[Clinton Is Scum]

"Parents who don't have their children immunized for measles, mumps, and rubella are irresponsible cheats, as far as I'm concerned. They risk not only the health of their own children, but also the greater community, and especially the unborn should their infectious child come into contact with [a] pregnant woman."

Let's take this apart:

"They risk not only the health of their own children..."

Sabertooth, as I argued above, the risks of the vaccine for a given individual outweigh the benefits. If you dispute this, why do you dispute it? If you do not dispute it, then this one part of your argument is not valid.

"...but also the greater community..."

Let's be clear about this. The risk they pose to the community is extremely low, because the risk that they will get any of these three diseases is extremely low. They are about as likely to be struck by lightning. But people do get struck by lightning, and let's say an unvaccinated child does get extremely unlucky and contracts mumps, measles, or rubella. Assuming that vaccination confers immunity, the only people threatened by a child who has mumps, measles, or rubella are those WHO ARE THEMSELVES UNVACCINATED. Do you think that it is reasonable for unvaccinated people to expect to be exposed only to vaccinated people? I do not. I think that people who elect not to vaccinate themselves ought to accept the fact that they are at higher risk of these diseases,and shouldn't complain if others also opt not to get vaccinated.

"Unlike the other diseases targeted by child vaccination programs, Hep B has never been an infectious childhood disease, and I wouldn't authorize it again."

Kudos to you for challenging the medical establishment! But I am not sure I follow the logic. Hep B, it is true, is very very rare among children. But children do get it. The childhood incidence of Hep B is not very different from that of mumps, measles, or rubella. Hep B can be transmitted by biting and whatnot, so I don't understand why Hep B is fundamentally different from mumps, measles, or rubella. In short, if it is morally wrong to opt out of the MMR vaccine, surely it is also morally wrong to opt out of the Hep B vaccine.

[TomB]

The risk they pose to the community is extremely low, because the risk that they will get any of these three diseases is extremely low. They are about as likely to be struck by lightning. But people do get struck by lightning, and let's say an unvaccinated child does get extremely unlucky and contracts mumps, measles, or rubella. Assuming that vaccination confers immunity, the only people threatened by a child who has mumps, measles, or rubella are those WHO ARE THEMSELVES UNVACCINATED. Do you think that it is reasonable for unvaccinated people to expect to be exposed only to vaccinated people?

First of all no vaccine is 100% effective, so it is imperative that as many people are vaccinated as possible to confer herd immunity upon the population as a whole.

Second, you argument is based on the premise that only a very few people forego vaccinations. As the number of unvaccinated people rise, the incidence of that disease rises also.

[Sabertooth]

Sabertooth, as I argued above, the risks of the vaccine for a given individual outweigh the benefits.

Only so long as parasitizing off of herd immunity is kept at low levels. When the numbers of unvaccinated parasites is sufficient, not only will the individual risks increase, but so will those to the greater community. Even if my family is vaccinated, we would be affected by a whooping cough epidemic.

Let's be clear about this. The risk they pose to the community is extremely low, because the risk that they will get any of these three diseases is extremely low. They are about as likely to be struck by lightning.

This analogy doesn't fly. The risk is kept low only so long as the numbers of the unvaccinated are kept low. As those numbers increase, herd immunity is decreased. The risks to the unvaccinated are increased not just by their own state, but also by the state of other unvaccinated. So, unlike lightning strikes, which are random and not contagious, the risks of non-vaccination are cumulative to the individual as more in the community remain unvaccinated.

Assuming that vaccination confers immunity, the only people threatened by a child who has mumps, measles, or rubella are those WHO ARE THEMSELVES UNVACCINATED.

Including the unborn.

Do you think that it is reasonable for unvaccinated people to expect to be exposed only to vaccinated people? I do not. I think that people who elect not to vaccinate themselves ought to accept the fact that they are at higher risk of these diseases,and shouldn't complain if others also opt not to get vaccinated.

No, they shouldn't. However, I haven't gotten the impression that many anti-vaccine folks are aware that they are parasitizing off of herd immunity, and that proselytizing their parasitism makes it increasingly dangerous to them and to others who buy into it.

I'll stop short of saying that vaccinations ought to be compulsory, but parents who opt not to vaccinate their children to the basic slate of infectious childhood diseases ought to be maligned and ostracized, and they should form their own Petri Dish schools for their antivaccine experimentation on their progeny.

At that point their safety net of herd immunity would vanish, and I'd bet many would awaken to the risks posed by their parasitism.

Hep B can be transmitted by biting and whatnot, so I don't understand why Hep B is fundamentally different from mumps, measles, or rubella. In short, if it is morally wrong to opt out of the MMR vaccine, surely it is also morally wrong to opt out of the Hep B vaccine.

Because Hep B isn't a childhood disease spread by casual transmission, nor does it pose a threat to the unborn in the way that more easily transmitted childhood diseases do.