Vaccines

Keep Vaccine Choice—So Long as Families Pay Their Own Way

Requiring that people vaccinate their kids if they want taxpayers paying their bills boosts immunization without making the treatment worse than the disease.

|

U.S. Dept HHS

A friend of mine who worked in pediatric private practice in the Washington, D.C. suburbs had a strict policy on vaccination: If you didn't vaccinate your children, you had to find another practice. He would try to persuade, he would give several warnings, but ultimately, those who didn't vaccinate had to find another provider.

My wife's policy is very different. As a rural pediatrician in an area with a large population skeptical of vaccines (and of anything that's happened since the Scientific Revolution, so far as I can tell), she knows that families have few alternatives and might just stop taking their kids to the doctor if turned away. The local culture, salted with New Age/alternative-everything types, requires her to compromise. So she persuades, details the gruesome realities of diseases against which vaccines protect, shifts vaccination schedules, and ultimately works with people who believe things that my wife knows to be…uh…contrary to the evidence.

But she does start steaming when those same patients go to the front desk to pay their tab with AHCCCS, Arizona's implementation of Medicaid. That coverage guarantees that any preventable diseases and their health consequences that could likely have been headed off by a few shots will be treated courtesy of the taxpayers.

"If they get meningitis and go deaf because they weren't vaccinated," she fumes, "the treatment for that comes out of public money. If you're going to take money from taxpayers, then follow standards of care."

AHCCCS produces an occasional report on "Immunization Completion Rates by 24 months of Age." The 2012 edition noted an across the board decline in immunizations among patients served by the program. It's not just Arizona, though. The report points to "A national decrease in the number of children being fully immunized; from a high of 84 percent in 2004 to a low of 73 percent in 2009. A rate that low was last reported in the early 1990s."

AHCCCS

It is a national issue. Drawing off of recent Centers for Disease Control figures, CBS reports that "the immunization rate for the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine dropped from 92 percent in 2008 to 90 percent…The rate of children being vaccinated against whooping cough also declined slightly."

Seriously, folks. The Scientific Revolution was a good thing. The crazy—it burns (and blinds, and cripples,and kills).

Much of the public debate now is over making vaccination mandatory across the board, without much discussion of what that means. Are we talking about denying unvaccinated kids access to public schools? Or are we going to send SWAT to work its D-Day magic and drag the kids off for shots and a foster home?

Because there is a difference. A forceful approach involving flash-bang grenades may not necessarily make the world a better, healthier place in which to live.

I think my wife's approach makes the most sense. If you want the taxpayers to pick up the tab, you follow standards of care. Access to public services like government schools (where other tots might be exposed to your unvaccinated darlings) could work the same way (this is generally the rule now, though many states allow a variety of exemptions on non-medical grounds). Update: I'm a big school choice advocate, as regular readers know, and homeschool my own kid. I would prefer to see state dominance of education end, with families choosing the environments that work for them.

And if you want to pay your own way, educate your kids among like-minded people, and make your own choices, good for you. Stay over there, please. A little farther, if you don't mind.

Reason's Ron Bailey suggests noncoercive "shaming and shunning," too.

That approach won't make everybody happy. Some people will complain that they're denied public services to which they're "entitled." Others will complain that you can't get universal vaccination and herd immunity without a touch of the lash.

But simply requiring that people vaccinate their kids if they want taxpayers paying their bills should boost immunization rates without making the treatment worse than the disease.

Note: I don't endorse Medicaid as a wise policy. I take its current existence as a given, for the moment, and suggest the access it provides to taxpayer funds should be conditional.

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.

260 responses to “Keep Vaccine Choice—So Long as Families Pay Their Own Way

  1. “The local culture, salted with New Age/alternative-everything types”

    So, this is a rural Republican county?

    1. http://freebeacon.com/issues/t…..-movement/

      I will just leave this here.

      1. John – leave it at that except that you’re missing some info – no drug companies can be sued for vaccine injuries, by a law passed in the 1980s. A vaccine injury compensation find is set up by the government (funded by taxes on EVERY SINGLE VACCINE ADMINISTERED in this country) but the burden of proof is on the victim making the claim, and 2 out of three claims have been rejected every year since the fund was set up in 1986.

    2. It’s San Francisco.

    3. Northern AZ, a Mecca for hippies. I used to live in Flagstaff, you couldn’t walk a block down the street without seeing a white person with dreadlocks.

    4. So funny I forgot to laugh.

    5. Please. We finally get ONE issue where Left and right are equally at fault but we get the knee jerk lame joke from the likes of you.

      Left and Right are the hysterical ones – California leads the pack in I’m not vaccinating while Mississippi is the best at doing it.

  2. It’s a rural Republican county near Sedona, with lots of folks crunching their crystals.

    1. Interesting.

    2. Wait, hippie republicans? That’s a thing?

        1. I was a thing. Their long hair was usually in the form of a powdered wig.

          1. er, “It”.

      1. Come up to North Idaho- hippie Republicans definitely exist, as do libertarian hippie and Fundamentalist survivalists all living in relative harmony. Each group just wants to be left alone and Idaho’s a good place for that. I stopped counting the number of times I saw a truck with a gun rack (with guns) parked next to a Subaru with a “make love not war” bumper sticker. Sadly, things are changing- now we have a surge of California progressives that don’t get along with anyone except themselves.

  3. Figure out the total cost associated with these outbreaks. Then every person with a kid who can’t verify vaccination should be assessed a special penalty that is their pro rata share of the costs associated with the outbreak. Just because you get lucky and your kid doesn’t get sick, shouldn’t mean you duck out on paying for the consequences of this idiocy. Further, if it can be shown that you or your child got sick and spread the disease to someone else, that person should have a right to sue you for damages and pain and suffering, unless of course they themselves were not vaccinated in which case, they have no right of action against anyone.

    You are right, you don’t want to throw people in jail for not vaccinating their kids. Those people, should however be responsible for every single penny their actions cost the rest of us.

    1. Figure out the total cost associated with these outbreaks. Then every person with a kid who can’t verify vaccination should be assessed a special penalty that is their pro rata share of the costs associated with the outbreak. Just because you get lucky and your kid doesn’t get sick, shouldn’t mean you duck out on paying for the consequences of this idiocy.

      Nothing says petty tyranny quite like guilt by association and group punishments for things that mar or may not even be valid crimes.

      Let the relativism flow through you, John. Yes yes….

      1. It is not guilt by association. The reason why these outbreaks are happening is because a large number of people are doing this. The actions of each person is the same. The only difference is some of them are lucky and don’t get sick and some of them are not. They are both equally culpable.

        These people are going to cost this country a lot of money. Look at the money they have already cost Disney. There is no way to figure out who was patient zero there. So who does Disney go to for compensation for their loss?

        It is entirely fair and just that everyone who doesn’t vaccinate their kid should pay a share of the losses that results from the total failure to do so. I don’t understand why you guys think these people should avoid paying for the harm their actions do to society.

        Reason just has some kind of love affair and affinity for these people. Everyone is just in love with the idea of defending them and making sure they impose the cost of their idiocy on the rest of us.

        1. It is not guilt by association. The reason why these outbreaks are happening is because a large number of people are doing this. The actions of each person is the same. The only difference is some of them are lucky and don’t get sick and some of them are not. They are both equally culpable.

          It is guilt by association, and a tenuously abstract association at that. You would penalize people who had nothing to do with the outbreak and may never have come within a 1,000 miles of the microbe in question. Not to mention the issue of people outside of the hypothetical jurisdiction having “culpability” as well. Shit if a kid gets measles in Boston, I trust you’ll be demanding punitive damages from every unvaccinated person in Sri Lanka, Mexico, Russia and everywhere else. Principles of justice don’t stop at the border and this group punishment of yours shouldn’t either if it’s really a valid principle of justice.

      2. This isn’t a group punishment. It is an individual punishment where an the responsibility for an aggregate and foreseeable harm is placed squarely on those responsible.

        The scenario is akin to a group of 12 people playing Russian roulette in the middle of the street — even if only 2 of those people end up killing random passerbys, each individual has committed the same act and should be penalized accordingly. This is especially the case when these morons are encouraging each other to keep going.

        1. So, I take it you support the Shared Responsibility Payment, then?

          1. This is so unresponsive to the comment it’s in response to that it can only be the result of not having read or understood said comment.

            1. This isn’t a group punishment. It is an individual punishment where an the responsibility for an aggregate and foreseeable harm is placed squarely on those responsible.

              This is exactly the argument that has been made in favor of the individual mandate. Some people without insurance will get sick and receive uncompensated care (that would be harm).

              1. This is exactly the argument that has been made in favor of the individual mandate.

                And the argument fails because the situations are not analogous.

                1) Health care =/= health insurance

                There are ways of getting the former without the latter.

                2) The populations that are uninsured often don’t need that insurance at all, as they are not in need of treatment (e.g., young people).

                3) Providing uncompensated care is sheerly the result of legislation. The laws of nature are not so easy to repeal.

                Short answer: health insurance is not a public good but rather a private one, and properly stated is a financial instrument rather than a provision of health goods. There is no “aggregate and foreseeable harm” that is universal, as is the case with vaccination because of the heterogeneity of the population and the various other ways one can recieve health care. Further, the harm is significant: the amount one spends on health insurance can be very steep, especially for the young. In contrast, there is virtually no harm for the most important vaccines we have available (Jenny McCarthy idiocy aside).

                1. There are ways of getting the former without the latter.

                  Um, how is this responsive to the point that some people will receive uncompensated emergency care?

                  The populations that are uninsured often don’t need that insurance at all, as they are not in need of treatment (e.g., young people).

                  Some of those people will get in car accidents.

                  Providing uncompensated care is sheerly the result of legislation. The laws of nature are not so easy to repeal.

