Vaccinations thread.

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't see how there is any passage in any religious text that says vaccinating is bad

It's more to do with a religious teaching than a religious text. If you think that religion is solely limited to what a religious text says, you're sorely mistaken.

 

[Denur]

I'm just pointing out that there are some much, much bigger issues in our country.

Yes, it's obvious that you're doing that. Why don't you just open an "Official Australia" thread for those issues, in stead of trying to derail another person's honest thread?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Except that I'm not trying to derail it.

 

[Denur]

Except that I'm not trying to derail it.

Sure.

It's a laudable policy, but there are bigger issues facing our community right now.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the government set about fixing our abhorrent treatment of asylum seekers

 

[Grayfox]

It's more to do with a religious teaching than a religious text. If you think that religion is solely limited to what a religious text says, you're sorely mistaken.

Then wouldn't those teachings be based on the ministers/father/reverends opinion, and not religious?

 

[Vegard]

So if they make it a law that you must vaccinate your child that would be OK?

If they were able to pass such legislation I'd respect it.

Is this something where you feel that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, and pay the costs as appropriate?

I'm not familiar with your specific laws and regulations when it comes to driving and speeding but I can't imagine they're very much different from what I'm used to here in Norway.

I don't think an approach where the economic status of an individual have direct influence on the effect of the punishment is the best option.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, it's obvious that you're doing that. Why don't you just open an "Official Australia" thread for those issues, in stead of trying to derail another person's honest thread?

I read;

@Vegard: What do you think to this Oz legislation?

@prisonermonkeys: I think there are more important things to worry about (x,y,z)

@Denur: TROOOLLLLL! Thread is derailed, open another etc. etc.

I don't see how there is any passage in any religious text that says vaccinating is bad as the word vaccinate didn't exist when most religions, and those people have double standards to start with.

Timothy 5:8, or so it's interpreted here. That whole page is fascinating reading but utterly, utterly mad.

EDIT: And there's more.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Then wouldn't those teachings be based on the ministers/father/reverends opinion, and not religious?

No, not always. Religious texts often need interpretation, particularly in response to advancements in science, technology and society.

 

[ExigeEvan]

That's how you take action.

The issue here is the same as with many similar cases, it's the child that suffers. Taking benefits away from the family only impacts the child more, and so that can have further impact on their life. But a parent, that has already bought the anti-vacc idea, will see this as a necessary evil. The child may not starve, but an already disadvantaged child will only suffer more.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Using the suffering of someone defenceless to correct a behaviour in a wider population is entirely consistent with our government's way of doing things. It might be a health initiative, but it's the brainchild of social services minister Scott Morrison, the bulldog of the government and the man who repeatedly covered up abuses of asylum seekers while serving as immigration minister. He will happily use this policy, even if it means that children suffer for it.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Using the suffering of someone defenceless to correct a behaviour in a wider population is entirely consistent with our government's way of doing things. It might be a health initiative, but it's the brainchild of social services minister Scott Morrison, the bulldog of the government and the man who repeatedly covered up abuses of asylum seekers while serving as immigration minister. He will happily use this policy, even if it means that children suffer for it.

It's no different to the 'benefit cap' policy that is implemented here. £26,000 to support 2 adults and 'X' children is still a sizeable amount, but how many kids can you have under 16? Quite a lot!

 

[Imari]

If they were able to pass such legislation I'd respect it.

That's not what I said though. Would your opinion of such a piece of legislation be similar to this one, that it was impinging on people's freedoms with unnecessary penalties?

I don't think an approach where the economic status of an individual have direct influence on the effect of the punishment is the best option.

And I agree. It's unfortunate that this is essentially mandatory for low income families, and merely a very wise economic choice for wealthy ones. $7500+ a year is still a lot of money, even if you're on $100k a year. But it is what it is, and while I think it may not be the best implementation that they could have come up with, I agree with the idea in spirit.

Judging from your initial posts, you don't even agree with the general principle of encouraging parents to vaccinate. "Step in the wrong direction"? "Exercising freedom of choice"?

I'm not even sure exactly what your position is on this matter any more.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Hmm..so smokers can smoke like chimneys and burden the healthcare system through their own choices, obese people can eat their way into hundreds of thousands of healthcare dollars later in life by their own choices, but if you choose not to vaccinate which is also perfectly legal, no childcare and family benefit payments for you. No slippery slope or contradiction whatsoever there.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Hmm..so smokers can smoke like chimneys and burden the healthcare system through their own choices, obese people can eat their way into hundreds of thousands of healthcare dollars later in life by their own choices, but if you choose not to vaccinate which is also perfectly legal, no childcare and family benefit payments for you. No slippery slope or contradiction whatsoever there.

Again, as stated previously, vaccination isn't just about the health of the single child. An un-vaccinated child can catch and transmit the illness to children not yet old enough to have had the vaccination, or unable to due to other medical complications.

