Support NeoGAF

[thepotatoman]

Why is no one talking about the great news about net neutrality?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=984419

I'm still shocked about it, and don't know what to say. It's just amazing to see that grassroots campaign can get things like that done.

Still holding out a little bit for the full proposal to come out, but that title 2 reclassification is basically confirmed to be a part of it is a very very good thing.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Quinnipiac polls of OH, FL, PA has Clinton leading all major Republicans by double digits.

Well, not always. In FL she beats Bush by a point, in OH they say she's statistically tied with John Kasich but don't have the margin listed. In any case though it's pretty clearly looking like a landslide.

 

[Mike M]

Jesus, I can't believe the right has picked up the anti-vaccination movement. How did it come to this?

 

[Plinko]

Quinnipiac polls of OH, FL, PA has Clinton leading all major Republicans by double digits.

Well, not always. In FL she beats Bush by a point, in OH they say she's statistically tied with John Kasich but don't have the margin listed. In any case though it's pretty clearly looking like a landslide.

We're nearly 2 years out.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Quinnipiac polls of OH, FL, PA has Clinton leading all major Republicans by double digits.

Well, not always. In FL she beats Bush by a point, in OH they say she's statistically tied with John Kasich but don't have the margin listed. In any case though it's pretty clearly looking like a landslide.

These polls are useless and have no value.

 

[pigeon]

What choice should parents have in terms of vaccinating their kids?

I have to say that this position is a little surprising to me.

Let's assume that I am a parent who does not want to vaccinate his child. (I am not, for the record.) For now, let's assume that I am totally aware of all the science and data regarding vaccinations and I don't debate any of those points. I just don't want to do it.

Is it your position that I should be legally mandated to vaccinate my child? What instrument do you see the law exercising to enforce that position? When I say that I have a constitutional right to control of my own body and that of my child, and thus to choose the medical treatments I and my child receive, why do you disagree?

This somewhat reminds me of the thread about the young woman who wanted to refuse chemotherapy. I was honestly surprised to see so many people arguing that the government should forcibly detain and administer a medical treatment that she had refused, on the grounds that it was the decision she should have made. Obviously this is a little different, because immunization has a knock-on effect on others, but I still think the question is worth investigating in both cases.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Will PD apologize?

When Obama apologizes for Benghazi.

 

[HylianTom]

I have to say that this position is a little surprising to me.

Let's assume that I am a parent who does not want to vaccinate his child. (I am not, for the record.) For now, let's assume that I am totally aware of all the science and data regarding vaccinations and I don't debate any of those points. I just don't want to do it.

Is it your position that I should be legally mandated to vaccinate my child? What instrument do you see the law exercising to enforce that position? When I say that I have a constitutional right to control of my own body and that of my child, and thus to choose the medical treatments I and my child receive, why do you disagree?

This somewhat reminds me of the thread about the young woman who wanted to refuse chemotherapy. I was honestly surprised to see so many people arguing that the government should forcibly detain and administer a medical treatment that she had refused, on the grounds that it was the decision she should have made. Obviously this is a little different, because immunization has a knock-on effect on others, but I still think the question is worth investigating in both cases.

That's fine if you never go out in public, but your choice to not vax affects others. That girl's chemo decision was inflicted only upon herself.

I'm all about personal autonomy. But the metaphor of "you can swing your fist anywhere you want so long as it doesn't hit me" kicks into effect.

 

[Aaron Strife]

We're nearly 2 years out.

Nah these margins will hold. You just gotta believe

 

[pigeon]

That's fine if you never go out in public, but your choice to not vax affects others. That girl's chemo decision was inflicted only upon herself.

Sure, but, I mean, every decision you make affects others. We have plenty of scientific evidence that alcohol makes you significantly more dangerous to the people around you and the people in the same society as you. Why should we not make alcohol illegal?

Also, again, how do we anticipate enforcing a law that requires children to be vaccinated?

 

[CharlieDigital]

IWhat instrument do you see the law exercising to enforce that position? When I say that I have a constitutional right to control of my own body and that of my child, and thus to choose the medical treatments I and my child receive, why do you disagree?

Criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, etc.

Not much different from parents who force their infants onto vegan diets or purposefully malnourish their children.

Just because a parent personally believes doing x is right does not mean that we as a society should allow a parent to do x if it puts the well-being of the child into question.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It was on my phone, which has a garbage browser.

Oh, in that case, I have no sympathy. You're just asking for trouble if you're composing a long post on your phone.

Well, let's look at his words again:

What choice should parents have in terms of vaccinating their kids? And more chillingly, what vaccines AREN'T created equal? What diseases shouldn't we be vaccinating from? Why?

It seems steeped in psuedoscience bullshittery that's pandering towards unnecessary anxiety about vaccines.

