Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#1
A bit ago, I got into it with someone online that supported anti-Vaxxers. Eventually, I stated that even if it was, ostensibly, their right, I would personally hold such a person liable for damages caused should a child of mine get sick.

It shut them up pretty damn fast.

But then I got to thinking: could this really be an avenue that aggrieved parents could resort to in the wake of an outbreak caused by someone that did not vaccinate their child?


The legal eagles at Cornell seem to think so.

So what do you guys think?
Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#2
Sure, why not scare them that way, too?
--
Rob Kelk

"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012


"Dont let anyone think for you; most people can barely think for themselves."
-
Rare Earth, "The Giants You Can't See from the Ground"
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#3
I would agree to make them legally liable, but for now let’s make sure that any stupid religious or whatever-not-actual-medical-cause exemptions get taken out of the laws.

Also, how is it possible unvaccinated kids can get accepted into schools without an actual medical reason?
If someone tells you that a thing you do causes harm, maybe take a second to think about that rather than jumping right into defending your right to keep doing the thing?

Particularly if the harm discussed includes contributing to a rise in hate crimes or other oppression?

—Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#4
All I know personally about the vax/anti-vax thing is that I got a flu shot exactly once, and have never been sicker than I was starting about two days later. On the other hand, I've never had chicken pox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, or hepatitis B, etc. ... and most of the arguments I've seen raised by anti-vaxxers are obviously false with even a tiny bit of fact checking.

In regard to your specific question, I think the hard part would be proving that the outbreak was caused by the child being unvaccinated. If there is a sound legal basis for it though, the same may apply to people who don't take the full course of antibiotics and let diseases develop resistant strains.
--
‎noli esse culus
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#5
Given how Virulent some of these diseases are, it’s easy to tell who started it. Patient zero.
Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#6
The recent measles outbreak in Costa Rica was tracked back to an anti-vax French family on holiday.
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#7
Refusing vaccination on the basis of religion is not a new concept in the Netherlands. There have been multiple polio outbreaks (although the most recent was in 1992 due to extensive vaccination programs) that strongly hit strict protestant Christian populations in the Dutch Bible Belt. And yes, seriously, we've a Bible Belt.

Personally? It's extremely cruel, unjust and unconstitutional (we'd be discriminating on the basis of religion) but I'd be entirely alright with just telling people who refuse to vaccinate for any reason other than sound medical reasons (not vaccinating because you are allergic to the vaccine for example) to suck it and bear the burden in its entirety themselves. Including the care for any victim, the after care for any victim (polio for example leaves permanent disabilities) and any of the associated costs.

I suppose this would be a politically far right point of view.

It's a good thing I'm not allowed to decide on this matter myself. Because it is extremely unjust and cruel.


@Drogn, if you were severely ill after a flu shot it's likely you were either allergic to the vaccine, or your immune system was already compromised or occupied. Quite possibly by the flu the shot was supposed to protect you against. It takes a while before a vaccine starts to actually offer protection, and in that time your body can react with the exact same protocols it uses to deal with any infectious disease.
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#8
@Drogn: Also if it was a jab, you're injected with dead virus; if you take the nasal spray vaccination, it has to be a live virus. Needles are safer.

@hazard: Unfortunately if we don't care for infectious diseases, they just spread. So like many far right points of view saving money actually costs more money. Perhaps you could not cover permanent effects, but as a liberal I probably wouldn't want to take that position beyond the first couple years. You know, long enough to learn the lesson.
--∇×v⃑
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#9
Lab?

Unless it hits someone who couldn't vaccinate instead of someone who refused to vaccinate (and yes, the children aren't allowed to choose, and they are usually the ones that get screwed) I consider that the infected person's problem. There's a reason I note it's not right.
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#10
We need herd immunity in order to cover people who cannot take the vaccine -- immunodepressed people, cancer patients on chemotherapy, infants who haven't developed an immune system yet, etc. You need about 95% of people to be vaccinated for herd immunity to prevent the spread. But we're using most of that 5% for medical reasons. But unless you isolate and treat the disease for anyone who gets it, it can get passed onto people who are in the 5%, and continue to spread. Not containing infections is super dumb for any reason, because you waste economic output. Lepers begging on the streets is not the option we want here; problems are very rarely one person's problem alone. As a game theory choice, Nash equilibrium is on the side of disease treatment, mainly because not treating other people can be fatal to you.

The TL;DR is to ask yourself "WWUD?": What would Usagi do? If you're disagreeing with her you're on the wrong side.
--∇×v⃑
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#11
I think the suggestion was to make the ones who refuse vaccination take financial responsibility for others who get infected, not to leave them without care if they did. Despite how loudly they may be shouting in the public space I doubt there's enough to make that a financially viable policy, but it's really just the OP premise turned up to eleven anyway. Turning things up to eleven anywhere in politics plays to the people who are already in favor of something similar, but rarely works out in practice when you have to actually get things done, as hundreds of years of campaign promises vs. reality have shown here in the US.
--
‎noli esse culus
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#12
(03-06-2019, 02:13 AM)hazard Wrote: Lab?

Unless it hits someone who couldn't vaccinate instead of someone who refused to vaccinate (and yes, the children aren't allowed to choose, and they are usually the ones that get screwed) I consider that the infected person's problem. There's a reason I note it's not right.

It's only the infected person's problem until the infected person spreads the infection. Then it's everybody's problem.

So, unless you're going to quarantine everybody who's sick...
--
Rob Kelk

"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012


"Dont let anyone think for you; most people can barely think for themselves."
-
Rare Earth, "The Giants You Can't See from the Ground"
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#13
No Drogn, I very much meant 'if those who refuse vaccination get sick let them suffer'. And yes, that's very much not what Usagi would do. There's a reason I have noted repeatedly it's the wrong thing to do.

It's also the reason why I will get angry if someone actually tries to implement it. I have good ideas and bad ideas, and this is very much an all caps, large size bolded and repeatedly underlined bad idea.
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#14
This should be a felony: Measles patient violated quarantine to go to gym: prosecutors nyp.st/2TuH7cp
If someone tells you that a thing you do causes harm, maybe take a second to think about that rather than jumping right into defending your right to keep doing the thing?

Particularly if the harm discussed includes contributing to a rise in hate crimes or other oppression?

—Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#15
When measles struck, investigators wanted answers. Instead, some parents lied

Yeah, I want some of these people charged with reckless endangerment.
--∇×v⃑
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#16
God almighty, the comments under that article are a special kind of entitled stupidity.
Reply
RE: Civil Suites As a Weapon Against Anti-Vaxxers?
#17
Yeah, it wasn't my intention that any child, no matter the circumstance, be denied health care. In fact, I would go as far to say that anyone that is found to have measles be placed under mandatory quarantine in the hospital. (And if they make a big fuss about it, arrest the ass hole for public endangerment and get a court order to keep them restrained there.)

My intention is for the person responsible be held financially responsible for damages caused, and even then only in the judgment of a civil suit. Making it an actual law would be too controversial, but making it a ruling of a judge? They can scream all they like, but they won't be likely to get an appeal.
Yasuri Nanami is my number one waifu, if only because she would horribly murder all the others if they didn't shut up and toe the line.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)