Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

Irrelevant. That people die eventually doesn't mean we shouldn't vaccinate and prevent them from dying early through horribly painful, debilitating diseases. Moreover, the truth of evolution has no bearing on the morality of an act. You are falling into the fallacious logic of appeals to nature. Natural Selection is not a moral theory, and what is true and natural is not synonymous with ethical.

I trust you understand this, thus I needn't explain something so elementary to you again.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

Herd immunity's important here. When large numbers of people get vaccines, one benefit is that if everyone around you has the vaccine, the chances of a non-vaccinated person or someone with a compromised immune system, even if he is vaccinated, getting the disease goes down. Vaccinations prevent the communication of diseases by taking away the "food" supply for the pathogen. The people who are vaccinated block transmission.

This is a good description of the effect:

"herd immunity [...] leads to the reduction of transmission of an infection in a population.
The term is sometimes used in a "qualitative" sense, i.e. it indicates the presence of sufficient immune individuals in a population (above a specified threshold) which leads to the disappearance of the infection."

If enough people in a population have the vaccine, then the pathogen disappears because it has nowhere to incubate and mutate. Over 95% of the total must be vaccinated for Herd Immunity take effect. There isn't much wiggle room before gaping holes start appearing in the defense grid. But let's start poking holes in this defensive wall. The more people who are allowed to opt OUT of the system for any old reason, regardless of legitimacy, the more opportunities the virus now has for entering a body that's not protected. It's no longer facing a giant wall of vaccinated people protecting a few people with compromised immune systems. It can now more easily incubate, replicate, and mutate.

Here's a graphic to help you understand the problem. (t) represents successive time periods and an unvaccinated population. The infection hits a target which is open, unprotected by the wall. It moves from that individual to other unprotected individuals, increasing exponentially. In a population with giant gaps or unvaccinated people, disease transmits quickly.



This is an image describing what happens when we introduce immune individuals into the situation. It interrupts, inhibits, and slows down the rate of infection and the spread of the disease. We can see that some of the individuals who are still vulnerable are protected in the line of transmission if it first hits someone who is immune. If that person had NOT been immune, it would have continued on the path infected another one who would have infected another three, each infected yet another three.



Disease transmission can be described mathematically, the number of infections cases and spreads are a function of the base of vulnerable individuals. This means that then that the availability of bodies without protection fuels the number of cases and the rate of transmission. The more people who are not vaccinated, the more people who will get sick in case of outbreak and the faster it will happen. This is called the "Mass Action Principle."

Now, a further problem from allowing wanton evasion of vaccinations is not only that it spreads it to those who are not vaccinated (for whatever reason (health, too young, w/e). It can also infect people who have the vaccine, but have compromised immune systems. There have been cases of people dying or getting sick because a large enough group of people around them were susceptible, so the disease bounced from multiple infected to the uninfected, overloading the immune system.

Furthermore, bodies act as incubators, as I explained earlier. These "holes" in the defense network give the disease time to mutate so it can then infect the vaccinated populations with a new strain. If you were vaccinated, the chances of that happening would go down tremendously, and if enough were vaccinated, the disease would disappear (as many have since mass vaccination). Only recently are new strains coming back...because tards aren't getting vaccinations. Measles is one example.

This is because in all sectors of a given population (not just the total), a type of critical point must be had wherein a large enough group of the population is vaccinated. For example, in order to achieve herd immunity disease eradication for Malaria 80-99% of any segment of the population must be immune. For Pertussis, it's 92-94%. For smallpox, it's 85%. Remember, this is in any given sample, not just the national level.

In fact, vaccinations can lead to problems if there isn't a high enough quantity of people who are vaccinated, as it can increase the disease burden among adults. This means that the vaccination can actually be harmful if you are not assured that the vast majority of people will get it. Thus the more people who let through the system, not only does it make the defense weaker, it increases the risk for specific groups. (For a source on this, see here: http://www.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec1181/028.htm).


This is also an excellent article that describes the danger of half-assed vaccination programmes, with implications for what happens when you don't vaccinate enough people or allow people to avoid them. Read it. You'll learn something.

Vaccination policies: individual rights v community health

In 1993, there was a huge outbreak of Rubella in Greece because they didn't, unlike other countries, have an effective vaccination mandate and the number of people who were protected was low. Mind you, in the United States when it was applied, it reduced the cases of congenital rubella from 20,000 to 7. The article goes into some detail about Herd Immunity and why letting people opt out harms the community by decrease Herd Immunity.






The other people who are not vaccinated yet or for whatever reason (even if it's legitimate) is a threat itself, as it allows for disease outbreaks. It would be wrong if large numbers of people who opted out got people who had legitimate health reasons for avoiding the vaccine sick. Moreover, refer to the above. It acts as an incubation tool for the virus which can impact vaccinated, but weak immune systems if bombarded enough, and it can circumvent vaccines in some cases. Herd Immunity is in society's interest. You disagree. You are simply ignorant and thus wrong.



My argument is logical. That you don't comprehend the medical issue isn't my problem. If you're going to be an idiot yapping about statism when talking about phucking vaccinations that save lives, go away. I don't have time for you. And you have no natural rights. That's already been explained. I won't go into that again. Read my previous posts and learn from that.



No, because not all consequences are equal. This is a common mistake people make when trying to understand consequentialist utilitarian ethics. There's nothing in my post which suggests that people's lives are worth equal or less than cheaper gas and profits. Utilitarian reasoning isn't as simple as "lol all benefits are the same!" That's stupid. If we saved many more lives and there was no alternative, then yes, killing thousands would be prima faci justified. Refer to the concept of equal consideration for like interests. Someone losing his arm is a greater interest and a more severe harm than getting and not getting a candybar is, respectively.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

If enough people refuse to get vaccines, the consequences for society are bad. What makes all this even worse is that the rationale for not getting the vaccines is entirely false, based on myths and lack of proper education. efuse weaken herd immunity, increase risk for others who are not yet vaccinated. They aren't even being informed in their dissent.

Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

So inform them, and let them choose. The unvaccinated can only harm the unvaccinated, who put themselves in harm's way by choosing not to take the drugs.

Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

So inform them, and let them choose. The unvaccinated can only harm the unvaccinated, who put themselves in harm's way by choosing not to take the drugs.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

I probably could agree to that.

Essentially, you may "choose" to do anything you wish. Conversely, you "choose" to accept the consequences for that choice. As long as you understand the risks up front. Don't get the shots, don't get no schooling. No ticky, no washy. Just like schools can require pupils to wear pants, they can also require immunizations.

The recent faith-healing deaths from treatable conditions are perhaps consequences the parents find acceptable, I'm guessing.

Maybe I am warming up to this libertarian philosphy, after all.

Originally Posted by Space_Coyote

You seem like a reasonable person, so give it time and you'll be a libertarian. We have a habit of applying sensible solutions to today's problems.