem of people who mistake Jenny McCarthy for a reputable medical authority is a fantasy. Maybe in a world where everyone had time to stay on top of immunization issues, and everyone would be honest and stay out of places signed “Please do not come in if you have not had your measles shot”, it could work. I don’t see such a world coming soon, among us hairless apes.

                4. IT ISNT A FUCKING GIVEN.

                  For the sake of argument, no. But for all practical purposes, I’m afraid it is. Despite how people like to complain about them, public schools are one of the most popular government services.

            2. Except that the retards would run their own schools and in doing so destroy the heard immunity and create the same harms and risks.

              1. Humans arent herd animals.

                Or heard either.

                1. True, but irrelevant. The term “herd immunity” is a legitimate technical term in the biological sciences.

                  Once again, robc, just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you can wish it away.

                2. Herd health would be strengthened even more by abolishing all vaccines. Of course, a lot of people who aren’t naturally immune would die.

                  1. It would have a more immediate benefit if we abolished welfare and left the lazy to rot

              2. Except that the retards would run their own schools and in doing so destroy the heard immunity and create the same harms and risks

                But only amongst themselves because the rest of society would be free to completely shun them. This is, in fact, already happening. There have been several cases where anti-vaxers have caused their own mini-outbreaks by gathering together.

                1. It would be better than what we have, but they still would create a risk. You can’t completely shun them.

                  1. I would like to see Jenny McCarthy used into penury for spreading here idiocy, and Oprah clipped pretty hard for giving her a podium.

                    1. I would like to see Jenny McCarthy used into penury

                      Tell me more.

                    2. And I suppose you’d like to do the using.

                  2. creating risk is not aggression. If it were, then pretty much any activity would be a crime. Driving a vehicle to the grocery store would be an act of aggression. Operating a factory would be an act of aggression. Owning a firearm would be an act of aggression. You do not have aggression without a victim of aggression so there is no aggression in the case of anti-vaxxers until an unvaccinated kid gets another kid sick. You’re basically labeling people criminals because some day under some circumstance, they might commit a crime. This flies in the face of due process and justified the kind of police state we already have such problems with.

                2. There have been several cases where anti-vaxers have caused their own mini-outbreaks by gathering together.

                  I’m really late to the party, but these mini-outbreaks have twice encompassed me.

                  Once with whooping cough (Jesus, fucking misery) and then again 2 years later with chicken pox (the second time I’ve had it). The pox had me hospitalized for 8 days because it went encephalitic (just like it did when I was a child and had it).

                  A chicken pox vaccine wasn’t available when I was a kid, you just got it. That isn’t the case anymore and because some crunchy Montessori hippy fuckheads refused to get their shit factories vaxxed I nearly died from it, again.

                  Anti-vaxxers violate the NAP and shouldn’t just be shunned, they should have the ever-loving shit kicked out of them.

                  1. Perhaps You should take better care of yourself.
                    A good diet and excise.

                  2. No they don’t. Not until they get someone sick, which is not a given. Many go without vaccinations and don’t contract those diseases or pass them to anyone else. Risk does not equal aggression.

                    In your case, they did commit aggression by passing on the disease to you. They could have quarantines themselves or taken whatever necessary precautions, but they chose not to and you were harmed by it, so you would have a case against them under a libertarian form of law. But not before they actually harmed anyone.

            3. “As is always the case in school issues, separation of school and state is the solution.”

              What about public forums? Sporting events, town halls, etc?

              1. Shopping malls, public parks, etc. etc?

        3. Why shouldn’t parents opposed to vaccination be allowed to create their own private school?

    2. I really don’t care. life sucks. stupid people make it harder for others. However, your logic is horrible here.

      1. Agreed.

        Also, as I start with self-ownership, not the NAP, as the founding premise for libertarianism, vaccination is clearly a self-ownership issue.

        Also, you are a retard if you dont have your kid vaccinated for measles.

        1. vaccination is clearly a self-ownership issue

          So it’s the kids who decide not to get their MMR vaccine?

          1. no, but it’s also not the kids who decide to get circumcised… or get haircuts… or learning evolution vs. creationism…

            1. Ah yes, the classical moral equivalency of dying from the measles and not getting a haircut.

              1. your chance of dying from measles is incredibly low. For 999/1000 persons it’s a harmless disease like the flu. A vaccinated person has a very low chance to get infected in the first place. And your chance of getting into contact with the virus is even lower.

                Gunowners are a statistically a far bigger danger to the public than unvaccinated people. Orders of magnitude bigger.

        2. Also, as I start with self-ownership, not the NAP, as the founding premise for libertarianism, vaccination is clearly a self-ownership issue.

          And with self-ownership comes personal responsibility, which means you are responsible for the consequences of your decisions.

          Nobody is saying you shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to vaccinate your kids. They’re just saying that, if you do, you should homeschool rather than sending your little petri dish out to infect others.

          1. no. John is saying you shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to vaccinate your kids.

            1. I part with him there. I think.

          2. Or, if you send your little petri dish out and he infects others, you should be held liable for the costs incurred upon those who are harmed as restitution.

      2. Okay. So if I go out and walk down the street randomly shooting in the air, that shouldn’t be a crime? Hey spencer life sucks and sometimes stupid people make it hard for others.

        Not getting vaccinated is doing the same thing. RTFA. It makes it clear that not getting vaccinated puts other people at risk. If that doesn’t’ violate the nonaggression principle, neither down my randomly shooting rounds in the air in public.

        1. are you fucking retarded?

          Please use logic and reason when creating analogies.

          1. If it is so stupid, explain why? Why is my shooting in the air a problem? Because it puts the people around me at risk. Not getting vaccinated does the exact same thing. That is the entire point. The non aggression principle doesn’t just apply when I punch you. It applies also when my negligent behavior puts you at risk. And it applies even if you do get lucky and avoid harm.

            If that argument is beyond your comprehension, well it must really suck to be you. If so, then yeah, I guess yelling “RETARD” and various other buzzwords is about the best we can expect from you in response.

            1. It applies also when my negligent behavior puts you at risk.

              Inaction can never be a negligent behavior. Sorry.

              1. thank you. ^^THIS!^^

              2. Inaction can never be a negligent behavior. Sorry.

                Is that true?

                Suppose I’m cruising down the highway and stop taking any action as far as steering or braking goes?
                Or I decide not to do anything about the sheet of ice in front of the door to my business?

                1. Suppose I’m cruising down the highway and stop taking any action as far as steering or braking goes?

                  You chose to drive. Action.

                  1. OK, how about the second example?

                  2. thank you again. This must be harder than I thought for some.

              3. Absolutely it can. Negligence is essentially the failure to use due care in your actions, but it also includes the failure to act when you have a duty to do so. Like not turning or stopping when a pedestrian is 1,000 ft. in front of you.

                1. Fair enough. But there is a difference between not choosing to drive, and stopping driving while you are in the middle of it.

              4. Inaction can never be a negligent behavior. Sorry.

                Inaction is frequently negligent.

            2. Shooting a gun in the air near where people are puts people in immediate and significant danger and is something that can be traced back to you. Not being vaccinated might put some people in some danger. There are some parallels, but “exact same thing” is a bit strong.

              Spreading disease is something that just happens among people. Yes, you should do what you can to avoid doing so, but I think that if you start making people liable for spreading disease, you will have problems.

              1. I think that if you start making people liable for spreading disease, you will have problems.

                What problems?

                If you can prove it in court (which would be difficult in the vast majority of cases), what’s the problem?

                1. Not being able to prove it in court in the majority of cases is a problem. Having laws that can’t be enforced consistently is a big problem.

                  The other problem is deciding what vaccinations are important enough to require. And what you do about diseases that don’t have vaccines. Going out in public with a bad cold is probably, on average, more of a direct threat to other people than going out in public without being vaccinated for the mumps when there isn’t an active outbreak going on.

                2. If you can prove it in court (which would be difficult in the vast majority of cases), what’s the problem?

                  Absolutely nothing. This is why people can sue sexual partners who knowingly gave them HIV.

            3. @John:

              If it is so stupid, explain why? Why is my shooting in the air a problem? Because it puts the people around me at risk. Not getting vaccinated does the exact same thing.

              Bullshit. They are not the exact same thing.

              You are WILLFULLY acting; walking down the street shooting your gun into the air.

              WILLFULLY walking around town while infectious, sneezing and coughing in peoples’ faces, wiping your snotty hands on commonly touched surfaces, and etcetera would be the equivalence to walking down the street shooting your gun into the air, but that is not the argument you made.

              Choosing not to get vaccinated does not guarantee that you will get sick. [Fuck! Getting vaccinated does not gaurantee that you won’t get sick.]. Choosing not to vaccinate only increases your risk of getting sick if exposed.

              1. Wow, finally someone that gets it. Vaccinations do not guarantee anything, if they did the only people at risk are those without them.

                The biggest group at risk are those that don’t get the vaccinations to begin with. The article makes it sound like you are going to cause a pandemic if you don’t have your kid vaccinated.

                We do the vaccination thing but I hate the idea of being forced to do it.

                1. “The article makes it sound like you are going to cause a pandemic if you don’t have your kid vaccinated.”

                  You singularly will not cause a pandemic, but each dumbass who doesn’t vaccinate their kids in a population increases the chances of said pandemic. Arguments can be made about the role of civil institutions in determining the mandatory nature of said vaccines, but people not vaccinating their kids is a huge problem that is single-handedly bringing back almost extinct diseases.

              2. Technically shooting your gun in the air is less likely to result in death then spreading the Measles, if you are capable of shooting it straight up in the air it only tumbles back to earth at a speed between 200 and 300 feet per second, it has a small chance of killing but a better chance of just causing a pretty serious hospital visit.
                yeah i think its about the same fucking thing this time in regards to the NAP

          2. John went Bo on us with that analogy.

        2. Oh John, don’t go Tulpa on us.

          1. In other words, John don’t think. Just stay in the cult. Don’t gore our pony.

            Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Some of you seem to have completely lost the ability to think for yourselves or work through any issue.

            1. no john. think rationally instead of rationalizing.

            2. The issue is easy to work thru.

              1. I own myself.

              2. Therefore, based on #1, the decision on whether or not to be vaccinated is mine.

              Its that fucking simple, two steps. And 1 is the starting premise of libertarianism, so its really only 1 step.

              This is among the easiest of issues.

              1. You own yourself. How does that give you the right to place me at risk? What if you had a contagious disease like TB. You own yourself, should you be able to go out and get on airplanes and subways and do other things that exposes people to it? If not, why not. You own yourself don’t you? And if you can’t and the government can stop you, why can’t the tell you to get a vaccination?

                I

                1. there is a difference between inaction and willful action.

                  Danger caused by inaction != danger caused by willful action.

                  Your analogy is horrible.

                  1. there is a difference between inaction and willful action.

                    Danger caused by inaction != danger caused by willful action.

                    Your analogy is horrible.

                    Agreed. Bo couldn’t have come up with a worse analogy.

                  2. there is a difference between inaction and willful action.

                    My refusal to get vaccinated is most certainly willful. If I fail to tighten the lug nuts on my car and the wheel flies off and hits you, is that not a problem since it was just “inaction”?

                    It is a false and stupid distinction. What matters is, are you causing this to happen and choosing to do so.

                    1. really? I would like you to actually take a course on logic and reason- and the meaning of words.

                    2. No Spencer, I would like you to be able to grasp something beyond the most simple of arguments. Or at least try and respond to them or ask questions when you don’t understand.

                      Again, my failure to do something can absolutely harm you. And I can be liable for that. Moreover, it is all a semantic distinction anyway. It is just a logically valid to say “I failed to vaccinate” as it is to say “I choose to go in public without a vaccination”. One is a positive and one is a negative but both describe the same action.

                      You are relying on a meaningless semantic distinction, not a real one.

                    3. the failure to grasp something beyond a simple argument is usually because the argument’s flaw is a pretty basic one.

                      I fully understand what you are saying. There is no mistake about that. I comprehend the points you are trying to make.

                      You are, however, making bad arguments and your conclusions are based on false premises. You are, in my opinion, simply wrong. It’s not a lack of understanding.

                      The bottom line is, your ability to reason and make salient, logical points is lacking. It’s a skill you should work on. We will probably still disagree- but typically, if you think rationally and logically instead of employing fallacy after fallacy- it will go a long way to preventing me from pointing out your retarded ability to form an argument.

                    4. Spencer,

                      Sorry but just yelling “that is a bad argument” isn’t an argument. If you think my reasoning is flawed, explain why. You haven’t done that. You write four paragraphs at 12:24 pm and don’t give a single reason or explanation for why my arguments are bad. You just don’t like them. Well, too fucking bad. If you can’t explain why they are wrong, I don’t really give a shit whether you like them or not.

                  3. S: Willfully acting to remain unvaccinated?

                    1. Yes Ron.

                      The entire “willful versus not” is a completely false and semantic distinction.

                    2. doesn’t hold water.

                      Willfully acting to NOT stop a crime in progress?

