• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Should Vaccination be Mandatory

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
This has nothing to do with the logical statement I made earlier.

Nothing.

You're obviously throwing out a strawman.

I'm struggling a bit here to understand what you're talking about. You said:

If some are vaccinated and others choose not to be, only those who made the choice not to vaccinate are at risk; they are not endangering anyone who isn't obviously already aware and has consciously made the decision to forgo vaccination.

I directly addressed your statement with pointing out how important herd immunity is. Herd immunity is the reason your statement is false. But, you pasted the definition of herd immunity, which says right in it: "the vaccination of a significant portion of a population provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity," so you already know this by reading the definition you pasted. NOT having a significant portion of the population vaccinated puts anyone who is not immunized at risk, whether its by choice or by medical necessity. Which is direct conflict with your statement that I quoted. They are endangering others besides themselves - the people who cannot be vaccinated/do not benefit from vaccination.

[If 5 people are in a room, 3 are vaccinated against chickenpox, 2 are not, 1 is infected. How many people are endangered by the infected?

If the answer is greater than 1, then I must be missing something here. If it isn't, you don't really have a point.

The answer is 2. The person already infected is past the point of qualifying for being at risk, and the 2 vaccinated people are not at risk because they have acquired immunity, but the 2 non vaccinated people are going to get it because chickenpox is highly contagious and they're in the same room with the live virus.

Herd immunity doesn't really apply in this scenario. How herd immunity would apply would be if all 4 of the people in the room were vaccinated (representing a significant portion of the population of the room) and 1 is infected, nobody is going to have chickenpox in that room except the guy who already has it because he wasn't vaccinated. Herd immunity is protecting people that the 4 vaccinated people come in contact with after they leave that room. In your scenario, the infected person infects 2 others because they weren't vaccinated, then what happens when they leave the room? They almost definitely infect more people if they aren't vaccinated; if the percentage of people with acquired immunity is high in the population they come in contact with the threat is contained, and if the percentage of people with acquired immunity in the population they come in contact with is low there is potential for an outbreak.

Does this make sense? This is why the anti-vaxxer movement is really dangerous. This is why it deserves national attention. If it weren't for this fact and it was just the un-vaccinated by choice crowd who was at risk from their decision to forego vaccination, I'd be fine with just giving them to the people who wanted them. That's not reality though.

I do agree with your decision to not immunize your children until they started school, for what its worth, assuming you were diligent enough to keep your kids away from sick people when they weren't vaccinated. There's no sense in vaccinating someone against things they aren't at risk of acquiring, and if you keep them away from crowds of people or people who you know are sick then the risk is pretty low. The problem with not vaccinating children for the common contagious diseases they could encounter when they're young though is parents are parading their toddlers around the mall with who knows how many people carrying who knows what and putting their un-vaccinated kids at risk, which is indirectly putting others at risk (what I talked about above).

I never said I was in favor for everyone getting every vaccine ever invented as early as possible, and I don't recall anyone else saying that either. But that seems to be what the anti vaccine crowd thinks we want. I just want smart application of vaccines to prevent as many unnecessary illnesses as possible. Which to me means anyone who regularly goes out in public should be vaccinated against diseases that are either highly prevalent, highly contagious, or deadly; AND have demonstrated a low incidence of mild to moderate side effects, WHILE yielding a high success rate of prevention against the disease it is intended to prevent. To those if us in the scientific community this is common sense and is implied, but maybe we need to start communicating this more often.

I do not believe fining or arresting people for not having them is a good idea, but my honest opinion is if we get to the point where we have an outbreak so bad it makes the bubonic plague and cholera look like amateur hour, I'm gonna be helping round anti-vaxxers up for quarantine and I'm not gonna care how bad I'm trampling their rights. The more foothold this movement takes, the closer we get to one of these outbreaks becoming more than just the plot of a sci-fi movie.
 
Last edited:
The primary defence against infection is the body's own immune system. The more injections are handed out, the weaker all our bodies become, unchallenged by disease and, by natural selection, the tougher the diseases become.

Flu shots have resulted in enhancing flu epidemics.

