Why the hell are you opposed to getting your kids a flu/chicken pox shot?

What reason could you POSSIBLY have?

What business is it of yours?

OP- do you believe that you should be required to feed, clothe and not abuse your child?

We, as a society, have set a level of care for our children. Immunizations are part of this standard. If you are foolish enough to not immunize your kid, your child doesn't deserve to suffer because of your ignorance.

Uncertain and unmeasurable != meaningless or inappropriate. You know we are posting on a gambling website right?

Some percentage of kids are going to get extremely ill and possibly suffer lifelong impairments or disabilities, and some even smaller percentage will die, because of these vaccinations that you think should be mandatory. Keep that in mind.

Dont get me wrong. Vaccines are +EV in most situations, very +EV. But that doesnt mean there arent risks. And some people irrationally assign huge negative values to extremely rare side effects. More than just that, they would rather accept higher likelihood risks THAT THEY CAN ASSERT CONTROL OVER than a much smaller risk that is out of their hands. If I dont get a flu shot, I have the ability to control my exposure. But if I go in and get a flu shot, I am essentially at the mercy of chance as to whether I'm going to get some adverse effect. This is unacceptable to some people.

EDIT: I think I should modify my point about vaccines a little. More recent vaccines are much safer than they used to be and most of the adverse effects are fairly mild. But, for example, the polio vaccine gave a whole bunch of people, some of which would otherwise have been fine, polio.

vhawk01-

i realize that there are risks. Theres a risk of getting in an accident and dying on the way to school, but your kid still has to go. Theres a risk of getting hit by lightning on a sunny day. The "risk" of vaccination does not affect this argument because the risk of non-vaccinations is obviously more dangerous.

VHawk,

Their decisions, even though there is an explicit choice made and freedom exercised, have large externalities. More than linear costs, if the disease spreads virally.

Hey Nate, should I be free to fill my front yard with raw sewage?

so what was life like before the polio vac? didn't a good number more people suffer pre than post vac. pretty sure...

and isn't that true for chic and the rest as well?

The OP should have the parental choice on whether to vaccinate or not.

Chicken pox has become an interesting problem. Before the vaccine, most everyone was infected at an early age and survived it with lifelong immunity. Now, we have a vaccine that we *think* provides the same immunity, but frankly, no one really knows. Also, if you don't vaccinate, it is very unlikely that your child can come in contact with the disease naturally and get the immunity that we all have now. If said child catches the disease later in life the course can be much worse and more complicated.

In any event, the government should have nothing to do with it. And, of course, Ron Paul will fix it.

No, your kid should not have to go to school, and you do not know for sure that the risks of a chicken pox vaccine outweigh the benefits - it's too new.

Ike, you *do* realize don't you that our current government does not take away kids for lack of vaccinations. We're only talking about how the govt + school-system + overzealous judge has put the poor into that position while others are not.

Do you really believe the government should take away someone's kids for lack of a chicken-pox vaccination?

Wow. I'm amazed at the alacrity with which many of you embrace tyranny. I'm losing hope for this country.

natedogg

?????????

natedogg

Probably. So what? Nobody is arguing that the chicken pox vaccine should be outlawed.

Vaccinations, just like public sewage, are a public health issue with possibly large negative externalities. Thus it would fall under the umbrella of public policy. Vaccinations would be "mandatory" because of the effect of certain illnesses/disease on the other kids/society.

Under this logic, it would be hard to make the jump into other mandated medical procedures, since vaccinations fall into their own category.

Raw sewage is something that can negatively affect anyone who somehow comes into contact with it, and you can't build up an immunity against it (I think? ) or be vaccinated against it. So there is some relevant difference between exposure to raw sewage, and exposure to certain bacteria or viruses which can be immunized against.

Someone already immunized against a virus usaually need not fear further exposure to that virus, so kids already immunized (by their parents' choice) need not fear coming into contact with non-immunized children, or with carriers.

I think there is also a big difference beteen immunization against truly dread diseases, and immunization against lesser diseases like chicken pox, or typical flus.

I can sort of see forcing people to be immunized against a serious outbreak of something like the Black Death, the ravages of which killed a third of Europe's population in the 12th century; but I don't think chicken pox falls into such a category, nor do I think that forced immunizations for chicken pox are morally justified on grounds of safety to the public health. The threat to the public health from chicken pox is far from dire and pandemic.

Vaccinations do fall into their own category in some respects - but government, once given powers, seldom relinquishes powers or scopes, and usually expands them. So I think fear of slippery slopes is generally well-founded in such matters.

I say, save coercion for only the most dire and catastrophic of scenarios, where non-immunization poses a grave risk to everyone. If a terrible strain of Ebola were somehow to be introduced in this country in fast-spreading and extremely contagious form, and quarantine was insufficient, that might be such a scenario.

In my small grade school class, a nurse came in and administered vaccinations and one of the kids, out of about 60, suffered anaphylactic shock. The nurse only stood around and watched. Fortunately the kid recovered after a few minutes rather then died.

Here, in Idaho, we have all sorts of places that give free flu shots. Albertson’s store for example. Every Alberston’s around here has a doc-in-the box attached to it where a nurse and medication is available - medication such as anti-histamines and epinephrine.

Now, I’m not sure if the flu vaccine in particular is capable of inducing anaphylaxis, and maybe schools now days use nurses that carry around bags of medicine, but I wouldn’t count on it. I’d rather have more control over my kids vaccinations. Once I looked into the matter, I might allow a school nurse to administer the shot, but again I might not. I certainly wouldn’t want a government official that is less qualified then a monkey off the street making my decision for me.

edit - I used the word phlebotomist incorrectly and replaced it with nurse.

If if they *are* qualified, they shouldn't have the right to force anything on you ( or deprive you of any treatment you wish but that's another thread).

Remember, Lysenko was qualified.

natedogg

Where is a threat from the guy next to you not being vaccinated? I mean if you were vaccinated there is no externality to the guy next to you not being vaccinated. This is just a case of the government wanting to tell people what is best for them rather than allowing them to make that decision.