                      Willfully acting to not purchase health insurance?

                      Willfully acting to NOT cut your carbon emissions?

                      As a thought experiment, replace disease with economics. If the logic holds, imo, it should work for both.

                    3. S: Willfully acting to remain unvaccinated?

                      Are you willfully acting, when you don’t kill the woodpeckers on your land that ruin your neighbor’s cedar siding? Are you acting willfully when you don’t set traps on your land to prevent wolves from reaching your neighbor’s livestock?

                      If either of those scenarios could possibly be described as ‘acting willfully’, then how could “acting willfully” be a legitimate basis to impose your preferences on others?

                    4. ^^YES^^ it becomes a never-ending excuse to make others do what you want.

              2. What rob said, again.

                You’re free to not have yourself vaccinated. You’re also free to be banned from just about anywhere non-retarded people go.

                1. You’re free to not have yourself vaccinated. You’re also free to be banned from just about anywhere non-retarded people go.

                  Okay, how do you enforce that? Make people get tattoos? Throw them in jail? Make everyone carry proof around with them?

                  Those methods sound a lot more imposing and worse than vaccination.

                  1. Okay, how do you enforce that? Make people get tattoos? Throw them in jail? Make everyone carry proof around with them?

                    There’s no 100% effective way and it would be difficult to enforce, at first. There are instances, like school, where you have to provide proof of vaccination for admission. If your friends and are anti-vaccers, they aren’t welcome to come over.

                    In large public congregation areas, it would be almost impossible to enforce as it stands now, but if this sort of thing becomes more common, I can guarantee you that private malls and businesses will respond to demands for proof of vaccination as a means of entry. I recall seeing signs put up from the early 20th century, during epidemics, of businesses banning infected people.

                    Or we can start like the Asian countries where people walk around outside with surgical masks on.

              3. The issue is easy to work thru.

                1. I own myself.

                2. Therefore, based on #1, the decision on whether or not to be vaccinated is mine.

                Yet it’s not the kids who are making the decisions.

              4. You left out step 3

                3. Therefore, I am responsible for the consequences of my decision, which may include people refusing to associate with me.

              5. I guess I have always seen self-ownership and the NAP as two sides of the same coin. Self-ownership as a concept can’t exist without the NAP. Taken alone (or elevated/divorced from the NAP), the concept of self-ownership gravitates towards an attitude of “my self is more important than your self.” That seems to be fertile earth for abuse.

            3. No, John. Tulpa made a similar analogy using the spraying bullets scenario. It wasn’t very good then, either.

              You should know by now that many of us are against mandatory *everything* from the state.

              1. Why is it no good JW? Can you give a reason for that? Sorry but smug assertions don’t do a lot for me.

                1. I’m actually with John here, although as usual he should try harder to be civil.

                  His request that someone actually argue that the analogy is poor, rather than just assert so, is not unreasonable.

                  1. You are right Laconic. I should be more civil. I should not take the bait of name calling against me as an excuse to give it back in spades.

                    1. John likes vaccinations, as long as they’re fat.

                    2. Here’s why I’m not a fan of the analogy (as an aside, my opinion on mandatory vaccination is not well formed).

                      Spraying bullets into the air shouldn’t be at all illegal or worthy of tort liability UNLESS the bullets are causing a substantial risk of harm to another. If you buy Yellowstone national park, kick everybody out, and go to the center to shoot bullets in every which direction, there should be no liability.

                      Unlike the bullet example,you are not directly risking harm by refusing vaccination. You and I walk by hundreds of people every day who have no flu vaccine, but are not carriers of the flu. They have done nothing to risk harm to you. It is the later actions of 1) exposing themselves to infection and 2) carrying the virus that are negligent, not the forbearance w/r/t vaccination. This is just like the first case in every torts book, the epileptic who forgot his medicine and had a seizure behind the wheel. He had no liability for forgetting his medicine. It was only in combination with driving that he became liable for the injuries caused by his seizure.

                      Tl;Dr there has to be an intervening cause for a lack of vaccination to impute liability. Not so for showering a neighborhood in gunfire.

                  2. Because infectious diseases aren’t likes guns shooting bullets. Unless you consider body armor to be like vaccinations. Then we’re all dead, because John banned body armor.

                    Even with diseases like Ebola, encountering an infected person didn’t guarantee that you would become infected.

                    Drunk driving might be a better analogy.

                2. There is no working solution outside of mandatory vaccines. They all will either lead to increased fatalities or violation of a philosophical principle unless we can sit back and hope that people stop being stupid and accept the science behind vaccines (not going to happen). Social ostracization doesn’t work without marking people, which right there is definitive aggression so can’t happen. We could hope that the market responds by some sort of widely accepted ID system (which will be incredibly delayed and only work after enough companies will be driven by incentive of a large population of unvaccinated killing off much more than the amount that died this year). Which will, by the way, still allow for forgeable ID’s even if the process is privatized (I’m imagining mandatory public vaccine IDs is probably a no no as well if you’re following this line of reason). Or, my favorite, we can privatize the entire United States and let each private land owner decide whether or not vaccines are mandatory. I see this one as the most realistic since I think the abolishment of all public institutions is a popular political ideal held by about .5% of the population, and will easily be enacted in the next 3 million years at some point. Until then, let’s just fucking let all these kids die. Then we can arrest the measles, since it is obviously the aggressor in this scenario.

        3. What rob said.

          I’m also free to not associate with you if you choose to not vaccinate. That includes your spawn.

          Does that protect me and my kin 100%? Of course not. Life is not risk free. All I can do is to manage my own risk.

          1. I’m also free to not associate with you if you choose to not vaccinate.

          2. Fuck you reason.

            My not associating with you isn’t good enough. YOu will give it to someone else and I won’t know they have it. And how am I to know you didn’t get a vaccinated? You going to require people wear signs.

            Lastly, if stopping contagious disease outbreaks were just a matter of “just don’t associate with anyone who is sick”, we wouldn’t ever have any outbreaks now would we?

            Fuck you people are stupid on this issue.

            1. So, John, what would you favor on this? I can’t tell if you are for “get vaccinate or go to prison” or “get your kids vaccinated or they can’t go to school” or what.

              How do you make sure people are vaccinated? How do you tell if people have been vaccinated? What do you do with people who refuse?

              Pretty much everyone here agrees that people should get vaccinated, at least for the most dangerous things, and are idiots if they don’t. And many have given you pretty good reasons why the shooting a gun in the air analogy is not great (it’s really bad, come on man).

              That everyone who can should get vaccinated is not a very controversial position. But to make it mandatory is very tricky, not only as a moral issue, but practically as well.

              1. Zeb,

                I am saying kids who go to school or day care centers should have to be vaccinated. That is it.

                You are right. If some nut wants to home school his kid and not do it, there is not much we can or should do about that. But there is nothing wrong with the government telling people if they are going to send their kids to places like schools and such that creates real risk of transmission, they need to get them vaccinated. How that could be seen as some endorsement of tyranny is beyond me.

                1. OK, thanks for clarifying. I think that is a pretty reasonable position. Seems like most people arguing with you are arguing against a more hard line “mandatory” position. As long as there are public schools, there will be some libertarian doubts about whether the schools should mandate it. But as a practical matter, you work with what you have and you have to be a little bit utilitarian or you are mostly irrelevant. I don’t usually mind being irrelevant, but I’m still willing to discuss what might be a practical policy sometimes.

                2. It becomes tyranny when they start implanting the RFID chips

                3. There is also nothing wrong with telling people that. They are absolute kooks for not getting their kids vaccinated; anti-everything-scientific kooks. And they’re not only putting their kids in danger. Diseases like measles don’t hit epidemic status if almost everyone is vaccinated. The more people not vaccinated, the more likely that it spreads to more and more people – including, at some point – the population that has the sense their momma gave them and were vaccinated and made sure their kids were too. Yes, you read that right – if one of these bugs goes viral (so to speak), initial viral loads will potentially be high enough that the bug can spread to the vaccinated population, starting of course with the very old and the very young. Anti-vases are simply idiots wearing people suits…

        4. So your alternative is strapping people down and forcing them to have a sucrose injection that randomly may be cyanide injecton instead?

          Backstory: my godson had a bad reaction to an oral flu vaccine that landed him in an induced coma for a week and the doctors were not at all sure he would pull through. I am not against vaccination but I am against forcing it on people as there is some risk.

          1. That sucks. Maybe the flu vaccine isn’t worth it. But you can’t make decisions on one case. What happened to your nephew is terrible. Okay, lets not force vaccinations for schools. Then the kid who had chemotherapy and can’t get a vaccine gets measels from on the retards’ kids and dies. What about him?

            1. Then the kid who had chemotherapy and can’t get a vaccine gets measels from on the retards’ kids and dies. What about him?

              How about…

              His parents take responsibility for the fact that he is immuno-compromised and don’t send him out into the world without adequate protection.

            2. He is as unimmunized as any kid whose parent refused vaccination for whatever reasons. Why should he be allowed to attend? Just because the choice was not available?

        5. By choosing not to donate organs, someone may, very well die as a direct result of this decision. Should the government require people do donate organs as well for the ‘collective good’? Additionally, thanks to some clever crony capitalism, you can not take any direct legal action against a vaccine manufacture or healthcare provider outside the National Vaccine Compensation Program. While I would not necessarily say that I am against vaccinations, relying on the government and the sold out FDA to make safety and effectiveness decisions for you and your children is the most arrogant thing any parent could do.

    3. This is a tough one for me. I’m not at all a fan of forcing people to have any kind of injection against their will. Reason being that it’s very difficult to prove first, that the general vaccine is safe, and second that the specific injection vial is safe. I follow the idea that odds are in favor of getting vaccinated for some specific things, that are highly contagious, dangerous, and widespread use has shown the vaccine to be both effective, and generally safe. However, I do not get a flu vaccine, because I don’t believe the odds fall in favor of vaccination.

      It’s scary to think of government having the power to force citizens to accept injections. Where do you draw the line? Are you not concerned at all that government/pharma could distribute something they expect will make us better, more compliant citizens (excepting of course the small percentage that become reavers)?

      1. It’s scary to think of government having the power to force citizens to accept injections

        It had it for over a hundred years and the world didn’t seem to end. It is only when people got retarded that it stopped.

        Is it scary for the government to tell people they can’t drive really fast or shoot rifles into the air in public?

        1. Completely unrelated. Forcing citizens to get injections, is not at all the same as requiring them to not, through their actions (not inaction) create an inordinately dangerous situation, in public.

          I suppose you support requiring citizens to purchase health insurance, since them failing to do so increases health care costs, and therefore harms others…(I’m aware that you don’t, but it’s more similar than your comparison)

          1. Completely unrelated.

            No they are not. It is the same behavior. Why is my shooting a gun off a problem? There is nothing wrong with guns and I don’t mean to harm anyone. The reason is that my behavior puts other people at risk.

            The only difference is that shooting the gun is active on my part and not getting the vaccine is passive. But that is a meaningless distinction. The result is the same in both cases. And my refusal to do it and choosing to be in public is just as active as shooting a gun in the air.

            The bottom line is this, when your behavior in public creates a genuine direct risk to others, the government has a right and indeed a duty to stop you.

            1. The problem is that everything you do puts other people at risk. The question is a matter of degree. So where do you draw the line on what risky behavior is legal and what isn’t? Who makes that call? And why can’t we let individuals make that call on their own?

              1. The problem is that everything you do puts other people at risk. The question is a matter of degree.

                Of course it is a matter of degree. And some things are so different in degree that they are entirely different altogether. Saying people have to be vaccinated doesn’t stand for any proposition other than “don’t put other people at risk”. It doesn’t create the slippery slope off making people do everything unless you are retarded and can’t see how difference in degree matters.

                It is illegal to shoot the gun in the air isn’t it? Isn’t that just making something illegal because of risk? Where does it end? Nowhere unless you are simple minded.

            2. Way to skirt the point. Forcing someone to take an invasive precautionary measure, is entirely different from requiring that they don’t act in a way that is likely to harm others.

              Moving on..what level of risk is unacceptable? How do you quantify it? It could be argued that the simple act of driving is a higher risk then not getting vaccinated.

              If one refuses to get vaccinated, that doesn’t make them into a disease carrying threat. It simply increases the risk. The fact that you happen to think that there is no, or very little risk in any vaccination, doesn’t mean there isn’t any, and doesn’t give you the right to require others to accept any real or perceived risks associated.

              1. Way to skirt the point. Forcing someone to take an invasive precautionary measure, is entirely different from requiring that they don’t act in a way that is likely to harm others.

                No its not. In both cases you are prevented from harming others. Beyond that, if you object to vaccines, then what is your opinion of quarantines. If the government can’t make you take a shot, how can they lock you up? Is it your position that if I have a contagious disease, I should be able to go anywhere I like and put others at risk of infection? If not, then how do you object to vaccines? And if you think that is great, then how do you justify consistent with the non aggression principle letting me make people sick?