He'll probably clarify his remarks and say that's for vaccinations and that all people should vaccinate. But I'm very disturbed by his suggestion that some vaccines are "better than others."

The fullest account of his comments that I've seen is this one, from CBS:

While traveling in London Monday, Christie was asked about the recent measles outbreak and whether he believes American parents should vaccinate their children.

"All I can say is that we vaccinated ours. That's the best expression I can give you of my opinion. It's much more important, I think, what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official," Christie said. "But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well so that's the balance that the government has to decide."

Pressed on whether that was leaving people the option to skip vaccinations, Christie said, "There has to be a balance and it depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is and all the rest. And so I didn't say I'm leaving people the option."

"What I'm saying is that you have to have that balance in considering parental concerns because no parent cares about anything more than they care about protecting their own child's health and so we have to have that conversation, but that has to move and shift in my view from disease type. Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others," he added.

In describing the "balance" more fully, Christie said it should involve measuring "whatever the perceived danger is by vaccine" versus "what the risk to public health is."

Some thoughts:

• Christie says that "[t]he best expression of [his] opinion" is "that [he and his wife] vaccinated [their children.]"
• While Christie says, "It's much more important . . . what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official," which seems to be saying parents should be able to opt-out of vaccine mandates, he contrasts that statement with the following: "But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well[.]" Given that Christie viewed the first sentence as in contrast to the second, we should interpret it in a way that maintains the contrast. For instance, perhaps he means that it's more important to lead by example (as a parent) than to simply hand down commands (as a public official). Or perhaps he means it's better for parents to understand the case for vaccines and willingly choose to have their children vaccinated than to be forced to by the government, against their will. But he clearly doesn't mean, by the first sentence, that parents should always "have some measure of choice"--otherwise, there is no contrast between the two sentences, and nothing to balance.
• Again, he gives the government the responsibility for striking the balance between the competing interests identified in his first and second sentences. They should do so on the basis of "what the disease is, what the vaccine type is, and all the rest." This approach is not outrageous, and is, in fact, the very approach taken by states in determining which vaccines to mandate.

Nothing in Christie's comments warrants the characterization they have received or the reaction they have stirred. This is election-season politicking at its dumbest.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I have to say that this position is a little surprising to me.

Let's assume that I am a parent who does not want to vaccinate his child. (I am not, for the record.) For now, let's assume that I am totally aware of all the science and data regarding vaccinations and I don't debate any of those points. I just don't want to do it.

Is it your position that I should be legally mandated to vaccinate my child? What instrument do you see the law exercising to enforce that position? When I say that I have a constitutional right to control of my own body and that of my child, and thus to choose the medical treatments I and my child receive, why do you disagree?

This somewhat reminds me of the thread about the young woman who wanted to refuse chemotherapy. I was honestly surprised to see so many people arguing that the government should forcibly detain and administer a medical treatment that she had refused, on the grounds that it was the decision she should have made. Obviously this is a little different, because immunization has a knock-on effect on others, but I still think the question is worth investigating in both cases.

I don't think its really that hard for me. The safety of others trumps your choices when there is no negative effect on yourself and there is on others.

The girl article is due to the fact that she's a child. If she wants to die at 18 let her do that. She's 17.

Also, again, how do we anticipate enforcing a law that requires children to be vaccinated?

Taxing power (fine them), inability to go to school, use public service

The same way we enforce other things like selective service registration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System#Failure_to_register

We already have a 110 year old court case that says compulsory vaccinations are cool, including police power if required

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

 

[ivysaur12]

Sure, but, I mean, every decision you make affects others. We have plenty of scientific evidence that alcohol makes you significantly more dangerous to the people around you and the people in the same society as you. Why should we not make alcohol illegal?

Also, again, how do we anticipate enforcing a law that requires children to be vaccinated?

Require vaccinations for all students entering Kindergarten, no philosophical opt out.

The safety of the community trumps any sort of perceived parental rights. This is a national health emergency.

 

[HylianTom]

Sure, but, I mean, every decision you make affects others. We have plenty of scientific evidence that alcohol makes you significantly more dangerous to the people around you and the people in the same society as you. Why should we not make alcohol illegal?

Also, again, how do we anticipate enforcing a law that requires children to be vaccinated?

First, I'm throwing a flag for "false analogy" on alcohol and vaccinations.

But I'll still point out that we have and are still experimenting with differing levels of regulation on alcohol. We've tried an outright ban. That failed. So we have "{*fill-in-the-blank*} while intoxicated" laws. Public intoxication, driving, open containers. These laws recognize that alcohol isn't inherently dangerous - but that "{*fill-in-the-blank*} while intoxicated" can be.

This is where that flag I threw comes in. For a person unvaccinated, "going-out-in-public-while-unvaccinated" may be have deadly consequences. There is no real comparable gray area where there is for laws concerning alcohol-related behavior. "Alcohol" is an item. "Unvaccinated" is a status of being.

