If you have "no place to go," come here!

I'm done here.

My work is better seen elsewhere. This is nothing more than a glorified chat room.

No votes yet


Submitted by Dromaius on

We on the individual insurance market are being forced to carry a very Cadillac level of medical "coverage" "for the greater good". Because of that compulsion, I am no longer able to afford insurance, and am opting out and paying the penalty next year. Taking choices away for me was definitely not better for the greater good because I've had to take myself out of the paying pool.

A society without the ability to make personal choices is no longer a free society. And personal choices sometimes inadvertently hurt others. So yes, we should have choices, including the vaccine choice. Far, far, more people die in auto accidents due to drunk drivers than all the cases of measles in a given year. Thus, maybe we should ban alcohol and cars? Honestly, doing so for the reasons you've outlined is more justifiable than forcing vaccinations on people.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

All it takes for a small outbreak to become a massive pandemic is a few hosts that lack any immunity. And before you know it, BOOM! Shit begins to spread, begins to mutate, gets deadlier, and starts killing. Vaccines work. We use them for a reason. Your choice shouldn't be allowed to kill me.

transcriber's picture
Submitted by transcriber on

For years, the Stay-at-home mom brigade and radical religious groups have kept their children from being vaccinated due to the fear that it would make their children autistic.

What’s been the result of this line of thinking? An increase of fatal diseases.


Your choice shouldn't be allowed to kill me.

So the increase in autism never happened? And you know how to heal that disease? And these people you denigrate shouldn't count? And their kids? And we should just trust what the drug companies and government tell us, that that process of science and medicine for profit and control hasn't been corrupted?

This isn't a subject that feels like mine much, not being a home-schooler, present disease victim or particularly religious, but to me it comes down to a question of whether I trust government and business or whether I trust nature -- whether I can. Somehow I go with nature; that's me. Somehow I go with doubt and questions; that's me. And I don't believe you or government or business should have the right or power to choose for me what I do or don't do with my body and where I put my trust. Constitutionally even, this goes to my sense of freedom of religion. Call it trust in God, call it trust in nature, call it trust in biology, call it trust in questions, I don't know, but it's not trust in the Caesar du jour and his coins.

Limited government. Continued learning and reasoning. My choice.

Besides, "brigade" and "radical religious groups" -- how far away are you from calling me a terrorist? I would like to not be ruled by your fear.

Blizzard's picture
Submitted by Blizzard on

Some readers might have appreciated, amidst all the sanctimonious references to "facts" and "science", mention of an actual fact, or link to an actual scientific study. But I suppose it's far easier to simply label all who disagree with you as -- let's see -- "ignorant", "radical", "quacks", and to then call on the state to enforce your pet policy at gunpoint.

So who ensures the forced vaccinations? Friendly jackbooted DEA thugs? Or maybe the state should simply take take anyone who refuses a vaccine, and lock them up in a cage. For your safety, of course. (By the way, I'm not sure why you personally would be endangered by someone else carrying a disease you're supposedly vaccinated for.)

danps's picture
Submitted by danps on

Link between a measles outbreak and anti-vaccine activism here:

I'm damn near intolerant when it comes to community health. If a vaccine is proven effective then at a minimum there should be incentives for receiving at and harsh social sanctions against those who don't. Vulnerable populations depend on the rest of us to not be passive carriers.

jjmtacoma's picture
Submitted by jjmtacoma on

I think the health issue is important and real but unfortunately the idea that the "stay-at-home mom brigade" and "religious groups" are creating this risk is short sighted and offensive.

If you want to make sweeping causal statements you should also include sources to support your case.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

I'll come back later when I have time to scare up the links for the "citation needed" people. (Right now, I'm moving house, up to my ears and beyond in boxes, and feeling fairly neurotic about the whole thing.)

Incidence of formerly rare diseases -- whooping cough, measles, mumps, polio -- and vaccination rates below 95% of the population are very well documented. Plus we have some 200 years of data on disease incidence and vaccination rates. This stuff has been proven. It's up there with evolution.

Connection of vaccines to other conditions, such as autism spectrum, Guillan-Barre (sp?) syndrome, etc. Two things: there is an incidence of these conditions in the general population. If vaccination caused these effects, they would increase in vaccinated populations. That is not observed.

What does happen is an individual develops a condition. They were vaccinated in the recent past. Obvious conclusion: the vaccine cause the condition. However, not one of these connections has ever held up under scrutiny that uses the scientific method.

