http://cdn.thisisbigbrother.com/cust...tar92709_9.gif

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4b79...itemid=4749468

I thought you were better than this tbh, how disappointing.

Vaccinations hold far less risk than the illnesses they protect against and by doing what you're doing, you're giving anti-vaxxers an inch so they can take a mile. It doesn't matter if you vaccinated your kids if you are giving these people ammunition to spread their ignorance.

We shouldn't encourage people's igorance, TS.

Completely different things.

Banning abortions is basically restricting a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, an abortion isn't a health risk to anyone other than the woman in question. By not vaccinating a child, the parent is making a choice that can harm that child as well as younger children around them who are too young to be vaccinated. Why should someone else's child who is too young to be vaccinated get sick because of another parent's ignorance?

Anti-Vaxxer beliefs are unfounded, it was all based on the lies of a doctor who has since been struck off the register. Are vaccinations completely risk free? Nope, but are they typically more dangerous to children than the illnesses they vaccinate against? Certainly not.

Anti-vaxxers are dumb ***** that don't deserve to be parents.

Not enough IMO. His lies will affect people for many years to come.

and people who get the flu can potentially infect and kill other people with underlying conditions or elderly people etc but we don't all rush out and get the flu jab now do we?

You play the %'s game with vaccines. You have to weigh up the chances of an issue with taking a vaccine versus chances of infection if you don't get it. In all cases that I am aware, a vaccine is far preferable to the consequences of infection. **** happens for sure, and some are badly affected by vaccines, but if i'm playing the numbers game, i prefer to go for the best odds

....with measles in young children there is a high risk of complications I believe and some of those complications are life threatening...it’s not the same high risk of any complications when contracting influenza though...which is why they’re not really compatible imo and also a flu vaccination doesn’t prevent a disease, its just some protection for the more vulnerable in some cases...

.....hmmm I also agree with Dezzy that this ‘choice’ doesn’t really compare to a pregnancy either because surely pro choice in pregnancy applies to before a birth becomes viable...in many things, parents sadly do not always make choices which are best for a child...

Yes I've said that several times.

No. Lying about it is patronising, counter-productive, authoritarian and draconian. It does nothing but bolster the mistrust in the establishment and cause people to dig their heels in. Proper, open, truthful weighing up of the benefits and drawbacks are all that is required, and frankly all that is acceptable.



No we shouldn't and that's why I'm completely unwilling to accept your orwellian stance that unvaccinated children from secure, loving homes should be stripped for their families and placed into care. Just horrendous ignorance is all that can be said for that.

Parents are usually not medically qualified to make such decisions. My default position would be to listen to medical professionals

That's a really silly comparison tbh mainly because the people at risk from the flu are usually the first to be offered the flu jab.

It also doesn't really contradict what I'm saying at all. People don't get the flu jab so it's okay for illnesses that can be vaccinated againt to spread among children? Weird argument but k.

There's a difference between highly encouraging people to take medical advice, and legally mandating them to undergo medical procedures. The latter is a very, very slippery slope in my opinion. Personal bodily autonomy is a cornerstone of a free society and taking that right away will never be the right path.

Many people can be unaware that they have an underlying condition? My point is many healthcare workers in hospitals and clinics have the flu jab routinely offered but they don't have to take it up and no one is accusing them of being negligent by not doing so

Yeah but its not personal bodily autonomy though, it's either parents deciding for their kids or medical professionals

Speaking of ignorance and something that the general public is mostly ignorant to:

Influenza is SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous than measles. Yet people react to news of someone having the flu like its the common cold, and react to an outbreak of measles like ebola or the plague. The general level of knowledge around basic health is abysmal.

That's the thing

Parental consent should always come before intervention by the authorities other than in really extreme circumstances, surely?

So we're now advocating for medical professionals and the government having the final say over parents wishes?

Well. **** do I even have to respond to that?

It'd stop genital mutilation

Genital mutilation should be illegal anyway, and legally blocking a medical procedure is entirely different to legally obligating one.

What about adding fluorine to water? Or any form of sanitary intervention?
Do you want an opt out from that too?

You can opt out of that quite easily by not using tap water as drinking water. What other bodily intervention is legally mandated? Also why would you put vaccination under the heading of sanitation?

Next parents choosing to reject treated water or pasteurized food bc they read on some nutty blog that its harmful?

As it's designed to stop spreading diseases then yes
Not that different from sanitation designed to stop spreading diseases

So you want the government to mandate diet as well? Maybe we'll start getting soylent green deliveries. :joker:

Don't they intervene already? Sugar tax is inevitable in future

It is entirely different but I don't even know where to start in stating why, if it's not just plain obvious. Nanny state gone wild here. I find this genuinely scary :shrug:. Not sure if people realise that they are effectively advocating for universal state guardianship? It's actually BEYOND Orwell at this point.

Again, that's not an intervention. Sugar being made completely illegal wouldn't be an intervention.

Saying "Your child must eat Brocolli or they will be taken into care" would be your direct comparison here.

Jabs are not only about the individual but also have epidemiological, societal importance.

Nobody is forcing anybody afaik, but robust medical recommendations should be hard to ignore

You're overreacting

I agree with that wholeheartedly and again have said that several times, but again, read the first two responses on this thread. The first is that "not vaccinating should be illegal", the second is the horrific suggestion that unvaccinated children should be removed from their parents by social services.

It IS advocating for force, quite openly. That's literally all I'm arguing against here. Again, I've pointed out several times that vaccinating is clearly the sensible option on balance of risk and should be heavily encouraged.

I'm not that arsed about it all TS as personally I decided not to breed. But I worry when science is being undermined. Anti vac movement is part of that imo.

I'm reacting appropriately to the idea of state controlled parenting, and the idea that "it would stop at vaccination" is IMO naive.

There are myriad things happening today that would have been branded "an overreaction" if suggested a couple of years ago. No?

You can make an argument that unvaccinated kids help spreading diseases. As I said, a societal dimension of an individual decision

The anti-vaxx movement is indeed absolutely packed with junk "science" but the antidote to that isn't more lies, scare tactics and authoritarianism. It's doubling down on the real scientific facts.

Any chance for a naked wrestle to settle our little argument? :drool:

You'd save more lives by banning all non-essential travel by vehicle so why not do that?

Dezzy might try to get involved, and unchecked sarcasm completely kills my buzz :bawling:

Dezzy means well. We all are really in broad agreement on this issue.

...it is a very difficult one though because if people in large numbers chose to ignore medical opinion and didn’t have their children inoculated...?...then deadly infant diseases would grow more and more common in the western world...and that’s also going backwards in time surely..?...to me that would be the by far worse scenario...

...and yet you have been a user of it on several occasions TS, you know you have...enough now with the personal silliness...you both just have polar opposite opinions with this is all and both feel equally strongly about it...