When flu spreads across North America now, it is no longer a sniff and a cough, but a disease that puts you in bed for days.

If they continue with this flu shot insanity, givn about 20 years, each flu epidemic will be able to kill literally tens of thousands.

-Anonymous

Who is this quote attributed to? I want to mail them an immunology textbook. I can even send them a PDF if they prefer to learn with their kindle.
 
I do agree with your decision to not immunize your children until they started school, for what its worth, assuming you were diligent enough to keep your kids away from sick people when they weren't vaccinated.

As long as anyone with measles or similar disease is willing to wear a sign around their neck stating as much, that shouldn't be a problem.
 
I'm struggling a bit here to understand what you're talking about. You said:

I said that it is not true that the unvaccinated place the vaccinated at risk. It was pointed out by others that the unvaccinated could put those who cannot be vaccinated at risk; but to me that seems like an exception to what is otherwise a generally sound concept.

I directly addressed your statement with pointing out how important herd immunity is.

Yes I can read, and what you said has nothing to do with what I said.

Herd immunity is the reason your statement is false.

Herd immunity has nothing to do with my statement.

But, you pasted the definition of herd immunity, which says right in it: "the vaccination of a significant portion of a population provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity,"

Ohdang, my statement has nothing to do with the consequent of the bolded argument. Don't you understand that?

so you already know this by reading the definition you pasted. NOT having a significant portion of the population vaccinated puts anyone who is not immunized at risk, whether its by choice or by medical necessity.

The bolded is the consequent of my argument, which is obviously stated here by you. It seems like you are trying to not understand my point.

Those who cannot be vaccinated, by medical necessity in your words, are not the responsibility of the individual in a free society.

I don't know how clearer that can be made.

Which is direct conflict with your statement that I quoted.

Right, @The Human Q-Tip correctly brought this point up, and again in post #228, I concede this point as an exception that does not otherwise rule out the general conclusion of my argument.

They are endangering others besides themselves - the people who cannot be vaccinated/do not benefit from vaccination.

It isn't their responsibility. It is like me saying that you are "endangering" your fellow man by not giving the majority of your wages to social welfare programs.

There are reasonable limits to individual responsibility, and you don't seem to respect that boundary.

The answer is 2. The person already infected is past the point of qualifying for being at risk, and the 2 vaccinated people are not at risk because they have acquired immunity, but the 2 non vaccinated people are going to get it because chickenpox is highly contagious and they're in the same room with the live virus.

The answer is 1, and you've already demonstrated why. Your argument is based in semantics, and not generally well grounded. A person already being infected and a person who is at risk of infection, even if that risk is 100%, are not equivalent concepts. The purpose of the measurement in the thought experiment is to track/measure the transmission of the disease.

Concisely, the person already infected is not "at risk" of infection. That's ridiculous.

Herd immunity doesn't really apply in this scenario.

That's exactly my point. You keep bringing up herd immunity; and I'm not concerned with the concept for the diseases we're talking about as they are not threats to society.

If we were talking about something that could potentially kill a significant portion of the population, there was an active outbreak, and the only viable solution was forced vaccination; then I might agree that we should consider the option.

But chickenpox isn't a disease that meets any of these criteria.

How herd immunity would apply

Ohdang, you brought up herd immunity -- not me.

Herd immunity is protecting people that the 4 vaccinated people come in contact with after they leave that room. In your scenario, the infected person infects 2 others because they weren't vaccinated, then what happens when they leave the room?

You can't change the scope of my argument to demonstrate a fault... That's ridiculous. And in my scenario, the infected person infects 1 other person not 2; he doesn't infect himself, let's not be silly.

Does this make sense?

Of course, but it's not my point. My point is that it isn't the responsibility of the individual. Nowhere in your argument are you even remotely considering this.

This is why the anti-vaxxer movement is really dangerous. This is why it deserves national attention. If it weren't for this fact and it was just the un-vaccinated by choice crowd who was at risk from their decision to forego vaccination, I'd be fine with just giving them to the people who wanted them. That's not reality though.

I'm not arguing against vaccination. I'm arguing against forced vaccination. I fully understand the value in 90+% of individuals being vaccinated and moving towards eradication of a communicable diseases.