As far as enforcement goes, I'll admit I don't know definitively. Schools should certainly require vaccination before allowing students to attend, and many vaccinations are administered in those first five years before kindergarten, so I'd advocate enforcement to be arranged along that path/timeline.

 

[ivysaur12]

Oh, in that case, I have no sympathy. You're just asking for trouble if you're composing a long post on your phone.

I was in Target, so I felt safe.

The fullest account of his comments that I've seen is this one, from CBS:



Some thoughts:

• Christie says that "[t]he best expression of [his] opinion" is "that [he and his wife] vaccinated [their children.]"
• While Christie says, "It's much more important . . . what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official," which seems to be saying parents should be able to opt-out of vaccine mandates, he contrasts that statement with the following: "But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well[.]" Given that Christie viewed the first sentence as in contrast to the second, we should interpret it in a way that maintains the contrast. For instance, perhaps he means that it's more important to lead by example (as a parent) than to simply hand down commands (as a public official). Or perhaps he means it's better for parents to understand the case for vaccines and willingly choose to have their children vaccinated than to be forced to by the government, against their will. But he clearly doesn't mean, by the first sentence, that parents should always "have some measure of choice"--otherwise, there is no contrast between the two sentences, and nothing to balance.
• Again, he gives the government the responsibility for striking the balance between the competing interests identified in his first and second sentences. They should do so on the basis of "what the disease is, what the vaccine type is, and all the rest." This approach is not outrageous, and is, in fact, the very approach taken by states in determining which vaccines to mandate.

Nothing in Christie's comments warrants the characterization they have received or the reaction they have stirred. This is election-season politicking at its dumbest.

I still disagree with this interpretation, though I assume he'll clarify his statements given the discussion surrounding it. He's not really known for eloquent, fully realized, off the cuff remarks.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Christie already has clarified:

The governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated.

Some outlets have referred to this as Christie "walking back" his earlier comments, but, of course, the earlier comments and the later clarification are not in conflict.

 

[ivysaur12]

Christie already has clarified:



Some outlets have referred to this as Christie "walking back" his earlier comments, but, of course, the earlier comments and the later clarification are not in conflict.

That still doesn't really answer my questions regarding what he said, but I'm assuming that whatever he said at the time, again, wasn't really fully thought out or realized. I find Rand Paul's comments much more disgusting.

 

[BertramCooper]

Politico: Where 2016 GOPers stand on vaccinations

Former Gov. Rick Perry

Perry’s spokesman, Travis Considine, said in a statement that the former governor “strongly believes in protecting life and has sought to improve the health and well-being of Texans in a variety of ways, including increased immunization rates.”

God I hate Rick Perry.

 

[Lucky Forward]

The safety of others trumps your choices when there is no negative effect on yourself and there is on others.

The safety of the community trumps any sort of perceived parental rights. This is a national health emergency.

Trump trumps Trump:

Trump: I'm 'Totally Pro-Vaccine' But I've Seen Them Cause 'Horrible Autism'

"I've known people that had totally magnificent children, functioning a hundred percent, everything beautiful, smart as a whip, and they go for this shot and get this shot of this massive dose, of everything at one time, and they end up with horrible autism," Trump said.

Trump, oddly, went on to state that he is nevertheless "a huge fan of vaccines" and "totally pro-vaccine." He suggested they be given in smaller doses.

 

[ivysaur12]

Trump trumps Trump:

Trump: I'm 'Totally Pro-Vaccine' But I've Seen Them Cause 'Horrible Autism'

We only said his name twice, it has to be three times before you summon him.

 

[B-Dubs]

We only said his name twice, it has to be three times before you summon him.

Be careful if you do because he'll put up a giant gaudy building that will forever block the sun, casting your neighborhood in eternal darkness.

 

[pigeon]

Criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, etc.

Not much different from parents who force their infants onto vegan diets or purposefully malnourish their children.

Just because a parent personally believes doing x is right does not mean that we as a society should allow a parent to do x if it puts the well-being of the child into question.

Just to be clear: the acts you're referring to are CPS violations. It is your view that, if a parent does not want to vaccinate their child, we should forcibly remove the child from their family and place them into foster care in order to ensure that they be vaccinated? This is a very dramatic step. I definitely find it hard to square this position with a liberal view of people's freedom to control their own lives and bodies. What other failures of parenting should we be responding to by removing children from their parents?

The girl article is due to the fact that she's a child. If she wants to die at 18 let her do that. She's 17.

Sure, as a minor, her parents have the right to overrule her desires. But her parents supported her decision. So people are advocating that the government overrule both of them.

We already have a 110 year old court case that says compulsory vaccinations are cool, including police power if required

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Thanks for this. That's very interesting. Certainly, then, police power up to but not including forcible vaccination has a strong claim to being constitutional.