                1. As I stated, and you seem to be ignoring, I am not in danger of infecting anyone just because I fail to get vaccinated. It is not a direct risk. I am not in danger of harming anyone, until I am a carrier of an infectious disease.

                  I’m not suggesting letting you make people sick, just somewhat increasing the risk by not being comfortable with requiring you to get a shot.

                  As for the difference I was pointing out that you clearly disagree with, different opinions and all that, but you’re wrong here. πŸ™‚

                  1. I am not in danger of infecting anyone just because I fail to get vaccinated.

                    Yes you are. Read the article. If you don’t get vaccinated, you are at risk of getting the disease and at risk of unknowingly infecting others. It is all a question of risk. Even if you have it, it is not certain that you will infect others, yet you still harm others by going out.

                    I am not ignoring the issue. You just can’t seem to grasp that just because there is less risk doesn’t mean there is no risk or that is always so low it means you are not harming people.

                    1. Wow…90% of the time I think your arguments are well thought out. 10% of the time you just seem to jump off the deep end. This is well into the 10%.

                      I was pointing out that this is all a risk calculation. Read all my posts…their all about risk calculations. Where does one draw the line of confidence to force others to accept something, anything, done to them, against their will?

                    2. Not all vaccines are justified. Maybe the disease isn’t that contagious or the vaccine isn’t that effective. It all depends on the circumstances. It appears that in the case of the Measles and Mumps, they are.

                    3. I agree, unlike the flu.

                      I’m firmly in the camp of; people should be getting real vaccines, such as MMR, but also firmly in the camp of not requiring them to do so through government force.

              2. a: It’s funny that you mention precautionary measures since vaccine refuseniks are actually enacting a version of the precautionary principle in which the mere threat of the possibility harm justifies refraining (and forcing others to refrain) from just about any activity that they happen to think might be “safe.”

                1. That is a good point Ron. The idea that sometimes risks have to be assumed and chosen is totally lost on people.

                2. If I read Ron’s statement correctly (which with how poorly written it is, is unlikely) it’s stating: Anti-vaxxers are trying to force other to not get vaccinated (or other activities such as?), and their doing so because they perceive a risk, that is…”safe”?

                  Yeah, never mind, I have no clue what that means.

                  1. a: It is poorly written. I conflated two points. My apologies. The additional point I was trying to make is that PP proponents use it as a policy tool to outlaw technologies they dislike, e.g., biotech crops, nuclear power plants, BPA, etc.

                    However, both anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO folks are motivated by the same extreme risk aversion. Anti-vaxxers end up hurting other people by infecting them and anti-GMOers by denying people access to lower cost food.

                    1. Now that I can agree with. As long as we can acknowledge that these people are wrong, while not subsequently requiring them to submit to some invasive, forced procedure.

                    2. Do only those with extreme risk aversion count as anti-vaxxers? Because I like vaccination in principle, but I think that for political reasons, we’re vaccinating too many for too much. There are certain diseases for which vaccination’s being promoted or even compelled outside of its risk popul’n, apparently because (1) it’s too embarrassing for the risk popul’n to come forward, and (2) political favor for the business. Part of #2 is to compensate for factor #3, which is outrageous liability verdicts.

                3. Ron: an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is inherently self-contradictory.

          2. “Completely unrelated. Forcing citizens to get injections, is not at all the same as requiring them to not, through their actions (not inaction) create an inordinately dangerous situation, in public.”

            The shooting the gun analogy was bad. A better analogy, should you be allowed to drive around with a case of dynamite in your car all the time?

            Ignoring Hollywood movies, in real life dynamite is reasonably safe, if it’s not to old. Let’s say there was one chance in 10,000 of the case blowing up on any given day. And a 1 in 10 chance of killing someone else outside the vehicle.

            Should we allow that behavior?

            Currently this would be illegal almost everywhere. You can generally carry dynamite around without permitting except under limited quantity and usage rules.

            1. A better analogy, should you be allowed to drive around with a case of dynamite in your car all the time?

              That’s not the case. Driving around with dynamite is a negative externality to others. Getting vaccinated is a benefit to you personally and thus a positive externality to others. No one owes other people positive externalities.

              A better example is whether you’re responsible for wolves crossing your property to eat your neighbor’s livestock. I for one, don’t believe I have a duty to my neighbors to trap or exterminate wildlife for his benefit. If I did, that’d mean I’m doing him a favor and no one owes their neighbors favors by default. Neighbors certainly aren’t responsible for acts of nature.

        2. It had it for over a hundred years and the world didn’t seem to end.

          One could make the same (poor) argument for slavery.

          1. Sure, it would be stupid. You getting a shot is not slavery. And again, if you don’t believe in mandatory vaccination, how do you justify quarantines?

            1. if you don’t believe in mandatory vaccination, how do you justify quarantines?

              One is taking action against an actual occurring situation where a person IS ACTUALLY a threat (self defense). The other is taking action against something that might possibly happen some time in the future and isn’t currently a threat and may never be.

              1. One is taking action against an actual occurring situation where a person IS ACTUALLY a threat (self defense).

                It is just a difference of degree not a difference in kind. If I have TB, there is no guarantee I will infect you. I may or I may not. You quarantine me because I have no right to impose that risk on you.

                It is the same thing here, just less of a risk. I may or may not have the disease and I may or may not infect you if I do. I am still, however, creating the risk that I might by not getting vaccinated. It is just a lower risk. The principle is the same in both cases; “I have no right to place you at risk of a disease”.

                The issue becomes how much of a risk do I have to place you in to justify government action. Clearly, not every disease is contagious enough and not every vaccine is effective enough to justify government action. I appears, however, that diseases like Measles and Mumps are contagious enough and the vaccines effective enough that my failure to get one really does place you in enough risk to justify the government forcing me to get one, if I want to attend school or go to other public places.

                1. Clearly, not every disease is contagious enough and not every vaccine is effective enough to justify government action. I appears, however, that diseases like Measles and Mumps are contagious enough and the vaccines effective enough that my failure to get one really does place you in enough risk to justify the government forcing me to get one, if I want to attend school or go to other public places.

                  Okay. Who decides when a disease is contagious enough, when a vaccine is effective enough, when the risks are large enough, and when the consequences are costly enough?

                  Is it up for a vote or do we blindly impose the will of TOP MEN?

                  1. John decides…

                  2. Who decides when a disease is contagious enough, when a vaccine is effective enough, when the risks are large enough, and when the consequences are costly enough?

                    Is it up for a vote or do we blindly impose the will of TOP MEN?

                    Either way may be reasonable. We can have some sort of process like civil service, political appointment, peer judgment, or combination of the above to select top men; or we can vote by random selection on a jury, democratically by the district, or other means. None of them are entirely satisfactory, but none of them are entirely unsatisfactory either. The more pains you take to avoid conflict of interest, the less expertise you get, and vice versa.

                2. If I have TB, there is no guarantee I will infect you.

                  Not only that, but medical opinion of the contagiousness of TB has shifted back & forth.

              2. FdA, that’s not an entirely accurate representation of a quarantine. The most effective quarantine is by it’s very nature prophylactic to a degree. You quarantine those who have been exposed before they become symptomatic and contagious.

    4. These people are scum and deserve nothing but scorn. And fuck various Libertarians who don’t support mandatory vaccination in one breath while prattling on about the “non aggression” in the next. If you don’t get vaccinated, you are putting other people at risk and your behavior violates the non aggression principle. It is therefore okay for the government to tell your dumb ass to stop it and get vaccinated.

      John. I would 100% agree if the government, vis-a-vis the medical community, didn’t constantly sell us horseshit from the other side of their mouth.

      HPV and the Influenza shots are both advertised as vaccines. However, they are vaccines in the same sense than an aircraft carrier is a motor vehicle.

      The measles vaccine is 97% effective in a one-time administration of two doses against all strains for most anyone who can take the shots and there is no reservoir species that carry measles.

      Influenza, on the other hand, even when strain-matched is far short of 97% effective and gets worse for people who are most susceptible, requires annual vaccinations even when effective and a wide array of mammals carry influenza.

      If we weren’t being advised to prevent measles with one hand and being ‘advised’ to ‘prevent’ influenza with the other, I think much of the rhetoric loses strength.

      1. If the vaccines don’t work, that is a different issue.

        1. If the vaccines don’t work, that is a different issue.

          Wow. Whether the vaccines work or not is an entirely different issue? What really matters is that the state can tell people what to do?

          John, I think you just went full-statist.

          1. No you went full retard. If the baccine doesnt work, you dont use it.

        2. But it’s a difference in degree, not in kind.

    5. Spanish flu. If I don’t get a flu shot, I’m a mass murderer.

      This is perhaps the stupidest thing I’ve heard you say (and I usually agree with you).

      NAP.

    6. Dude, da fuck? You hounded me endlessly for simply stating that addiction does exist, and now you’re taking up a position that’s hardly doctrinaire libertarian?

      You’re fucking retarded, brah

    7. I agree, John.

      Get vaccinated, you idiots.

    8. Close the schools.

    9. Fuck yeah! Tell it like it is, man. I feel the same way for those idiots that text while drive, endanger Mother Earth with their excess CO2 emissions, and don’t support bombing all Muslim countries that hide at least one terrorist. Ban it all! Anything that increases the chances of me getting hurt in the future clearly violates the NAP.

    10. Ok, you moronic Statist fuckstain. . . you better put your money where your idiocy is. . . or just stfu.

      Don’t forget the OCD, Mysophobic bullshit foisted off on us by Lysol, Chlorox, and other “antibacterial cleaner” manufacturers. . .

      Every time you kill “99.9% of germs,” you’re reducing your immune system’s ability to respond to invading microbes by. . . 99.9%.

      And people wonder why their insides turn to liquid shit right before they die. . . well, not braindead moneyshots like you, but people with at least double-digit IQs wonder. . .

      Vaccines are part and parcel of the problem, not anything remotely resembling a solution. Hurry up and spread the disease, using the force of law, to as many people as inhumanly possible.
      Then, per Statist pig-ignorance, blame the people who haven’t intentionally been given a disease when the disease spreads out-of-control. . .

      I would tell you to get an education. . . but it would take too long to explain what “get” and “education” means, leaving you mere minutes left to get that education before you die of old age.

      Ignorant cocksucker.

      1. Vaccines are part and parcel of the problem, not anything remotely resembling a solution.

        Which is why we are still plagued with polio and smallpox.

        Hurry up and spread the disease, using the force of law, to as many people as inhumanly possible.
        Then, per Statist pig-ignorance, blame the people who haven’t intentionally been given a disease when the disease spreads out-of-control. . .

        And here’s where we get to see what crazytown looks like.

        Ignorant cocksucker.

        Says the guy who thinks that vaccines cause disease…

  2. /gets popcorn

  3. “Our pharmaceutical intermediate solutions encompass vaccines, antibiotics, active ingredients, diagnostic and process enzymes, monoclonal antibodies, pharmacology peptides and amino acids, and drug delivery liposome conditioning.”
    Koch Industries – Who funds Reason.

    1. cool story, bro

        1. Sargent or York?

            1. Grayson, old chum.

              1. CHENNNNEEEEEYYYY!

    2. For your next trick, tell us about chemtrails.

      1. THAT IS JUST A RABBIT TRAIL FOR PEOPLE TO GO DOWN AND MISS THE LIZARD PEOPLE!!1111!!!oneone!!11eleventy!

        1. Speaking of insanity, on a recent trip I remarked to someone that I was bored and was offered a copy of Gods of Eden to assuage myself along with enthusiastic encouragement to “really think about it.”

          I have no idea how to talk to this person anymore. Advice?

          1. I have no idea how to talk to this person anymore

            I’d suggest slowly, with short words.

          2. Quietly hand them a copy of Twelfth Planet by Zecharia Sitchin. This should keep them occupied for months.

            1. Moldbug printouts.

          3. “I have no idea how to talk to this person anymore. Advice?”

            Politely tell them “No, thank you”.

    3. And?

      Full disclosure: I have a known allergy to irrelevant BS.

    4. erizzow|1.28.15 @ 11:19AM|#
      “Our pharmaceutical intermediate solutions encompass vaccines, antibiotics, active ingredients,”…

      I absolutely support your right to make an absolute fool of yourself!

      1. Everyone’s entitled to his opinion, no matter how stupid it is.

        1. Thank you, I appreciate people who appreciate freedom.
          Unfortunately, name calling is what I expected.
          not anti-Koch, not anti-vax, and I don’t believe in Chemtrails. Just recognizing that Reason is for freedom, except when it’s not.

          1. It’s one thing to argue for the right not to vaccinate your children. It’s a whole ‘nother ballgame to claim it’s wise.
            In other words, you’re free to be a moron, and we’re free to call you on it.

            1. I did neither.

          2. Just recognizing that Reason is for freedom, except when it’s not.

            Then why didn’t you say something even remotely similar to this in your original post?

          3. No, that was not your point. You insinuated that they wrote this article because their donors pressured them to.

            1. You’re correct, probably not the best route to take.
              I could have stuck to the benefits of privatization and fit right in. oh well.

