XogGyux wrote:Yes. Now drop the vaccination rate and ask the same question.
The rate of death for most of the illnesses for which we now have vaccines was trending down way before their introduction, according to projections the death rate would be roughly the same for these illnesses today had no vaccines ever been developed.
Interestingly, Scarlet Fever and other diseases followed this same rate of mortality decline, but were never vaccinated for.
One has to wonder if correlation regarding vaccines and decreased morality equals causation. The evidence seems to show that this is not the case.
Godstud wrote:Also, the child can be harmed if they catch the disease. If you choose to not vaccinate your child and they get the disease for which there is a vaccine, you should be charged with Child Endangerment, and Negligence, at the very least.
A child can be harmed from riding a bike and climbing a tree and are far more likely to be harmed or killed by such activates than if they got the chicken pox!
Given the relative risk, it should be illegal to lets kids ride bikes or climb trees and more legal to seek exemption from vaccination.
However, since this is stupid and since good parenting is about letting kids get hurt and experience life as a way of development, neither of these should be ipso facto
Further, the LAW in more than half of European countries and most of the states in the United States allow for exemptions, is more than half of the developed world arguing for child neglect?
The disparities between different countries of what should even be required also makes the mandate argument for any particular developed nation seem crazy.
For instance, should Canada follow the U.S.'s schedule? They don't, so does that mean that they are threatening public health? If not, then why would a U.S. citizen who prefers Canada's model be a threat to public health?
They can't both be right, so either the Canadian schedule promotes child abuse, or the U.S. model promotes child abuse as they don't require all of the same vaccines and dosages.
If you think that the U.S., Canada, and UK can disagree on what is a safe schedule without promoting child abuse, why can't a parent in consultation with their physician likewise customize their own schedule? The logic is not consistent here.
XogGyux wrote: Generally speaking, not a particularly deadly disease, but again, given its highly contagious nature and high prevalence/incidence it is absurd to even consider non-vaccinations which are safe and effective. Yes, you could have an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine and you could die. Extremely rare. You could also have the same reaction eating nuts, chocolate, shrimp..... and the list goes on
That's correct, and parents have the right to limit exposure of their children if they fear such a risk regarding certain foods etc; however there is no widespread preemptive testing for reactions when it comes to vaccines and yet we do not allow them the right to avoid certain vaccines out of fear of sucha reaction like we do for peanuts or shrimp. There probably should be such a right, so that is not an argument for a universal mandate, quite the opposite.
Anecdotally, my oldest child had a reaction to a vaccine and it was diagnosed by a pro-vax doctor, he developed a respitory illness and we had to have him on a nebulizer as an infant because of it.
I have a question for you @XogGyux
Lets say General Motors developed a car that was regarded by automotive experts as being the safest car yet designed in human history, but in spite of this, GM was being sued for faulty brakes on a regular basis with this particular vehicle and was on the verge of going bankrupt, but was then rescued by the U.S. government which blocked all future law suits and they (the U.S. Gov) further passed a law requiring you to buy this GM vehicle, how would you feel about buying this GM vehicle?