Pessimist
Ratttking
Pessimist
Ratttking
Pessimist
The latter is fine with me. You want to go out of the country? Get your shots. You don't want to get a vaccine and you don't have a medical reason? Too bad you don't get to fly.
And the idea is to *not* bring it in the first place or if that can't be helped, minimize the spread. No, vaccines aren't 100% effective, but that doesn't mean we should stop using them. I imagine the smallpox vaccine wasn't 100% effective, but I sure as hell don't see it running around nowadays. Polio used to be a childhood scourge, but now it's rare to hear about it. Just because something is not immediate and completely effective doesn't mean we should forget about. If we did, why even bother maintaining public health? Just sit back and get wiped out like everyone used to back in the 'good ol' days'.
Medical reasons are irrelevant, they are still at risk for contracting and transmitting preventable diseases, so they must be banned along with everyone else.
I'll point out that in the 'good ol' days' people with contagious and potentially deadly diseases were quarantined to reduce spreading infection, along with everyone else in their home. I'd love for quarantine to make a return, but I think the thousands of people with incurable contagious diseases like HIV would object strongly to being kept in their homes or institutions for the rest of their lives or until a cure is developed - which won't happen soon. How do you feel about instituting quarantine procedures?
Medical reasons are relevant. You cannot help the status of your immune system you are born with. You cannot help things like leukemia. It's a completely different ballpark from not vaccinating your children because a Playboy Model told you to.
We *do* still quarantine. I don't know why people think we've stopped. Remember ebola? TB will land your a** in a hospital quarantine unit OR jail if you're non-compliant. And quarantine procedures are dependent on how the disease is spread. Its silly to assume we should quarantine HIV patients unless they are trying to bleed all over people.
Trying to do the 'one size fits all' argument* when it comes to medicine is silly. Measles is not HIV. Opting out because you think God told you not to is not the same as opting out because your immune system will kill you if you try to get a vaccine.
*And no, this does not contradict what I said to Joe. In that case, it is the school system that is arbitrarily deciding that one form of hazard is acceptable to make a policy on compared to a different form of hazard.
The potential for infection is no different, therefore they must be treated the same as any other unvaccinated person. Do not let pity cloud your reasoning, you are far too smart for that.
Are we quarantining the children who currently have measles? Are their families who have been exposed also in quarantine or are they out and about touching things with their germy little paws? How about people who catch the flu and their families? I used HIV as an example because it is a fairly widespread but almost *completely preventable infection that keeps on infecting, especially among gay males, and you know very well that blood is not the only means by which it can be transmitted.
I already said that I think banning peanuts is idiotic. He (the father) is correct in pointing out their hypocrisy, but he is blind to his own hypocrisy in wanting all kids but the immunocompromised or allergic to have vaccinations in order to attend school.
* I say 'almost' because it is impossible to prevent being raped, and because even in a long-term committed relationship, sometimes one, or both (or all) parties cheats.
Actually, it looks like we are quarantining the measles cases, though not to the severity as with we do for other things.
Urgh. How is it hypocritical to want HEALTHY people to be vaccinated? How is it hypocritical to understand that not everyone has the most effective immune system, to the point where the vaccine poses a risk so large that it is preferable to go without? They do not have a choice in the matter, and, no, it is not feasible to suggest that everyone who cannot be vaccinated stay indoors for the rest of their lives. They rely on herd immunity for protection, and can afford to do so until half the herd contracts stupid and stops vaccinating.
Mmmhmm. So, we're not instituting a full and proper quarantine for the measles. Wonderful. Flu is not quarantined at all apparently and causes numerous deaths each year. Not touching on HIV, I see, for which there is no vaccine and thus can only be completely prevented from transmitting via quarantine. Herd immunity is not in effect for HIV.
It's hypocritical to want ANYONE who is unvaccinated allowed in. His special snowflake is far more likely to contract and transmit a disease than a person with a properly functioning immune system, yet he does not care of the risks his son and others like him pose to the public. I asked this before, whom would he blame if his son were infected by one of the kids who was not vaccinated for medical reasons? He's A-OK with their presence. What if he got it from a young child who had not yet received his second MMR and was in the 2-5% for whom the first shot did not take effectively? If he wants to think of unvaccinated kids as potential vectors, he need look no farther than his own sickly offspring to find one.
Are we still talking about travel restrictions? Because if we are, then no one
needs to travel in or out-of-country, ever, it is a choice for them to do so. If we are talking schooling, the kids of anti-vaxxers have
no choice as to their medical treatment, so why do you not show the same pity for them, and for the offspring of religious nut-jobs? These kids might develop sense and get their shots when they grow up, but the allergic people will remain allergic and unvaccinated and thus potential vectors for the rest of their lives. Hopefully the immunocompromised will recover to the point they can receive their shots, but if not, they too remain potential vectors forever.