First, I'm throwing a flag for "false analogy" on alcohol and vaccinations.

But I'll still point out that we have and are still experimenting with differing levels of regulation on alcohol. We've tried an outright ban. That failed. So we have "{*fill-in-the-blank*} while intoxicated" laws. Public intoxication, driving, open containers. These laws recognize that alcohol isn't inherently dangerous - but that "{*fill-in-the-blank*} while intoxicated" can be.

This is where that flag I threw comes in. For a person unvaccinated, "going-out-in-public-while-unvaccinated" may be have deadly consequences. There is no real comparable gray area where there is for laws concerning alcohol-related behavior. "Alcohol" is an item. "Unvaccinated" is a status of being.

I'm not sure I buy this. "Intoxicated" is a status of being. So is "alcoholic." They are states of beings that are created by consumption of alcohol. What you're arguing here, if you'll forgive my satire, is that alcohol doesn't kill people -- people kill people. This is true, but alcohol helps.

Require vaccinations for all students entering Kindergarten, no philosophical opt out.

The safety of the community trumps any sort of perceived parental rights. This is a national health emergency.

So, in the hypothetical case where people feel strongly that they don't want to vaccinate their kids, this policy will force them out of school and into home schooling or unregistered school systems.

Much like Charlie's post above, I feel like what you guys are saying is that you are totally okay with creating extremely bad or terrible outcomes for children in an effort to pressure their parents to give them vaccinations.

I can't help but have moral qualms with this approach.

Moreover, it is honestly surprising to me that you would be happy to grant the police a huge new field of encroachable civil rights and optionally enforced regulations. I do not see this as a good idea at all.

This isn't some dumb right like the right to property -- this is literally the right to sovereignty over your own body. Don't we spend like half our time advocating for this right? Are we only arguing for the right to have medical treatments, not to refuse them?

 

[Black Mamba]

I have to say that this position is a little surprising to me.

Let's assume that I am a parent who does not want to vaccinate his child. (I am not, for the record.) For now, let's assume that I am totally aware of all the science and data regarding vaccinations and I don't debate any of those points. I just don't want to do it.

Is it your position that I should be legally mandated to vaccinate my child? What instrument do you see the law exercising to enforce that position? When I say that I have a constitutional right to control of my own body and that of my child, and thus to choose the medical treatments I and my child receive, why do you disagree?

This somewhat reminds me of the thread about the young woman who wanted to refuse chemotherapy. I was honestly surprised to see so many people arguing that the government should forcibly detain and administer a medical treatment that she had refused, on the grounds that it was the decision she should have made. Obviously this is a little different, because immunization has a knock-on effect on others, but I still think the question is worth investigating in both cases.

The girl who neglected chemo was a result of a insane mother who brainwashed her.

If she was 18+, then fine. But as weird as it is, I think the gov't had a right to step in. Though, I'm not going to argue it's not dicey and I don't feel comfortable about it.

Regarding vaccines, it's hard for me not to believe they shouldn't be mandated with only medical exemptions. They affect others so greatly.

That said, I believe it could be done via multiple ways without direct force. For example, no tax breaks for the child w/o immunization, tax penalty (ala ACA), no public school access, etc.

This isn't some dumb right like the right to property -- this is literally the right to sovereignty over your own body. Don't we spend like half our time advocating for this right? Are we only arguing for the right to have medical treatments, not to refuse them?

No, this is the right of a parent's sovereignty over their own child. Children are not property. We do not allow them to sexually or physically abuse them, right? Not vaccinating them is another form of abuse, IMO.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Just to be clear: the acts you're referring to are CPS violations. It is your view that, if a parent does not want to vaccinate their child, we should forcibly remove the child from their family and place them into foster care in order to ensure that they be vaccinated? This is a very dramatic step. I definitely find it hard to square this position with a liberal view of people's freedom to control their own lives and bodies. What other failures of parenting should we be responding to by removing children from their parents?

It's 20F outside right now.

If I let my 4 year old daughter sleep outside at night without any clothing, shelter, heat source, blanket, would that be acceptable?

There is a measles outbreak at her school.

If I let my child go to school without a vaccination, would that be acceptable?

The risk from one is more immediate, concrete, and obvious (hypothermia, frost-bite, death overnight) and the other more abstract -- measles has been a forgotten disease in the modern US, but that does not mean that only one action willfully and ignorantly puts a child's life in danger. Both actions are the same, except the consequence of one of them is less obvious until there is an outbreak.

 

[Black Mamba]

Rand Paul: Vaccines = Martial Law (2009)

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) said during a 2009 interview with Alex Jones’ InfoWars that mandatory vaccines for illnesses such as the swine flu could be an early step toward “martial law,” and said the procedures have a long history of lethal side effects.

“The first sort of thing you see with martial law is mandates, and they’re talking about making it mandatory,” said Paul. “I worry because the first flu vaccine we had in the 1970s, more people died from the vaccine than died from the swine flu.”