All that said, I could have done without the "stay-at-home moms" putdown. Wild-eyed (male) yahoos killing polio health workers in Pakistan, and well-dressed (male) Presidents using those same workers in CIA plots, and holy book-thumping (male) preachers have done even more damage to vaccination programs. The problem is the mind behind the bullshit, not the gender.

To answer the actual question: should vaccination be compulsory for all? Medically, it can't be. Immune-compromised people and pregnant women, for instance, shouldn't be vaccinated. That's one reason why "herd immunity" (=vaccination rates above 95%) is so important. Then the people who can't be vaccinated, don't need to be.

As for those who don't want to be, medically, so long as they're only 2% of the population or so, it doesn't matter. As a matter of social fairness, though, perhaps it does.

transcriber's picture
Submitted by transcriber on

That's one reason why "herd immunity" (=vaccination rates above 95%) is so important. Then the people who can't be vaccinated, don't need to be.

Herd immunity, herd mentality... like cattle and lemmings? Allergic reaction! I seem to be a cat!

Incidence of formerly rare diseases -- whooping cough, measles, mumps, polio -- and vaccination rates below 95% of the population are very well documented. Plus we have some 200 years of data on disease incidence and vaccination rates. This stuff has been proven. It's up there with evolution.

How proven does "absolute power corrupts absolutely" have to be? And why does it corrupt absolutely? Is there something healthy about diversity? Evolution-wise even? I love questions, and doesn't this put a stop to questions?

If you believe in vaccination for all, I think it's simple, your task should be to convince everyone to choose vaccination. And if you can't, there's something worth thinking about, the society you want to live in, and your children and their children and all that. Assuming Monsanto doesn't wipe the planet's bees out and BP doesn't wipe the ocean's microbes out first. I know, big assumption. But I'm betting Monsanto and BP's documentation to the end will be that it's all safe, or it's not proven to be unsafe for humans. There's a phrase, I can't remember. (edit: immune from prosecution comes to mind. And the kind of immunity from having to carry insurance that nuclear energy plants have and would not be viable without.) But it's like everything touched by corporate money, which vaccines are: Short-term profits for the connected few, precluding everyone else from caring about the long term and a bigger picture. In other words, stupid.

And if the health of all was the primary concern, why are we dicking around with Obamacare clusterfuck forced-buy insurance, which leaves way more than your 2% tolerance out, and not even looking at health care, which the insurance does not actually provide, for all? I'm kind of losing the principle here.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Yeah, herd immunity is sort of the same usage as herd mentality. In the case of immunity, all members of the population become disease-free, even if they're not personally immunized. In herd mentality, all members of the population wind up dealing with the same mindset, even if they personally don't have it.

Just because the same word is used doesn't mean it has the same connotations everywhere. Being married to the Mob has a whole different meaning than being married to your highschool sweetheart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

This article is an op-ed piece. The idea was to get you to think and do your own research. But here's a link in regards to the questions of evidence The CDC is quoted in there along with some other facts and statistics. I like The Daily Kos crowd better. More sensible.

As far is what any of you think is offensive is no consequence to me. It's an opinion, not the nightly news.,8599,2053517,00.html

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

The idea was to get you to think and do your own research.

And that means you don't cite sources? Wow. I wish I'd known that. It would have made my academic publications so much easier.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Obviously, you've never read an op-ed piece before. It's about opinion. Can those opinions be based on fact? Yes, but I don't have to present 10 pages worth of links because you have a stick up your ass. I'm not writing a college paper or a book for you. Get over it.

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

There's a continuum from one to the other. Krugman is an "opinion guy" too, and he ignores and distorts facts to defend the indefensible when it comes to Obama. You are in good company there, and of course, with Kos, which is Over There.

Night, night.

jo6pac's picture
Submitted by jo6pac on

and for sure;)

Submitted by hipparchia on

hmmm... i wonder if i could invoke the "stand your ground" law if i carried a dart gun and shot anyone who came near me with a vaccine dart?

Submitted by lambert on

The guy actually blew it away before flouncing off.

His words were just too precious for the likes of us, I guess. Things just get weirder every day.

Cujo359's picture
Submitted by Cujo359 on

Good luck finding a site with no conspiracy theorists in the the commentariat. Heck, no one reads my blog, but I've had a few of those stop by over the years.

Meanwhile, on the subject formerly at hand, Orac did another great job of demolishing anti-vax nonsense recently. Anyone interested in some serious writing on the subject should check it out.

Submitted by lambert on

.... I've literally never had a contributor erase their entire post because they weren't sufficiently appreciated. And then go back to Kos. Quite remarkable.

Cujo359's picture
Submitted by Cujo359 on

Heck, if I leave in a huff I'm happy to let someone else clean up the mess....