                  The EMTALA isn’t going anywhere.

                  In contrast, there is virtually no harm for the most important vaccines we have available (Jenny McCarthy idiocy aside).

                  Sorry, I don’t buy into utilitarianism.

                  1. how is this responsive to the point that some people will receive uncompensated emergency care

                    Because the population of people who will receive uncompensated emergency care is not randomly selected from the general population of the insured. This subset can be isolated and damages are entirely specific — so much so, that one could very easily sue each person for specific damages, if we so chose.

                    Some of those people will get in car accidents

                    Society should not pay for those persons’ health insurance, therefore repeal provisions requiring such. Problem solved.

                    Society should not pay for anti-vaxxers’ dilution of herd immunity, therefore…?

                    The EMTALA isn’t going anywhere

                    Society should not pay for those persons’ health insurance, therefore repeal provisions requiring such. Problem solved.

                    Society should not pay for anti-vaxxers’ dilution of herd immunity, therefore…?

                    Sorry, I don’t buy into utilitarianism.

                    This isn’t utilitarianism, it’s categorical imperative. This is an entirely reasonable moral imperative (for some vaccines) precisely because there is not a harm attached.

                    1. This is an entirely reasonable moral imperative (for some vaccines) precisely because there is not a harm attached.

                      Virtually no harm, which you said above, is radically different from “not a harm”.

                    2. Virtually no harm, which you said above, is radically different from “not a harm”

                      It’s not radically different when that chance of harm can be accurately assessed by an appropriate medical professional.

                      Let’s take the polio vaccine and make a categorical imperative out of it:

                      IF doctor assesses and recommends against taking vaccine, avoid vaccine

                      ELSE take polio vaccine

                      Exactly what can you show to be the actual harm of making this a universal rule? Surely less than the problems and corner cases that have been shown in the case of rules like “Don’t lie” or “Don’t steal”.

                      What deontological basis do you have to find fault in this as a rule, and why should the costs of failing to apply this rule fall on any other than the lawbreaker?

                2. A lot of kids don’t need vaccines at all. We just don’t know who they are. Same goes for young people who aren’t getting health care because they don’t have insurance.

                  Saying the two are not analogous is silly.

                  1. A lot of kids don’t need vaccines at all. We just don’t know who they are.

                    Duh. That’s the point.

                    Same goes for young people who aren’t getting health care because they don’t have insurance.

                    Not even close to being true, and irrelevant since as was previously stated the only person being harmed by this (barring government interference) is the young person in question. There are many potential solutions to this problem which address it more specifically than a convoluted scheme for comprehensive universal health insurance. This is not at all the case for vaccines.

                    1. “Not even close to being true, and irrelevant since as was previously stated the only person being harmed by this (barring government interference) is the young person in question.”

                      Same applies to vaccines. It’s only really an issue because government has interfered with, for example, public education.

                    2. It’s only really an issue because government has interfered with, for example, public education

                      No, it’s not. I know that on this board we like to pretend that every problem in the universe is the result of the evil government, but smallpox and polio existed prior to public school and was not resolved by privatizing X. It was resolved by public education and vaccination campaigns of exactly the sort that are being undermined by the anti-vaccination movement. Unforced is best, but when it comes right down to it there is a perfectly valid moral basis to indict those who knowingly decide not to vaccinate (for certain vaccines) in defiance of medical counsel.

                    3. 2 points: 1) Lack of insurance is not contagious. 2) There is no law of make that says uninsured sick people shall receive care for free. Laws and hospital policies maintain that reality (at least for the destitute). Both can be changed much more easily than epidemiological processes.

                    4. “1) Lack of insurance is not contagious.”

                      Neither is a lack of a vaccine.

                      “There is no law of make that says uninsured sick people shall receive care for free.”

                      Unless its an emergency, in which case that is exactly what the law says. Also, in practice, people ring up huge hospital debts and then don’t pay them, which means we pay them.

                      And people who don’t get medical care for their diseases tend to spread them.

                    5. “Law of make” should read “Law of Nature”. Autocorrect hates me.

                      And you’ve identified the wrong reference for the analogy. I’m not particularly worried that my kids will catch vaccinelessness from the next door new-ager’s little angels. I’m worried they might catch the mumps. Their health insurance, or lack thereof, has no effect on my ability to find care myself, nor on my likelihood of getting sick.

        2. I agree…

          If I see you walking down the street with your child, I will put a buulet in your head because the State makes me pay $4K/yr to educate children.

        3. Yes and no. Assuming this game is legal, they haven’t committed the same act because only 2 not 12 are dead; unless the game is illegal there is no conspiracy to engage in a crime where people may get shot, so only 2 not 12 people are to be punished.

          If 12 people legally refuse to be vaccinated and 2 spread the disease, assuming you could prove that, then only 2 get punished.

    2. Figure out the total cost associated with these outbreaks. Then every person with a kid who can’t verify vaccination should be assessed a special penalty that is their pro rata share of the costs associated with the outbreak.

      Yes. Let’s erect another bureaucracy. One more step towards the perfect society.

      Further, if it can be shown that you or your child got sick and spread the disease to someone else, that person should have a right to sue you for damages and pain and suffering, unless of course they themselves were not vaccinated in which case, they have no right of action against anyone.

      I can agree with this. But why wouldn’t an unvaccinated person be able to sue another unvaccinated person? I thought spraying viruses around was like spraying bullets around. If someone else gets hit, then you are responsible. Why does the first person’s responsibility for damages depend on whether the second person was wearing a Kevlar vest?

      1. Contributory negligence. If the person had been vaccinated, they wouldn’t have gotten sick. Their own negligence contributed to the harm.

        1. If the person had been vaccinated, they wouldn’t have gotten sick.

          Some of the people who have died from the flu despite being vaccinated might take exception to that.

          1. We are not talking about the flu. Moreover, if you have been vaccinated, you can sue. Vaccines clearly work. These diseases didn’t disappear because the Gods stopped being angry at us. The disappeared because the vaccines were effective.

            Anyone who doesn’t vaccinate their kid, absent medical reasons not to, is a dangerous retard, period. Stop defending these assholes.

            1. The next question, then, is who gets to decide what is a valid “medical” reason? Is it a bureaucracy or just your general practitioner?

              Besides, which assholes are we defending here? I’m just saying that an unvaccinated person should get to sue another unvaccinated person for damages due to infection, assuming John’s theory that viruses are like bullets.

              1. The next question, then, is who gets to decide what is a valid “medical” reason?

                A doctor. It is not hard. There are very few kids who can’t. Mostly it is kids with compromised immune systems due to chemotherapy or something.

                It is a very easy question. You guys just can’t fucking comprehend the idea that sometimes decisions are easy and not a slippery slope to anything.

                1. You guys just can’t fucking comprehend the idea that sometimes decisions are easy and not a slippery slope to anything.

                  It’s not difficult to imagine how forcing people to put things in their body that they don’t want could possibly lead to adverse consequences.

                  Vaccines are terrific. So terrific that I trust most people would opt in for them, or could be properly incentivized to opt in for them without having guns put to their heads.

            2. That’s one particularly timely example, but vaccines aren’t biological force fields, so that statement is simply not correct. It’s possible, though orders of magnitude less likely, to contract a disease for which one has been vaccinated. The classic MMR vaccine is 99% effective. 1% of 100 million people is still enough to fill a major metro area.

              1. When they are taken collectively by the entire population, they wipe out the disease. No one gets small pox anymore. There hasn’t been a case of it reported since the 70s, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. That is entirely due to vaccines. Before this idiocy started, measals and mumps had totally disappeared from the developed world.

                Come on PM. Vaccines work. Stop it with this retarded fucking equivocation. These people are primitive morons. There is no defending them or giving them anything but the scorn they deserve.

                1. The benefit of herd immunity is that it becomes much more difficult for diseases to spread, even to those without immunity, so it’s possible to effectively eradicate the disease. Should you become exposed to the disease though, there’s still a (very small) chance that you could become infected despite the inoculation. I suppose it’s kind of nit-picking.

                2. There hasn’t been a case of it reported since the 70s, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

                  And this was done without forcing anyone to do anything. Why then do we need to enact this draconian law when we have seen that for the vast, vast, vast majority of people it hasn’t been needed?

                  This trend of anti-vaxors has contributed to a measurable, but still tiny shift in vax rates nationally. In most places, there are more than enough vaccinated people to meet the 80%-90% herd immunity thresholds. And in those places where it has dropped below, it is easy enough to target for education or for people to self select whether or not they want to live amongst plague risking luddites.

              2. Also, I’m generally not in favor of compulsory vaccination, but think it could be adequately incentivized, particularly in the absence of government, to make it near-universal (insurance company can deny coverage to you and your unvaccinated kids, for example; school can deny admission to your unvaccinated kids; hospital can deny treatment; etc).

                My only quibble with the piece is that Reason has raged repeatedly against denying public services to other disfavored classes of people (drug addicts, convicts, sex offenders, etc), so it comes off as editorial hypocrisy. But I don’t think it’s a bad idea.

                1. Okay. I misunderstood you. In reason’s defense, my being a drug addict doesn’t make you one. My not being vaccinated could in contrast make you sick.

                  1. My not being vaccinated could in contrast make you sick.

                    What if you were vaccinated and the vaccine failed and you got the disease and then passed the disease? You would still be just as responsible for harm and not absolved from good intentions, right?

            3. Why aren’t we talking about the flu? There is a vaccine for the flu. Science says you should get the vaccine. The flu kills people. How are we not talking about the flu? Because you don’t want to?

