Measles: German minister proposes steep fines for anti-vaxxers

[Naramag]

Anyone in Germany has the assurance that there will be help and financial aid if anything goes seriously wrong with a vaccination. There is no need to additionally offer any payment. As it was said before, any kind of accommodation towards the anti vaxxers can be seen by them as admission of guilt.

"Oh, the government offers me payment if there's something wrong? That's the evidence, they would offer that if there wasn't something seriously wrong with the vaccine."

Anti vaxxers are not rational. You can't argue with an irrational person. They only acknowledge what they want to hear.

[apples]

It can be used to increase overall safety and show actual rather then theoretical risks, as well as investigate reasons for those risks so that they can be prevented.

It doesn't reward them for being stupid, it rewards everyone who took risk but happened to land on the wrong side of this mandatory risk-taking through no fault of their own.

Do you value money over herd immunity? Do you think there will be too many payouts in such scheme?

do you talk about risk when you get up in the morning and eat food?

oh, you dont? youre just disingenuously misusing the word risk to make your argument "stronger"? ok

[Skulltaker]

It can be used to increase overall safety and show actual rather then theoretical risks, as well as investigate reasons for those risks so that they can be prevented.

It doesn't reward them for being stupid, it rewards everyone who took risk but happened to land on the wrong side of this mandatory risk-taking through no fault of their own.

Do you value money over herd immunity? Do you think there will be too many payouts in such scheme?

No it can't. The safety is the same. And in case someone suffers the consequences, the healthcare system will take care of them. The reasons for the risks are well known, there's just no way around them.

The reward for everyone who takes the risk is the so called herd immunity. Believe it or not, even if you're vaccinated twice, you can still get measles. The more people around you are vaccinated, though, the smaller the chance of that happening. If they want to endanger the publics safety over their fear, the public will make them pay. And I don't have to value money over herd immunity. When the shots are mandatory, there's no need to to give out any additional money, and, as usual when people are to dumb to understand what's good for them, the state will take care of their protection, and that of their children, for them.

[Shalcker]

do you talk about risk when you get up in the morning and eat food?

I can sue if i happen to get health complications due to any food i happen to eat. I also have a choice in which food i'm eating, thus being able, in theory, to adjust the risks as much as i like.

oh, you dont? youre just disingenuously misusing the word risk to make your argument "stronger"? ok

I'm talking about incentives; are you arguing that fines alone will work better then fines and payments?

[Chonar]

As the operator said to the assassin peering through his visor;

TAKE THE SHOT

[Shalcker]

No it can't. The safety is the same. And in case someone suffers the consequences, the healthcare system will take care of them. The reasons for the risks are well known, there's just no way around them.

Why there is no way around them? Certainly anyone with known profile for complications should be excluded from vaccination.

Those who still get them are either not covered by existing checks (perhaps you can make extra checks available then for those wanting to reduce risks?), result from those administering vaccines not properly following the protocol, or result from improper vaccine manufacturing/handling.

The reward for everyone who takes the risk is the so called herd immunity. Believe it or not, even if you're vaccinated twice, you can still get measles. The more people around you are vaccinated, though, the smaller the chance of that happening. If they want to endanger the publics safety over their fear, the public will make them pay. And I don't have to value money over herd immunity. When the shots are mandatory, there's no need to to give out any additional money, and, as usual when people are to dumb to understand what's good for them, the state will take care of their protection, and that of their children, for them.

You would need to show that them taking this vaccination will have big enough effect to justify enforcement.

Do you have a formula? How big a percentage would need to avoid vaccinations entirely to increase overall risk by 1%? What is current risk, given situation we see right now?

[Skulltaker]

Why there is no way around them? Certainly anyone with known profile for complications should be excluded from vaccination.

Those who still get them are either not covered by existing checks (perhaps you can make extra checks available then for those wanting to reduce risks?), result from those administering vaccines not properly following the protocol, or result from improper vaccine manufacturing/handling.

You would need to show that them taking this vaccination will have big enough effect to justify enforcement.

Do you have a formula? How big a percentage would need to avoid vaccinations entirely to increase overall risk by 1%? What is current risk, given situation we see right now?

And anyone with known incompatibility IS exempt from having to take them. That has been said, multiple times, in this thread, and at least once by me. And everybody is covered. That's the idea of general healthcare. Even the poorest of the poor recieve any lifesaving procedure completly free of charge, paid for by the state. This includes vaccination against measels.

There is no improper administering the vaccine. You take the shot, put the needle in the cubital fossa, these are the veins in the crook of your arm, and inject it. I have literally done that thousands of times. You can't fuck it up. There is no protocol, either. Stop making up doomsday scenarios to to fuel your stupid argument.

