DC Tom Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 16 minutes ago, Paulus said: You're totally an autist. Have you ever seen the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode that deals with assburgers? Yeah. I'm willing to bet you've seen it. I'm also willing to bet you've told people you have autism to get out of sticky situations. I have never told anyone that. I have told people that "I'm not autistic...I would be by your standards, but your standards are stupid, and mine are better. And since I'm a genius, if you disagree with me the problem is yours, not mine." More seriously, I'm almost certain that, by today's standards, I would have been diagnosed as being on the spectrum back when I was 4. But the diagnostic criteria have broadened considerably in that time, basically from "Rain Man" to "weird guy in junior high who collected stamps and never talked to anyone." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Vaccines aren't 100%. But if Almost everyone is vaccinated, and the vaccines work *almost* perfectly, the diseases don't spread (and mutate for that matter) and those for whom the vaccine was ineffective don't get exposed. Said another way, less people with disease = less chance of infection. More people with disease = more chance of infection. This is one of the reasons vaccines are so effective. It's not that they are 100%. It's that they are just really good. And being really good has increased benefits than just to the vax recipient. There's no rational contest. There are just people who don't want to vaccinate. The problem is that their choice has a much better chance of killing many kids, including mine, than saving their kid from an immunological response. I don't like the government getting into my right to make ***** decisions. But certain ***** decisions that affect other people's lives and deaths require some more active measures. If you (not you, specifically, whatadrought) want to be stupid and risk contracting polio, that's on your dumb self. If you want to increase the chance that it goes to me and my children, ***** off. The top of your post is my response to the rest of your post. And it isn't a cut and dry issue. Perfectly logical people debate the issues of vaccines, and plenty of people have been hurt (some even in this thread) by vaccines. Edited February 21, 2019 by whatdrought 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 12 minutes ago, whatdrought said: The top of your post is my response to the rest of your post. And it isn't a cut and dry issue. Perfectly logical people debate the issues of vaccines, and plenty of people have been hurt (some even in this thread) by vaccines. Measles serum was botched in the mid-60s, I was violently ill from it and have had them 3 times in my life, last time around 1982. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted February 21, 2019 Author Share Posted February 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, whatdrought said: The top of your post is my response to the rest of your post. No it's not. There is no question that vaccines are a benefit to humans, unless you just want us to have more diseases and illnesses. 6 minutes ago, whatdrought said: And it isn't a cut and dry issue. Perfectly logical people debate the issues of vaccines, and plenty of people have been hurt (some even in this thread) by vaccines. No, it's cut and dry. If you want to advocate for safer vaccines, so be it that's fine. But the risks are minimal compared with the rewards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 Just now, BeginnersMind said: No it's not. There is no question that vaccines are a benefit to humans, unless you just want us to have more diseases and illnesses. No, it's cut and dry. If you want to advocate for safer vaccines, so be it that's fine. But the risks are minimal compared with the rewards. It's not cut and dry. That's why there are anti-vaccers. That's why people believe in using subjective choice and not falling at the whim of the incestuous government/pharma lobby. Show me a vaccine that is 100% effective, and 100% risk free and i'm the first in line. Until that mark is reached there is still a conversation to have about the risk and reward. I also give not a lick of care to the "consensus" of the medical world. Don't forget that in it's time, blood letting was a prominently accepted medical practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 31 minutes ago, whatdrought said: It's not cut and dry. That's why there are anti-vaccers. That's why people believe in using subjective choice and not falling at the whim of the incestuous government/pharma lobby. Show me a vaccine that is 100% effective, and 100% risk free and i'm the first in line. Until that mark is reached there is still a conversation to have about the risk and reward. I also give not a lick of care to the "consensus" of the medical world. Don't forget that in it's time, blood letting was a prominently accepted medical practice. Smallpox. Effectiveness: 100%. Reward: The disease no longer exists. Risk: 1.5 in one million chance of potentially fatal reaction. Now have that conversation about risk vs. reward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 I agree, let's ban all the vaccines and get the global population back under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, KD in CA said: I agree, let's ban all the vaccines and get the global population back under control. No, because - again - the purpose of vaccines is not to protect people, it's to prevent epidemics. I'd rather reintroduce large predators into their historical ranges. Saber-toothed tigers in downtown LA, for example. Same effect, but much better television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Smallpox. Effectiveness: 100%. Reward: The disease no longer exists. Risk: 1.5 in one million chance of potentially fatal reaction. Now have that conversation about risk vs. reward. https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/vaccine-basics/index.html 95%. The argument that eradication obviously proves the effectiveness of a vaccine is a false equivalency. Many epidemics have flared up and died off throughout human history without vaccines being available. That being said, I'm not arguing against smallpox vaccination. I'm saying all vaccinations need to be addressed with thought and care and that the government shouldn't be able to legislate such things without a complete and total system of proof, which does not exist for modern vaccines. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, whatdrought said: https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/vaccine-basics/index.html 95%. The argument that eradication obviously proves the effectiveness of a vaccine is a false equivalency. Many epidemics have flared up and died off throughout human history without vaccines being available. That being said, I'm not arguing against smallpox vaccination. I'm saying all vaccinations need to be addressed with thought and care and that the government shouldn't be able to legislate such things without a complete and total system of proof, which does not exist for modern vaccines. Again, misunderstanding vaccines as preventing disease, when they prevent epidemics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Again, misunderstanding vaccines as preventing disease, when they prevent epidemics. Oh please, you're the one that argued the usefulness of the vaccination based on the eradication of the disease. Epidemics are widespread occurrences of the disease. Of course it's one and the same. Edited February 21, 2019 by whatdrought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted February 21, 2019 Author Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Oh please, you're the one