I do agree with your decision to not immunize your children until they started school, for what its worth, assuming you were diligent enough to keep your kids away from sick people when they weren't vaccinated.

Then what are we arguing about?

There's no sense in vaccinating someone against things they aren't at risk of acquiring, and if you keep them away from crowds of people or people who you know are sick then the risk is pretty low.

Agreed.

The problem with not vaccinating children for the common contagious diseases they could encounter when they're young though is parents are parading their toddlers around the mall with who knows how many people carrying who knows what and putting their un-vaccinated kids at risk, which is indirectly putting others at risk (what I talked about above).

Err.... that's life though. That's the nature process of life. You can't say they are endangering their child by not injecting vaccines into them. They have a right to live as they choose in a free society.

Your statement would be true if we thought that the mall was filled with infected people, or that the risk of going to the mall and acquiring an infection, on any given day, was substantial; which it's not.

What you're describing is truly paternalism (I sound like Q-Tip now, fuck..). It's a dangerous mode of thought.

I never said I was in favor for everyone getting every vaccine ever invented as early as possible,

I never said you were.

and I don't recall anyone else saying that either.

Neither do I.

But that seems to be what the anti vaccine crowd thinks we want.

Who are you arguing against, me or Mar?

I just want smart application of vaccines to prevent as many unnecessary illnesses as possible. Which to me means anyone who regularly goes out in public should be vaccinated against diseases that are either highly prevalent, highly contagious, or deadly; AND have demonstrated a low incidence of mild to moderate side effects, WHILE yielding a high success rate of prevention against the disease it is intended to prevent. To those if us in the scientific community this is common sense and is implied, but maybe we need to start communicating this more often.

I'm in the scientific community, I worked at, and graduated from, the University of Hawaii at Manoa in the Astronomy and Astrophysics departments working in areas of quantum physics. Yes, I'm not a doctor, and I have no doubt you know more about immunology than me.

But your "those of us" doesn't speak for me or many others I know. What is "common sense" to you isn't necessarily "common sense" to me. I value the individual liberties we have today.

To that point, academic study does not trump individual liberties in our society, nor should it.

Furthermore, you saying you want "smart application" doesn't address the question.

The question in the thread is "mandatory vaccination," Jigo asked "what does mandatory mean?"

Instead of directly addressing the question, you're restating what we already know; that vaccinating people is in the best interests of the group. I don't deny that. But again you're not addressing the actual question, which is in this instance, does the best interest of the group override the personal liberties of the individual?

I do not believe fining or arresting people for not having them is a good idea, but my honest opinion is if we get to the point where we have an outbreak so bad it makes the bubonic plague and cholera look like amateur hour, I'm gonna be helping round anti-vaxxers up for quarantine and I'm not gonna care how bad I'm trampling their rights.

You're sitting here talking about you, personally, going out and "rounding people up?" And "I don't care about how bad I'm trampling on their rights."

Honestly Ohdang, it sounds to me like you're already at that point; with or without bubonic plague or cholera.

The more foothold this movement takes, the closer we get to one of these outbreaks becoming more than just the plot of a sci-fi movie.

FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Not going to address illogical and irrational fear. But I will say that the only thing you and I seem to disagree on, is the only question asked in the OP.

From my perspective, your argument could be directed towards AIDS. Should we have forced AIDS tests in this country? There is no risk at testing itself? It's harmless, but we would have a great deal more control if people were aware that they had the disease.

What about gun control? Doesn't buying and owning guns endanger everyone, particularly including the kids, in my home?

What about smoking? Shouldn't we ban tobacco? It has such harmful effects on those around second hand smoke. If I smoke two packs a day at home, around my kids, I'm totally endangering them right?

There are near-infinite examples of instances where we, as humans, encounter risk and present risks to those around us. That's life. It isn't the job of the government to create a risk free environment. It certainly isn't the job of government to force individuals how to go about doing that.

It's an individual choice. That's my only point.
 
but my honest opinion is if we get to the point where we have an outbreak so bad it makes the bubonic plague and cholera look like amateur hour, I'm gonna be helping round anti-vaxxers up for quarantine and I'm not gonna care how bad I'm trampling their rights.