            4. Actually if you look at the timelines the dieases really did kind of go away without the vaccines. I don’t know how the hell people can’t look at the polio timeline and go “hey it obviously dropped off right here, then the vaccine was introduced and here is where the number of people with polio starts to climb back up” but you know…graphs being what they are and everything, you’re right, you know it, you’re right…everyone else in the world besides you is a retard. oh and the flu, well I mean that doesn’t count, lets not talk about those vaccines right? I mean, it’s just a fact that every year a flu vaccine is produced using a “best guess” at what this years flu virus will have mutated into…but science is all about best guesses yea? Unreproducible best guesses. Science. Yup. Of course people who go on and on about how safe and effective vaccines are don’t know anything about reproducible results because those types of scientific studies aren’t done on vaccines huh?

            5. Ah, but you can’t sue, you’re relegated to minor compensation out of a government fund that runs out of money often. Hence the reason you have to sign a waiver before they’ll inoculate.

          2. Your point about vaccines not always working lends ammunition to John. If it were just the unvaccinated who got sick, we wouldn’t be having this debate (at least not on the libertarian ideas discussed here; I’m sure others would still be happy to have it). Let the morons accept the consequences of their actions. The issue is that they can get others, who have been responsible enough to get vaccinated but unfortunate enough not to get immunity, sick. These are the people that would have the opportunity for redress by allow negligence claims.

            1. I haven’t seen in any of the articles, has anyone who has been vaccinated gotten the disease?

              1. Which disease are we talking about? If you mean measles, I can’t speak to that. No idea. In general, it’s pretty well established that vaccines are not 100% effective (more like 98-99.9%, depending on the disease). So even if no one in this outbreak has gotten sick despite their vaccination status, it’s only a matter of time until the law of large numbers kicks in and that becomes the case.

                1. I believe that there have been a few recent, different outbreaks, so any of them. Whooping Cough I thought was one and I thought there had been more than one measles one, too.

                  If 20% of those in Disneyland were vaccinated, the failure rate is certainly higher than 1%. Which goes to the question of what actually constitutes having all your vaccinations up to date.

              2. About 20% of the folks who got Disneymeasles were vaccinated.

        2. So does “contributory negligence” also work in car accidents and assaults?

          If they had had a brand new car with maxed out safety features they would have survived me T-boning them. Instead they were driving a ’94 Taurus and got killed.

          If he had been wearing a Kevlar vest he would have survived me shooting him. Therefore I’m only guilty of aggravated assault, not murder.

          1. So does “contributory negligence” also work in car accidents and assaults?

            Yes. If I am negligent and pull out in front of you, but you could have avoided me anyway had you not been speeding or driving a car without proper brakes, you traditionally would not win a suit against me. Now many states have something called “comparative negligence” which is a softening of that rule. I won’t bore you with the details but the bottom line is that if your negligence contributes to a harm, you generally can’t sue me for my negligence contributing to it as well.

            1. Nice of you to ignore my examples and substitute your own, weaker, examples. I guess mine were… inconvenient?

              Perhaps I led us off track by bringing up auto accidents. Let’s get back to your assertion that viruses are like bullets and tell me how contributory negligence works in that case. Does contributory negligence not apply to Kevlar vests simply because owning and wearing one would be inconvenient?

              1. If you don’t get vaccinated, you are negligent. It is a reasonable precaution against a foreseeable harm. If you then get sick, you shouldn’t be able to sue the person who got you sick since your failure to take a reasonable precaution contributed to your getting sick.

                It is really that simple.

              2. Huh? Contributory negligence would be used against the population of people stupid enough to not get vaccinated. The only people who would have a chance of winning such a suit would be the small population of those who were vaccinated but unfortunately did not acquire immunity. In the absence of this population, there is no contributory negligence suit in the first case. Your examples clearly misunderstand the common law that exists in this realm.

          2. For the Kevlar vest problem, you should probably not ask John, as he doesn’t think “civilians” should even be allowed to own them.

            /snark

        3. Contributory negligence. If the person had been vaccinated, they wouldn’t have gotten sick. Their own negligence contributed to the harm.BULLSHIT!

          Fuck are you stupid. Vaccines are not 100% effective. Therefore, the vaccinated still have a greater than zero chance of getting sick.

          And even the vaccinated can carry and cause outbreaks.

          1. Edit button please

    3. We can just tack it onto Obamacare’s Shared Responsibility Payment, comrade!

      1. Can’t we just expect people to pay for the consequences of their actions? These outbreaks are happening because we have lost our heard immunity. And that is the result of all of the people who have done this collectively.

        I don’t understand why you think I should have to pay for these people’s idiocy. It doesn’t matter if their kid got sick. Their actions contributed to the loss of herd immunity and that loss created all of this damage.

        They should have to pay for that. Why does their right to be stupid mean I should have to suffer as a result?

        1. Their actions contributed to the loss of herd immunity and that loss created all of this damage.

          Herd immunity is an illusion. Vaccinated people get sick at a non-zero rate to begin with. Individuals and we, the herd, lose immunity to all kinds of things all the time. Even vaccinated people get infected at a non-zero rate and pointing to any one or even a handful of people (vaccinated or not) and saying, “They’re guilty of the loss of herd immunity.” is rather basally absurd, but certainly wholly absurd from a top-down policy level.

          I’m all for the judicial system finding group X is responsible for some level culpability. However, you said it yourself, it’s too hard to find patient zero. It’s likely they weren’t vaccinated, it’s possible they were, it’s even possible they were and it had worn off. Even beyond patient zero the nature of disease and epidemiology is too complex to develop blanket or boilerplate vaccinated = innocent type policies. And, IMO, it violates our precepts of law to adopt unvaccinated = guilty policies.

          1. Herd immunity is an illusion. Vaccinated people get sick at a non-zero rate to begin with.

            Bullshit. See small pox. The disease is completely gone. That is due to vaccination.

            And the only reason there was a patient zero is because these idiots stopped vaccinating their kids. It is that simple.

            1. Not all vaccines work the same way, and the Smallpox example was accomplished without the government mandating everybody get vaccinated.

    4. This is a lot like charging someone who commits theft with murder if the theft makes some cop on edge so he shoots a guy. Aggregated culpability is not a Libertarian principle at all. Not even close.

      1. No. It is like charging everyone in a riot, with rioting even though they didn’t personally throw any rocks.

        1. No. It is like charging everyone in a riot, with rioting even though they didn’t personally throw any rocks.

          Which is also illiberal. Merely being present at a gathering doesn’t make you partially responsible for the few people who actually damaged some stuff.

          1. No its not. The fact that I am there contributed to the lawless environment with enabled the people to throw rocks. If we are both there and you throw the rocks because you are stronger and better at it than I am, we are both responsible for the riot.

            1. Read that back & see how stupid it looks. Being there? It’s not like people send out RSVP on an invitation to riot, and take control of the space in which it occurs.

              1. It is called the felony murder rule Robert. It only looks stupid to you because you apparently have no understanding of how liability or the law works.

                1. You have to prove I was part of the scheme to commit felony – not simply at the scene of the protest that became a riot, or crime etc.

                  If you are saying I went there to ‘stand watch’ or run interference, so some could riot, your argument gets stronger.

                  Go rent some Law and Order shows.

            2. You,merely being present enabled other people to throw rocks?

              So if a bank robber runs out and hides behind my car and shoots a cop,m’s hold I be charged with aiding and abetting?

              1. Should say “Should I be charged…”

              2. IIRC John is from Virginia, and I’ll bet he voted for McDonald. Therefore he’s guilty of contributing to official corruption!

            3. Contributing to a lawless environment? I hear the DEA is hiring.

            4. The fact that I am there contributed to the lawless environment with enabled the people to throw rocks

              By that logic we’re all guilty of countless crimes of association.

    5. I don’t see why insurance companies can’t price out differences in payments based on vaccination status.

      Same goes for companies. While everyone’s premiums are typically equal, I’ve worked places that discount those premiums for people who aren’t smokers.

      This seems like the most likely and effective way to incentivize vaccination that doesn’t involve government bureaucracy, social payments, or force.

      1. It could also easily become a term for employment, particularly in Orange County or other places with high rates of people forgoing vaccinations.

        If I’m an employer, I don’t want a shit load of FMLAs because 6% of my dumbass workstaff who decided to not get the MMR for BS reasons has to take off 4 weeks treat their kid for measles.

        1. I have no problem with employers or private schools requiring vaccinations; those are voluntary agreements between numerous private parties.

          The problem is with government mandating this, not because there is anything wrong with the measles vaccine (it’s safe and effective), but because the principle is wrong and it’s unnecessary.

    6. Why are you associating with people who don’t get vaccines? I don’t hang with homeless people so I don’t get lice or hepatitis. I stay away from them. Just stay away from people who don’t get vaccines; they can’t infect you through the internet.

      1. How do you figure out at work or in public places who has or has not been vaccinated? Do you ask everyone who comes near you?

    7. I owe you nothing. I vaccinate myself to protect my own body from disease, not yours.

      It is my choice. And my choice may affect your life, just like purchasing the property you were looking at affects your life.

      If I cough near you and you get a cold, would you sue me? Or is that just the cost you weigh every time you go out in public?

    8. Hey, we can write this into the ACA, because in America government should decide who gets what.

      Essentially everyone has to pay, the government decides who gets what, and those the government decides should get nothing have to pay again. Thank goodness we don’t just get what we can afford to pay for, that would be terrible.

    9. Figure out the total cost associated with these outbreaks. Then every person with a kid who can’t verify vaccination should be assessed a special penalty that is their pro rata share of the costs associated with the outbreak.

      Uhm… why limit it to the unvaccinated?

      What about the vaccinated that cause outbreaks?

    10. I’ll guarantee this…for the parent who decides not to vaccinate and I sit in the jury of the parent whose susceptible child died because herd immunity wasn’t maintained…well I’d have a hard time convicting the guy.

  4. Access to public services like government schools (where other tots might be exposed to your unvaccinated darlings) could work the same way (this is generally the rule now, though many states allow a variety of exemptions on non-medical grounds).

