Antivaxers
-
@Gąska said in Antivaxers:
I'd rather if you kept facts and shoulder aliens separate.
It's common knowledge that if you're not immunized from a disease you can catch it and pass it on to someone else. There's no excuse for not knowing that in modern society. Therefore, anyone who refuses to immunize is deliberately, knowingly, willfully taking a very real risk of infecting those around them.
It's exactly like DUI. Driving drunk doesn't kill people; car wrecks kill people. But driving drunk is willfully putting yourself at high risk of a wreck that will kill people, which is why it's one of the very few taboos our society actually still universally despises anymore.
-
The term is herd immunity.
-
@anotherusername said in Antivaxers:
Still no explanation why they don't just have you come in for a different vaccine every month
Beyond "that's a lot of copays" and "it's probably inconvenient for a lot of people to take a half-day or full day off that often"?
-
@masonwheeler said in Antivaxers:
It's exactly like DUI. Driving drunk doesn't kill people; car wrecks kill people. But driving drunk is willfully putting yourself at high risk of a wreck that will kill people, which is why it's one of the very few taboos our society actually still universally despises anymore.
The difference between willfully killing someone and willfully putting yourself at risk of killing someone is that in the latter case, the act of killing someone isn't at all willfull. They're entirely different situations, both morally and legally.
-
@HardwareGeek yeah, but if it comes down to 6x as much work for, say, six $300 visits, vs. just one $1200 visit, and all of those visits take up exactly the same 15 or 30 minute slot on their appointment schedule, then it's probably not worth the extra work just to make a little more money... unless maybe they're really desperate for money / filling up their schedule. As I said, people keep having kids, so it's not like they might not get paid next month unless they reschedule your kid for an extra appointment.
-
@FrostCat that was the explanation that I basically offered, which was branded as a "conspiracy theory".
-
@anotherusername said in Antivaxers:
it's probably not worth the extra work just to make a little more money
Sure. I just said they do get paid for the extra work; an earlier post seem to imply they didn't. As you pointed out, most doctors aren't sitting around twiddling their thumbs for lack of business; they have no incentive to schedule unnecessary visits just to fill their schedules.
-
@Gąska said in Antivaxers:
@masonwheeler said in Antivaxers:
It's exactly like DUI. Driving drunk doesn't kill people; car wrecks kill people. But driving drunk is willfully putting yourself at high risk of a wreck that will kill people, which is why it's one of the very few taboos our society actually still universally despises anymore.
The difference between willfully killing someone and willfully putting yourself at risk of killing someone is that in the latter case, the act of killing someone isn't at all willfull. They're entirely different situations, both morally and legally.
"Recklessly endangering others" is enough to accuse someone of murder (maybe not everywhere, but in many places). Both DUI and refusing to get vaccinated fall under this, though the risk is more diffuse with vaccines (and thus doesn't justify murder accusations). They're not identical, but they're definetely related.
-
@Khudzlin said in Antivaxers:
"Recklessly endangering others" is enough to accuse someone of murder
Not in my jurisdiction. Manslaughter? Sure. Murder? Hell no.
But I heard a lot about American law system...
-
@Khudzlin besides - doesn't murder require motive?
-
@masonwheeler said in Antivaxers:
But driving drunk is willfully putting yourself at high risk of a wreck that will kill people,
EDIT: removed until I can figure out a way to point out the importance of understanding relative risks without sounding like I'm in favor of driving drunk.
-
@Gąska Actually, you're right. Recklessly putting others in danger is manslaughter, while intentionally killing is murder in US law as well (note: I'm not from the US).
-
@Gąska said in Antivaxers:
@Khudzlin said in Antivaxers:
"Recklessly endangering others" is enough to accuse someone of murder
Not in my jurisdiction. Manslaughter? Sure. Murder? Hell no.
But I heard a lot about American law system...
@Gąska said in Antivaxers:
@Khudzlin besides - doesn't murder require motive?
I'm not certain that I'm remembering correctly, but I think that doing something that a reasonable person would understand is likely to cause death can be enough for a murder charge, even if you didn't intend to kill the victim. Shooting at someone or chasing someone with your car, even if you only intended to injure or frighten them, would still possibly result in being charged with murder. I don't think DUI or refusing to be vaccinated quite reach that level, though I wouldn't be entirely opposed if they did.
-
@anotherusername said in Antivaxers:
Not all vaccines come in a combination. Hence the need to poke your kid 6 or 10 times in a single visit. (That may be a slight exaggeration... actually I don't know.)
I think there might be miscommunication around what various people consider to be the unit of "a vaccine". For the purpose of any benefit to combining, I would think the number of separate injections would be irrelevant.
I do remember a reference to a study measuring the trauma of multiple injections in one visit being not significantly greater than that of a single injection. Don't remember where; haven't done a search of the literature.
Still no explanation why they don't just have you come in for a different vaccine every month, other than my "conspiracy theory" of that being somewhat inconvenient for all parties involved.
I certainly would expect the folks that develop the vaccine schedule to consider simplicity and the standard visit schedule in their optimization. What I don't find likely is a pediatrician telling a
lie for why that schedule is desirable.
-
@Gąska said in Antivaxers:
@Khudzlin besides - doesn't murder require motive?
In my state, murder requires malice aforethought.
Malice can be either express or implied. As I understand it, implied malice is for things like setting off a bomb in an occupied building--the prosecution doesn't have to prove the defendant deliberately intended to kill somebody when they can prove such egregious behavior.
-
@Greybeard said in Antivaxers:
@Gąska said in Antivaxers:
@Khudzlin besides - doesn't murder require motive?
In my state, murder requires malice aforethought.
Malice can be either express or implied. As I understand it, implied malice is for things like setting off a bomb in an occupied building--the prosecution doesn't have to prove the defendant deliberately intended to kill somebody when they can prove such egregious behavior.
I think the term you're reaching for is mens rea, which underlies all criminal common law.
But it's not only based on action, but sometimes on inaction. Willful failure to do something that a reasonable person would do to prevent harm--negligence--counts as mens rea most places.
-
@CoyneTheDup said in Antivaxers:
Willful failure to do something that a reasonable person would do to prevent harm--negligence--counts as mens rea most places.
Though in the case of murder vs manslaughter, whether someone is negligent as opposed to acting intentionally to harm someone does matter.