“The whole problem is not necessarily good versus bad on vaccines, it’s whether it should be mandatory or the individual makes the decision,” he added. “And sometimes you want to not be the first one to get a new procedure, you want to see if it works well before you choose.”

While Paul said he would personally choose to get the smallpox vaccine again and would have taken one for polio, he said the decision to vaccinate should be left to the individual. He also said the risks of the vaccines need to be weighed against the risks of the diseases.

“You have to weigh the risks of the disease versus the risks of the vaccine,” Paul said. “But I’m not going to tell people who think it’s a bad idea that they have to take it because everybody should be allowed to make their own health care decisions.”

http://freebeacon.com/issues/rand-paul-mandatory-vaccines-first-step-to-martial-law/

Still can't believe people think this moron has a shot.

 

[HylianTom]

I'm not sure I buy this. "Intoxicated" is a status of being. So is "alcoholic." They are states of beings that are created by consumption of alcohol. What you're arguing here, if you'll forgive my satire, is that alcohol doesn't kill people -- people kill people. This is true, but alcohol helps.

I'm not arguing that people kill people - I'm arguing that doing certain acts while intoxicated kills people. We outlaw the acts, but we don't outlaw the alcohol.

The equivalent, I guess, would be to ban going out in public while unvaccinated.

 

[pigeon]

Regarding vaccines, it's hard for me not to believe they shouldn't be mandated with only medical exemptions. They affect others so greatly.

That said, I believe it could be done via multiple ways without direct force. For example, no tax breaks for the child w/o immunization, tax penalty (ala ACA), no public school access, etc.

The tax penalty thing makes the most sense to me as a reasonable lever thus far. I am not totally convinced about the public school access thing, because the consequence of that is to sort unvaccinated kids into classrooms together, which will just multiply the danger of outbreaks. If we are going to have unvaccinated children, shouldn't we be surrounding them with vaccinated children? But generally I would agree with our right as a society to use indirect coercion to get people to vaccinate.

No, this is the right of a parent's sovereignty over their own child. Children are not property. We do not allow them to sexually or physically abuse them, right? Not vaccinating them is another form of abuse, IMO.

Part of my response to this is in my response to Charlie below, since he is also arguing that not vaccinating is tantamount to physical abuse.

But here's a full disclosure moment: when I was a child my parents applied for a belief exemption, so I have never received the MMR vaccine. My daughter has, of course, and I am planning to get it myself soon, but I didn't as a child. (I will say that I am pretty unconvinced that I should have been forcibly removed from my family, so that's probably relevant to my argument here.)

If I, today, did not want to get the MMR vaccine, would that be a question of sovereignty over my own body? Would that change your position?

It's 20F outside right now.

If I let my 4 year old daughter sleep outside at night without any clothing, shelter, heat source, blanket, would that be acceptable?

There is a measles outbreak at her school.

If I let my child go to school without a vaccination, would that be acceptable?

The risk from one is more immediate, concrete, and obvious (hypothermia, frost-bite, death overnight) and the other more abstract -- measles has been a forgotten disease in the modern US, but that does not mean that only one action willfully and ignorantly puts a child's life in danger. Both actions are the same, except the consequence of one of them is less obvious until there is an outbreak.

"Acceptable" is a very pernicious word in this context.

I do not think either option is acceptable. I am not convinced that both options demand the same level of intervention.

I don't think it is accurate to say that both actions are willful and ignorant. I don't believe in a level of ignorance that would suggest that leaving a 4-year-old in below zero weather is okay -- so I agree that that action is purely willful and thus would expect CPS intervention.

The second action is certainly ignorant. I am unconvinced that parental ignorance justifies removing a child. Certainly the child should be protected -- for example, I would think it reasonable to ban me from taking my child to school until the measles outbreak is over. But it seems like overreach to me to say that CPS intervention is required here, because I see a difference in kind between skepticism of the medical establishment and skepticism of physically verifiable laws of nature. (I'm not trying to downplay the scientific support for vaccines here, but I do think that "if you sleep in the snow you will freeze to death" is even more common knowledge.)

 

[Coriolanus]

Just to be clear: the acts you're referring to are CPS violations. It is your view that, if a parent does not want to vaccinate their child, we should forcibly remove the child from their family and place them into foster care in order to ensure that they be vaccinated? This is a very dramatic step. I definitely find it hard to square this position with a liberal view of people's freedom to control their own lives and bodies. What other failures of parenting should we be responding to by removing children from their parents?

Their own. A child's is not their own, thus limits are often imposed.
Additionally, not a binary choice. (i do hope that) CPS in your country have a range of other powers to compel parents towards more desirable courses of action, and only higher offences should result in permanent removal of the child. In the case of a vaccine, temporary removal should suffice.