    And if you want to pay your own way, educate your kids among like-minded people, and make your own choices, good for you. Stay over there, please. A little farther, if you don’t mind.

    Let’s not pretend that it’s a valid exercise of free association or property rights for the government to virtually monopolize the education market and then attach strings to the provision of that artificially scarce resource. “Don’t like it? Quit your job and homeschool! See you have a choice.”

    1. Let’s not pretend that it’s a valid exercise of free association or property rights for the government to virtually monopolize the education market and then attach strings to the provision of that artificially scarce resource. “Don’t like it? Quit your job and homeschool! See you have a choice.”

      They tell religious people that all of the time. You don’t want your kid getting sex ed in the third grade, fuck you send them to private school.

      But they can’t tell these idiots they have to get their kid vaccinated and they are free to send their kid to school even though they endanger the other kids.

      Why does Reason like these retards so much? These people are ignorant scum. They are beneath contempt. Yet, you guys think they have a right to be so and bear none of the costs being so causes.

      1. Why does Reason like these retards so much?

        Yeah, and why does the ACLU like Illinois Nazis so much?

        1. Do the Nazis make people sick? Do the Nazis harm anyone by marching?

          Not the last I looked. Your right to be stupid does not include your right to harm me or get away with not paying for the harm you cause.

          1. That’s not relevant to whether or not Reason “likes” these people. Defending someone’s right to be a moron does not equate to liking them.

            1. You are not defending their right to be a moron. You are defending their right to be a moron and not pay for the harm it causes. I am not saying they can’t think this or say it. They can even do it. They should just have to pay for every dime it costs society.

              1. Again, that has nothing to do with why Reason is defending these people. You disagree with Reason on precisely what is being defended here. That’s fine. No need to mischaracterize their motives though.

                1. I also quibble with the notion that “Reason” is doing anything. JD Tuccille is taking a particular stance here. Ron Bailey took a different stance yesterday. Reason as a whole has never taken a stance, to my knowledge. The fact that there’s this much debate amongst libertarians leads me to believe that this is one of those tough issues (like abortion) on which it’s not entirely clear how to be consistent with libertarian ethical precepts.

                  1. The fact that there’s this much debate amongst libertarians leads me to believe that this is one of those tough issues (like abortion) on which it’s not entirely clear how to be consistent with libertarian ethical precepts.

                    BURN THE HERETIC!!

      2. They tell religious people that all of the time. You don’t want your kid getting sex ed in the third grade, fuck you send them to private school.

        And such are the problems with tax funded education. But alas two wrongs don’t make a right.

    2. Strawman –
      Of course Tucille supports school choice.
      Of course the better world has school choice and opt-in vaccinations.

      The slightly better world than today unfortunately is school monopoly that can exclude opt-out vaccinations.

  5. Freedom includes the freedom to be an idiot.

    Schools, companies, and other institutions are also free to not associate with idiots who don’t immunize. My kids’ enrolled in private day care and later in parochial High School, was contingent on providing immunization records. Non-compliance was not an option.

    1. Some schools and school systems are monopolies within their area. That precludes free association rights on their part.

      1. True, it would be better to do away with public schooling. But that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. I’d rather accept the “good” solution (vaccination requirements) than potentially sacrifice my kids on the altar of the “perfect” (end to public schooling).

      2. Tough shit. Why does that make it okay to put the other students in danger? If my kid wanted to bring his pet mountain lion to school every day, would they have to let that happen to? I mean there isn’t a private school available for me and the other mountain lion lovers.

        1. Tough shit. Why does that make it okay to put the other students in danger?

          Putting them in danger would be sending them to school knowing they’re infected. Not vaccinated yourself insofar as it effects anyone else is simply not providing them with a positive externality.

          If my kid wanted to bring his pet mountain lion to school every day, would they have to let that happen to? I mean there isn’t a private school available for me and the other mountain lion lovers.

          So by analogy, you think my position is that kids should be allowed to bring a Petri dish of highly infectious microbes to school?

  6. I’m not convinced “shaming and shunning will work. A lot of people respond to shaming by doubling down. They see themselves as persecuted and their beliefs become even more a part of their identities. Just look at how people on this board respond to shaming on a given issue. Rarely does anybody back down, even when the rest of the community is against them.

    Instead, I think the best you can do is engage them. Try to earn their trust. Try to educate them in a non-confrontational way. And if all that fails… shun them, but without shaming them.

    1. I’d *love* to see someone from H&R attempting gentle persuasion. It would be like an elephant trying to dance the ballet.

      1. Have you ever seen that video where Mythbusters literally put a bull in a China shop? The beast was surprisingly graceful.

        I try gentle persuasion on here all the time. I’m not perfect, obviously, and I’ve all but given up on Tony, but I try. I doubt I’ll win the other person over, but I figure it might actually sway some lurkers who are on the fence.

        1. And then there’s the whole “sometimes people behave differently on quasi-anonymous internet boards than in real life” thing.

          This is our little corner of the galaxy where we can say things that wouldn’t necessarily fly in polite company with the knowledge that we are among like-minded people.

          1. This is our little corner of the galaxy where we can say things that wouldn’t necessarily fly in polite company with the knowledge that we are among like-minded people.

            True. I’m not saying that should change. I’m just saying that I, personally, prefer to keep things as civil as I can. Part of that is my personality and part is that I know there are lurkers around.

          2. I say “Fuck off, slavers” in real life too.

            Not as often, but Ive used it.

      2. Get your kids immunized, fuckhole.

        1. See, I can be gentle.

          1. It’s like you channeled Mr. Rogers…

    2. I’m not convinced “shaming and shunning will work. A lot of people respond to shaming by doubling down.

      See all the “blue skin” libertarians in these vaccine comment threads.

      1. “Blue skin”? Never heard this term.

        1. There was a Libertarian candidate in Montana in the early 2000s who was part of this fringe group that, in the run up to 2000, started drinking colloidial silver in a belief it would prevent them from getting infections when antibiotics disappeared because of Y2K.

          One of the side effects was a condition called agyria that literally made their skin turn blue.

      2. Do you ever argue in good faith?

    3. Instead, I think the best you can do is engage them. Try to earn their trust. Try to educate them in a non-confrontational way. And if all that fails… shun them, but without shaming them.

      That will never work. Either you force them to do it or you do nothing and after enough kids get sick and die and we see the return of things like Polio, they will figure it out. Those are the only available options.

      These people are fanatical morons. You have to be epically stupid to believe this shit. No amount of persuasion, no matter how rational or gentle is going to penetrate that kind of stupidity. Only death, pain and misery and serving as an example to others will penetrate it.

      1. You know who else…

    4. The shaming and shunning is less about changing the mind of the person being shunned, and more about making an example of them. When someone on my Facebook feed posts Dr. Mercola’s BS, I explain why it’s BS. Then others who don’t but into his BS at least feel empowered to speak.

      1. Yeah, I wasn’t really talking about trying to change people’s opinions through social media. It’s really hard to gain someone’s trust electronically. And gaining their trust is a big part of it. That’s where doctors and IRL friends and family come in.

        Besides you can explain why Mercola’s study was BS without being an ass about it. You can educate without shaming. You just have to control your own emotions.

        1. It’s easier to do on social media because that’s where anti-vaxxers share stupid things.

          1. Nothing about going on social media is easy for me…

  7. I get what you’re saying, 2-Chili, but the current Progressive meme of herd immunity ‘free-riders’ is chilling, as we’ve already seen where that leads.

  8. But denying food stamps to drug addicts is completely immoral, of course.

  9. I ask in every vaccination thread now, who has had all of their vaccinations updated?

    My cousin’s mother recently passed away. Going through her stuff he found his vaccination record. Since he is 56, he got a total of five. Since he, like most people I suspect, never had his vaccinations updated, he has never been vaccinated for 20+ things that children are vaccinated for today. Is he “anti-vaccine”? A danger to society?

    Forget children, what about adults? Should every single person be vaccinated for Hep C? Chicken Pox?

    1. That’s a new angle, I’ll have to think about it.

    2. I just got a TDaP booster a couple of months ago.

    3. Hell, how many people even go to a doctor regularly? It’s hard to keep up with all the suggested maintenance, but doctors are paid to do just that. See your doctor. See what he suggests. Do your own research online. Get the vaccines that make the most sense to you.

      Yeah, I might get the Chicken Pox vaccine. No, I think I’ll pass on the HPV and the malaria. etc.

      1. I haven’t been to a doctor in 13 years.

        1. Shame and shun this man!

      2. I went from 1994 to 2014 without seeing a doctor.

        I went 3 times in 2014.

        1. Eye doctor excepted. But they arent “real” doctors apparently.

          1. Some are, some aren’t.

    4. I ask in every vaccination thread now, who has had all of their vaccinations updated?

      That is a good question. Very few if any adults have their vaccinations updated right now. The reason for this is that you don’t need to because compulsory vaccination of kids has wiped these diseases out in society. Now, thanks to these retards not getting their kids vaccinated, that is no longer true. Once these diseases return and we get more outbreaks, and we will, adults will to update their vaccinations or run the risk of getting sick.

      So, thanks to these retards we are now going to have to start getting vaccinated as adults again. And some of us no doubt will have a reaction to it or the vaccine won’t take or we will be exposed to some little special organic snowflake before our anti-bodies develop and we will get really sick.

      Won’t that be great? But remember these people are not harming anyone and should be totally free to do this.

      1. Very few if any adults have their vaccinations updated right now. The reason for this is that you don’t need to because compulsory vaccination of kids has wiped these diseases out in society.

        Fuck you and the elitist-statist horse you rode in on John.