              1. Or you could have just out right said what you were insinuating.

          4. Just recognizing that Reason is for freedom, except when it’s not.

            If that was your point, you probably should have addressed it instead of posting some irrelevant crap about what Koch Industries produces. I doubt they see some libertarians arguing about whether failing to get vaccinated is an act of aggression as much of a threat to their bottom line.

          5. Also, you should note that Reason is a magazine and doesn’t actually believe anything. The various writers and editors do. But amazingly, they are each autonomous beings capable of having their own opinions on things.

      2. Fortunately, natural selection eventually weeded out the Erizzowites.

        1. I thought they had been smitted with the edge of the sword by the Amalkites and Hittites?

          1. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

          2. “I thought they had been smitted with the edge of the sword by the Amalkites and Hittites?”

            Yes, just like he said, natural selection weeded them out.

        2. Not if stupidity is some kind of adaptive response to change.

  4. be very cautious about taking their infants to public places like malls

    But by all means continuing sending them to schools, where the chance of infection is even greater.

    1. Tell me more about these infant schools. (Like a sucker, I home schooled mine until they could walk.)

      1. well i bet your two year old WASNT SOCIALIZED PROPERLY!!! You monster.

  5. meh. i’m as ambivalent about this as i am about abortion.

  6. Yes, the lack of vaccination is part of the problem, but measles doesn’t spontaneously appear because people are unvaccinated. It has to come from somewhere, but too many people are reluctant to “reinforce stereotypes” by considering the possibility that measles (and enterovirus) has been brought in by the recent flood of illegals. It’s already been documented that measles has been brought in via children adopted from China. It’s well-established that TB is brought in by illegal immigrants. But immigrants bringing diseases is a clich?, so it must not be true. It must not. The possibility must be downplayed or ignored, and anyone who raises it must be called names.

    1. I wonder if the author also support keeping all foreigners out of the US unless they can prove they have all vaccines and those vaccines paid for someone other then the US taxpayers?

      1. Given that the author did not say anything about forcing people to be vaccinated, I’m going to say “no”.

    2. …anyone who raises it must be called names.

      Ima gonna go with “Erizzowite”

      1. Is that a tribe, vocation, or spiritual condition? And how do they feel about Messicans, ass-sex, and pot?

        1. Is that a tribe, vocation, or spiritual condition?

          Yes.

          1. It’s a spiritual condition. Indifferent to “Messicans” but we love Argentinians.

    3. please remember citations.

        1. thank you.

      1. Surprise: After Illegal Immigration Wave, Tuberculosis Plagues El Paso Hospital

        Some years back I had a doctor insist I get a chest X-ray to check for TB, saying the TB was “epidemic” in San Francisco due to illegal immigrants. This reference confirms the TB-immigration link, though it claims that the immigrants are having old infections “reactivated” due to stress, and not really importing the disease, which to me seems a bit of a distinction without a difference.

        1. There’s also the continuing puzzle of how an enterovirus strain that is known to occur in Latin America but was uncommon to unknown in the US suddenly cropped up all over the country last year.

          Total mystery. The one thing we know is that nobody is looking at the distribution of thousands of unscreened illegal immigrants from Latin America all over the country as a possible vector, because that would be “unhelpful”.

        2. Who are you arguing with? The PC liberals in your head?
          I don’t think that many libertarians holding the principled free-movement position on immigration are going to change their minds because they never thought that immigrants might bring in diseases with them. Nor, I think, will you find many who don’t know that some immigrants, particularly from poorer countries, haven’t brought diseases with them.
          If you simply must bring this crap up at every opportunity, please go argue with people who are actually arguing that immigrants never bring diseases with them.

          1. People make up their minds on some basis. If facts persuade them one way, other facts should persuade them the other.

    4. But immigration is faaaabulous, daaaahhling! So bend over and get used to it!

    5. Yes
      this is another case of blaming the victim, the Un- Vaccinated, instead of the real cause of the issue. So as usual people want the government to force the victim to go under treatment instead of stopping the problem at the source very much like gun control laws and just about every other regulation out there.

      1. No, actually the people who use disease as an argument for restricting immigration are a lot closer to the gun controllers. Gun controllers think that gun violence can be eliminated if guns are made illegal enough. Similarly, some people seem to think that keeping immigrants out will stop disease from entering the country. Except in rare cases where a disease can be eliminated entirely, it’s just not going to happen. The fact is that there wouldn’t be an outbreak if it weren’t for the idiots who don’t vaccinate their kids. And the disease is as likely to have been brought to the country by a legal tourist. And the diseases brought by illegal immigrants would be a lot easier to stop and control if they were allowed to come legally where they would have to undergo some sort of screening. Keeping immigrants from points south out is just as much of a fantasy as eliminating guns.

    6. And Lizard People. Don’t forget the Lizard People.

      1. I hear those Lizard People carry diseases. Lizard diseases. Gross.

        1. No that’s hearsay. The Lizard People are all clean, hairless and completely disease free.

          Well ok, occasionally they get some oddball medical condition based on what they ate, but that’s a different story.

    7. That’s just what the Indians said.

      1. But…but…that’s different.

      2. I thought they said and eye for an eye makes the whole world blind… wait, we’re talking about the indo-pakistani sub continent, right?

    8. Lots of poor immigrants visiting Disney World?

      I’m sure immigrants do bring diseases. If they weren’t illegal, it would be a lot easier to screen for people carrying diseases. Yet another excellent argument for more open immigration.

    9. Do you ever not have to connect illegal immigration to every issue?

      1. You wouldn’t even ask that question if it weren’t for the recent flood of illegals.

  7. endanger people like Rhett Krawitt, a six year old who is in remission from leukemia and so cannot be vaccinated yet.

    Did you really go “if it saves one child” on us? I hate the vaccine debate because I have to support stupid people’s right to be stupid.

    1. There are numerous immunocompromised people around, some of them not children, you know.

      1. Sure. And kids get into guns and shot other kids. Bad people do bad things with guns. The doesn’t take away my right to bear arms. Kids without good immune systems don’t take away my self ownership either.

        1. FFS, Bailey said nothing about mandatory vaccinations. He advised these idiots to be adults and choose to vaccinate their kids already.

          1. Yeah. Everyone seems to assume that everyone is arguing for an extreme position here.
            I think most can agree that making it a crime not to be vaccinated is a bad idea and that schools requiring kids to be vaccinated is probably a good idea (putting aside the government school issue). And that everyone who can should get vaccinated.
            I don’t see anyone arguing for forcing injections into people or imprisoning those who refuse.

          2. He has historically, on more than one occasion, supported and argued for, compulsion. So please excuse people’s confusion as to whether or not he offers such arguments explicitly in this piece specifically.

            1. He has historically, on more than one occasion widely, supported and argued for, compulsion all manner of ‘soft’ statism.

              IMO, he’s a troll that got on Reason’s writing staff. He titles his articles as slanted interrogatives or imperatives and then says, “I was just asking!” or “It was just a suggestion.” like my 6-yr.-old when you call him out on his blatantly pro-gov/statist opinions.

              1. He’s a good science journalist (which is a very rare thing) who happens to be mostly pretty libertarian about things. Reason did a damn fine job hiring him, even if he isn’t 100% pure in every way.

                1. He’s a science journalist for a socio-political magazine who, nominally, carries the banner of his employer, most of the time.

                  The former guarantees that he at least acknowledges that his brain has two hemispheres which puts him above trade-specific and/or cult-of-personality science writers.

                  That doesn’t mean I, or we, have to embrace the latter.

                2. I agree with this. Ron Bailey is better than many of the Reason writers and he’s way, way better than your average science journalist.

                  I’m pretty sure your average science journalist thinks that the world should be run by an appointed council of Top Scientists. Appointed from the ranks of the Union of Concerned Scientists by themselves of course.

  8. I, for one, believe it is wise to get vaccinated. I also believe it should NOT be mandatory and/or enforced with state violence (or the implicit threat thereof). That is all.

    1. how is this not everyone’s default stance?

      1. Some people, even on here, are fucking slavers.

        1. That or some people take the non aggression principle seriously. Other people don’t give a fuck and view principles and argument as weapons to club their opponents with in the pursuit of getting their fucking pony and discarded when it no longer serves the greater purpose of “give me my fucking pony”.

          1. Who is talking NAP?

            As I said above, Im talking self ownership.

            1. If you own your self, why do you have the right to put me at risk? And if you do, then why can’t you go around with TB infecting people? You own yourself right?

              1. Do you drive on the same road ad I do? More people die from other people running into them on roads (ROADZ!) than from measles or TB.

                1. Bandit,

                  Sure bad things happen. I drive on the roads, but that doesn’t give me the right to do it negligently or in a way that needlessly puts those around me at risk.

                  By your logic, we shouldn’t have traffic laws.

                  1. The point is, John, that even driving well puts people in more danger than not being vaccinated does, statistically speaking.

              2. I didn’t know we had rights to be protected from the consequences of strangers’ actions.

                You always have recourse to the law.

                1. I didn’t know we had rights to be protected from the consequences of strangers’ actions.

                  Maybe you missed the memo about these things called torts. Its illegal for me either by negligence or by intention to cause you harm.

                  Seriously, think about what you are saying there.

                  1. but is it then grounds for suit if you don’t do something that will benefit me?

                    Is not benefiting me potentially harming me?

                    is there not a difference between potential and real harm?

                    1. No. I can sue you if your actions or your failure to do something is the proximate cause of harm to me.

                    2. yes, but if my actions weren’t willful and there was a risk factor that was minimal, is it possible that there’s not case for compensation?

                  2. Correct John. Tort is the ideal framework in which to view this.

                    This problem is no different than many other social interactions. It is prudent to stay away from others if you have a cold? Yes. Should it be mandatory? NO. And there is no vaccine for the cold.

                    If you open this up to government you may get good things like MMR vaccination levels that are higher but you WILL get “Hey, I own an HPV vaccine. Lets make all pre-teen girls required to take it.” That shit ACTUALLY IS HAPPENING!

                    So either I own myself and I am responsible for myself, or the government owns me. I choose less vaccinated people with more freedom thank you.

                    1. well said.

                      one can’t really support a tort solution and a government mandate solution at the same time, can they?

                    2. Unfortunately, the tort system cannot provide a remedy here, because no one can prove exactly who they caught a disease from.

                    3. Sure it does. Class action with primary and secondary defendants.

                    4. The problem is the same as it always was;

                      The goddamned commerce clause means that eventually, somebody(‘s insurance provider) from FL will sue somebody (else’s insurance provider) from AK and the Fedgov will forge one (another) ring to rule them all.

              3. FFS

                Not getting vaccinated does not put you at risk.

                Getting sick and going about my daily routine while infectious puts you at risk.

          2. Are you suggesting that “any and all” vaccinations the government deems necessary should be mandatory?

            I am not anti-vac, but there are vaccine risks – particularly with NEW vaccines that take generations to understand. The standard MMR, DPT, OPV have certainly met this hurdle, but I certainly cringe whenever a state starts adding to the “mandatory” list.

            1. I also worry about cronyism. You need your mandatory anti-tiger vaccine. That’ll be 12 grand.

              1. You scoff but that anti-tiger vaccine may have saved my life an indeterminate number of times on my imaginary walkabout through the Ranthambhore National Park.

              2. “I also worry about cronyism. You need your mandatory anti-tiger vaccine. That’ll be 12 grand.”

                You’ll consider that a bargain when the Kzinti arrive.

                http://www.larryniven.net/kzin…..s_home.jpg

            2. No. If the vaccine doesn’t work or if the disease is not very contagious, of course not. It all depends on the facts and the circumstances.

              1. But if it is mandated by the government it won’t matter if it is effective. See global warming and corn subsidies for an example.

                1. Florida Man,

                  If you think some vaccines are needlessly mandated, maybe you are right. That just means that those shouldn’t be mandated, not all of them.

                  1. The problem is getting the government to understand that when you have activists saying vaccinations are unqualified goods and anyone who refuses is a dangerous idiot.

              2. No. If the vaccine doesn’t work or if the disease is not very contagious, of course not. It all depends on the facts and the circumstances.

                We had a similar discussion on quarantine.

                If you give the government the power to compel something, they *will* use it in the manner *they* deem fitting.

                And what they deem fitting will certainly hinge on ‘facts and circumstances’. Facts and circumstances like what helps my political career or expands the scope and budget (along with my personal power) of my agency.

                You want the government to have the power to compel vaccination, you have to show that the government can be trusted to not abuse that power.

              3. No. If the vaccine doesn’t work or if the disease is not very contagious, of course not. It all depends on the facts and the circumstances.

                Ignoring the immigration aspect of the issue this sounds like a judicial case-by-case, region-by-region issue rather than a FedGov issue.

                More you can be found guilty of knowingly rejecting the vaccine, contracting the illness, and infecting people you knew to be susceptible and less you must, by law, get vaccinated.

                IMO, a decision of being guilty of stupidity and liable by 12 of your peers is reasonable and legally enforceable.

