Reason Magazine openly advocates forced vaccination

[rambone]

To answer the question, if you know you're infected with a dangerous disease, and you deliberately go in public where people are likely to contract the disease, that's aggression. At least within my understanding of the NOP.

By that standard, anyone with the flu, in public, is aggressive.

What should happen to these aggressive threats to society?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Non-aggression, just like anyone else.

Now, do you think it is a form of aggression for a microscopic organism to drop off your body?

Do you think coughing and sneezing are acts of aggression?

Generally speaking, I am of the understanding if I have a fever, my illness is contagious. If I go out in public while I have a fever, I am exposing other folks to my illness--so yes, I believe that to be a form of aggression.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You've jumped from 'possibly higher probability of becoming contagiously sick' to 'contagiously sick'.

Anyone with a compromised immune system has a higher probability of passing along illnesses. Much moreso than non-vaccinated people. Should any person with a compromised immune system be confined to their home?

How do I know my immune system is compromised? Just because I like to eat Big Macs more often than you?

 

[steveh_131]

How do I know my immune system is compromised? Just because I like to eat Big Macs more often than you?

There is no effective way to measure your immune system's ability to fight off every infectious disease. Your vaccinated body may be more susceptible to a measles infection than the body of an unvaccinated person if you have certain nutritional deficiencies or stress/exhaustion.

Nevertheless, if we force vaccinations because they sometimes make a person less susceptible to certain viral infections, then we should also force good nutrition and exercise regimens.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There is no effective way to measure your immune system's ability to fight off every infectious disease. Your vaccinated body may be more susceptible to a measles infection than the body of an unvaccinated person if you have certain nutritional deficiencies or stress/exhaustion.

Nevertheless, if we force vaccinations because they sometimes make a person less susceptible to certain viral infections, then we should also force good nutrition and exercise regimens.

I don't disagree. But would you not agree that a person that knows they are sick, and I guess it would be regardless of whether the illness is because they willfully chose not to get a vaccination or maybe the vaccination "didn't take", has a duty to avoid contact with others?

 

[steveh_131]

I don't disagree. But would you not agree that a person that knows they are sick, and I guess it would be regardless of whether the illness is because they willfully chose not to get a vaccination or maybe the vaccination "didn't take", has a duty to avoid contact with others?

I would say that this comes down to property rights.

If a store or establishment wants to allow sick customers on the premises, it is their right to do so. It is also their right to screen customers for illnesses.

It is your right to stay home, or take other precautions.

On the other hand, if I did think they were liable for spreading sickness, that should be left up to a civil court. Not a nanny state forcing preventative measures upon us.

 

[rambone]

Generally speaking, I am of the understanding if I have a fever, my illness is contagious. If I go out in public while I have a fever, I am exposing other folks to my illness--so yes, I believe that to be a form of aggression.

So just by existing, sick people are committing aggression?

 

[88GT]

I'm not sure. What responsibility do contagiously sick people have to their community?

What responsibility does anyone have to his community? I think the entire premise of the question is flawed.

To answer the question, if you know you're infected with a dangerous disease, and you deliberately go in public where people are likely to contract the disease, that's aggression. At least within my understanding of the NOP.

What if you don't know? You're opening up a whole can of worms here for a ridiculous argument. A person need only claim "I didn't know" as a defense. So prove he knew. In order to prevent actual or constructive knowledge, a person will then refuse to seek medical help if doing something else is more important to him. People already refuse to see mental health professionals or take medications associated with mental disease/disorder in order to prevent the backlash from this or that government authority, now or in the future. All you would do is encourage people to ignore their condition for the sake of creating a legal defense. Nice going.

Generally speaking, I am of the understanding if I have a fever, my illness is contagious. If I go out in public while I have a fever, I am exposing other folks to my illness--so yes, I believe that to be a form of aggression.

You're contagious long before you get a fever in some cases. Fever is your body fighting the infection, not a universal sign of infectability. Incubation periods of 10-14 days are not unheard of and contagious can occur anytime in those 10-14 days.

Besides, I think some of you are missing a major point here: if you're immunized against the disease, what do you have to worry about?

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't disagree. But would you not agree that a person that knows they are sick, and I guess it would be regardless of whether the illness is because they willfully chose not to get a vaccination or maybe the vaccination "didn't take", has a duty to avoid contact with others?

So Ryan White contracted AIDS through no fault of his own. He had a contagious disease. Should he have been locked up and never allowed in public? If so, why not just euthanize people like him? It's for the good of the community, right?

If I have a responsibility to my communities' health, why do I not have a responsibility to see that the same community is fed?

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

The unvaccinated pose a threat and the rest of us have no recourse.

I've never understood how the unvaccinated pose a threat to the vaccinated? (Perhaps the efficacy of vaccines isn't what we've been lead to believe)
Aren't the unvaccinated the ones rolling the dice and taking the risk? The vaccinated would seem to be well protected.

 

[88GT]

I've never understood how the unvaccinated pose a threat to the vaccinated? (Perhaps the efficacy of vaccines isn't what we've been lead to believe)
Aren't the unvaccinated the ones rolling the dice and taking the risk? The vaccinated would seem to be well protected.

Yeah, the fun is about to begin as the absolute disconnect starts to dawn on them.