        Not only is your science about a vaccinating kids keeps us all protected patently and stupidly wrong. The fucking retarded adults who are too dirt stupid to keep their vaccinations up to date are just ignorant, but innocent, boobs who can’t be held responsible for their own well-being and the well-being of others, but the one’s with kids need to have their diseases purged from them by the fires of the state.

        Fuck. off. slaver.

        1. Not only is your science about a vaccinating kids keeps us all protected patently and stupidly wrong.

          You are a fucking moron. If the science is wrong why did kids stop getting these diseases? Why doesn’t anyone get polio anymore? Or small pox? How can you be so fucking stupid that you deny that reality. Do you think that it was just bad luck that kids in the past got sick? Were the gods angry at them?

          Mad casual, you are too stupid to live in the modern world. You don’t deserve the benefits it confers on you.

          1. You are a fucking moron. If the science is wrong why did kids stop getting these diseases? Why doesn’t anyone get polio anymore? Or small pox?

            You misunderstood what I wrote. The kids *and* the adults need to get vaccinated equally. Anyone who believes otherwise is just as ignorant of disease/immunology/history as the most ardent anti-vaxxer.

            I am fully vaccinated and on my, or my employer’s dime. Including Hep A/B. I chose to get and maintain these vaccinations. Something lots of adults don’t do. I chose to get my kids vaccinated. When the time comes, I give them their choice in the matter.

            More salient to my point, I wouldn’t demand you pay for any or all of these vaccines for me or anyone else against your will. Let me ask you this John; A plague is bearing down on a small town of five people and you and I have the vaccine. We know the vaccine will kill one of them. Should we vaccinate them? What if the situation were slightly different and all five might be killed by the vaccine, but we don’t know unless we test it on one of them?

        2. The fucking retarded adults who are too dirt stupid to keep their vaccinations up to date are just ignorant,

          They are acting rationally because just vaccinating the kids was enough. Now thanks to ignorant idiots like you, that isn’t. And of course a few adults will get sick anyway. You possess a special kind of dangerous ignorance.

          And the sad fact is you likely will never get sick or pay for it. Everyone else will pay for the idiocy you espouse.

    5. I have. To be fair, my work strongly encourages things like getting vaccinated for hep B (I work with human blood on occasion) and I’m not stupid enough to say no to this one. Seriously, hep B would suck. Given that I’m already there, why not get boosters as well?

      This is an interesting point, though. I don’t know of any long-term, large population studies that have been done to assess the effectiveness of a number of different vaccines many years out. There have been small-scale studies of some of these and it’s pretty clear that the vaccines do offer some protection a number of years later, albeit not as great as they did during their most effective period.

      1. My cousin thinks of himself as having been vaccinated. He got the five when he was a child, one of them being for small pox. I assume that he is around 30 vaccinations short of the number given today.

        Considering how few people get vaccines as adults, one wonders how small the percentage of them are actually vaccinated for everything that is available. Of course, many older people simply got the disease as children and developed immunity that way.

      2. BTW, this would be a phenomenal study that would be guaranteed a ton of press and accolades. Someone could get tenure off of this sort of thing. Surprised that it hasn’t been done.

        1. There is a recent long-term (ish) study of the efficacy of herpes zoster vaccination after a decade or so. I haven’t read the study yet, but here’s a synopsis of a synopsis (the abstract). The efficacy of prevention of infection by the disease steadily decreases over time, until the vaccine provides no protection against infection after 8 years. However, there is a persistent ability to more effectively fight the infection for a period of at least 11 years (the length of the study). So the vaccine doesn’t provide a full immune response, but does lend some benefits for at least a decade.

          1. Here it is, btw. Paywalled.

            1. Huh. I can’t make that link work. Trying again… Here

      3. This is an interesting point, though. I don’t know of any long-term, large population studies that have been done to assess the effectiveness of a number of different vaccines many years out. There have been small-scale studies of some of these and it’s pretty clear that the vaccines do offer some protection a number of years later, albeit not as great as they did during their most effective period.

        This is largely done for every vaccine, though not always published externally. Even when vaccines are combined (like TDaP or MMR), studies are done to see if, e.g. the weakest vaccine imparts enough immunity with the least frequent dosing.

        Some vaccines confer immunity only temporarily and subsequent vaccinations inhibit the immune response rather than ‘boost’ it. This has to be done.

        Further, most all of us get Tetanus vaccines as children because we get puncture wounds and infections that we don’t know dick about and don’t report. Once we’re adults and the place where we stuck a staple in our thumb is red and throbbing, we figure we out to go see a doctor.

        I am not aware of any study where someone has pulled titers from the average joe off the street to see if they are (still) immune to X, Y, and Z.

        Where’s John? I want to know if this is his idea of adults acting rationally.

  10. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it.
    click on this link to get started and see for yourself????.
    ????? http://www.netcash50.com

  11. Interesting, isn’t it, how the rate of vaccination drops off as the Autism activists got to Obama, Clinton and McCain in 2008 and had them question the safety of vaccines? While measles deaths before vaccine ran about 450 per year, there were still a reported 105 deaths from the measles vaccine in the last decade.

    1. While measles deaths before vaccine ran about 450 per year, there were still a reported 105 deaths from the measles vaccine in the last decade.

      The 450 deaths a year are a tragedy. The reported 105 deaths are a sacrifice to the Collective Good that every Comrade should applaud!

  12. I asked yesterday how much jail time people wanted for their mandatory policy. The first answer I got: no jail time, just “polite refusal” to access pretty much anything (the person changed his argument from mandatory vaccine laws to banning the unvaccinated from Disneyland… and malls and shopping centers… even pediatrician’s offices, which makes me wonder how the unvaccinated are then supposed to get vaccinated).

    Another genius said to only jail the parents for the hour it takes to take the kid to the doctor and get the shots. Which seems ignorant of the fact that vaccines require multiple shots. So, realistically, you’re now tracking non-compliant households, almost certainly assigning CPS officers to each case, and there’s just no way some kids aren’t going to be removed from their homes and/or parents jailed. Some sort of Eric Garner incident is likely, as a brave officer tries to subdue a father as the child is taken to get a shot, and the Hakkens will probably be seen as role models for a few parents.

    But maybe we can nudge those vaccination numbers up a few more points! Worth it!

    1. But maybe we can nudge those vaccination numbers up a few more points! Worth it!

      It very may well be worth it. Herd immunity is a funny thing. For any given disease/vaccination combination there is a critical vaccination rate at which the outbreak rate/severity drops precipitously. A few percentage points around that critical vaccination rate can mean the difference between large outbreaks and only a few isolated cases.

      Just search for “herd immunity simulator” if you want to see how this works.

      (Note: I’m against mandatory vaccination. I’m instead for voluntary shunning of the non-vaccinated.)

    2. Again, this is most easily solved after the fact. Negligence sorts of suits. That way, blame is only assigned if something actually happens. No need for regulatory policing and that sort of thing. The threat of large civil or criminal penalties nudges people toward vaccination, all else equal. It’s pretty clear that refusal to vaccinate can cause harm to others. There should be a mechanism for victims to achieve redress.

      1. Funny how the parents of those adversely affected by vaccinations have no recourse other than that silly fund they’ve created because we have to protect Big Pharma from lawsuits by forcing waiver of indemnities (generally reserved for surgery) on parents before they’ll provide the vaccine.

  13. I agree with your wife. Suckle from the public health care teet? Roll up your sleeve or go elsewhere.

    A little educational shunning to these nitwits can go a long way. She just has to be ready to take the hit on the bottom line.

  14. The public school issue could be solved easily by implementing school choice. Attach the money to the kids and let the parents decide whether to send their children to a school which requires vaccination or a valid medical reason for remaining unvaccinated, or one which allows children to be voluntarily unvaccinated. I’d love to see how these anti-vaccination parents react when their children’s school is filled with other similarly unvaccinated children.

    1. I like the way you think.

    2. ” I’d love to see how these anti-vaccination parents react when their children’s school is filled with other similarly unvaccinated children.”

      They’d be fine with it. They genuinely think vaccines are unnecessary. For as obnoxious as they are, they honestly believe this stuff. They are not free riding on purpose.

  15. EXACTLY! You can have your freedom, but if you want a taxpayer handout you lose some of that freedom. If you want the privilege of public school, the privilege of attending public large entertainment venues, the privilege of taxpayer subsidized health insurance – vaccinate your little disease vectors. With freedom comes responsibility, if you want the freedom to live off the grid and homeschool, amen. But your freedoms stop when you recklessly put others in danger. We don’t allow drunk driving for this reason, and I don’t see any difference in sending unvaccinated kids to the petri dishes we call public schools.

    1. This is thinking that gets us “Gun Free” zones.

    2. Quite a few people who use tax-funded services are still net taxpayers.

      While I have no qualms about a school (even a public one) requiring vaccinations to attend (provided attendance itself is not mandatory), saying that not getting yourself vaccinated “recklessly put[s] others in danger” is ridiculously overblown.

      First of all, you have to actually have the disease in order to possibly be reckless about passing it on to others. If you don’t have the disease, there’s no way you’re going to pass it on, so how can you possibly be putting others in danger?

      Secondly, the analogy to drinking here is a bit telling. If somebody drives home drunk–whether we define that as BAC over some arbitrary line or as being actually impaired–they don’t automatically injure people. They (should) have to actually cause harm before being subject to criminal punishment.

      Following the analogy further, I don’t have a problem with access to the roads being excluded to drunk drivers. We can argue about escalation after willful disregard for the rules has been repeatedly demonstrated, but DUI should not on its face be a crime any more than failure to vaccinate should be.

  16. What nonesense! Yes we are talking about not allowing your kids in school if they are not immnized. exactly that! Of course legitament medical exemptions, moron! That is what we have now. Dumb choice based on personal stupidity is not an option.