                But then, there’s still the goddamned commerce clause.

    2. I tend to agree and even the excuse that this should be required since children are required to attend state school system yet if that is a parents worry then all they have to do is vaccinate their own children. hence no requirement is needed, if your smart you get vaccinated otherwise luckily for us the un vaccinated may go extinct.

    3. What about recognizing it as a tort? If someone gets sick from an unvaccinated person, they can sue.

      1. Sure.

        Works for me.

      2. Measles is contagious for a couple days before symptoms show, and a couple days after the person feels better.

        With that in mind, how can you tell who the unvaccinated person is?

        1. Sick person I meant.

        2. Yeah, that’s the problem with torts. Good luck finding the person to sue, and then proving that they’re the person that actually infected you.

        3. viral dna test?

          maybe

          it is a possiblity

          1. technically RNA not dna but WHATEVER!

          2. Who pays for it?

            1. it would be a cost recovered with judgement… no?

              1. sounds right to me

          3. viral dna test?

            First you have to have some idea who to test.

            How on earth are you going to do that?

            1. Clearly the answer is to forcibly extract blood from everyone under the color of law.

              Ohhhhh…

      3. If someone gets sick from an unvaccinated person, they can sue.

        Sue who? And prove they caught it from that person and no other, how?

  9. I support the right of idiots and morons to own guns, so yeah, I suppose I have to come down on the right for idiots to be idiots when it comes to vaccines, even if it might tangentially endanger me and mine. (They should also be held fully liable for the consequences.)

    1. That said, there are a whole lot of other dragons to be slain before “mandatory vaccinations” comes up on the radar.

    2. Watch out, you might just come to think that gun owners should carry liability insurance.

    3. I suppose I have to come down on the right for idiots to be idiots when it comes to vaccines, even if it might tangentially endanger me and mine. (They should also be held fully liable for the consequences.)

      What about the non-idiots that choose to vaccinate, but catch the disease anyway?

      Are they immune to any consequences for spreading it since they vaccinated?

      1. “Are they immune to any consequences for spreading it since they vaccinated?”

        Pun intended?

        Anyway they wouldn’t necessarily be “immune”, but it would be a mitigating factor in front of the jury.

        1. “Are they immune to any consequences for spreading it since they vaccinated?”

          Pun intended?

          Indeed πŸ™‚

          Anyway they wouldn’t necessarily be “immune”, but it would be a mitigating factor in front of the jury.

          Why?

          The harm is from people getting infected and exposing others to their infection. Vaccinations do not gaurantee that won’t happen and not getting vaccinated does not guarantee that it will.

          Liability would be for the act of being infected and exposing others. Efforts to avoid getting infected are irrelevant. Only efforts made to (once infected) to not expose others and/or limit exposure matter.

  10. Fuck off, slavers.

    This includes you, John.

    1. What’s all this fuss about? Polio builds character.

  11. I would like to point out that Ron’s arguement about the children being victims of their parents’ poor judgement/decision making skills is the same argument used to support CPS interference with the family letting kids walk home by themselves, forced public education, school lunch guidelines, refusing to let parents send sacked lunches to school, the “obesity epidemic”, etc.

    It’s an easy trap to fall into- but not the most convincing argument.

    1. Which is why Im also “fine” with idiot Christian* Science# parents.

      *They arent
      #They arent

    2. Does that mean that it’s never a big deal if a child is victimized by their parents’ poor judgment?

      There is an important difference between the examples you give and the issue in question. Namely, whether the child is unquestionably endangered or harmed.

      1. “whether the child is unquestionably endangered or harmed”

        This seems like a value judgement.

        1. What does that even mean? That it’s a matter of opinion whether an child who dies from measles has been harmed by their parents’ decision not to vaccinate them?

          1. It means that unquestionably endangered or harmed is hard to prove before hand. I mean, letting them play on the monkey bars carries and unquestionable risk for harm- that risk carries a probability. What level of probable harm is acceptable?

            That’s a value judgement.

          2. It means its a value judgement.

            Some people think letting your kids walk home alone from the park is endangering them.

            1. unquestionably.

    3. I would like to point out that Ron’s arguement about the children being victims of their parents’ poor judgement/decision

      That is not his argument. He is not talking about the kids who get sick because their parents are retards. He is talking about the kids who get sick because they can’t take the vaccine or it doesn’t work in them and they now get sick thanks to the retards not getting their kids vaccinated.

      1. ” One might retort that vaccine refuseniks get what they deserve, but most of them are children who are suffering for their parents’ irresponsibility.”

        This is what i was referring to.

    4. S: For the most part children playing unmonitored are no threat to others – not true of the unvaccinated.

      1. I think that children who are reared in households that support socialist economies are a threat to others in the long run. πŸ˜‰

      2. also, they are potentially a threat to themselves- or put at “high risk” due to the choices of their parents.

        1. S: So you would vaccinate against socialism? πŸ™‚

          1. I would give my kids that vaccination on day one! lk.

            Of course not- but man that would be a hard argument with myself! πŸ˜‰

            There are great, as I’m sure you understand, moral implications with such questions of parental responsibility of action an inaction.

            I don’t think there are right answers- other than mine, of course.

          2. “S: So you would vaccinate against socialism? :-)”

            Now there’s an idea.

      3. S: For the most part children playing unmonitored are no threat to others – not true of the unvaccinated.

        Your neighbor didn’t install an olympic swimming pool, nor did he build a palatial estate next to your property. By your logic, that means he is threatening your property value! Sue him if you’re so entitled to positive externalities.

        1. likewise, your neighbor building and Olympic swimming pool increases your children’s risk of drowning- so there should be a law…

    5. except that the CPS stories are insane and the children were never actually hurt. Furthermore, they were never actually even comparatively endangered.

      I say comparatively because maybe, just MAYBE,, with the McDonald’s worker story, where the kid was at a nearby park, the child was at greater risk of a couple of things by being by herself at a park. The statistics say mostly no, but it is possible. However, how much you want to bet those risks are smaller than the risks that come with being in a McDonald’s? Risks from grease fires and stuff, trip hazards, the food making the kids sick, etc.

  12. Here’s where I get off the Freedom Train. The state should force you to vaccinate your kids. First, this protects others against your kids’ infections. Second, in the vaccination case, the state has met its rightfully high burden of persuasion concerning the overriding of parental choices re child welfare.

    1. So what do you do to people who refuse? Quarantine them in their homes? Send a SWAT team in to jab them in the arm?

      1. I found this is Massachusetts’ laws:

        “Boards of health, if in their opinion it is necessary for public health or safety, shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants of their towns, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.”

        (from MA legislature web site)

        http://ow.ly/I6a9e

        1. Like Gardisil…Boy am I glad the government stepped in to force vaccinate pre-teen girls against HPV. WHEW! that was close.

    2. if your worried about your kids health then vaccinate them, problem solved and no ones freedom has been oppressed, let the unvaccinated suffer the consequences of their decisions.

      1. And the people who can’t get vaccinated for medical reasons, and the 3 percent of people the vaccine doesn’t work for.

        1. life sucks and is unfair.

          1. Sure it is. I’m pointing out that it’s not JUST the unvaccinated who suffer, like Ron was suggesting.

            1. yes. we live in a large and intertwined society. Strangers’ actions have consequences that impact me every day. We cannot, however, regulate these consequences away. We can try, but I think we all believe that is folly.

        2. Let those bastards die!

          1. or, i don’t know, figure not fall victim to a false dichotomy…

    3. 1. If *your* kids are vaccinated then they are, by definition, protected from the unvaccinated.

      2. do you support the mandatory removal of nuts and nut-contaminated products from schools because of the slight risk that a child might have an allergic reaction? Because that’s what’s left with the small percentage of children who *can not* get vaccinated.

  13. If you’re unvaxxinated it’s like you’ve agreed that, if you get infected, that you will pull out a gun and start randoming shooting other people.

      1. did everyone’s brain break today, or what?!

      2. Why not? By choosing not to be vaccinated, I’m acknowledging that there is a chance that I may become infected and thus be a danger to other people who have no relation to me or my choice, but who directly affected by it.

        1. willful action != inaction!

          What the fuck, people?!

          1. Deciding not to do something is an action. It’s a willful and intentional decision by someone who is in possession of information. How is it not?

            1. follow your logic to it’s conclusion. That’s how we have the affordable care act.

          2. Hi all: With regard to the discussion over “action v. inaction” there is a nice article on the topic at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here. Let’s just say that the distinction is not as simple and clear cut as many assume.

            1. awesome link! gracias.

            2. Thanks, Ron.

              That’s why I thought the main argument in the Sebelius case (which turned on
              “action v inaction”) was crap. Any first-year philosophy student can tear that distinction down.

  14. Freaking MERC-ury!

    /Jenny McCarthy

    1. Someone tell that stupid cunt there are greater concentrations of freaking mercury in fish you can buy in any store or restaurant than there is in the MMR vaccine that didn’t cause her child’s autism.

  15. If I’m fine with publicly funded schools requiring vaccination as a prerequisite for admission (with medical exceptions), does that mean I’m pro-forced vaccination?

    1. For the record, I am fine with private schools doing whatever the hell they want.

  16. I have to destroy the non-aggression principle to save the non-aggression principle.

    //John

  17. I see John is going to turn this into another body armor thread.

    1. wait what? Did i miss something? There wasn’t legit disagreement on the ownership of body armor was there?

      1. Indeed there was. Don’t go to that failed abortion of a thread.

        1. link please…my grey matter is getting lazy.

          1. HO LEE SHIT!

            I am glad i missed that thread…I think John has either been hacked or had an aneurysm.

  18. Once governments start down the path of forcing people to do things for the greater good, it tends to end very badly.

    Yeah, John, I’m talking to you.

  19. Why not establish some kind of liability? If you’re unvaccinated by choice, fall ill, and come in contact with a vaccinated person — or a person who could not medically be vaccinated — who falls ill, then you’re liable for damages.

    1. Sure. How much would my dead infant be worth?

      1. the same amount as if it’s killed by any other negligent party. It’s not like we don’t have a framework for this.

        1. But as a society, we can make moral distinctions. Such as, treating people’s lives like car insurance, that it’s just a matter of monetary liability after the act happens, is not what we consider good public policy.
          Especially when there’s almost no downside to prevention and it’s so easy to administer.

          And as much as we value individual liberty, we are still members of a society, and membership isn’t totally free of obligation.

          1. the downside is use of force and restriction of liberty and freedom out of fear.

          2. uhhh…we DO treat peoples lives like car insurance. LITERALLY! It is actually called Liability Insurance (full coverage if you want your car replaced and gap if you paid too much for your car).

      2. Your dead infant?
        I’d have to see pix and your college transcript.

    2. Again, good luck finding that person and then proving they were liable.

      1. When proposed solutions meet reality.

    3. Citizen, I just don’t see how the evidence to tie a given sick person to a given unvaccinated person is going to be available in the real world for the vast majority of cases. I just don’t.

    4. If you’re unvaccinated by choice, fall ill, and come in contact with a vaccinated person — or a person who could not medically be vaccinated — who falls ill, then you’re liable for damages.

      FIFY

      Why limit it to the unvaccinated? Vaccines are not 100% and a vaccinated person could still get and spread the disease.

      Of course, good luck proving who infected you…

  20. Just going to leave this here.

  21. Wow. A vaccination threat here is a cat-declawing thread anywhere else on the Internet.

  22. “thread”

    /not vaccinated for dumbness

  23. At the beginning of school Handler told parents that if there were a measles outbreak they would have to prove that their child was vaccinated or their child would be excluded from school for 21 days. At one county high school 24 students have been told to stay home. “We gave them plenty of notice and I’m sure that they are not happy…

    3 weeks away from school, and this nimrod thinks the kids are unhappy about that? How many kids does he know? I’m guessing not many.

    1. Antecedents are evil. Them = parents. I guarantee the parents are not happy to have their kids knocking around the house, and wandering around town when they expect them to be in school.

  24. This sort of voluntary stupidity tends to be self-correcting. If some expensive-ass Montessori school loses a few of its Jaydens and Kaylees, maybe it will start requiring vaccinations.

  25. At first when I read the title I thought Ol’ Ron is trolling the hell out of some of us, but nah, he is making a sincere effort to convince.

    Meh, no need to convince me. Nearly a whole generation of my family was wiped out by Yellow fever 1905-06. I drive by the rows of graves on a regular basis.

    1. S: For the record I never troll. Life is way too short.

      1. Although I’m against aggression, it’s a little funny that an obligation comes about thru tech advance.

        Or waxes and wanes based on the ability of tech to keep up with or stay on top of current conditions/adaptation.

        Vaccination levels rise and fall routinely around Europe. It’s not uncommon to have a year where fewer people in a country get vaccinated and fewer people die from the disease.

        Just set up a Poisson Calculator and arbitrarily convict people based on it.