You're sitting here talking about you, personally, going out and "rounding people up?" And "I don't care about how bad I'm trampling on their rights."

Honestly Ohdang, it sounds to me like you're already at that point; with or without bubonic plague or cholera.

I don't think it sounds like that to anybody else....
 
I don't think it sounds like that to anybody else....

How the fuck would you know?

Rather than taking snippets from his post out of context, I actually read his post. I find some of his remarks a bit alarming...

Your post doesn't add anything to the discussion. You don't even agree with his position, or do you?.
 
I don't think it sounds like that to anybody else....

He's literally talking about herds of people......yes he is. He obviously does not care for the privacy and protection of freewill, soley based on his supposid expertise in vaccines and immunology.
 
He's literally talking about herds of people......yes he is. He obviously does not care for the privacy and protection of freewill, soley based on his supposid expertise in vaccines and immunology.

To be clear Mar, in all fairness, he's talking about a scientific concept in immunology called 'herd immunity.' The "herd" in this sense is the population.

Ohdang is making a scientific argument about the eradication or minimization of infection. It's a warranted discussion, but for another question entirely.

But Ohdang's argument loses scientific merit when he talks mandating vaccinations, about taking pleasure in "trampling on their rights," about rounding people up, about not being able to get an FHA loan, not being able to go to the mall, that a person is an infection risk to himself, or the grave risks of not getting a chickenpox vaccine that wasn't widely used until the mid-90s.

These points are frankly ridiculous and certainly irrational and unscientific. I think a reasonable objective individual would agree these positions go too far.

The question headlining the thread has nothing to do with what we've been talking about because we all acknowledge the benefits to the individual as well as to society with respect to being immune to a disease.

Again, what many people are tabling is the crux of the argument here; that the government has the authority to hold a person down against their will and pump their arm full of chemicals and other agents. The weaker form of "mandate" being discussed in this thread at least, again, and at a minimum, would place an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on individuals for exercising their personal rights.

Only in the most dire and extreme circumstances could I even begin to ethically justify such an action. So to answer the OP, again for the millionth time, NO, vaccines should not be "mandatory."

Getting a loan, or welfare, or your pension, or buying a car shouldn't require one to show their vaccination record. And not vaccinating your children should not forfeit your rights as a parent.

Going to public school? Sure. But stepping outside and "going to the mall?" No.

It just seems like people do not truly understand what it means to live in a free society.
 
Last edited:
I understand the concept of herd immunity. However, I was referring to his idea of literally rounding up the herd against their will. I also think the concept of herd mentality is in play here.

It's very sickening to me.
 
I was referring to his idea of literally rounding up the herd against their will. I also think the concept of herd mentality is in play here.

It's very sickening to me.

I agree.. It's an odd thing to say one would take pleasure in. That's why I remarked, it's a really off-putting idea, even if it were necessary.

There seems to be this emotional context that maybe I'm not aware of.
 
I agree.. It's an odd thing to say one would take pleasure in. That's why I remarked, it's a really off-putting idea, even if it were necessary.

There seems to be this emotional context that maybe I'm not aware of.
And they want to abolish the 2nd Amendment? Geesh, I think everyone should be forced to take gun training and required to be armed at all times. Just kidding of course, but you don't have to force me....

But seriously, based on some of the posts in here (specifically Sumac and Ohdang) I would now be labeled as a non-vaccinated person and could be targeted by the insane masses. It's quite ridiculous....

And furthermore, the emotional aspect you are referring to I believe you already touched upon - FUD.
 
Last edited:
He's literally talking about herds of people......yes he is. He obviously does not care for the privacy and protection of freewill, soley based on his supposid expertise in vaccines and immunology.

Did you even pay attention to the context into which he specifically placed that remark?

He expressly referred to how he would feel in a future situation if we were faced with a disease "so bad that it makes cholera and bubonic plague look like amateur hour", and there were still people advocating against vaccinations.

No remotely fair minded person could possibly take that comment as advocating that people be rounded up now for vaccination. He was expressly referring to an absolute worst case scenario in the future.
 
Listen, why don't all the people who are scared of the unvaccinated go live in FEMA camps? Everything you could want will be provided for and you won't have to be worried about catching any diseases because you'll all be vaccinated.

Screw the worst case scenario in the future, go now!
 
Did you even pay attention to the context into which he specifically placed that remark?

He expressly referred to how he would feel in a future situation if we were faced with a disease "so bad that it makes cholera and bubonic plague look like amateur hour", and there were still people advocating against vaccinations.

No remotely fair minded person could possibly take that comment as advocating that people be rounded up now for vaccination. He was expressly referring to an absolute worst case scenario in the future.

Saying that you're gonna do your part in "rounding people up" and saying you "could care less about trampling their rights" implies a great deal of hostility towards "anti-vaxxers."

It's akin to saying "if given the opportunity, I would come to your house and drag you out in the street, without caring about your supposed 'rights.'"

I'm tired of dwelling on this point though, it's minimal and tangential.
 
I said that it is not true that the unvaccinated place the vaccinated at risk. It was pointed out by others that the unvaccinated could put those who cannot be vaccinated at risk; but to me that seems like an exception to what is otherwise a generally sound concept.

This is what you said that I specifically responded to:

If some are vaccinated and others choose not to be, only those who made the choice not to vaccinate are at risk; they are not endangering anyone who isn't obviously already aware and has consciously made the decision to forgo vaccination.

And I responded directly to that statement with herd immunity being the reason why your statement was false. Because we rely so heavily on herd immunity, it is absolutely not true that they are only endangering themselves or only specifically people who made a conscious choice to forgo vaccination. They're endangering anyone they come in contact with that isn't vaccinated, whether that is from personal choice, lack of an immune system from an illness, or the fact that no vaccine (or any medicine of any kind) is 100% effective and they were vaccinated but it didn't take.


Yes I can read, and what you said has nothing to do with what I said.

Herd immunity has nothing to do with my statement.

Ohdang, my statement has nothing to do with the consequent of the bolded argument. Don't you understand that?

It has everything to do with your statement, because it is critically important to our society not being susceptible to outbreaks of deadly diseases like smallpox, polio, diphtheria, malaria, measles, pertussis, typhoid, I could go on and on. We don't even need vaccinations for some of these anymore because previous generations did such a good job with vaccinating that they were eradicated from this part of the world. Unfortunately we're starting to see herd immunity fail with pertussis and measles as a result of a significant number people deciding to forgo vaccines for them.

Just because you can't understand why it directly relates to your statement doesn't mean its irrelevant to your statement. I'm trying to help you understand but you're pulling your typical bullshit that you do when you can't figure out how to win an argument. But I'm not trying to win an argument with you, I want you to understand why you're wrong so you can learn because its better for everyone if this is a universally understood and accepted concept. Stop trying to win and actually listen to what I'm saying, this is important.

It isn't their responsibility. It is like me saying that you are "endangering" your fellow man by not giving the majority of your wages to social welfare programs.

No, it isn't anything like that at all. Stop twisting what I'm saying because you're trying to win a debate. I'm not even arguing whether they should be mandatory at this point, I'm only trying to explain why they're a good idea and why they're effective, and how the current public opinion toward them is threatening the herd immunity we've built up over several generations. People need to stop discounting the importance of herd immunity, if we lose it we're going to see hospitals get overwhelmed. We already have here in Ohio to some extent due to the ineffectiveness of this season's flu vaccine. People don't seem to understand that it had just as big of a role of stopping mass casualties as actual immunity from vaccination did. We freak out when a couple hundred people die, but before vaccinations and herd immunity there were outbreaks that killed so many people you probably couldn't even fathom it. We're talking outbreaks that wiped out 1/3rd of the entire population of the world, and this happened more than once in recorded history.

The answer is 1, and you've already demonstrated why. Your argument is based in semantics, and not generally well grounded. A person already being infected and a person who is at risk of infection, even if that risk is 100%, are not equivalent concepts. The purpose of the measurement in the thought experiment is to track/measure the transmission of the disease.

Concisely, the person already infected is not "at risk" of infection. That's ridiculous.