Namely, vaccinate that child and call it a day. Might as well return the child to the parents at that point, since it's not like they can be un-vaccinated.

Anyway, down here they'd be arrested for endangerment under the penal code. Should the child contract a disease for which vaccination was an option, then new, heavier charges come into play, as would other charges for putting other children in a situation of heightened risk.

But we third world.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I do not think either option is acceptable. I am not convinced that both options demand the same level of intervention.

It's only because the effects of one is so obvious and requires no acceptance of any science to observe while the effects of the other occurs at a microscopic level and are far more abstract.

It's so obvious that if you let a child camp and sleep outside in 20F weather without the proper gear, the child will suffer bodily harm or even death. You don't need science to tell you this. It's not quite as obvious that there is a highly contagious microscopic virus that can cause immense suffering or even death until it's too late and even then, measles itself is poorly understood by a generation of people who have not had to deal with it as a reality.

The fact that most folks have no idea of how vaccines, the immune system, and viruses work is also a big contributor to this ignorance.

I see a difference in kind between skepticism of the medical establishment and skepticism of physically verifiable laws of nature.

You say that there is a difference between verifiable laws of nature and skepticism of medical establishment without acknowledging that transmission and contraction of a disease via a viral vector is a well understood biological process in the same way that the effects of exposure are a well understood biological process. It's simply a case of one being much more accessible to the lay person while the other involves understanding things like RNA, anti-bodies, white blood cells, herd immunity, etc.

 

[FyreWulff]

Also, you can't just bootstrap yourself away from measles. You just need someone to pass through a room for a bit and it'll hang around for quite a while to latch onto you when you pass through it yourself. You don't even need to even see whoever gave it to you to catch it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Man this is like the rape comments all over again. Stunningly ignorant comments from people in positions of powerful. I don't even see the upside here. Are these people so concerned about being the most conservative that they're willing to outright kill their general election viability...on an issue as minor* as vaccines? What the fuck...

*Minor in the sense that it's not a campaign issue.

 

[B-Dubs]

Man this is like the rape comments all over again. Stunningly ignorant comments from people in positions of powerful. I don't even see the upside here. Are these people so concerned about being the most conservative that they're willing to outright kill their general election viability...on an issue as minor* as vaccines? What the fuck...

*Minor in the sense that it's not a campaign issue.

Dat kneejerk response. I can't help but be reminded of that Key and Peele sketch where Obama's negotiating with Republicans.

 

[Black Mamba]

The tax penalty thing makes the most sense to me as a reasonable lever thus far. I am not totally convinced about the public school access thing, because the consequence of that is to sort unvaccinated kids into classrooms together, which will just multiply the danger of outbreaks. If we are going to have unvaccinated children, shouldn't we be surrounding them with vaccinated children? But generally I would agree with our right as a society to use indirect coercion to get people to vaccinate.

Well, I'd also not allow private schools to receive their permits w/o requiring vaccinations, either. So there's that. That would leave homeschooling as the only option.

But here's a full disclosure moment: when I was a child my parents applied for a belief exemption, so I have never received the MMR vaccine. My daughter has, of course, and I am planning to get it myself soon, but I didn't as a child. (I will say that I am pretty unconvinced that I should have been forcibly removed from my family, so that's probably relevant to my argument here.)

If I, today, did not want to get the MMR vaccine, would that be a question of sovereignty over my own body? Would that change your position?

In terms of the cancer girl, yes. In terms of measles, no because you not being vaccinated affects the public health. Public Health trumps those rights. Just like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater or your religion can't practice human sacrifice, there are instances where gov't can cross over normally established lines and this would be one of them. You're putting people at risk who either can't get the vaccine or have compromised immune systems.

Of course, the problem started out with your parents husing a religious exemption that shouldn't have even been there.

I'm okay with a court order forcing vaccination, though I'd allow for the option to move out of the country .



"Acceptable" is a very pernicious word in this context.

I do not think either option is acceptable. I am not convinced that both options demand the same level of intervention.

I'd like the clarify I didn't say physical abuse with vaccinations, only another form of abuse. I don't believe it warrants removing custody of the child, only a form of either coerced or forced vaccination.

I am just clarifying that we don't view the notion of "parents own children" as acceptable. A more analogous situation would be seat belt and car seat laws. I would never take a child away for violation, but there would be consequences (fines, lose liability claims in accidents, etc).


edit: CharlieDigital would have been better served by an example of leaving a child in the car in summer. Parents do actually do that and not out of malice but ignorance. And we charge them with a crime when they do it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Really seems like the understanding of "freedom" has been morphed to truly ridiculous levels. You don't have the "freedom" to not wear a seat belt. You don't have the "freedom" to yell fire in a crowded theater.