        1. Grr… I meant this for Robert below.

      2. I knew when I saw the title it would push a lot of buttons. I was joking about the trolling.

  26. I just thought of an interesting point: If at time 0 the measles vaccine became available, does that mean before that time, people were aggressing against each other w.r.t. measles? Although I’m against aggression, it’s a little funny that an obligation comes about thru tech advance. Like if tomorrow it becomes possible to fireproof your bldg., thus preventing fire from spreading to its neighborhood, does that mean doing the same as you are today becomes a form of aggression?

    BTW, I got measles the year before the vaccine came out. Not fun. Daddy gave gamma globulin, because that was all that could be done, but I’m not sure how much difference that makes when the rash appears, as opposed to during the prodromal choryza, which AFAIK is indistinguishable from a cold. By the time he gave me the injections, I might well have had as much circulating antibody as could’ve been gotten from the pooled sera. OTOH, most people got measles, so it was just accepted as part of childhood. I suppose if you’re not making other people’s lives worse than avg., you could’ve been said not to aggress against them.

    1. Your point is interesting.

      However, it’s not as strong as you think, because quarantine has always been available.

      Do you mean to conclude that Typhoid Mary was not an aggressor?

      1. Doesn’t quarantine occur AFTER other people are infected?

        1. I’m talking about isolating someone who is infected, and in particular, isolating yourself if you know you’re infected. Perhaps “quarantine” is not the right word, or has connotations that I don’t mean to invoke.

      2. I think, given the nature of the disease she had, Typhoid Mary had an obligation–once she was informed of the fact–to disclose to relevant parties that she was infected with typhoid. By failing to do so, she aggressed (in the fraud/tort sense) against them.

        This obligation, however, does not arise from any technological advance but rather from a general principle of fair dealing. The same principle could be applied to an individual who fails to disclose to his sexual partners that he is HIV+, or to the seller of a car who fails to disclose that the vehicle was in a major collision that compromised the integrity of its frame.

        If you know, and it’s relevant, then you must disclose. The other party should be free to accept the terms as given, or to reject them.

        1. “If you know, and it’s relevant, then you must vaccinate.”

          1. I don’t really see how that addresses what I said or even makes sense, really.

            Typhoid Mary got people sick (and quite a few died) by preparing food while infected (asymptomatically) with typhoid. This fact was discovered and explained to her. She then continued to seek out employment as a cook without disclosing this quite relevant information to her employers.

            If I was physically handicapped in such a way that I could not safely lift lots of weight or operate heavy machinery, failed to disclose this fact to my employer, and then got people maimed or killed while trying to do something I knew I was not able to safely do, then it would be my fault.

            Perhaps you can explain the difference, or if you prefer, how my argument itself is invalid.

      3. But in the case of measles, types like Typhoid Mary represented about half the cases, in that it’s not apparent you have measles until half the time has expired in which you can xmit it. So you’d have to quarantine yourself whenever you had a cold, because a sniffle could be the early stage of measles, until it went into your chest and you were satisfied it was only a cold.

    2. If at time 0 the measles vaccine became available, does that mean before that time, people were aggressing against each other

      Yes, but since there wasn’t a vaccine, they couldn’t help it. Even before vaccines, they still had quarantines. You have a duty to take the precautions you can not to harm others. If the precaution is not available, you have no duty to take it and can’t be held responsible for not doing so.

      1. How far does this duty extend?

        1. To whatever is reasonable. We have an entire body of collective wisdom called the “common law” dealing with that question.

          1. That is a complete non-answer. “Reasonable” is meaningless and the “common law” must be established on a matter before it can be appealed to as a source of authority.

            1. “Reasonable” is meaningless

              It is totally meaningful. It is just meaningful in relations to a given set of circumstances. What is reasonable in one situation is utterly unreasonable in another.

              Your thinking that “reasonable” is meaningless shows why Libertarians often have a really hard time with issues like this. Libertarians love principle. They are fanatics for principle and one size fits all answers. And a lot of times that is good. Most things the government tries to do is loathsome and just saying “no” and arguing on straight principle is the right thing to do.

              But there are sometimes when it is not. Sometimes the government does have a duty to do things and the perimeters of what it should and should not can not be defined by a simple appeal to “principle”. This is one of those times. Should vaccines be required of kids who attend schools and such? Yes, depending on the circumstances.

              That sort of qualified answer is something Libertarians just cannot comprehend. To them the world is composed entirely of bright lines and slippery slopes.

              1. Reasonable is all well and good until it’s not. Throwing every American of Japanese ancestry in a camp was seen as “reasonable” at the time. You’re right, libertarians (and many other idealists) don’t like to compromise their principles. Pure utilitarians don’t have any principles to compromise. Somehow a working solution has to be made between the two extremes.

                The problem, however, with deferring judgment to an arbitrary and ill defined standard like “reasonableness” is that, someday somebody will come along and push the boundaries of that standard beyond what was intended. This is true of all law, but the more circumspect the language (provided there is some fidelity to it, of course), then the less latitude is afforded to manipulative and disingenuous people.

                You have to spell out the limits of something called a “duty” before it spirals out of control. Hell, the word “freedom” was bastardized beyond all recognition by FDR (“freedom from want”, wtf?). I was asking you to identify such limits but all you’ve offered is a single, specific example.

              2. I know, John, and that’s exactly why I bring it up, because it is exactly these issues with a thick gray area that aren’t amenable to black-&-white analysis. It always bothers me when Objectivists & the like in the libertarian movement glibly pronounce that no such gray areas exist. I remember arguing with Raymond Newman on his radio program that if you proscribe endangering others (example: driving), you have to be aware that there is only more or less dangerous, not safe?exclusive-or?dangerous.

                The only comfort is that everybody, not just libertarians, has to deal with the gray-area problem. Of course that’s a comfort only in the relative sense in that it means libertarianism isn’t handicapped compared to other -isms; but it’s a discomfort in that it means there’s no hope elsewhere. So you have to acknowledge that these matters of degree exist, and accept that there’ll be some procedure for drawing a line that’ll never satisfy everybody.

      2. If at time 0 the measles vaccine became available, does that mean before that time, people were aggressing against each other.

        Not every bad thing that shouldn’t be acquiesced to by society results from “aggression.”

        Fraud comes to mind, right off the top.

        Its also hard to file most negligence under “aggression.”

        There’s more to functional society than people just not attacking each other.

        1. There’s more to functional society than people just not attacking each other.

          While absolutely and indisputably true, this is a discussion about government, not society. The proper role of the former in shaping the latter is certainly part of the debate, but society exists regardless of government and develops rules of its own organically.

  27. “Marin County, Calif., a county with the dubious honor of having the highest rate of “personal belief exemptions”

    Clearly these people must be Poor and Uneducated

    Therefore = more money for public schools in California! That ought to fix everything.

  28. Again, I find it bizarre how so many people seem to think that children are the property of their parents, so that if the parents want to give them preventable infectious diseases, that’s their business.

    Particularly when a lot of them are the same people that are hard core pro-life people on the abortion debate.

    1. Should vaccinating fetuses be mandatory?

    2. so that if the parents want to give them preventable infectious diseases

      You cannot blindly apply “foreseeable consequences are not unintended” to improbable events. Yes, the improbability is related to the fact that most other parents vaccinate their kids, but that is neither here nor there given the comment you made.

      Parents who don’t vaccinate their children are, by and large, not trying to give their children the disease. This is evidenced, generally, by the fact that they don’t seek out measles-infected (e.g.) individuals and force their kids to spend lots of time with them.

      Particularly when a lot of them are the same people that are hard core pro-life people on the abortion debate.

      Perhaps if you got off your high horse and decided to engage with the debate rather than disingenuously moralize, I wouldn’t tell you to fuck off. Why don’t you try it and find out?

    3. Probability of dying from being aborted: 100%

      Probability of dying from Measles: .3%

      1. Probability of dying from being aborted: 100%

        Actually, I think it’s slightly less than that, since there exist people who have survived abortion attempts.

        However, the probability is certainly in the 99%+ range and no one can doubt that the intent is for 100% “success”.

      2. Probability of person dying from being aborted: ???

        Probability of person dying from Measles: .3%

  29. Thought experiment: Imagine there’s an epidemic of some contagious disease. 50% of the people who contract it are asymptomatic, 25% get mildly ill, and 25% get so sick that they die. Now imagine that there’s a vaccine for it, but the vaccine has a high rate of terrible side effects of the sort of bullshit that the anti-vax crowd claims. Let’s say that 5% of the people who get the vaccine die and 5% are, oh, let’s say paralyzed or something.

    What should the government do? What is an individual morally obligated to do?

    1. What should the government do?

      Nothing, as will pretty much always be my answer to this question.

      What is an individual morally obligated to do?

      The best they can. Do unto others. Not kill themselves.

      Most moral thing to do? Stay away from others. No risk of killing anyone (including self). Probably not possible in many cases, but more possible than most realize.

    2. The government should raise taxes to build new dog parks, obviously.

    3. FWIW, things like Ebola, Dengue Fever, Typhoid, etc. have about a 25-30% untreated mortality rate

      Just saying. People assume that ‘the worst’ diseases kill everyone. Most of the most virulent and deadly contagious diseases are actually at most 50% lethal.

      As for your question – it seems like the very kind of thing they law out in bioethics/public health classes. I’d assume the manner in which its dealt with is similar to ‘triage’ ethics. The first issue would be to attempt to discriminate the population to identify the actual “at risk” population (the 25%)

      Genetic testing, whatever. Until you were able to separate the risk pop from the whole, any widespread ‘treatment’ would be unethical if it meant hurting those who otherwise aren’t at risk (‘do no harm’).

      Once you were able to estimate with some reasonable accuracy *(correct more than half the time?) who the 25% ‘at risk’ people are, then at that point the question would be whether vaccination was mandatory or compulsory.

      Perhaps there’d be a choice = vacccinate, or else be shipped to Prison Island until you’re either dead or in the clear.

      Side note*= I was in a similar kind of situation when i was born. There was an outbreak in the maternity ward that killed a bunch of newborns. Parents had to decide whether to risk life-threatening diagnosis (spinal tap) or lengthy quarantine.

      1. Most of the most virulent and deadly contagious diseases are actually at most 50% lethal.

        From an evolutionary standpoint, viruses tend to become less virulent as time passes because keeping the host alive longer improves the virus’s survival chance.

        1. Not to mention that dying quickly from a virus really hurts your chances of passing your genes along.

    4. That is the thing, utilitarianism is evil right up until it isn’t. Sometimes, you can’t opt out and must make a choice. Mickey Rat above gives the example of his nephew going into a coma because of a vaccine.

      That is a terrible story and I feel bad for his nephew. But if we don’t require vaccines, his nephew never gets vaccinated and never goes into a coma. Great, but six other kids get mumps and measals and two of them die from it. Sucks to be Rat’s nephew but it seems to me vaccination is the only choice in that case.

      Your case is the same problem just made harder by it being a bit of a closer call. But if the calculation is “do nothing and 25% of the population dies” or “do this and no one dies but 5% of the kids in the country become Aspies”, I think you have to go with the vaccine.

      I mean being Aspy would suck but it hasn’t seemed to have slowed down Sad Beard or the writers at Gawker much.

      1. You’ve mentioned aspergers a number of times as a derogatory descriptor for Progs.

        Do you know people who have it? I do. they’re not all that bad*, symptom wise.

        (*i’m thinking of ‘the worst’ of them, relative to the more-severe mental patients i know)

        Also – i’m not sure why you’d compare Yglacias, Gawker et al to that sort of thing. I don’t see the comparison.

        The defining ‘Aspy’ characteristics tend to be lack of social awareness/perceptions, and tendency to monomania/hyper-focus on subjects/issues. Sometimes ‘formulaic’ physical behavior.

        They’re not anywhere near as bad as, say, Schizos. They at least have a more-or-less objective perspective on the universe.

      2. Saying it is about utilitarianism is really a deflection. The utility is not generally being disputed; the debate is largely about the mechanism through which that utility is maximized. People can no more say that it is the government’s place to limit carbon output based upon science showing that higher carbon concentrations cause temperature increases (assuming for the sake of argument that such is valid) than people can say it is the government’s place to mandate vaccines based upon science showing that lower vaccination rates result in higher incidence of disease.

        Just because something is harmful doesn’t mean that a particular government policy is justified in response.

        Yes, it is “reasonable” for the government to say that, to attend public schools, your child must be vaccinated. However, if there is also a requirement that all children attend public schools, then you have simply enacted mandatory vaccination by proxy.

  30. I would think the best way to handle this problem is to treat it like a externality.

    For example:

    we wish people to take a ‘positive’ action (get vaccinated) because a vaccinated population is a public good.

    We are essentially saying that a public good (vaccination) that is being produced less than it should be – So why not pay them?

    The other option of course is to force *them* to pay (Pigou tax). But keep in mind, unlike a producer who pollutes, the unvaccinated are not *taking an action*, simply refraining from one. As such it would seem that the burden of the tax should fall on those who want a ‘cleaner environment’ to pony up to encourage those who don’t care to fall in line.