Further, choosing to smoke is a choice made by adults for themselves. Choosing to remain obese is a choice made by adults for themselves. Choosing not to vaccinate a minor is a choice made on behalf of the minor. And it is the government's role in society to protect the vulnerable, which minors are.

 

[Vegard]

Would your opinion of such a piece of legislation be...

I'd be against mandatory vaccination, yes.

your opinion of... this one, that it was impinging on people's freedoms with unnecessary penalties?

I understand that you have a strong urge to put a label on me in regards to the vaccination debate.
The fact is that I'm not a partisan with strong feelings about what other people should choose for themselves and their children. I believe in freedom of choice for the individual, or in this case, the legal guardian of the individual (the parents).

Judging from your initial posts, you don't even agree with the general principle of encouraging parents to vaccinate.

Well, you couldn't be more wrong. It's the method used in this case I disagree with.

I'm not even sure exactly what your position is on this matter any more.

I think the use of information and "diplomacy" is to be preferred to coercion.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Again, as stated previously, vaccination isn't just about the health of the single child. An un-vaccinated child can catch and transmit the illness to children not yet old enough to have had the vaccination, or unable to due to other medical complications.

Further, choosing to smoke is a choice made by adults for themselves. Choosing to remain obese is a choice made by adults for themselves. Choosing not to vaccinate a minor is a choice made on behalf of the minor. And it is the government's role in society to protect the vulnerable, which minors are.

And how do you protect those children by financially punishing their parents? It was stated in this thread should we withdraw benefit payments from parents who let their kids ride a bicycle without a helmet too? How about kids who participate in sports known to be dangerous with an increased possbility of injury like Australian Rules Football, or skateboarding or motocross racing? Or does this type of rule only apply when other kids are affected? Do the tax laws give equal family benefits to the rich and poor? If the rich don't receive this benefit then they aren't penalized by not vaccinating are they?

 

[ExigeEvan]

And how do you protect those children by financially punishing their parents? It was stated in this thread should we withdraw benefit payments from parents who let their kids ride a bicycle without a helmet too? How about kids who participate in sports known to be dangerous with an increased possbility of injury like Australian Rules Football, or skateboarding or motocross racing? Or does this type of rule only apply when other kids are affected? Do the tax laws give equal family benefits to the rich and poor? If the rich don't receive this benefit then they aren't penalized by not vaccinating are they?

For a start, if you read literally 4 comments previous you'd see that I don't believe financially punishing the parents, and further punishing the child, is a good thing.

Secondly, I don't believe children should be allowed to ride a bicycle without a helmet. I'm not sure of Aus' laws, but in the UK the driver is responsible to ensure minors wear their seatbelts in a vehicle. A child shouldn't be on a road alone, and they certainly shouldn't be on a road without a helmet. Off-road, and it becomes more difficult to define in my opinion. The same can be applied to skateboarding and motocross, all reasonable safety gear and supervision should be provided.

The rules of a sport are often designed to protect the player from harm, and in my personal experience of playing AFL the rules do quite a good job of protecting the player from harm.

 

[mustafur]

The biggest percentage of un-vaccinated Children in Australia come from wealthier families it should be noted.

Now as a Libertarian I don't usually agree with laws such as this as I think it should be the parent, not the Governments responsibility to raise a child, but in a situation like this where them exercising their freedom can effect others it should have some rules, just like smoking.

 

[LeMansAid]

Now as a Libertarian I don't usually agree with laws such as this as I think it should be the parent, not the Governments responsibility to raise a child, but in a situation like this where them exercising their freedom can effect others it should have some rules, just like smoking.

Isn't it tied to social security benefits though? When you accept benefits you enter into a contract. You don't like the contract? Don't accept the benefits. It's not a law at all as far as I know.

I think we'll be seeing more of it, and I'm not down on the idea. There was the recent no contraception no dole idea bandied around, and Abbott's comments on living in remote aboriginal communities being a lifestyle choice. It's not that the government is trying to limit freedom, it's that they're trying to avoid forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for lifestyle choices.

 

[Imari]

I understand that you have a strong urge to put a label on me in regards to the vaccination debate.

Not necessarily, although I'd like to understand what your position is. If it differs from any common positions significantly then you'll need to explain it in depth. If it doesn't, then yeah you can name the label and I'll label you. Then at least I'll understand.

The fact is that I'm not a partisan with strong feelings about what other people should choose for themselves and their children. I believe in freedom of choice for the individual, or in this case, the legal guardian of the individual (the parents).

You say this, yet you accept that there are instances like face stabbing where limiting freedom of choice is to the benefit of the community. Which is why we have laws with major punishments attached, and why you're OK with that.

Why is vaccination something that should be left to freedom of choice, like choosing a flavour of ice cream, instead of something that should be regulated, like face stabbing?

Well, you couldn't be more wrong. It's the method used in this case I disagree with.

So what method would you approve of?

I think the use of information and "diplomacy" is to be preferred to coercion.

Why is diplomacy in quotes? That makes it sound like a euphemism for coercion.