  17. I want the Zostavax, but I can’t afford it.

  18. People legally immigrating to the US are currently required to be fully vaccinated before doing so:

    http://www.uscis.gov/news/ques…..quirements

    Does this requirement need to be eliminated as an undue burden on the right to personal choice of immigrants?

    1. According to these idiots sure. To the sane world, no. Of all the idiotic hills to die on.

      And this tweet is fucking awesome.

      http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/201868/

    2. People legally immigrating to the US are currently required to be fully vaccinated before doing so…

      People illegally immigrating, however, do not.

      According to the CDC, there was a huge spike (up to 644) in measles cases in 2014. That, conspicuously enough, coincides with the spike in illegal undocumented, unaccompanied, unvaccinated minor aliens immigrants from third-world countries…

  19. Tuccille, the reason doctors boot these patients from their clinics isn’t because they disagree with them, it’s because of liability. When you don’t vaccinate that child, you are condoning that treatment. I’m waiting for all of this vaccine hysteria to be over…as soon as kids start dying or have long lasting medical issues from vaccine preventable diseases, and they start suing the doctors that bless this practice, all of this BS will stop.

    1. You are correct. It is a shame it is going to have to come to that. A bunch of kids are going to get sick and some of them are going to suffer life long pain and a few will die thanks to these retards. And as I point out above, adults are going to have to start keeping their vaccinations up now where before they didn’t.

      But hey, don’t be mean to these people. Don’t be an evil statist and hold them in any way responsible for the harm they are causing. It is their right to be stupid and we should love them for it.

      1. The right of an uneducated lunatic to not have a damn needle stuck in their arms for less than the time it takes to order off of the McDonald’s menu is sacred. We should be honored to have our children die for such a noble cause.

        1. Of course, the very same people who on this board argue vehemently that parents have no right to tell their kids they can’t get birth control, think it is totally not an issue for parents to tell those same kids they can’t get vaccinated.

          If schools were handing kids free birth control pills, the people on this board would think it was great and any parent who objected evil. If those same schools vaccinated the kids without the parents consent, that would be evil statism.

          I can’t get my arm around why so many people on this board are so in love with these idiots.

          1. I can’t get my arm around why so many people on this board are so in love with these idiots.

            I’m not seeing anyone “in love” with these people. I’m seeing them calling these parents idiots but not wanting to use the force of government to enforce your perfect world.

          2. Jesus Christ John, are you trying to compete with american socialist and Tony for who can misrepresent more of their interlocutor’s positions?

      2. Don’t be an evil statist and hold them in any way responsible for the harm they are causing. It is their right to be stupid and we should love them for it.

        You like to accuse people of being mendacious and arguing in bad faith, John. You might want to hold off on that for awhile, lest you appear hypocritical.

        1. If you can’t understand irony and hyperbole, I can’t help you.

          Beyond that, the people on this board are opposed to holding these people responsible for the harm they cause. If you do not, good for you.

          1. … holding these people responsible for the harm they cause.

            Are you are willing to also hold the vaccinated responsible for the harm they cause when they get sick and/or infectious (case in point)?

            If not, fuck off with your intellectually dishonest dumb-cuntery.

            1. Careful with the strength of your comments, as it’s not close to intellectually dishonest and a reading of the entire thread would prove it.

              But since comprehension or literacy or both aren’t your strong suits, I’ll summarize:

              By taking the vaccination one has taken the minimal precautions to mitigate paying damages.

              This is consistent with believing those who did not take the minimal precautions to avoid harming others would pay.

              1. Careful with the strength of your comments, as it’s not close to intellectually dishonest…

                IF you will hold the unvaccinated “responsible for the harm they cause” if/when they get sick (i.e.: become infectious) and expose others…

                But you will not hold the vaccinated “responsible for the harm they cause” if they get sick and expose others

                Then it is absolutely intellectually dishonest. The harm is caused regardless of their vaccination status. It is their conduct after they get sick / become infectious that causes harm to others.

                But since comprehension or literacy…

                Nice! A bit of projection and ad hominem.

                By taking the vaccination one has taken the minimal precautions to mitigate paying damages.

                Getting vaccinated is taking a precaution to avoid getting a disease. That is irrelevant, however, if you do get sick or become infectious. It is the precautions you take after you are infectious that matter.

                Regardless of your vaccination status, if you are infectious you are / should be responsible for what you do, or don’t, to minimize others’ risk of contagion from you.

              2. Oh, for an edit button!

                … as it’s not close to intellectually dishonest…

                Let me put it this way…

                It is intellectually dishonest to hold one group of people (unvaccinated) “responsible for the harm they cause” when/if they get sick and infect others while not holding another group (vaccinated) to the exact same liability when they do the exact same thing (i.e.: get sick and infect others).

                You cannot, with any degree of intellectual integrity, declare the former “guilty” and/or “liable” and the latter “innocent” for the exact same act [getting sick and infecting others]. Either both are “guilty”, or neither are guilty.

                It doesn’t matter that one group took greater precautions to avoid getting sick. What matters are the precautions taken, regardless of their vaccination status, to avoid infecting others after they have gotten sick/become infectious.

  20. Another thread where we see some libertarians use prog arguments to use the force of the state to get their way.

    “They are using public schools”
    “They are using public health insurance”
    “It’s for the kids”

    I’m forced to use public schools if there are no private options or I can’t afford it. I am forced to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. How some of you can’t see the implications of using these arguments to force compliance is beyond me. The slippery slope is obvious and not beyond the realm of possibility when you consider the school lunch program for example. For the health of the children we must enforce a strict one size fits all diet on all school children. Fat kids are a drain on our public health resources. All 3 prog arguments wrapped up in one program to force compliance to Top Men.

    Parents are morons for not getting their kids vaccinated but I don’t want the government to have the power to throw me in a rape cage if I refuse.

    1. So it is okay to let students endanger other kids? You can’t bring a fucking peanut butter sandwich to a school these days but you can send your unvaccinated kid.

      Yeah, that is real intelligent.

      1. You’re the guy who argued that we should be banned from owning body armor because it was dangerous to us or something.

        The problem is not being able to bring the sandwich not using the sandwich as an excuse for more government intervention.

        1. What the fuck does body armor have to do with anything, dummy?

          You are expecting us to extrapolate anything from your ad hominem attack on John? Say something intelligent, shithead.

          1. I suspect John is cringing at being defended by you.

            1. How is pointing out the paucity of your retarded argument defending John, you utter imbecile?

              1. Derpy, derp derp.

                smooches

      2. So you believe that security is better than liberty?

        1. I believe that children are the future

          1. That true. Loss of all children would mean the loss of the future. This discussion though is being driven by fear and I for one refuse to exchange security for liberty.

      3. So it is okay to let students endanger other kids?

        Wow you are a dumb cunt!

        Merely not being vaccinated does not endanger anyone! There are droves of healthy, non-infectious unvaccinated people walking around out there harming and endangering no one (with regard to disease).

        Furthermore, being vaccinated is not a magical silver bullet against catching or spreading the disease. There was a “Measles Mary” who was fully vaccinated AND responsible for an outbreak of the measles.

        Immunization status is irrelevant. It is the infectious status that matters. Infectious individuals (who may or may not have been vaccinated) going about their business and taking few to no precautions to protect others from exposure are the “aggressors”; not the unvaccinated.

        How many times does this have to be said?

      4. So it is okay to let students endanger other kids?

        Other kids are only “endangered” if they are themselves unvaccinated. And the “danger” we are talking about here is a viral illness that is less dangerous than the flu (or your average school lunch for that matter).

        You can’t bring a fucking peanut butter sandwich to a school these days but you can send your unvaccinated kid.

        Private schools should be free to exclude whoever they want, including unvaccinated children. For public schools, vaccination is among the least of their problems.

        Get some perspective, man.

        1. Other kids are only “endangered” if they are themselves unvaccinated.

          Win Bear, that is false. Vaccines are not 100% effective. Therefore, even the vaccinated are “endangered” by infectious individuals… they are just in far less “danger” than the unvaccinated.

          1. Win Bear, that is false. Vaccines are not 100% effective.

            If, after vaccination for an already pretty benign disease, you still feel “endangered”, the problem isn’t with others, it’s with you.

            1. I don’t disagree with that sentiment, however, you said, “Other kids are only ‘endangered’ if they are themselves unvaccinated.“, which I inferred to mean that vaccinated kids are at zero risk and, therefore, are not “endangered”. I merely pointed out the falsehood of that interpretation.

      5. From Mayo Clinic: Peanut allergy symptoms can range from a minor irritation to a life-threatening reaction (anaphylaxis). Giving that kid the wrong sandwich can kill him. Being unvaccinated isn’t really endangering the vaccinated kids, the unvaccinated child would have to contract a disease first to bring harm, and then he shouldn’t really be bringing any harm to the vaccinated kids if the vaccines were effective. Where the PBJ can kill an allergic kid, measles will just make him miserable for a few to several days.

  21. A serious question: why are we having this conversation? Why now? It seems like the anti-vax stories have just suddenly come out of nowhere.

    1. Uh, because of the recent measles outbreak, dumbass.

      1. Nope. The stories about anti-vaxxers started coming out right after the Ebola stories, then the measles outbreak happened.

  22. All I could think while reading this article was that the author’s wife sounds like an annoying cunt and very likely to spread disease.

  23. Although my kids are vaccinated, this trend of oppressing (through loss of benefits, public shaming, legal action, ect.) others because of a difference of belief is growing more disheartening by the day. Regardless of the subject, be it gay marriage, vaccines, or gun control, oppression in any form is wrong. I support anybody’s right to not vaccinate, carry a gun, or oppose gay marriage without them being pressured to conform, EVEN in cases where I or my family may be injured. Security is not a valid reason for the oppression of liberty.