And yes, I have this formula. It has been done by my collegues in disease prevention working for the Robert Koch institute, which is responsible for informing and researching about infectious diseases. You need 95% of the population to be vaccinated twice to make a epidemic impossible. You'd need 99% vaccinated to eradicate the disease alltogether. Germany is currently sitting at 93%. All of this has been shown, to great length, for decades. This isn't anything new, even though a lot of uneducated shits pretend as if it is.

[Naramag]

@Shalcker: Why should we reward someone for something that should be common knowledge and the right thing to do?

I am having a neurological disorder and anger issues... There are people out there on the street that trigger me so easily, that I would love to beat the crap out of them. Just this morning I was tempted to push some idiot in front of the subway. I know the urge to act out is wrong, I have my mechanics to deal with that, in the worst case I have meds to deal with it. Above everything, I know what is right and what is wrong. Yet, I do really bad want to do what is wrong.

So, what kind of financial incentive should I get for not beating the crap out of the next guy who rubs me the wrong way? As I understand, that is your logic...

[Shalcker]

@Shalcker: Why should be reward someone for something that should be common knowledge and the right thing to do?

To incentivise those currently avoiding it if people think this is such huge problem.

I'm not saying "pay them to get vaccinated". I'm just saying "pay them if their fears prove justified". If it's safe then it's safe to do - payout will be rare, most will get vaccinated and stop fearing it. If it's risky then payout should reflect the risk, and work should be done to reduce this risk further.

[Naramag]

And as it was said again and again: If the fears prove justified, people get paid. Period. There are special funds in place to compensate those who suffer serious long term issues due to a vaccination.

[Skulltaker]

To incentivise those currently avoiding it if people think this is such huge problem.

I'm not saying "pay them to get vaccinated". I'm just saying "pay them if their fears prove justified". If it's safe then it's safe to do - payout will be rare, most will get vaccinated and stop fearing it. If it's risky then payout should reflect the risk, and work should be done to reduce this risk further.

If you need incentive to give your child a simple shot that will prevent it from suffering a horrible death at the hand of a disease that's been cureable for 60 years, you are an idiot.

Also, 'work should be done to reduce the risk even further' - what the fuck do you think medical research does? Do you have even the slightest clue as to how the world works? The fuck went wrong in your education?

[Shalcker]

And anyone with known incompatibility IS exempt from having to take them. That has been said, multiple times, in this thread, and at least once by me. And everybody is covered. That's the idea of general healthcare. Even the poorest of the poor recieve any lifesaving procedure completly free of charge, paid for by the state. This includes vaccination against measels.

There is no improper administering the vaccine. You take the shot, put the needle in the cubital fossa, these are the veins in the crook of your arm, and inject it. I have literally done that thousands of times. You can't fuck it up. There is no protocol, either. Stop making up doomsday scenarios to to fuel your stupid argument.

Assuming that you took time to make sure that contraindications are covered and allowed people choice to delay vaccinations if any criteria for precaution fits.

I'm saying, for example, people who should be aware of contraindications and precautions ignoring it, preferring to stick to vaccination schedule that is convenient to them and either ignoring or not asking for information (or not providing it from patient side - that can also happen) that could prevent or delay administration of vaccine.

Because that does happen now and then - people start thinking that vaccinating is too important by itself to delay it and chance of complications is low anyway. Especially if vaccinations are done in school rather then in hospital setting (where parents might not be available to provide required info).

And yes, I have this formula. It has been done by my collegues in disease prevention working for the Robert Koch institute, which is responsible for informing and researching about infectious diseases. You need 95% of the population to be vaccinated twice to make a epidemic impossible. You'd need 99% vaccinated to eradicate the disease alltogether. Germany is currently sitting at 93%. All of this has been shown, to great length, for decades. This isn't anything new, even though a lot of uneducated shits pretend as if it is.

Well, can you show me link to the formula then?

Is there efficiency of vaccine anywhere inside of it?

How big is risk of epidemic at 93% compared to 95%?

[Skulltaker]

Assuming that you took time to make sure that contraindications are covered and allowed people choice to delay vaccinations if any criteria for precaution fits.

I'm saying, for example, people who should be aware of contraindications and precautions ignoring it, preferring to stick to vaccination schedule that is convenient to them and either ignoring or not asking for information (or not providing it from patient side - that can also happen) that could prevent or delay administration of vaccine.

Because that does happen now and then - people start thinking that vaccinating is too important by itself to delay it and chance of complications is low anyway. Especially if vaccinations are done in school rather then in hospital setting (where parents might not be available to provide required info).

Well, can you show me link to the formula then?

Is there efficiency of vaccine anywhere inside of it?

How big is risk of epidemic at 93% compared to 95%?