that argued the usefulness of the vaccination based on the eradication of the disease. Epidemics are widespread occurrences of the disease. Of course it's one and the same. He did that to counter your silly point that the only good vaccine is one that is 100% effective and riskproof. So he pulled out the smallpox vaccine as an example of close to 100%. Repeating: If almost everyone is vaccinated, and the vaccines work *almost* perfectly, the diseases don't spread and those for whom the vaccine was ineffective don't get exposed. Controlling epidemics is a worthy result of vaccines. Get vaccinated. Get your kids vaccinated. If you don't, you put my kid at risk, and that's not OK. And since there are no so many anti-vaxxers whose "knowledge" is completely wrong, it's turning into time for the government to take steps to ensure that people don't kill each other because of their wanton stupidity. If all you did was kill you and your kid by refusing vaccines, I'm cool with that. If the Jehovah's Witnesses want to refuse medical treatment, god bless 'em. But when your refusal to take advantage of simple medicine increases the chance of global epidemic, ***** you. Want to work to make vaccines safer? OK fine. But get vaccinated. Edited February 21, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 46 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Oh please, you're the one that argued the usefulness of the vaccination based on the eradication of the disease. Epidemics are widespread occurrences of the disease. Of course it's one and the same. No, epidemics are the widespread transmission of disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said: He did that to counter your silly point that the only good vaccine is one that is 100% effective and riskproof. So he pulled out the smallpox vaccine as an example of close to 100%. Repeating: If almost everyone is vaccinated, and the vaccines work *almost* perfectly, the diseases don't spread and those for whom the vaccine was ineffective don't get exposed. Controlling epidemics is a worthy result of vaccines. Get vaccinated. Get your kids vaccinated. If you don't, you put my kid at risk, and that's not OK. And since there are no so many anti-vaxxers whose "knowledge" is completely wrong, it's turning into time for the government to take steps to ensure that people don't kill each other because of their wanton stupidity. If all you did was kill you and your kid by refusing vaccines, I'm cool with that. If the Jehovah's Witnesses want to refuse medical treatment, god bless 'em. But when your refusal to take advantage of simple medicine increases the chance of global epidemic, ***** you. Want to work to make vaccines safer? OK fine. But get vaccinated. I didn't say the only good vaccine is one that is 100%. I said that unless one is 100%, theres a conversation with two sides- which you seem happy to ignore. Tom countered with an example that is not 100%, even though he stated it is. Explain to me this, if vaccines work why is your vaccinated kid at risk by unvanccinated kids? Your entire argument is that because you're right, the government should act. My argument is that because there is not a consensus (and there isn't, even if you want to discredit the other side) then the government shouldn't force things. I'm not anti-vaccine, i'm anti government overreach and "almost" from bull#### opinions like yours isn't enough to change my mind on that. 52 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, epidemics are the widespread transmission of disease. I don't know what distinction you're arguing, but in order to prevent the epidemics, you must prevent the disease, which is what you argued against in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I don't know what distinction you're arguing, but in order to prevent the epidemics, you must prevent the disease, which is what you argued against in the first place. What, is the word "transmission" invisible? TRANSMISSION. Does that help? In order to prevent epidemics, you must prevent the of TRANSMISSION disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Again, misunderstanding vaccines as preventing disease, when they prevent epidemics. 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: What, is the word "transmission" invisible? TRANSMISSION. Does that help? In order to prevent epidemics, you must prevent the of TRANSMISSION disease. And preventing transmission of the disease comes from preventing the disease!!! An epidemic is not an outbreak of the transmission of the disease, but rather it's an outbreak of the disease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted February 21, 2019 Author Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Explain to me this, if vaccines work why is your vaccinated kid at risk by unvanccinated kids? Vaccines prevent disease at a high rate, but more importantly, they prevent the SPREAD of disease to those people who might otherwise be in the low percentage of people for whom they are ineffective. How hard is this to understand? Quote Your entire argument is that because you're right, the government should act. My argument is that because there is not a consensus (and there isn't, even if you want to discredit the other side) then the government shouldn't force things. I'm not anti-vaccine, i'm anti government overreach and "almost" from bull#### opinions like yours isn't enough to change my mind on that. I, too, am against government overreach. But if your stupidity goes so far that you think it's your right not to vaccinate your kids and that action along with the other morons who think similarly, OF COURSE, leads to epidemics that kill and infect lots of other people, then yes, I'm for government intervention. I'd prefer that people were just plan smarter and got vaccinated...like they used to. But Jenny McCarthy has won and the Internet can give echo to any kooky belief, so people read that if they get a vaccine, their kid will get autism and go with that. And now we have polio outbreaks in America. Polio FFS. Edited February 21, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said: Vaccines prevent disease at a high rate, but more importantly, they prevent the SPREAD of disease to those people who might otherwise be in the low percentage of people for whom they are ineffective. How hard is this to understand? I, too, am against government overreach. But if your stupidity goes so far that you think it's your right not to vaccinate your kids and that action along with the other morons who think similarly, OF COURSE, leads to epidemics that kill and infect lots of other people, then yes, I'm for government intervention. I'd prefer that people were just plan smarter and got vaccinated. the government has no right to tell me to vaccinate my kids. absolutely none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted February 21, 2019 Author Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Foxx said: the government has no right to tell me to vaccinate my kids. absolutely none. Don't kill my kid. And hopefully the government and every school denies unvaccinated kids access to any contact with anyone where legal. But it's Trump's administration that is considering mandatory vaccination [for school students] because there is an outbreak of stupidity, which unfortunately can't be cured. [edited for clarity] Edited February 21, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Don't kill my kid. And hopefully the government and every school denies unvaccinated kids access to any contact with anyone where legal. But it's Trump's administration that is considering mandatory vaccination because there is an outbreak of stupidity, which unfortunately can't be cured. stay the ***** out of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts