Choose To Vaccinate

[STTAB]

Just repeating an untruth, STTAB, doesn't mean it eventually becomes true.

Yes. You claimed that the term 'virtually eliminated' was the one that had been used, and you denied that it had been simply the word 'eliminated'. I've already shown you that you're wrong, and cited two examples of the claim that 'eliminated', not 'virtually eliminated', WAS what had been claimed.

How many times do I need to post the illustrations of this being true, before you take notice of them ? Or are the two I've already provided not enough to convince you ? How many would be, before you concede the point ?

Evidently, debating with you IS a waste of time, if you're going to disregard any evidence I present to you that you're in error.



This misrepresents what I've said. I don't 'simply' reject the notion of mandating them, but give a reason for it. Please, now, note: I reject the notion of mandating their application, not on the basis you're citing, but on the basis I actually HAVE stipulated ... namely, political opportunism, and the setting of precedents that can make it socially impossible to resist future such diktats.

If you're going to just ignore the argument I offer, then substitute it with your own version, then clearly, I'm wasting my time here.

My advice: just admit you're wrong and be done with it. If you have to resort to sheer misrepresentation to try and make your case stick, you waste my time, and that of everybody else's here.

I'm not arguing further.

I ignore your examples, because you are wrong. Those people are not claiming that individual cases of measles have been eliminated int he US, they are saying Measles OUTBREAKS have been eliminated in the US, and that is 100% true, or well it was until recently because of the drop in vaccination levels coupled with the increase in illegal immigration bringing more diseases into the country, and a couple other factors.

See universal mandated vaccines were never meant to eliminate individual cases of Measles, they were meant to prevent OUTBREAKS of measles, and they are 100% effective at that when 90% of a population is vaccinated.

[Drummond]

I ignore your examples, because you are wrong. Those people are not claiming that individual cases of measles have been eliminated int he US, they are saying Measles OUTBREAKS have been eliminated in the US, and that is 100% true, or well it was until recently because of the drop in vaccination levels coupled with the increase in illegal immigration bringing more diseases into the country, and a couple other factors.

See universal mandated vaccines were never meant to eliminate individual cases of Measles, they were meant to prevent OUTBREAKS of measles, and they are 100% effective at that when 90% of a population is vaccinated.

You're nothing if not persistent, STTAB ... I have to give you that.

I also note that you're re-positioning the goalposts in this debate to suit yourself. What you're addressing now is not the point you've tried to argue before. You originally argued that 'eliminated' was not the entirety of the term that had been used in the US about measles outbreaks, but that instead, your people had stuck to the phrase 'virtually eliminated'. I've proved you wrong about that.

As for your diversion, now ....

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...-measles-news/

During March 2000, CDC convened a consultation of measles experts to evaluate data on the elimination of endemic measles from the United States. The data indicated that, during 1997–1999, measles incidence has remained low (<0.5 cases per 1,000,000 population) and that most states and 99% of counties reported no measles cases. In addition, measles surveillance was sensitive enough to consistently detect imported cases, isolated cases, and small outbreaks. Evidence of high population immunity included coverage of >90% with the first dose of measles vaccine in children aged 19–35 months since 1996 and 98% coverage among children entering school. In 48 states and the District of Columbia, a second dose of measles vaccine is required for school entry. A national serosurvey indicated that 93% of persons aged >6 years have antibody to measles. Because of these findings, the experts concluded that measles is no longer endemic in the United States. From there, the CDC began their marketing campaign that measles had been eliminated in 2000.

Here's what I think the truth actually is, STTAB: I think that, in terms of pure fact, the point you're making is apparently a correct one. Your authorities wanted to declare measles 'eliminated' (a nice, comforting soundbyte ?), and even embarked on a 'marketing campaign' to do just that, when in fact what they actually meant was that, indeed, in terms of its incidence, it had been VIRTUALLY eliminated, because, after all, measles itself still existed within your borders, and very rarely, someone still contracted it.

None of this alters the truth of what your authorities ACTUALLY tried to claim ... and they, as my examples proved, did not set out to convince people that it had been VIRTUALLY eliminated. They claimed that it HAD been.

What was true, and what was SAID, were two different things. The evidence is perfectly clear, no matter how you try to argue this. Originally you claimed that authorities used the term 'virtually eliminated'. Factually true or not, this is NOT what authorities CLAIMED, and as I've shown, you were wrong about that.

If anything, STTAB ... your case helps to substantiate my own. Automatic trust in what you're told is not the way to go, meaning, that being open to questioning is what's truly called for. Indeed ... can you reasonably avoid it ??

--- I rest my case !!

[Nice try, though ....]

[STTAB]

You're nothing if not persistent, STTAB ... I have to give you that.

I also note that you're re-positioning the goalposts in this debate to suit yourself. What you're addressing now is not the point you've tried to argue before. You originally argued that 'eliminated' was not the entirety of the term that had been used in the US about measles outbreaks, but that instead, your people had stuck to the phrase 'virtually eliminated'. I've proved you wrong about that.

As for your diversion, now ....

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...-measles-news/



Here's what I think the truth actually is, STTAB: I think that, in terms of pure fact, the point you're making is apparently a correct one. Your authorities wanted to declare measles 'eliminated' (a nice, comforting soundbyte ?), and even embarked on a 'marketing campaign' to do just that, when in fact what they actually meant was that, indeed, in terms of its incidence, it had been VIRTUALLY eliminated, because, after all, measles itself still existed within your borders, and very rarely, someone still contracted it.

None of this alters the truth of what your authorities ACTUALLY tried to claim ... and they, as my examples proved, did not set out to convince people that it had been VIRTUALLY eliminated. They claimed that it HAD been.

What was true, and what was SAID, were two different things. The evidence is perfectly clear, no matter how you try to argue this. Originally you claimed that authorities used the term 'virtually eliminated'. Factually true or not, this is NOT what authorities CLAIMED, and as I've shown, you were wrong about that.

If anything, STTAB ... your case helps to substantiate my own. Automatic trust in what you're told is not the way to go, meaning, that being open to questioning is what's truly called for. Indeed ... can you reasonably avoid it ??

--- I rest my case !!

[Nice try, though ....]

I am tired of arguing semantics with you Drummond. You yourself have conceded that the government simply meant that the dangers of a measles outbreak had been virtually eliminated, rather than saying there were zero cases of measles in this country, all while claiming that the government was telling people there were no measles in this country.

And I will reiterate, being pro mandatory vaccination does NOT mean we put blind automatic trust in our government. It simply means that in this one particular instance the government is right, probably by accident.

Let me ask you, are in favor of DUI laws that are based on a blood alcohol content level?

[Drummond]

I am tired of arguing semantics with you Drummond. You yourself have conceded that the government simply meant that the dangers of a measles outbreak had been virtually eliminated, rather than saying there were zero cases of measles in this country, all while claiming that the government was telling people there were no measles in this country.

And I will reiterate, being pro mandatory vaccination does NOT mean we put blind automatic trust in our government. It simply means that in this one particular instance the government is right, probably by accident.

Let me ask you, are in favor of DUI laws that are based on a blood alcohol content level?

I'm not at all sure 'semantics' quite covers it. You made a case on the basis of saying that nobody had argued that measles had been eliminated. You said that 'virtually eliminated' was the term used, and in that, you were wrong. There's no point in arguing this, because my point is proven.

As to what they MEANT ... well, there could be the question of what the intent was behind their 'measles is eliminated' claim. What you'd like to dismiss as semantics could really be an intention to mislead through the over-emphasis of a soundbyte-term.

As for your second paragraph .. I'm glad to hear it, because it's all too obvious that trust in your Government - any Government - absolutely cannot be any automatic process.

However, that creates potential for another problem, surely ? With a lack of good reason for trust established, how far CAN they be trusted ? What if the basis for an immunisation program, wanted by your authorities, could itself be questioned ? My point is that, with an inability to automatically trust, comes the need to consider that untrustworthiness may be a feature of other matters embarked on ... as part of a 'campaign', or, not.

This is more than semantics, STTAB. Mistrust breeds mistrust, and it could be well founded.

On your last point, my answer must be 'YES' ...

... unless I get reason to reconsider, of course. My mind is open to that, given sufficient reason.

[STTAB]

I'm not at all sure 'semantics' quite covers it. You made a case on the basis of saying that nobody had argued that measles had been eliminated. You said that 'virtually eliminated' was the term used, and in that, you were wrong. There's no point in arguing this, because my point is proven.

As to what they MEANT ... well, there could be the question of what the intent was behind their 'measles is eliminated' claim. What you'd like to dismiss as semantics could really be an intention to mislead through the over-emphasis of a soundbyte-term.

As for your second paragraph .. I'm glad to hear it, because it's all too obvious that trust in your Government - any Government - absolutely cannot be any automatic process.

However, that creates potential for another problem, surely ? With a lack of good reason for trust established, how far CAN they be trusted ? What if the basis for an immunisation program, wanted by your authorities, could itself be questioned ? My point is that, with an inability to automatically trust, comes the need to consider that untrustworthiness may be a feature of other matters embarked on ... as part of a 'campaign', or, not.

This is more than semantics, STTAB. Mistrust breeds mistrust, and it could be well founded.

On your last point, my answer must be 'YES' ...

... unless I get reason to reconsider, of course. My mind is open to that, given sufficient reason.

The answer to your question "how far can the government be trusted?" Is sadly not at all.

In fact the opposite is true, you are better off assuming that they are wrong absent any information to the contrary.

In this particular case we have plenty of independent data to conclude that mandatory vaccinations are a good thing in the overall.

[Drummond]

The answer to your question "how far can the government be trusted?" Is sadly not at all.

In fact the opposite is true, you are better off assuming that they are wrong absent any information to the contrary.

In this particular case we have plenty of independent data to conclude that mandatory vaccinations are a good thing in the overall.

MANDATORY vaccinations ?

Do tell.

To conclude: you don't trust your Government 'at all'. But, the precedent of said Government coming up with MANDATES that people would need to obey, this from people you do NOT trust, is fine with you ?

Setting the precedent of deference to diktats from those you say you don't trust ... does that make any sense at all ? Seems rather masochistic, at absolute minimum ....

[STTAB]

MANDATORY vaccinations ?

Do tell.

To conclude: you don't trust your Government 'at all'. But, the precedent of said Government coming up with MANDATES that people would need to obey, this from people you do NOT trust, is fine with you ?

Setting the precedent of deference to diktats from those you say you don't trust ... does that make any sense at all ? Seems rather masochistic, at absolute minimum ....

What are you talking about?

I don't trust the government, that doesn't mean in this one particular instance they aren't doing something right.

[Drummond]

What are you talking about?

I don't trust the government, that doesn't mean in this one particular instance they aren't doing something right.

STTAB .... really ... !!! This is getting too easy.

You 'don't trust the government'. But in this instance, you do.

OK, that could be a 'one off', with your argument perhaps holding water in many instances (- theoretically -), even if not for this one.

But here's the problem: you trust the Government to compel such vaccinations, to make them MANDATORY. To dictate to people that this must happen. More .. you trust the Government enough to set the legal, and socially 'acceptable' precedent to - when they choose to - dictate their rule over peoples' lives.

For a Government you profess not to trust, or to not want to trust, that's decidedly strange, isn't it ? Why would you happily see a Government dictate to you, seize the power to do so, enshrine it in law, concede the precedent of doing that, if you don't even trust them !!!

ARE you a masochist ?

Or ... could it be that your mindset is such that you defer to the principle of a centralised authority dictating your life to you, whenever they feel like it ?

There's a brand of politics that covets such power, and would use it in just that way.

Its name is .... SOCIALISM.

Think about it.

[jimnyc]

Although the distrust of govt. from me is full there - we can really say that they ARE mandated to an extent. While folks CAN turn them down and they have that RIGHT - it's just that they will be "auto-banning" themselves if you will, from half of the world.

It's similar to the argument of those who refuse to supposedly get a drivers license or photo ID - which is NOT mandatory - but then watch half of your privileges/rights or whatever you call it, disappear. Pretty much can't do anything without it. So not mandatory, it's been made to the point that it HAS to be done to get through with a normal society.

I think it's similar with the vaccines. Not mandatory, but try getting into a school without them. Or almost all sports activities where people are grouped together - and many other things.

So mandatory, but by societies doing, whether folks like that or not. Don't get that ID, don't get the vaccines - that IS your right if that's the path one chooses to go. But there are consequences with many decisions in life, and this is one of them too.

[Drummond]

Although the distrust of govt. from me is full there - we can really say that they ARE mandated to an extent. While folks CAN turn them down and they have that RIGHT - it's just that they will be "auto-banning" themselves if you will, from half of the world.

It's similar to the argument of those who refuse to supposedly get a drivers license or photo ID - which is NOT mandatory - but then watch half of your privileges/rights or whatever you call it, disappear. Pretty much can't do anything without it. So not mandatory, it's been made to the point that it HAS to be done to get through with a normal society.

I think it's similar with the vaccines. Not mandatory, but try getting into a school without them. Or almost all sports activities where people are grouped together - and many other things.

So mandatory, but by societies doing, whether folks like that or not. Don't get that ID, don't get the vaccines - that IS your right if that's the path one chooses to go. But there are consequences with many decisions in life, and this is one of them too.

All fine. But, be all that as it may, STTAB makes it clear that he's supportive of mandatory vaccinations. This surely means what it says ? Mandatory vaccination programs don't allow for choice .. they don't permit it. STTAB claims to be distrustful of Governments, and yet, he wants to see a precedent set where they can dictate to you, compel you to do what they dictate.

I think my position on vaccinations is clear ? IF, repeat IF, there's very good reason to have them, then let there be a preparatory effort to educate people on the need for them. But actual mass compulsion sets a dangerous precedent. An UNTRUSTWORTHY Government is bound to use that precedent for its own ends. It's a slippery slope, isn't it ? Even if done indirectly, where to offer resistance to the effort of compulsion results in a 'pushing back' by authorities to see to it that you're disadvantaged if you don't fall in line with them.

Have a psychology gain acceptance in society where such tactics, and such a display of authoritarianism, gains wide acceptance ... it gives a potential green light for any manner of future abuses.

[Abbey Marie]

E298C57E-C63A-42F8-B8F4-F840DA6FDD9C.jpeg

[Gunny]

All fine. But, be all that as it may, STTAB makes it clear that he's supportive of mandatory vaccinations. This surely means what it says ? Mandatory vaccination programs don't allow for choice .. they don't permit it. STTAB claims to be distrustful of Governments, and yet, he wants to see a precedent set where they can dictate to you, compel you to do what they dictate.

I think my position on vaccinations is clear ? IF, repeat IF, there's very good reason to have them, then let there be a preparatory effort to educate people on the need for them. But actual mass compulsion sets a dangerous precedent. An UNTRUSTWORTHY Government is bound to use that precedent for its own ends. It's a slippery slope, isn't it ? Even if done indirectly, where to offer resistance to the effort of compulsion results in a 'pushing back' by authorities to see to it that you're disadvantaged if you don't fall in line with them.

Have a psychology gain acceptance in society where such tactics, and such a display of authoritarianism, gains wide acceptance ... it gives a potential green light for any manner of future abuses.

I am going to jump in where I left off so if I'm a day late and a dollar short, so be it. @Drummond @Kathianne. I think both make good points. Where I fall on the side of vaccinating is this:

On a level of ideals, I agree with what drummond is saying and don't consider it wrong except that ideals are ideals. His hard-line stance does not allow for humans to participate. And in and of itself, his ideals would force people to provide for themselves in mass numbers.

Like it or not, in reality, we all belong to societies/social structures where we are dependent on cooperation to achieve any success. There is a common good in society that supercedes the individual when the individual presents a threat to the collective. Even though most of us are do for yourself, conservative-types, we ALL still rely on the government/society whether or not we like it. Yes, there is a danger of morons like the loony left taking it to extremes and just generally screwing up the most common sense things, but id ioes nto in any way effect the danger presented to the society as a whole.

Each case should be taken on its own merit based on the effect it has on the society as a whole. Our laws are full of BS rules that step all over individual Rights and I disagree with probably most of them. When the rule actually is beneficial to the whole though, it should be accepted as such.

[Drummond]

E298C57E-C63A-42F8-B8F4-F840DA6FDD9C.jpeg

What 'plague' are you referring to, Abbey ? It's only MEASLES we're talking about.

Besides, a healthy immune system can resist even contracting it, without recourse to any form of immunisation. My own has, on multiple occasions.

[Drummond]

I am going to jump in where I left off so if I'm a day late and a dollar short, so be it. @Drummond @Kathianne. I think both make good points. Where I fall on the side of vaccinating is this:

On a level of ideals, I agree with what drummond is saying and don't consider it wrong except that ideals are ideals. His hard-line stance does not allow for humans to participate. And in and of itself, his ideals would force people to provide for themselves in mass numbers.

Like it or not, in reality, we all belong to societies/social structures where we are dependent on cooperation to achieve any success. There is a common good in society that supercedes the individual when the individual presents a threat to the collective. Even though most of us are do for yourself, conservative-types, we ALL still rely on the government/society whether or not we like it. Yes, there is a danger of morons like the loony left taking it to extremes and just generally screwing up the most common sense things, but id ioes nto in any way effect the danger presented to the society as a whole.

Each case should be taken on its own merit based on the effect it has on the society as a whole. Our laws are full of BS rules that step all over individual Rights and I disagree with probably most of them. When the rule actually is beneficial to the whole though, it should be accepted as such.

Note your section of text I've highlighted, Gunny. Can you show me where I've said any such thing ?

I've argued in favour of immunisation programs, (1) in cases of national emergency, or, failing that, (2) as a recourse to medical aid being available for those who want it.

But I've argued against STTAB's line that such immunisations must be mandatory. He simultaneously distrusts Government, but at the same time wants to empower them to dictate actions to people as they choose to apply them, believing that a social climate where this takes place, and is accepted, is reasonable.

I see no consistency in that stance.

I'd like clarification from you, Gunny, on your own position ... because I'm getting from it that you've at least a measure of support to offer on STTAB's point of view, concerning permitted compulsion in certain, limited circumstances (perhaps more than just emergencies). Am I correctly interpreting your post ?

[Gunny]

Note your section of text I've highlighted, Gunny. Can you show me where I've said any such thing ?

I've argued in favour of immunisation programs, (1) in cases of national emergency, or, failing that, (2) as a recourse to medical aid being available for those who want it.

But I've argued against STTAB's line that such immunisations must be mandatory. He simultaneously distrusts Government, but at the same time wants to empower them to dictate actions to people as they choose to apply them, believing that a social climate where this takes place, and is accepted, is reasonable.

I see no consistency in that stance.

I'd like clarification from you, Gunny, on your own position ... because I'm getting from it that you've at least a measure of support to offer on STTAB's point of view, concerning permitted compulsion in certain, limited circumstances (perhaps more than just emergencies). Am I correctly interpreting your post ?

You do not have to say it. The parameters you present require it.

Name one ideal Man has ever had that he' has ever gotten right. Although bulletproof on paper, guaranteed success and brilliant ideal and all that, it goes completely to crap the very second a person becomes involved in making it happen. That's historical fact, minus the idealism.

Then, we have to interpret what you call an "emergency". I would consider this an "emergency". Despite who should be doing what or is claiming this or that, solve the problem. THEN point fingers.

I don't know whose argument besides Kathianne's I am supporting. As previously stated, I jumped back into the thread after leaving off 2 weeks ago. I considered it a good argument and no one's going for blood. I believe I explained early on I have ZERO issue with mandatory immunizations as part of one's responsibility to the community/family. I also have zero problem with it because I was a military brat 20 years then served 21 and never even gave it a thought. I thought everyone did it and since it makes perfect sense to get the immunizations, I never had reason to question it.

In the US, those who choose to not adhere t the law that is based on the common good, they have recourse. They can home school. Private school (that's a guess). The freedom of choice is there, such that it is.

On the other hand, if you attend public schools you get your shots like the rest of the herd. I believe you used the term "herd" early on in the thread? Ever seen 2000 Marines and Sailors confined to the space of a ship for 1-3-6-9-12-or-more months at a time? No different than a classroom full of children in the winter with the heat on. And it is a herd for sure.

Now suppose I have Marines that can't get the shot(s) for whatever reason. Should their lives be endangered by some snot-ass know-it-ass who just "doesn't wanna"?

I can see taking a stance on something that might matter some day, but this topic isn't one of them. I go get my damned immunizations every year like a good boy, mostly to protect me from whatever strain of the plague the grandchildren may have, and out of respect for all of them by not bringing some bullsh*t into the house.