I think with the advent of the internet, we probably will have less and less moderates every year (at least until some major disaster brings us together).
I'd recommend checking out the libertarian ticket - at least they seem willing to negotiate and can admit when they are wrong. Hell they are both Republicans from Democrat states running on a libertarian platform.
The ticket as it stands, with a guy who thinks that vaccinations should be optional, and can't think of any world leaders? That's not a ticket, that's a joke.
"Everyone wants a dictator in charge, as long as they agree with them"
Not getting a vaccine only hurts you (and arguably others who don't get vaccines, based on herd)... Wanting to force it, is kind of contrary to the whole quote. Also FYI I'm highly allergic to the stuff in vaccines and they still try and make me soooo I kinda want to point out that the freedom to choose what to put in your body should be an inalienable right.
> Not getting a vaccine only hurts you (and arguably others who don't get vaccines, based one herd)...
That's incorrect. Vaccines are effective, but (like most things in the real world) not 100% effective. So not getting a vaccine increases everyone's risk of getting the disease the vaccine protects against.
Totally agree, if the assumptions made on that theory were correct. The fact is, many of the diseases we get vaccinated against: rabies, polio, small pox, chicken pox, etc. Are not spread through the air. And pretty much everyone was voluntarily vaccinated for those.
Meaning the less people around you who have the disease the better, as you pointed out this is the general idea. That totally breaks down for air born pathogens that aren't spread via feceal matter, saliva, etc. one sneeze on a railing a train station can spread across 10000 people. We will always come in contact with it, vaccines may help, but yeah... it doesn't spread node to node as chicken pox, more like node to 100 X node.
We haven't even come close to solving air born pathogens.
Also, I'd argue that many of the reductions in disease rates have more to do with better plumbing and teaching people to stay home as opposed than vaccines. Both help, but the theory is just that a theory, with some pretty large holes and ignores the easy international travel, air born illness, and the evidence doesn't really have enough behind it to say "everyone has to be vaccinated"
> The fact is, many of the diseases we get vaccinated against: rabies, polio, small pox, chicken pox, etc. Are not spread through the air.
Whether a disease is airborne or not is somewhat irrelevant here (its obviously relevant to how easy it is to spread, but as long as a disease is communicable by some kind of contact, the increased danger from unvaccinated members of the population is qualitatively similar.)
> Meaning the less people around you who have the disease the better, as you pointed out this is the general idea. That totally breaks down for air born pathogens that aren't spread via feceal matter, saliva, etc.
No, it doesn't; it changes the shape of the "increased risk" curve resulting from changes in vaccination compliance, but it doesn't change that there is such an increased risk.
> Also, I'd argue that many of the reductions in disease rates have more to do with better plumbing and teaching people to stay home as opposed than vaccines.
Yes, that those things have reduced disease rates for many diseases is a well-established fact, not really a point in any kind of contention.
So, you think that children should be vaccinated by law, but that adults shouldn't because they might be allergic, and they'd only find out when first vaccinated.
But... you believe they should all have already been vaccinated.
Not getting a vaccine hurts everyone, not just other people who also don't get the vaccine. If you had researched this enough to make an informed decision about whether or not to get vaccinated, this would've been a day one discovery in that research.
Well, I guess you found out when getting vaccinated; that you're alive and here to tell the tale suggests that the system handled this rare exception pretty well.
I think you should be allowed to sign a contract explaining the risks, and releasing all private and public institutions from any requirement to render aid in the case that you're in an accident, or that such aid is to be rendered at your expense.
Then by all means, leave off your belt. Making a stupid choice and then making the public pay for it though? No.