 

[Gotchaye]

It does seem to me to be really weird to think that parents who don't vaccinate their children should have their children taken away. Vaccination doesn't really require any action on an ongoing basis. Surely the maximally forceful policy here is just to send a few police officers and a nurse to someone's house and vaccinate their children, then leave them to raise them however they want. Maybe you have to do this a few times, but it's still a lot less awful than taking people's kids away.

 

[Aaron Strife]

A lot of it just comes across as conservative spite, honestly. Not the original antivax movement but the recent flurry of stupid. Obama tells kids to eat their vegetables, cut to Sarah Palin shoving triple decker s'mores in her face. You have those assholes who buy T-shirts that say they'll eat three times as many hamburgers to counter out the vegetarians and brag about driving polluting gas guzzlers. It's a very childish mentality.

 

[HylianTom]

A lot of it just comes across as conservative spite, honestly. Not the original antivax movement but the recent flurry of stupid. Obama tells kids to eat their vegetables, cut to Sarah Palin shoving triple decker s'mores in her face. You have those assholes who buy T-shirts that say they'll eat three times as many hamburgers to counter out the vegetarians and brag about driving polluting gas guzzlers. It's a very childish mentality.

The Dems absolutely need to remember this come 2016.

This is like those moments in Zelda games where you're taught a fighting technique in the form of a mini-game or a puzzle room early on - and then it's used in the final boss fight.

 

[ivysaur12]

Back to everyone's favorite swing state, North Carolina:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/02/burr-mccrory-lead-despite-low-approvals.html

PPP's newest North Carolina poll finds a similar story: Pat McCrory and Richard Burr have mediocre approval numbers but lead their potential opponents for reelection next year who tend to have low name recognition.

41% of voters approve of the job McCrory is doing to 45% who disapprove, numbers almost identical to his 41/46 approval spread in early January. This makes 19 polls in a row where McCrory's approval numbers have been under water. Nevertheless McCrory leads both of his potential Democratic opponents- it's a 44/39 advantage over Roy Cooper and a 44/34 one over Ken Spaulding.

There are a couple reasons for the disconnect between McCrory's approval numbers and how he matches up with Democrats. One is that the Democratic candidates aren't particularly well known. Even after 14 years as Attorney General Cooper has just 57% name recognition, and Spaulding's name recognition is only 28%. The name recognition issue leads to there being a lot more undecided Democrats than Republicans. For instance in the McCrory/Cooper match up the undecideds voted for Barack Obama by 13 points in 2012, and 22% more of them are Democrats than Republicans. That speaks to a race likely to tighten as Cooper becomes better known.

The other reason for the disparity between McCrory's approval and performance against Democrats is that he has a fair number of Republicans who don't approve of the job he's doing, but would still support him against a Democrat. McCrory's approval spread with GOP voters is 73/18, but he leads Cooper 82/9 with them. That suggests Republican dissatisfaction with McCrory comes more from the 'not conservative enough' camp than the 'he's so conservative I might vote for the Democrat' camp.

On the Senate front Richard Burr continues his usual trend of having about a third of voters (34%) who approve of him, about a third (35%) who disapprove of him, and about a third (31%) who don't have an opinion either way. He leads 5 Democrats we tested against him by anywhere from 6 to 11 points.

The closest competitor to Burr is former Senator Kay Hagan, who trails 48/42. Even three months removed from the last of the year long barrage of attack ads against her, Hagan's negatives remain high with her favorability coming in at 38/54. Burr leads Treasurer Janet Cowell and former Congressman Mike McIntyre by 7 points each (45/38 and 44/37 respectively), UNC President Tom Ross 44/35, and Secretary of Transportation and former Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx 47/36. All of the non-Hagan potential contenders are pretty unknown- Foxx has 38% name recognition, McIntyre 32%, Cowell 30%, and Ross 26%. The low name recognition for Ross is an indicator of how little the story of his removal has attracted the attention of anyone beyond hardcore political observers.

The bottom line remains the same on both McCrory and Burr- if it's a good Republican year or even a neutral year, they probably aren't unpopular enough to lose. But if it's a good Democratic year, they may find themselves in a fair amount of trouble especially if a credible candidate emerges in the Senate race.

 

[RustyNails]

Christie already has clarified:



Some outlets have referred to this as Christie "walking back" his earlier comments, but, of course, the earlier comments and the later clarification are not in conflict.

We all knew this was coming. He was trying to position himself and failed miserably. Public officials should leave zero room for doubt, and what he said was utter stupidity. Why even leave the door open. Its like saying parents should have the choice to keep their gun safety on or off, but I always keep mine on. Its a choice to harm yourself and others or not, which is pretty much a false choice. Just tell people vaccinate your kids. The end. Why bring your dumbshit freedomz argument into the fray.

 

[Teggy]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/health/arizona-measles-vaccination-debate/

Wolfson, an Arizona cardiologist, refuses to vaccinate his two young sons. He said the family that didn't vaccinate and endangered the Jacks children did nothing wrong.