How about instead of beating around the bush you outline a couple of tactics that you think would be more appropriate, in line with this use of information and "diplomacy"?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The Australian government are currently on a triade against the public sector, to me this just looks like another thinly veiled attack. Thoughit won't make a huge dent, every but counts and it makes it look like they're actually doing something.

The best way to go about this would be to actually educate the public on this issue, but that costs money. I do enjoy the campaign's reference to the old Australian schoolyard 'no hat, no play' rule. Forgetting to take your hat to school on a real nice day was the worst thing ever for a primary school kid.

 

[Vegard]

Why is vaccination something that should be left to freedom of choice, like choosing a flavour of ice cream, instead of something that should be regulated, like face stabbing?

Because it's mainly about personal health.

Why is diplomacy in quotes?

Because diplomacy is negotiation between states. "Diplomacy" is the same method applied to individuals or smaller groups of individuals (such as the anti vaccination lobby). English is not my first language and sometimes I'm too lazy to look up the precise term.

How about instead of beating around the bush you outline a couple of tactics that you think would be more appropriate, in line with this use of information and "diplomacy"?

I don't have a detailed plan of action for you because that's not my job, and thus I don't have one.

I'm a firm believer in the effectiveness of information though. Find a non-judgmental, non-offensive way to exchange facts (bilateral "diplomacy" if you will) and a large enough portion of the opponents* will be persuaded.

*Large enough for herd immunity.

I hope that clear things up.
And I apologize for the attitude earlier. Nothing personal.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Christian Science has been confirmed as the only religion that will have an exemption from the new anti-vaccination laws:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...ists-exempt-from-new-vaccination-laws/6395480

 

[Dennisch]

Will the followers of Christian Science also be shunted from any public gathering/building/park etc. etc., to prevent anti vaxxers from spreading their beliefs and diseases?

 

[Carbonox]

Why is there an exemption in the first place?

 

[Dennisch]

Because science is icky and scary.

 

[Imari]

Because it's mainly about personal health.

Which I can respect. Such things should be left to the choice of the individual where possible.

There are cases where the health benefit is considered so detrimental that it gets regulated, like carcinogens.

I'd like to believe that in these cases the regulation isn't being done because of some Big Brother style, "the government knows what good for you" sort of thing, but rather that it's simply the most financially viable way for them to run a health system. It's more cost effective to regulate and restrict carcinogens than it is to deal with the downstream health problems.

As long as they're forcing vaccination because it's more financially viable for the healthcare system, I don't have a problem. They can do whatever needs to be done, because the premise is that it's working for the greater good. Whatever money is saved can be used to heal someone else.

If they're doing it because someone in parliament thinks that it's really important that kids are vaccinated just because, then I'm with you that it's an unnecessary imposition on their freedoms.

I'm a firm believer in the effectiveness of information though. Find a non-judgmental, non-offensive way to exchange facts (bilateral "diplomacy" if you will) and a large enough portion of the opponents* will be persuaded.

*Large enough for herd immunity.

I'm not sold on that one.

These days it's not so much about providing the information, because most of us have access to more information than we'll ever be able to absorb. But technology is becoming so specialised that at best it can be quite difficult to explain to an average layman, and at worst they simply don't care enough to listen.

As you can see with the anti-vax movement already, it's not that hard to convince some people who would otherwise seem to be intelligent and rational that vaccines are deadly poisons. You end up in a media war with the anti-vaxers, where it's not about who is right or wrong, but who can shout the loudest or generate the snappiest catch phrase.

I want to believe that when provided with good, clear explanations of the risks and benefits that people will behave rationally, but it's just not the case. Which turns it into a bit of a gamble whether the non-rational group is large enough to compromise herd immunity or not.

The only way to really find out would be to wait and see if kids start getting really sick or dying of immunisable diseases, and I think I can see why politicians are reluctant to try that.

I hope that clear things up.
And I apologize for the attitude earlier. Nothing personal.

I apologise as well, I'm glad we sorted it out.

 

[Danoff]

Should the government use economics to encourage parents to vaccinate their children in such a case? I think so. It's not as severe as face stabbing, so incarceration shouldn't be on the table,

It can be worse.

30 dead kids from an outbreak, or 30 deformed kids from severe totally preventable illness? Worse than face stabbing. I say lock up parents who were so criminally negligent as to allow their children to die or severely suffer needlessly.

 

[Joel]

criminally negligent

This answers so many of the "how would libertarians handle X" questions. A reasonable person would vaccinate their child, and failing to do so is clearly violating your duty of care to your child.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why is there an exemption in the first place?

Practicioners of Christian Science are deeply opposed to medical intervention. This is probably a very simplified version of it, but they see the course of somebody's life as being set by God, and so God is the only one who can alter the course of your life. Medical science is essentially human intervention, and frowned upon.

My source on this, as odd as it may seem, is Metallica's James Hetfield. He was raised according to the Christian Science doctrine, until his mother got sick; she rejected medical treatment, firm in her belief that God would save her, but it never happened. It's pretty much what "The God That Failed" from the Load (or possibly ReLoad) is all about.