Umm, what? How is the answer 1? Were the 2 un-vaccinated people in the room with the infected person Tyrion Lannister and Vern Troyer, so they only count as half? You can add, can't you? My argument is not well grounded? The ability to add 1 + 1 is semantics? You're calling me ridiculous for counting the person already being infected as one of the at risk, but what's ridiculous is that you're twisting my words again to try and win an argument. I specifically said, and this is a direct quote, "The person already infected is past the point of qualifying for being at risk." The answer is 2 people in that room are at risk, and this is very simple, because there is one person infected with a highly contagious disease in the same room with 2 people who have no defense against the disease and 2 people with acquired immunity to it. Those 2 vaccinated people can breathe easy, but those other 2 better not breathe at all or they're getting chickenpox. What fucked up rationale could you possibly have that makes the correct answer 1? You didn't even explain why you believe the answer is 1, you just claimed I demonstrated why when I clearly did no such thing. Stop using your bullshit internet arguing tactics, they don't work when you know jack shit about something and you're arguing with someone who does this for a living. Do you see me trying to argue with you about programming with completely retarded logic? No, you don't, because you know what you're talking about and I would just look stupid, just like what is happening in reverse right now.


You keep bringing up herd immunity; and I'm not concerned with the concept for the diseases we're talking about as they are not threats to society. If we were talking about something that could potentially kill a significant portion of the population, there was an active outbreak, and the only viable solution was forced vaccination; then I might agree that we should consider the option.

Have you been avoiding the news? I can't say I'd blame you if you were, but there is an outbreak of a disease happening right now that threatens society. Measles is one of the leading causes of death in children worldwide, on average about 150,000 per year. That's a pretty significant part of the population in my opinion, but I guess based on the comment you made that I just quoted that means 150,000 dead children is acceptable to you since you think there is no active outbreak of significance that threaten society.

Do you see what I just did there? That was a gourimoko debate tactic. Stop fucking doing it, its annoying and unproductive. If you can't rely on your intelligence to debate me, just stop typing. At this point you're basically bringing the same thing to this discussion as Lord Mar. Step your game up. Now, back on topic...

There hasn't been a problem with measles killing children in the United States because of the effectiveness and the prevalence of the vaccine, and herd immunity protecting the small % of people who were not vaccinated. Well, if you've been watching the news you'd know that that has just changed, and measles is back. Its only a matter of time before kids start dying from it here, too, just like in the rest of the un-vaccinated world. And its sad because this didn't need to happen. We had measles beaten so badly that we declared it eliminated from the country back in 2000. All it took was a few dipshits on TV and facebook spreading misinformation to undo our victory over measles. Hopefully they learn their lesson from this before we let smallpox or polio get back in the mix.


You can't change the scope of my argument to demonstrate a fault... That's ridiculous. And in my scenario, the infected person infects 1 other person not 2; he doesn't infect himself, let's not be silly.

I don't even know what to say to this. How in your scenario does only 1 of the 2 un-vaccinated people in the room contract the disease? You haven't given an explanation of why you believe that is the answer. I'm really curious to know because I can't think of any possible way its anything except 2. Who said he infected himself? Did I? No, I certainly didn't. Stop making shit up and respond to what I actually said. I don't even know where you pulled this from. 2 un-vaccinated people = 2 newly infected people. The answer is 2, its not even debatable, 1 + 1 is 2 in every language. Just stop. Its actually remotely possible that the number is 3 or 4, because according to the CDC the varicella vaccine is 98% effective. Maybe those vaccinated guys in the room are in that unlucky 2%. What's important though is that it is unequivocally not 1.

I'm not going to spend an hour replying to the parts about vaccination being mandatory. I know that is the title of the thread. I've already given my thoughts on that in great detail in the thread. This discussion devolved into a desperate attempt by me to help people understand why the anti-vaxxer movement is bad news and why people should embrace vaccines quite a few pages ago. We've pretty much established that everyone thinks fines and jail are out of the question, and nobody should be injected by force, but requiring it for public schools and jobs in healthcare is okay. I've put more effort into this thread than I ever should have already, so congrats on beating me down without actually addressing anything I actually said, I guess...
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top