"It's not my responsibility to inject my child with chemicals in order for [a child like Maggie] to be supposedly healthy," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, it's very likely that her leukemia is from vaccinations in the first place."

Are you kidding me? This guy needs to lose his license immediately.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Quinnipiac polls of OH, FL, PA has Clinton leading all major Republicans by double digits.

Well, not always. In FL she beats Bush by a point, in OH they say she's statistically tied with John Kasich but don't have the margin listed. In any case though it's pretty clearly looking like a landslide.

2 years out............................

not likely

 

[Aaron Strife]

Back to everyone's favorite swing state, North Carolina:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/02/burr-mccrory-lead-despite-low-approvals.html

Write up is about accurate. They're vulnerable but for the Democrats it's a toss up at best. The only reason I want Hagan is because I can't think of another candidate who would be even better.

The main focus as always will be Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois - I'd say NC, Florida and New Hampshire make up the next tier. Whichever one looks closest would be our best path to a Senate majority.

 

[Oblivion]

Oh, in that case, I have no sympathy. You're just asking for trouble if you're composing a long post on your phone.



The fullest account of his comments that I've seen is this one, from CBS:



Some thoughts:

• Christie says that "[t]he best expression of [his] opinion" is "that [he and his wife] vaccinated [their children.]"
• While Christie says, "It's much more important . . . what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official," which seems to be saying parents should be able to opt-out of vaccine mandates, he contrasts that statement with the following: "But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well[.]" Given that Christie viewed the first sentence as in contrast to the second, we should interpret it in a way that maintains the contrast. For instance, perhaps he means that it's more important to lead by example (as a parent) than to simply hand down commands (as a public official). Or perhaps he means it's better for parents to understand the case for vaccines and willingly choose to have their children vaccinated than to be forced to by the government, against their will. But he clearly doesn't mean, by the first sentence, that parents should always "have some measure of choice"--otherwise, there is no contrast between the two sentences, and nothing to balance.
• Again, he gives the government the responsibility for striking the balance between the competing interests identified in his first and second sentences. They should do so on the basis of "what the disease is, what the vaccine type is, and all the rest." This approach is not outrageous, and is, in fact, the very approach taken by states in determining which vaccines to mandate.

Nothing in Christie's comments warrants the characterization they have received or the reaction they have stirred. This is election-season politicking at its dumbest.

Sorry, I honestly don't see any difference between what Christie said yesterday and his "clarification" that you posted. In both instances he's pretty much giving his blessing that parents who decide to refuse vaccines for their kids be allowed to do so.

 

[Aaron Strife]

2 years out............................

not likely

It's more comforting that Hillary is breaking 50 in almost all of these matchups than the fact that she's leading by double digits. Her favorable numbers in all three states are great and she is a known entity. I don't think her numbers will go down so much even as Republicans' might go up.

 

[ivysaur12]

The thing about Hillary is that America has known Hillary for a long time. We've gone through her trash multiple times now and found nothing. It's not as if you're opinion on Hillary we be changed as much as it's about the candidate she's up against.

Her numbers will probably go down, as everyone's numbers go down once they campaign, but considering she's been campaigning since the 90s, I don't really see her favorables changing too much.

Write up is about accurate. They're vulnerable but for the Democrats it's a toss up at best. The only reason I want Hagan is because I can't think of another candidate who would be even better.

The main focus as always will be Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Illinois - I'd say NC, Florida and New Hampshire make up the next tier. Whichever one looks closest would be our best path to a Senate majority.

That's sort of how I feel -- Burr is vulnerable only because of how meh the state seems to be on him, but we'll see.

 

[Oblivion]

“The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork,” Clinton wrote on Twitter. “Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest.”

Nice.

 

[HylianTom]

With Hillary's grandma schtick, I can't help but think of a certain cartoon character..

 

[Oblivion]

So Rand Paul also doesn't believe HIV leads to AIDS.

Well then.

 

[Fenderputty]

It does seem to me to be really weird to think that parents who don't vaccinate their children should have their children taken away. Vaccination doesn't really require any action on an ongoing basis. Surely the maximally forceful policy here is just to send a few police officers and a nurse to someone's house and vaccinate their children, then leave them to raise them however they want. Maybe you have to do this a few times, but it's still a lot less awful than taking people's kids away.

Agreed. I think a lot of those comments stem from the perceived results rather than the current conditions. Meaning most people have already condemned these children in their minds.

I would be for a mother losing her children if she refuses to send one of her other children to a hospital for cancer treatment and that child dies. Likewise here. If a mother lost her child and caused a localized outbreak due to this negligence, I would be more inclined to agree she shouldn't have the privilege of parenting.

Until there's harm there's not much of a foul though. Like drunk driving vs. actually killing someone while drunk driving. Like you said, send the cops and force them through legal means.