    1. Do you support peoples right to oppose guns?

      1. Certainly. Nobody should be denied a seat at the public discussion nor a seat at the codification of law.

        My point was we have become a people who seek conformity through shame or through loss of shared benefits like the author is proposing. That is a loss of liberty in exchange for personal comfort or personal security. I don’t like the trade.

        1. Is it wrong that I, for once in my life, agree without qualifications with something someone else says?

  24. Loss of benefits that you oppose, naturally?

    1. I have both contributed to and benefited from Medicaid. I don’t think they are bad. Losing benefits is a form of oppression which, in any form, . I believe is wrong. That is my point

  25. Hi JD,

    This sounds like a good idea. In addition, I think that people that don’t get health insurance and are at a greater risk of ending up at a public hospital where their health care costs would be paid by the taxpayer should have to pay a tax penalty since they put the taxpayer at risk. Sound good to you? Me too.

    1. And of course, people who don’t exercise enough cost the taxpayers money too!

      ‘Smith!’ screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. ‘6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You’re not trying. Lower, please! That’s better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.’

      A nightmare for us but a Utopia for you?

  26. Reason can be proud of it’s “libertarian” stance on this issue when HPV and a myriad of other “new” vaccines are added to mandatory lists in the coming years.

    1. Reason can be proud of it’s “libertarian” stance on this issue when HPV and a myriad of other “new” “vaccines” are added to mandatory lists in the coming years.

      I refuse to call anything that has to be administered yearly and only imparts immunity to certain strains of a disease a vaccine. It’s like the idiots who confuse a therapy with a cure.

  27. Ugh.

    This is a non-issue crying out for a non-solution.

    Yes, fewer kids are vaccinated then in the past decade. We all know this is due to the autism scare. As more situations like the Disney case arise, they’ll be more public shaming of “non-compliers”. The numbers will improve as it becomes embarrassing to remain anti-vaccination.

    Most states already have reasonable guidelines in place that get’s reasonably decent compliance voluntarily from the public.

    Why mess with policy that works reasonable well most of the time for most of the population?

    1. All must kneel before Zod.

    2. This is a non-issue crying out for a non-solution.

      This becomes especially try when put into perspective…

      Measles cases spiked to 644 in 2014.
      There are approximately 320 million people in the US.

      (644 / ~320,000,000) * 100 = 0.00020125% of the population infected. That is approximately two ten-thousandths of one percent. That is statistically insignificant.

      1. especially true even…

        Edit button please?

      2. The odds you’ll get struck by lightning in your lifetime is 1/3000.

        http://news.nationalgeographic…..facts.html

        As scary as the great measles endemic of 2015 is I’m appalled it didn’t make it the this list in prior years:
        http://www.medhelp.org/general…..193?page=1

  28. I’m fine with vaccination, just take the fucking mercury out of the shots you’re giving us. THAT stuff causes real, verifiable, scientifically-proven problems.

    1. Thimerosal was phased out for childhood vaccines in 2003. The primary result of this was to make them far more expensive, reducing availability in third world countries.

      Of course, despite your claim, there is no “real, verifiable, scientifically-proven” evidence that thimerosal caused health problems. So thanks to loonies like you, thousands of African children died of easily preventable dieseases.

      1. Of course, despite your claim, there is no “real, verifiable, scientifically-proven” evidence that thimerosal caused health problems. So thanks to loonies like you, thousands of African children died of easily preventable dieseases.

        You could, you know, actually address the argument he made, and point out that while, yes, high concentrations of mercury are poisonous, the amount of mercury in the vaccine was not.

        Or you could instead engage in your usual moral preening and condescension, which appears to be the only way you know how to talk.

      2. Lack of vaccines isn’t a major problem in Africa whereas genocide is far more dangerous. Letting government get too powerful is far more dangerous than measles.

  29. So, what do my fellow libertarians think about Vaccine “Court” and the fact that the CDC, DHS and NIH own the patents to many vaccines (it buys them from BigPharma)?

    Seems a bit of a conflict of interest when both groups, the government and BigPharma, have a vested interest, no?

  30. my classmate’s mother makes $73 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her pay check was $13860 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit this site right here……………..
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  31. If there are no risks in taking vaccines, why are there the list of risks given out for vaccines? Also, why is there a US government Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund maintained by the government with cases award http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecom…..ndex.html?

    For of those pro forced immunization, will that apply to all people who come into our country legally and illegally. Will you be for the requirement of proof of vaccinations prior to entry and forced illegal round-ups for vaccine distribution?

    It is up to a parent to way the risk/reward of every medical treatment a child undergoes. The chickenpox vaccine can set up a person for shingles later in life. The parent (and then the child once an adult) should way the risk and determine what is best for them.

    If a person without a vaccine should pay for the ‘damages’ done to someone else contracting a disease, then I should get compensated when people come to work sick and I end up getting sick. If a waiter has the sniffles and then I get a cold, I should get damages from the waiter and the place of business for allowing a sick person to wait on me.

  32. my classmate’s mother makes $73 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her pay check was $13860 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit this site right here……………..
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  33. I generally love Tucille’s stuff, but I’m surprised that Reason would run a piece that is pro-welfare and anti-liberty. It is a new level of pragmatism to be happy that we’ve got tax-funded health care so that we can punish unvaccinated people by not giving them their tax dollars back unless they comply with an oppressive majority.

    Shaming and shunning is more libertarian. You know who we should shame and shun: pacifists. Those dorks have been free-riding since the beginning of time. Just like not vaccinating is an inaction rather than an action, we should let them know that not picking up a gun and killing a stranger was the last mistake they’ll ever make in a free society.

    Stupid people need to be shunned, too. And people who don’t eat enough vegetables. If more people ate more vegetables, the price of vegetables would come down, and I would be able to stay healthier for less money. As it is now, I’m paying through the nose to stay out of the doctor’s office, leaving the tax-funded health-care coffers more full for everybody else. Now that I think about it, Tucille is right: fine people for every meal that doesn’t include vegetables. Don’t fine them for eating McDonald’s, of course; that’s a harmful action — let’s keep the force of government confined to punishing inactions with uncertain outcomes. Except for being stupid; that should just be straight-up illegal.

  34. “Requiring that people vaccinate their kids if they want taxpayers paying their bills boosts immunization without making the treatment worse than the disease.”

    No!

    So, we make every facet of the economy dependent on government subsidies and control, then tell people they have to obey the government if they want to get any of it.

    And that’s what you’re pushing at a “libertarian” web site?

    Health care, in particular, is basically a medical mafia where we are shaken down for obscene prices while being prevented by law from going to alternative sources. And now you want to further screw people and make them pay more generally if they don’t want to go along with particular medical treatments?

    Obey obey obey. Submit submit submit.

    Reason gets more Proggy every day.

    1. “If you want the taxpayers to pick up the tab, you follow standards of care. ”

      Obey your betters, or pay obscene non-market prices.

      If you’re not down with the orders of the Progressive Theocracy, pay the jizya!

      Is Progressivism such an unstoppable force in professional intellectuals that it was only a matter of time until Reason would succumb?

  35. I have 3 children, and all 3 are well behind the recommended vaccination schedule. I don’t care how hard a sales job you push, you can’t convince me that injecting my immuno-compromised children with thousands of chemicals directly into the blood stream is such a good idea that I should sign a waiver relieving the doctor AND the pharmaceutical companies of any liability should something go wrong. If it’s so safe, why the forms generally reserved only for invasive surgery?

  36. Wow…so we’re big government supporters now huh? I don’t see how an unvaccinated child (well, his parents) gets the blame every time someone else gets a “vaccine preventable” disease. I mean, just being vaccinated doesn’t make you patient zero. But with all the talk swirling about fining parents who don’t vaccinate and/or putting them in jail it does make me wonder about the people who have just received the shots. Having just received a vaccine you shed for a period lasting up to weeks. This makes the newly vaccinated a source of disease to those who have yet to or do not have their shots. IT’s just a double edged sword is all I’m saying, one which nobody will ever talk about…because of course it’s motherfucking witch hunt time. Glad to see the libertarian party offering up so many big government solutions.

  37. Just for the record….Herd immunity is a hypothesis. It’s not called a fact, it’s just a hypothesis. That everyone keeps repeating, which makes it “fact” much like it used to be a “fact” that cigarettes were an effective treatment for asthma.

    1. It’s not called a fact, it’s just a hypothesis.

      IMO, more relevantly, even if absolutely verifiably real, it’s predicated on and applies *only to the herd*.

      If everyone gets together and behaves a certain way, we all prosper. It’s no different than any of the other socialist proclamations of stone soup.

      However, you are right, most of the time, it falls to the ‘lives saved by reaching a tipping point’ the way AGW does.

  38. What a pack of woosies. Not vaccinating your kids for MMR is child abuse. Measles and mumps are freaking horrible diseases. What is wrong with a society that condones choice for vaccinations but threatens to take your kids away if you let them walk home from school. I’m pretty much a center of the road guy and it is great to keep government out of as much as possible, but I think protecting the masses from the freaking idiots is a legitimate role.

    1. Then don’t make me sign a waiver to have my children vaccinated, simple as that.

    2. Not vaccinating your kids for MMR is child abuse.

      With what statute of limitations? My parents ‘allowed’ me to get chickenpox. Between my sons’ generation and mine billions of parents did despite the existence and availability of a vaccine.

      Most of the lot around here that oppose state-sponsored and subsidized vaccinations are wholly against the state taking kids away from parents who allow them to walk home from school as well.

      I must say though, I became a libertarian out of recognition that the two-party system is/was too much about consistent compromises. Adamant vaccinators around these parts make me think I was wrong, libertarianism may be a better idea in the way socialism is. Great on paper but when the time comes to pen the law (or not) everyone has a different idea about what should be written.