    And to forestall arguments about who is or is not ‘acting’ in this case – we *all* considered not buying health insurance to be a non-action that Congress didn’t have the power to force onto people. This is the same sort of thing.

    1. A: The externality argument is good, but I should point out that Coase was indifferent as to whom the property right was awarded since bargaining would determine the low cost avoider in any case. So from your analysis it would make just as much sense to make the anti-vaxxers pay for the privilege of refusing vaccination.

      1. Yeah, I mentioned that in the 5th paragraph (block, whatever – about halfway down) – along with a bit of reasoning (which you all are free to disagree with) on why the ‘pro-vaccination’ side should pay.

        But it is an argument that could go both ways, and any suggestion that your side (pro *or* anti, whichever you fall on) should pay will be met with howls of outrage.

      2. If the externality argument is good, then recognize it going forward. If your neighbor is a cattle rancher, do you owe him the prevention of predatory animals crossing your land to get to his cows? Do you owe him your time and energy in shooting wolves? Should you be forced to set traps to prevent those predators from reaching his land?

        There is no principle that validates compulsory vaccination unless that same principle authorizes you to force your neighbors to provide you with positive externalities.

        1. This is a better explanation of why I think the onus should be on the pro-vaccine side to pay for vaccinations rather than the anti side to pay for *not* vaccinating.

          1. I agree, the anus is on them.

    2. This is even better than my idea. How about a small annual tax credit ($100) for every vaccinated child in your houshold.

  31. But why should responsible people stay home; why not make irresponsible people stay home?

    NAP. Why do I have to keep bringing this up?

    Yes, they should vaccinate. Yes, I don’t want to die.

    I put my life in jeopardy every time I leave the house. I could get the flu and die. That’s not a reason to use force of arms against those who don’t get the flu shot.

    And no, an argument of degrees doesn’t hold water.

  32. So it certainly seems like a good time to visit Disneyland. It never is quite as good going to an amusement park as it was when I was a young child. But that’s nothing that can’t be fixed with proper dosage.

  33. This is something else that could be taken care of with school choice. Don’t send your kid to a school that doesn’t require vaccinations. Schools would likely pop up to support both sides of the equation. Of course the state will give up too much control, so that’s not going to happen.

    1. And then once a school that doesn’t require vaccinations gets sued into oblivion after some infectious outbreak wipes out all the students, the others will decide to require them.

      1. So, problem solved without government intervention/force?

        1. Amazing, isn’t it?

  34. We were living on an Air Force base in upper Michigan during the early 60s and measles broke out. EVERY child in the base elementary school was vaccinated (we had to produce our shot records on enrollment). Yet measles went through the base like wildfire. Almost every child and many adults came down with it. Can anyone explain it?

    I don’t trust vaccines and I don’t trust officials who try to push vaccines on everyone. Every school child and adult on that base had their shots and yet measles, mumps and chickenpox ran riot at different times. My sisters and I came down with all of them along with most of our school.

    1. M#: The first measles vaccine was licensed in 1963 and a more efficacious version was released in 1968.

      1. And vaccines are not instantaneously effective.

        How long does it take to develop immunity to mumps after vaccination with MMR?

        In one study, 86.6% of vaccinees had evidence of mumps seroconversion at 4 weeks after immunization and 93.3% had evidence of seroconversion after 5 weeks.

        http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp…..s-tech.htm

        In the face of an outbreak, rapid expansion of vaccinations can help limit the spread/duration of the outbreak, but its not going to do much immediately.

      2. The first measles vaccine was licensed in 1963 and a more efficacious version was released in 1968.

        See, there is a problem already. People might want to choose to wait for a more effective vaccine, but you want to force them to accept a less effective one.

        Another problem is that once you’re vaccinated, you simply can’t tell anymore whether you’ve actually been infected by the real disease. For some diseases like TB, that’s a real problem.

        You falsely present the vaccination issue as one of Luddites vs the clear and obvious interests of a vast majority of society.

        In actual fact, there are many reasons not to get vaccinated with specific vaccines, reasons that have nothing to do with the irrational fears. And the people who actually benefit from universal vaccination are a tiny minority.

  35. Up to I looked at the check for $4922 , I didnt believe that…my… friend was truly bringing in money parttime from there pretty old laptop. . there great aunt haz done this for under thirteen months and a short time ago paid for the dept on there cottage and bought a gorgeous Honda .
    have a peek at this web-site ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  36. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.
    You will have business coming to you on a daily basis
    Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance
    .
    read review ?????? http://www.netpay20.com

  37. For the pestilence issue I don’t even care about the NAP or libertarian ideals. It’s just a fact of life and societies that we have found out through science that there is this thing called pestilence and it can be dealt with. It’s a fundamental of the human codition, it’s just something we have to deal with.

    Worrying about following strict libertarian principles for such an issue would be foolish.
    People need to be vaccinated, that’s it.

    There are other, similar biological-based universals to the social/political aspect of the human condition. The pestilence issue is hardly alone

    1. There is no need to legislate reality. If something is universally good, then it will be universally adopted. You can prattle on about “pestilence” all you want, but the conflation of government and society will remain a fallacy of the highest order.

    2. Which vaccinations though?

      The key thing here is that this really is a slippery slope.

      We have effective vaccines for a variety of dangerous and very communicable diseases – I would agree that these are fair game for government violence to enforce their use.

      But then you run into the edge cases.

      Is the HPV vaccine something that should be required?

      What about off-label use of anthrax vaccinations? Even when there are known quality control issues? Because I was forced to get those.

      Flu vaccinations – I am (and was) a healthy, fit individual, statistically the group least likely to suffer dangerous complications from influenza. But I was forced to get *that* vaccination simply because someone decided it was less costly to innoculate us compared to the money lost from those who got sick and had to take a day or two off.

      Anti-malarials – have known (if extemely low chance of) serious side-effects, including psychosis. Been forced to use those also.

      In all those cases it was someone in government, as a matter of policy, deciding, for me, that the benefits outweighed the risks.

      1. A quick review of required childhood vaccinations (pick any state) will provide insights. We are far from mandating only those vaccines linked to dangerous/communicable diseases.

    3. For the pestilence issue I don’t even care about the NAP or libertarian ideals.

      You’ve said enough right there.

      Who defines what constitutes pestilence and how obligated the rest of us are to dispell it?

      Are you *obligated* to cure my kids’ runny noses? Can I use the force of law to compel you to fulfill that obligation? ‘Cuz you need to get to work.

      Vaccination, any and all, wasn’t and isn’t an intrinsic need of humanity. The overwhelming amount of humanity is naturally immune to the tetanus bacterium by virtue of breathing oxygen and having skin. It’s not communicable (appreciably), but we will never eradicated it. Aside from the occasional run in with barbed wire or a rusty nail, it’s largely useless to the average human.

      Should I get to decide how often you should get a tetanus shot?

    4. People need to be vaccinated, that’s it.

      Really? Why? In what way does individual choice on whether to get vaccinated or not fail?

      It’s just a fact of life and societies that we have found out through science that there is this thing called pestilence and it can be dealt with.

      True. It’s also a scientific fact that it doesn’t require universal, mandatory vaccinations.

  38. The Voluntarily Unvaccinated Are Harming Other People in California Measles Outbreak

    No they are simply not helping other people in the measles outbreak. Vaccinating oneself is a positive externality to others. In no way does a person automatically owe other people a favor.

    Stop advocating positive ‘liberty’ Ronald.

    1. If someone gets infected and passes it on to me, they’ve aggressed onto me.

      This does not justify compulsory vaccination however.

      1. What if they don’t know that they have it?

        While they are not moral agents, bacteria and viruses are agents of their own, distinct from the other living things that they are infecting.

      2. If someone gets infected and passes it on to me, they’ve aggressed onto me.

        This does not justify compulsory vaccination however.

        If you own a woodlands next to a cattle farmer, are you obliged to set traps to prevent wolves from entering his land? Are you obliged to exterminate the family of ground hogs that ruin his yard? Are you committing an act of aggression for not providing such positive externalities to others?

        If you really believe that then you are advocating the validity of “positive freedom”, the idea that you have a right to the labor and resources of others by default, probably the most fundamental underlying assumption of socialist ideologies.

      3. If someone gets infected and passes it on to me, they’ve aggressed onto me.

        No, they haven’t. Aggression requires intent.

  39. I reiterate my ingenious plan to ostracize non-immunized children until their parents capitulate.

    New twist, tell the children that non-immunized kids have cooties. It’s not even totally untrue.

    1. only non immunized girls with pigtails have cooties. proven fact.

    2. I reiterate my ingenious plan to ostracize non-immunized children until their parents capitulate.

      That’s a perfectly reasonable plan in a libertarian society. It’s not as long as all people are forced to pay for public roads and public education.

  40. Instead of expending energy on coercive vaccination, which is evil and a cure worse than the disease, focus on quarantining the infected, and possibly suing the ‘patient zero’ for damages. More importantly, design a better vaccine.

    1. Yes – the “patient zero” aspect has been ignored here, and down-played by other media outlets.

      Obviously, this particular vaccine has come under fire previously, and the rate of measles occurrence among vaccinated individuals is suspect in the current outbreak.

    2. and possibly suing the ‘patient zero’ for damages.

      I’m going to sue you when a tree from your yard gets picked up by a tornado and tossed into my house.

      I’ll sue you when a woodpecker living on your property miles away damages my wood siding.

      I will associate acts of nature to you and have you wear your property rights like shackles.

    1. Saving a life costs very little:
      Sample pricing in 2013 of vaccines contracted with suppliers by UNICEF, the world’s largest vaccine buyer.

      Meningitis $0.58

      Ahem… Meningitis has many causes some of which can be vaccinated against, some of which aren’t and some of which are voluntarily induced, but everyone in UNICEF’s domain is savvy enough to understand all those distinctions, right?

      They’re also savvy enough to understand that the actual cost of the vaccine isn’t $0.58 per. It’s contractually negotiated (and potentially legally influenced), based on volume to be $0.58 per, right?

      They’re further savvy enough to be completely aware that 1 vaccine does not equal 1 life saved, right?

      They’re *further* aware that even if UNICEF eleminated every disease on the page, they wouldn’t close up shop and go home, rather, they’d find or invent the next human disease and/or tragedy and ‘charge’ ‘$0.58’ to ‘prevent death’ from that ‘disease/tragedy’, right?

      Since, approx. 10K people die of meningitis every year, you’ll gladly sacrifice $5800 to prevent their deaths, right? And if it turns out that really they die because they turn up in hospitals governed by African warlords or in their homes in Central America too far from any hospital and too poor to buy toilet paper, you’ll cover the cost to rectify those situations as well, right?

      1. Ahem… Meningitis has many causes some of which can be vaccinated against

        In this context, they are obviously talking about meningococcal meningitis.

        1. In this context, they are obviously talking about meningococcal meningitis.

          Is it also obvious if they’re talking about the one(s) that impart herd immunity or the ones that don’t? I mean, I presume the answer would be obvious depending on whether you live in America or other and are 55+ or not.

          Cause it’d be embarassing (or, you know, par for the course) if it were the FDA advertising a price of $0.58 and performing a bait and switch and/or selling snake oil.

          I mean, all those vaccines for less than the price of a cup of coffee, right?

  41. It will be a great day for this country and the world when people realize that science is not a cult, myth, religion or political agenda. Madam Curie is rolling in her grave, no doubt.

    1. It will be a great day for this country and the world when people realize that science is not a cult, myth, religion or political agenda

      Many people who disagree with mandatory vaccinations don’t disagree with the science, they disagree with the principle and the ethics.

      What you are saying is that the state should be able to impanel a group of experts to decide that people are forced to inject stuff into their bodies at gunpoint.

      That’s an unacceptable principle. The fact that the experts happen to be right in the specific case of measles doesn’t change that.

      Madam Curie is rolling in her grave, no doubt.

      Madam Curie died because of scientific hubris and carelessness. She is an excellent example of how very smart scientists can make very stupid decisions.

      1. Being anti-vaccination doesn’t have to be about freedom of choice. We now know from a leading CDC researcher that the CDC has falsified data and covered up the truth about vaccines for years. (see link below) The fact is, outbreaks occur in the most heavily vaccinated populations, because those who get the vaccine walk around shedding the virus to everyone they contact – for 28 days after they receive the vaccine. But that’s not the worst of it. See http://www.globalresearch.ca/v…..ed/5427768

        1. By reasoning that way, you already accept that in principle, a utilitarian case can be made for forcing peaceful, non-aggressing people that are no threat to anybody to inject stuff into their bodies; you accept that government experts can impose their views and opinions on the population at large, at gunpoint. All you are doing is quibble about whether they made the right decision in this particular case.

          You cannot be a libertarian and simultaneously promote the imposition of vaccinations by government.

          Does that mean that anything goes in a libertarian world? Not at all. In a libertarian world, there may well be more pressure on people to get vaccinated: your school, your employer, your landlord or HOA, and restaurants and stores may require proof of vaccination. But that represents a collection of individual, voluntary choices, not forcing people to do things against their will at gunpoint because of the opinions of government experts.