 

[jamil]

Wait a minute. We're getting off into the weeds here. Let's keep in the realm of likelihoods. I said DANGEROUS disease, and I said deliberately. I'm not talking about the common cold, or rare susceptibility to common illnesses. If you go out in public with a dangerous disease, knowing full well that you'll be spreading that disease, yeah, I'd say you're an aggressor.

Now, to be clear, I don't advocate forcing people to vaccinate. And I don't believe that vaccinated people pose much threat to the public.

 

[hornadylnl]

Wait a minute. We're getting off into the weeds here. Let's keep in the realm of likelihoods. I said DANGEROUS disease, and I said deliberately. I'm not talking about the common cold, or rare susceptibility to common illnesses. If you go out in public with a dangerous disease, knowing full well that you'll be spreading that disease, yeah, I'd say you're an aggressor.

Now, to be clear, I don't advocate forcing people to vaccinate. And I don't believe that vaccinated people pose much threat to the public.

Isn't a common cold dangerous to somebody with an autoimmune problem?

 

[jamil]

Wait a minute. We're getting off into the weeds here. Let's keep in the realm of likelihoods. I said DANGEROUS disease, and I said deliberately. I'm not talking about the common cold, or rare susceptibility to common illnesses. If you go out in public with a dangerous disease, knowing full well that you'll be spreading that disease, yeah, I'd say you're an aggressor.

Now, to be clear, I don't advocate forcing people to vaccinate. And I don't believe that vaccinated people pose much threat to the public.

Isn't a common cold dangerous to somebody with an autoimmune problem?

Still in the weeds. Stay with it. If you know you're going to cause harm, and you do it anyway, you're the aggressor.

 

[rambone]

Wait a minute. We're getting off into the weeds here. Let's keep in the realm of likelihoods. I said DANGEROUS disease, and I said deliberately. I'm not talking about the common cold, or rare susceptibility to common illnesses. If you go out in public with a dangerous disease, knowing full well that you'll be spreading that disease, yeah, I'd say you're an aggressor.

Now, to be clear, I don't advocate forcing people to vaccinate. And I don't believe that vaccinated people pose much threat to the public.

Likelihood? Danger? These are subjective terms that can mean anything you want them to mean. Nothing in law should be based on such standards.

People die from the flu, therefore, its presents a danger (i.e. "dangerous").

And if that's the standard for aggression that people want to adopt, then let's be prepared to take the argument to its logical conclusion....

- Someone sneezes in his hand and then shakes yours. That's felony assault.
- Someone gets on an airplane with the flu. That's bioterrorism.

Let's hash it out. What do these ideas mean in reality? What do you think the government would do with such a insanely broad definition of "aggression"?

 

[mrjarrell]

So, maybe we need a few changes to the existing laws. When schools have to pay out overtime to maintenance staff to disinfect after kids with whooping cough and other preventable diseases, wouldn't it be fair to bill the parents? And if someone gets sick, despite being vaccinated or if they aren't current, then should they not have the right to sue the infectious disease carrier for negligence? Those of us who do vaccinate realise that vaccines do not always offer 100% protection. But, should we not have legal recourse against people who deliberately put us and others at risk?

 

[jamil]

This is a theoretical discussion based on what you said about aggression. I'm assuming you're speaking about NOP. I'm the one who made the statement that it's aggression, so I get to define the parameters around that.

If you willingly do something that you know will cause others harm. That's aggression. Inconvenience isn't harm. I'm not talking about common illnesses where except for rare cases, people commonly get over those diseases.

For example, if I go to work with a cold, I know it's likely that someone will catch it. That's kinda too bad. I'll do what I can to mitigate, but someone I work with will probably get the sniffles. I get the sniffles too, and I get it from someone. That's just life. So let's stay out of the weeds.

I was think of dangerous as something like AIDS. Wasn't there a case some time ago where someone was prosecuted for knowingly spreading AIDS? If you know you got it and you have sex with a bunch of people without telling them you have it, that's aggression.

 

[jamil]

So, maybe we need a few changes to the existing laws. When schools have to pay out overtime to maintenance staff to disinfect after kids with whooping cough and other preventable diseases, wouldn't it be fair to bill the parents? And if someone gets sick, despite being vaccinated or if they aren't current, then should they not have the right to sue the infectious disease carrier for negligence? Those of us who do vaccinate realise that vaccines do not always offer 100% protection. But, should we not have legal recourse against people who deliberately put us and others at risk?

You are especially full of **** today and you're spreading it around. See, rambone as already caught it. So I'm thinking that's aggression.

I can make ridiculous points too.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Prevalence versus incidence. Know the difference. I acknowledge the misspelling of 'vaccine' as 'vax' to be annoying and illegitimate. It's not that difficult to type out. According to the CDC, the seasonal flu vaccine, between antigenic drift and antigenic shift, is at most 2% effective across all populations at preventing the seasonal influenza virus. So, 2% total efficacy. Excellent results for risking one's health.

 

[mrjarrell]

You are especially full of **** today and you're spreading it around. See, rambone as already caught it. So I'm thinking that's aggression.

I can make ridiculous points too.

I don't disagree with your point. I was serious about seeking recourse before the law for these transgressions. You jumped far too quickly in the wrong direction.