    3. Measles and mumps are freaking horrible diseases.

      Oh, stop the hysterics. Vaccinations are sensible and I think everybody should choose to get them. But for healthy kinds in the West, these diseases are usually not a big deal. When I was growing up, the MMR vaccine didn’t exist and this was not something anybody lost sleep over; I also don’t remember anybody having serious complications.

      What is wrong with a society that condones choice for vaccinations but threatens to take your kids away if you let them walk home from school.

      Both vaccinations and child transportation should be up to parents.

    1. You don’t tell me how to raise my kids to avoid reviving a horrific illness that hasn’t been seen on our shores since our grandparents were children

      It’s measles FFS, not smallpox or Ebola.

  39. 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
    == ?W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?

  40. When statists say, X might cause / be used for something bad (Y), therefore X should be banned,” most Libertarians rightfully fall on the side of “fuck off slaver”.

    For instance, when X = guns and Y = gun violence, libertarians oppose banning X.

    Or when X = amounts of Sudafed that are greater than an arbitrary limit and Y = might be used to make meth…

    But, for some reason, some libertarians are intellectually inconsistent when X = not vaccinating [regardless of the fact that most unvaccinated kids never get sick] and Y = some kids might get sick [regardless of the fact that even the vaccinated might get sick and/or spread the disease as well], they are suddenly all for banning X (metaphorically)…

    Astonishing.

    1. I don’t get Reason’s obsession with vaccinations either. I mean it’s one thing to unambiguously say that measles vaccination is sensible, which it is. But at the same time, from a libertarian perspective, it is absolutely clear that government should not have a right to force you to inject stuff into your body, nor to curtail your rights if you refuse. The only people who have that right is private property owners, and the only reason that isn’t sufficient is because so much of our society has been taken over by the government.

      1. Re: “clear that government should not have a right to force you to inject stuff into your body”

        I disagree, since it is the role of government to protect the health and well-being of the populace.

  41. Fun Facts:
    * In 2013 there were fewer than 200 reported cases of the measles in the US. In 2014 that spiked to 644. That spike coincidentally corresponds to the throngs of unaccompanied, unvaccinated illegal alien undocumented immigrant asylum seeking children from third-world countries warmly welcomed by the Obama administration.

    * Between 2001 and 2011, 88% of all measles cases [table on page 15] were “import associated” (i.e.: brought from outside of the US). For 2011 a full 93% of all cases were “import related”. [I wonder what that percentage will be for 2014…]

  42. Another Fun Fact: There are approximately 320 million people in the United States. That means that in 2014 only 0.00020125% of the entire population contracted the measles. That is two ten-thousandths of one percent.

    Children are far, far more likely to be injured in automobile-related incidents…

  43. These conflicts are a result of insurance mandates and public schools. In a free market, insurance companies would take care of this by simply not insuring you and schools not admitting your kids unless they were vaccinated, provided the vaccinations were sensible and safe. There wouldn’t be any religious exemptions, although there might be oddball schools and insurance companies for those people who really don’t want vaccinations.

    1. Sensible and safe? How sensible and safe can they be if I have to sign a release of indemnity absolving the doctor and the pharmaceutical companies of liability?

  44. If they would make the government quit screwing around with the lethal toxic crap they’re putting in some of those shots people might not be so leary of them! It’s been proven time and again that the citizens have been used as human guinea pigs. How many autistic kids do we have now? http://www.ageofautism.com/201…..utism.html
    Personally, I refuse to get the flu shot because they make you have flu anyway (even if it’s a milder case) where might not have gotten it at all. Plus, many times it turns out to be a different strain that’s running rampant that year!

  45. == HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ==
    According to this paper there were an average of approximately 530,000 cases of the measles reported annually for the decade leading up to the measles vaccine (1953 – 1962). Wow! That sure looks like a big number.

    But let’s put it into perspective. According to this source the population in 1953 (the lowest of the decade, so the bigger numbers to come) was 160,184,192. I’ll round it down to 160 million, just to give a more generous result.

    Using the decade average cases, and a population of 160 million, that means that only 0.33125% (that’s one-third of one percent) of the population caught the measles.

    Of that, according to the afore-linked paper, deaths in that period were less than 1 per 1,000 cases, so fewer than 503, but, for the sake of scarier, bigger numbers, I’ll use 503. That means that in 1952 approximately 0.00033125% (that’s one-third of one-thousandths of one percent) of the population died from the measles.

    In perspective, those are miniscule numbers. And with todays’ medicine… arguably far more advanced than between ’53 and ’62… complications and death are far less likely.

    So… why are so many people absolutely losing their shit in irrational, abject terror of the current outbreaks of the measles?

    1. Because everyone has been told, get a vaccination. That’ll fix everything.

      And then here come adverse reactions, and vaccine failure, and outbreaks in 99% immunized populations, and people be all, “Wait, I did as I was told, I did everything right. I don’t have time for this – give me the truth, you have three seconds.”

      So they say, “Well, there’s a few people who don’t immunize…”

      And everyone yells about those bastards. Because it is so much easier than sciencing.

    2. Because a Doctor who desperately wanted
      fame said it caused autism, and an actress who desperately wanted to find the cause for her son’s autism went on a national campaign to promote this idiot. Prior to that there was the issue of mercury levels in vaccinations from a preservative called Thiomersal.

      I personally would rather stay informed about Google’s and Autism Speaks recent collaboration.
      Reported by Jessica Guynn:
      “The Internet giant will house research data from 10,000 complete genomes of people with autism and their family members on its computer servers and will provide tools to analyze the data.”

  46. Fine.

    Every recipient of taxpayer dollars must provide proof of immunization or titer test, AND the makers of said vaccines are no longer immune from legal or civil actions.

    Otherwise this is grandstanding hypocrisy, and not even in the same zip code as libertarianism.

  47. Dear Reader,

    Some, on nearly all of these vaccine-related articles, have suggested that a “libertarian” alternative… compromise?… to mandatory vaccination would be holding the voluntarily unvaccinated civily liable, in one manner or another, for the damages caused by spreading a disease. This proposition is patently intellectually dishonest.

    Before I continue, it must be noted that healthy, non-infectious people, regardless of their vaccination status, do not spread the diseases for which vaccinations exist. Only infectious people spread those diseases.

    The proposition on liability is intellectually dishonest, first, because it gives a pass to the involuntarily unvaccinated (those that are medicaly unable to be vaccinated). The fact that they did not choose to be unvaccinated does not matter. They are functionally identical to the voluntarily unvaccinated. In other words, the unvaccinated are unvaccinated regardless of “why”.

    You cannot, with any intellectual integrity, hold the voluntary liable for damages caused by getting sick and infecting others while excusing the involuntary of liability when they get sick and infect others. Declaring the former “guilty” and/or “liable” and the latter “innocent” for the exact same act [getting sick and infecting others] is simply not logically or ethically consistent. Either both are guilty, or neither are guilty.

    [continued below]

    1. [continued from above]

      This proposition also grants a pass to the vaccinated. For the exact same reason as above, it too is logically inconsistent and, therefore, intellectually dishonest. It would hold one group (the unvaccinated) liable for damages caused by getting sick and infecting others while excusing another group (the vaccinated) for the exact same thing.

      In terms of damages caused by spreading a disease, it does not matter what was done, or not, to avoid getting sick and/or becoming infectious. What matters are the precautions taken to avoid infecting others after becoming infectious. Thus, it is intellectually dishonest to hold the voluntarily unvaccinated to a higher standard of liability for not taking a precaution against getting sick, ignoring precautions they may take if/when they are infectious, while simultaneously, blanketly excusing the others.

      The only intellectually consistent and honest approach is to hold everyone, regardless of vaccination status, liable for damages caused by spreading a disease when they are infectious.

  48. The problem with mandatory medication is the small but not insignificant segment of the population that is allergic to medication. For example, in my case, the culture medium of many vaccines causes a negative reaction (I still have serious scars from my smallpox vaccination of 65 years ago). Since I have a proven natural immunity to measles, rubella and a number of other diseases, I forgo vaccinations unless the doctor is willing to do a scratch test for negative reaction. I take no medication in general (I believe that we are an over medicated society). None the less, my rest blood pressure 110/65. I am not a scientific denier, I have an MS in Chemical Engineering and another in Computer Science, but do think that science can become a religion and the Government can use pseudo science as a method to control and rule.

  49. Re: “Keep Vaccine Choice?So Long as Families Pay Their Own Way”

    Only if they ALSO “pay’ for the medical costs of the people their un-vaccinated kids infect.

    Religionists only think of themselves instead of what their Founder taught them to do.

  50. Makes sense to me. If you want to drive a car, you need to take a test and obey traffic laws. If you want healthcare and education, you need to get all your shots.

  51. Despite my bellicose statements, if someone has a justifiable reason to not have a vaccination, then they may be exempt. Herd immunity does not impose the sacrifice of the innocent. But we are put here on this earth to overcome our fears. We have a right to demand a clear and comprehensive scientific justification to vaccinate. And to know the cost and benefits from it. And the risks.

  52. Ok, in addition to people who don’t vaccinate, lets also hold everyone else responsible for their expensive illnesses. AIDS is spread and caught through risky behavior. Let’s let AIDS patients pay for their own care. In fact, let’s make sure that everyone who has a disease that can be prevented by a change in behavior pay for his own medical care, too. Better yet, let’s move to a completely free market medical care system in which no third party can skew costs and in which everyone pays his own medical expenses: then no one has to carry the burden of costs incurred by others’ choices.

  53. Should we also do this for the flu? Why not make it also mandatory. Or well not MANDATORY but just some bullying to those that would refuse it. Perhaps suspended driver’s licenses and added to the no-fly list. I am ashamed to see so many professed libertarians advocating government coercion for vaccinating or punishment for those who do not vaccinate. We are talking about a hypothetical possibility of harming someone by to not vaccinating. They MIGHT get the measles and then MIGHT spread it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.