  42. 1. Getting vaccinated does not gaurantee that you won’t get sick. (This year’s flu vaccine is only 23% effective.)

    2. Not getting vaccinated does not garauntee that you will get sick. It merely increases the likelihood that you will get sick if you are exposed.

    There is no libertarian argument for violating anyone’s self-ownership through state mandated (requiring force to ensure compliance) vaccination.

    There IS a libertarian argument for holding someone responsible WHEN they get sick; KNOW they are sick and likely infectious; and CHOOSE to go about their business as usual exposing others [analogous to John’s “walking down the street shooting a gun into the air” argument.]

  43. Hey Ronald Bailey. Instead of spewing talking points for Big Pharma, how about reading a vaccine insert? The MMR vaccine is 3 LIVE viruses and sheds for up to 28 days after injection. It says right in the insert that you should stay away from any immune compromised individual. How are the unvaccinated to blame for this “outbreak”? That little Rhett boy is more in danger going to school and hanging out with his vaccinated peers than he would be if he was hanging around unvaccinated peers.

    1. Look, the point isn’t about whether people can contract and spread the disease.

      The point is that you really should do what the state says, or else, got it?

    2. Oh boy…

  44. my best friend’s aunt makes $83 /hr on the internet . She has been unemployed for 5 months but last month her income was $21952 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at more info…………………………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  45. Anti-vaxxers it’s past time for you to get over your superstition and get your kids vaccinated.

    So you are saying that because government experts should be able to force you to inject random proteins into your body at gunpoint? Because that’s what your position ultimately boils down to.

    Sorry, while I think that people refusing the measles vaccine are stupid, I strongly disagree with the notion that the state should be able to force me to inject stuff into my body, under any circumstance, let alone for something as trivial as a slight chance of a fairly benign disease infecting people who could protect themselves.

    Infants under one year of age cannot be vaccinated.

    Well, then keep them away from other people until they can be vaccinated. Move to a private community where vaccination is mandatory. I really don’t care. But you don’t have a right to force me to inject stuff into your body because you are mildly inconvenienced by me choosing not to do so.

    According to news reports about a quarter of the people infected in the current outbreak have been hospitalized. The Centers for Disease Control reports that there were 644 cases of measles in 2014, up from around 50 in 2012.

    Almost all of those are cases of people who voluntarily chose not to take the vaccine and suffered the consequences. So, frankly, who cares.

  46. Over-sanitizing puts everybody at greater risk of infection. See… our cultural mysophobia has made us all immuno-compromised by not exercising our immune systems through casual exposure to various micro-organisms.

    So, we should ban the sale and use of sanitizers!! Wellll… we’ll grant medical exemptions as necessary, but it will require a huge regulatory system, identification, and prescription requirements…

    Oh! And let’s not forget that antibiotic misuse puts everybody at greater risk

  47. But why should responsible people stay home; why not make irresponsible people stay home?

    For the simple reason that government mandated injections of biologically active substances is unacceptable, period. Whether it is beneficial overall to society is irrelevant.

    Of course, the irony about your utilitarian argument is that it doesn’t even work, since your “responsible people”, people who got vaccinated, don’t have to stay home because they have been vaccinated. The tradeoff is actually between the convenience of a small minority who can’t get vaccinated and the right of everybody else to refuse forcible injections of crap into their bodies. Even if a utilitarian viewpoint were valid, the rights of the majority would clearly trump the convenience of a small minority.

  48. You’re an idiot! First, you provide no proof that the unvaccinated in this measles “outbreak” are children of people who have voluntarily chosen not to vaccinate them. Of those infected, I’d bet good money that MOST are illegal. Not all are children either. Second, you PROVE your idiocy by stating that children under 1 yr are at greater risk because they can not be vaccinated. You obviously have no children and couldn’t be bothered to actually check your facts because they can and do get vaccinated with a heavy series of vaccines, including the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella since you obviously know nothing of vaccines) starting at the tender age of 2 months old! All 5 of my children are vaccinated from all major communicable diseases that we have a vaccine for. However, I’m a smart enough “free thinker” to know that I don’t have to blindly follow the guidelines of the CDC or any other government agency because they’re not always right. I have educated myself and I alone will make decisions about what’s best for my family and in doing so I do consider those around us. But it will be a cold day in hell before I let anyone take away my right to do so!

  49. I am close to someone with a life-destroying condition that came as a result of a bad vaccination.

    Upon studying the issue, I’ve found a medical industry in denial about vaccines’ risks.

    If you want to force the stuff on anyone you can fuck. Right. Off.

  50. Hey Ronald, why don’t you stop lying to people and do some proper research instead of just parroting the company line from the Pharmaceutical and biotech industries all the time?

    Straight from the CDC:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe…..000359.htm

    “Editorial Note: This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%. This level was validated during the outbreak investigation.”

    Vaccines are NOT as effective as you keep telling everyone they are, and they DO have side effects for some people. Why is it a libertarian position would support the right to choose what someone puts in their body when it comes to recreational drugs, but not vaccines?

  51. But Jenny McCarthy and some of her Hollywood pals said that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism, cancer, and other diseases. These are the smartest people on the planet, especially in the sciences. They conducted all of this primary immunological research to back up their claims. They’re so smart that even the United Nations employs them as ambassadors and advisors in biotech and other scientific disciplines. If we can’t trust these celebrities on these issues or their knowledge of immunology and other sciences, who can we trust…..actual science scholars, researchers, or physicians? You’ve got to be kidding! Many of these celebrities actually went to acting school. They can REALLY act like they know what they’re talking about. Scientists and doctors can’t do that.

    BTW…..more people actually die from the flu than have complications stemming from getting the flu vaccine, even when it is only 23% effective. Same thing was true for the smallpox vaccine, the polio vaccine, the meningococcal vaccine, the pneumonia vaccine, the HPV vaccine……….

    1. more people actually die from the flu than have complications stemming from getting the flu vaccine

      Far more people in the US actually die from governmental violence than from not getting vaccinated.

      It is not the function of government in a free society to protect the people from making choices that are dangerous.

  52. So an unvaccinated child who does not have a disease somehow passes on this disease that they don’t have to someone else who is vaccinated for this disease… and when the vaccine doesn’t work, you blame the child who doesn’t have the disease. I see the logic.

  53. Earning cash on-line was ne’er been straight forward because it has become on behalf of me currently. I freelance over the web associate degreed earn concerning seventy five greenbacks an hour. Get longer together with your family by doing jobs that solely need for you to possess a pc and a web access and you’ll have that at your home. slightly effort and handsome earning dream is simply a click away,
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  54. Most of this ignores the real science. Apparently Mr. Bailey is unaware that studies show that outbreaks are most common in the most heavily vaccinated populations. He also seems unaware of the many serious side effects of vaccines – including deafness, seizures, coma, and death. The CDC web site lists the risks of these serious side effects as 4 in 1 million. That’s a HIGHER risk than the 88 cases of measles in a population of 330 million. Furthermore, 88 cases in 330 million is hardly anything to get hysterical about.

    Also, the CDC has made a practice of falsifying data and covering up the real facts about vaccines, as a leading CDC vaccine researcher has now confirmed. Lots of data here, Mr. Bailey, that you, as a supposed science writer, need to see: http://www.globalresearch.ca/v…..ed/5427768

    Good luck down the road as you acquire autoimmune disease from all your many vaccinations.

    1. great comment on this ugly Orwellian article written by Mr. Bailey in Newspeak.

    2. 4 in 1 million serious side effects of vaccines.
      88 cases of 3-day rash & fever (all beneficial, btw) in 330 million. So, the real comparison is, say, max 5 serious sequelae in 330 mil. Therefore, even by the CDC admission the vaccines are hundreds of times more dangerous.
      On the other hand: a single child/event does not have a PERCENTAGE of the risk. She will either get sick or not. This type of fraudulent statistics is also used to confuse & scare people to further the propaganda.

  55. Whenever you hear or see a phrase similar to “think of the children” you know it is scare tactic and not a good idea. The simple math behind this outbreak does not warrant mass vaccination. 650 out of 322 million Americans in 2014 is nothing. But because some kid with leukemia might get the measles, mass vaccination for all! Stop pushing your agenda on others Mr Bailey because it is clouding your judgment. You cannot control what parents can and cannot do with their children. It’s the sad truth that some kids will make it in this world and some won’t.

  56. I think everyone should be free to make as dumb a decision as they want, so long as it doesn’t affect others. This is clearly a situation that does affect others so it should not be optional.

    1. Every decision people make “affects” others. You do not have a right to force me to take a risk because it helps you somehow.

      You have no more right to force me to get vaccinated than you have a right to take my blood or one of my kidneys. All of those might save your life, but all of them mean that you are violating my body.

  57. This is clearly a situation that does affect others so it should not be optional.

    Bullshit.

    Getting vaccinated or not does not affect anyone else (unless you mean it makes the pharmaceutical companies more/less money).

    Getting sick and exposing other people is what affects others here. Vaccinating does not guarantee against that; nor does not vaccinating guarantee that it will happen.

  58. According to this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21539880
    only 23% of people have a PRMN titer of over 1050, 7.4 years after their last booster.
    According to this, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2230231
    if you have a titer of under 1050 and are exposed to measles, you have a 70% chance of becoming subclinically infected, (with flu-like symptoms, but not the classic rash) and presumably contagious.

    These assertions are supported rather than challenged by other relevant scientific papers I’ve seen, although the implications aren’t often discussed in the press.
    It logically follows, that even in a 100% vaccinated population, a large majority are going to be capable of being a carrier of measles virus, and not only that, a carrier who likely won’t be quarantined because the virus won’t be recognized as measles until it hits an individual who hasn’t been vaccinated or whose titer is so low that they get clinical measles.
    .This seems to explain why we persistently see outbreaks of measles in near fully vaccinated populations, including above 99% in various places. The vaccinated seem to be a pool of disease carriers.
    And you’ll notice that it also explains why we continually see outbreaks of other vaccinated diseases, like chickenpox, pertussis, mumps, and maybe flu, but do not see outbreaks of diseases that are not vaccinated, such as scarlet fever, tuberculosis, typhoid.

    1. Thank you, Nat. What can one tell about a science writer who somehow fails to include these and many other similar facts in his articles? He works for the Ministry of Truth and is fluent in Orwellian Newspeak. The trolls here are the dogs from the Animal Farm. Just as incoherent and blood-thirty.

  59. The government and Big Pharma have been engaging in a ruthless fear-mongering campaign for decades now. Mr. Bailey and a lot of commenters on here have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. At least there are plenty of rational comments to the contrary on here.

    One more question: Where exactly in the constitution does it give the government the authority to force people to be vaccinated against their will?

  60. People have been lied to so often by government, they now doubt any claim the government makes. Surely a writer for Reason can understand this. It’s not like the FDA is not thoroughly captured by the pharmaceutical industry, and it is not as if most doctors don’t blindly believe the FDA. Frankly, I think some vaccines are invaluable, some are not particularly valuable, and some are likely worthless.
    The worth of a vaccine is difficult to evaluate. It depends on the efficacy, the probability of possible side effects, the likelihood of exposure to the pathogen, the value of the coefficient of transmission of the pathogen, the severity of the likely illness.
    I personally believe infants receive too many vaccinations to quickly. I believe this increases the likelihood of side effects.

  61. All these drug companies, making billions on drugs they sell to people brain washed into thinking they are doing them more good than harm, fill the vaccines they create so full of $#!+ . The CDC has come out apologizing that vaccines they have produced in past aren’t full strength, and nothing more than saline and fillers. You scared cats want to push the vaccines down everyones throat!? Mandatory Health insurance was supposed to be affordable.NOT! Now you want to make vaccinations mandatory…How about . .NOT!!!
    If you would quit picking your nose and eating your boogers you wouldn’t be sick all the time!!!!

  62. When the pox comes, Marin County is going to have a lot of cheap real estate.

  63. Superstition is the perfect word for it. And this, mostly from the “science party.”

  64. Treating measles like something to be eradicated at all costs is irrational; auto accidents, bad diets, and wars are a much bigger threat to our lives. It’s rather like spending all our resources to strip-search plane passengers instead of engaging in diplomacy.
    You can call people superstitious because they don’t trust the pharma industry or government bureaucrats to be truthful or right (after a history of advocating corn consumption and injecting black people with STD’s–I call that a reasonable suspicion), but would you go so far as to advocate that individuals be strapped down and forcibly vaccinated?
    Keep in mind that measles was a common childhood disease. I had two kinds of measles, mumps, chicken pox, and more as a kid, without any lasting effects. Researchers (if you believe them) have already determined there’s a downside to eradicating germs; apparently it weakens the immune system. I don’t think calling people who are exercising their own judgement “superstitious” contributes anything to the debate (I certainly did not read beyond the word).

  65. Admission by a vaccine proponent: the measles vaccination has failed. That considered, can anyone really judge someone else’s decision not to take a risk for something that lacks reward? http://business.financialpost……outbreaks/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.