And all of this is being done in any country with a health care system to speak of. There are isolated incidents, but they are not systematic.

As for the data, it's a paper lying on my desk, it's fairly technical and, most of all, in german. If you spend 3 minutes on google I'm sure whatever the Center for Disease Control is called in your home country has similar studies published in your native tongue.

But if you want the numbers: having 92% of the worlds population vaccinated would prevent a pandemic, 95% vaccination in densely populated countries will prevent local epidemics, 99% would eradicate the disease alltogether.

[Naramag]

Here you go: www.rki.de
If you need more research, I bet there are several studies and works that deal with it. You'll need to find it yourself though. And maybe not everything is available online. Try a university library.

And if there is someone who shouldn't get a vaccine due to medical reasons and a doctor ignores it for the sake of vaccination: That is called malpractice. If the doctor isn't aware of reasons for a lack of disclosure from the patient, then the doctor didn't worked correctly - which again is malpractice - or the patient intentionally withhold the Information, then the patient deserves the consequences.
@Shalcker: And now we are at a stage where I don't even care if I am banned: Are you just plain stupid or what is your problem?

[Knolan]

We had a thread about something similar before, and I keep my stance that while anti-vaxxers are complete idiots and vaccines work, I am against the government forcing people to vaccinate their children. You must retain the right to refuse treatment.

That being said, I could be fine with this case if it is followed by a law or a constitution amendment that limit the government power to force vaccines that are well established (30 years+ effective maybe) and give an easy way for people to fight it.

[Voidwielder]

Vaccinations should be mandatory. If not, a fine and the subsequent ramping up of the % for the delay should be so severe that even the upper middle class would not be able to bear it for long.

- - - Updated - - -

Even more than that, I'd allow schools to discriminate on this basis. Quickly the anti-vaxxer parents would find out their child can't be educated, anywhere. So it's either home schooling or vaccine. Some will choose home-schooling. Well, one day little Robby and the family will go out and one day little Robby will start feeling ill after the visit to the bathroom. Little Robby will die. He will.

Fuck Robby.

[Shalcker]

If you need incentive to give your child a simple shot that will prevent it from suffering a horrible death at the hand of a disease that's been cureable for 60 years, you are an idiot.

I think we firmly established that such idiots exist, and we still want them vaccinated for our own sake.

Also, 'work should be done to reduce the risk even further' - what the fuck do you think medical research does? Do you have even the slightest clue as to how the world works? The fuck went wrong in your education?

I know that medical research does that, but it isn't always one-way road. Alternative approaches with possibly lower side-effect might also provide lower efficiency.

We want people convinced to get required coverage, and that means looking at their attitudes, not just saying "you'll take your shot and that's final!"

Like this:
What can be done to reach the 95% or greater coverage with MMR needed to eliminate measles? Attitudes are key, because 14% of UK mothers in 2006 considered MMR a greater risk than the diseases it prevents, although this proportion had decreased from a peak of 24% in 2002.9 At the individual level, efforts to persuade parents with deep seated philosophical or religious objections to all vaccines are likely to be futile. The main focus should be on parents of partially immunised children, who fall into two broad groups—those who are socially or materially advantaged and those who are not. Strategies to tackle late or partial immunisation (or both) in disadvantaged populations should focus on improving access. Families who selectively refuse MMR, usually on the basis of safety concerns,9 are likely to have almost 95% coverage for other vaccines.5 Communication needs to consider the experience and context of the individual families.10 Pilot work with a detailed MMR decision aid for parents found that it has potential for influencing attitudes and knowledge.11 The aid details rates of measles and its complications and adverse events related to MMR vaccination. This balance is useful because some parents in the UK think of official information as biased and want information that is seen as “independent.”1 9 At the population level, initiatives such as linking parental financial incentives or entry to school or childcare facilities to completion of immunisation have improved overall immunisation coverage but require legislative action and societal support.12

[Usagi Senshi]

I hadn't realized that this bullshit spread outside of the US too.

I really shouldn't be surprised though, because stupidity isn't a region locked affliction.

Fucking hell, people....

[Voidwielder]

And a message to anti-vaxxers who are reading this: you're a fucking idiot and whatever is coming to you and your family, I hope the worst happens. You and your child deserves to die in the most gruesome way imaginable. And he or she will. They will die prematurely. I hope they do.

[Wyrt]

We had a thread about something similar before, and I keep my stance that while anti-vaxxers are complete idiots and vaccines work, I am against the government forcing people to vaccinate their children. You must retain the right to refuse treatment.

What about the children's right to proper medical care? Who's rights are more important in this case? The child's or the parents'?

From where I'm sitting it's the children, not the parents, who are suffering because of it so their rights should take precedence.