It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Now Wants to be First State to Mandate Adult Vaccines – Criminal Penalties

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yes I see your misunderstanding of what I said.




posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Oh, wait, they don't prevent disease, which is the whole point.
Not in some people, that's true. But they do prevent most people who are exposed to a disease from becoming infected. It is also true that some people cannot be vaccinated for valid medical reasons.

So what happens is this. If more people are vaccinated it means fewer will become infected. The fewer that are infected means the chances that someone who cannot be vaccinated (or someone who does not obtain sufficient immunity from being vaccinated) will encounter an infected person are reduced.

While the risk of infection cannot be entirely eliminated, it can be greatly mitigated. The more people are vaccinated, the greater the mitigation of the risk.


When it comes to flu shots, that's not entirely accurate. First off, the shots are known to not work frequently, because they don't vaccinate for the strain that shows up. That's quite common. Then you have people getting sick from the shots, and later as well, from another strain of flu. When their system is already weakened from the previous illness, that can be very bad. And, yes, people do get sick from shots. Not all people, but some, and doctors have confirmed that. I get sick if someone close to be gets one. Not common, but it can happen. Forcing people to get a shot is the wrong decision. Hospitals can't really make a case there, because they can't even control staph infections. Sensible precautions, good hygiene, and masks are far more effective than shots. In any case, it should always be a personal choice.


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

No, not the same thing at all.
Yes. The same thing. Reducing risk to the children who attend the day care centers.
 


Why can't they get them?
Allergies to components of the vaccine. In the case of flu, egg proteins in particular. There are vaccines that are contraindicated for pregnant women.


Why should I get sick for someone else?
What?


Why can't they get sick for me?
They can sick from you. That's why if you're going to be caring for groups of children you should be immunized.


No, it isn't the same thing. Not getting a vaccination does not put a person in the category of criminal. Anyone making such a comparison has no respect for personal freedom, or really, any freedom at all. One doesn't have to be allergic to have a valid reason not to get a shot, either. There are a lot of good reasons not to get shots. Some, I have already listed. Add to those the distinct possibility that people can become too dependent on a shot, and lose a natural ability to fight off disease.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958


If it was an honest attempt at stopping illness by vaccination, wouldn't it be fair to make every visitor to California, that's everybody who crosses the border have the shots? international visitors holidaymakers included. I know what most people that come to spend their money in that fair state would say.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
history points out time and again....how nature exposes the folly of man....



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Not getting a vaccination does not put a person in the category of criminal.
I did not say it does. (But the OP says, falsely, that the law does so).

I said the rationale for not allowing unvaccinated people to work at day care facilities is the same as the rationale for not allowing convicted criminals to work at day care facilities. Both raise safety issues for the children. In order to mitigate those risks unvaccinated people are not permitted to work there nor are convicted criminals.


Add to those the distinct possibility that people can become too dependent on a shot, and lose a natural ability to fight off disease.
False. You clearly have no understanding of how vaccinations work. Which is no surprise.


edit on 7/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Not getting a vaccination does not put a person in the category of criminal.
I did not say it does. (But the OP says, falsely, that the law does so).

I said the rationale for not allowing unvaccinated people to work at day care facilities is the same as the rationale for not allowing convicted criminals to work at day care facilities. Both raise safety issues for the children. In order to mitigate those risks unvaccinated people are not permitted to work there nor are convicted criminals.


That's not the case, however. When people can get sick from being close to someone recently vaccinated, that poses a risk to those children. Plus, vaccinations for things like flu are notorious for not being for the right strain any given year, so how, exactly, does that help anyone but those making the money, again? Comparing people who oppose vaccines to criminals is a pretty cheap shot, as well. Tsk, tsk.


originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Add to those the distinct possibility that people can become too dependent on a shot, and lose a natural ability to fight off disease.
False. You clearly have no understanding of how vaccinations work. Which is no surprise.


I understand quite well, and that is something that's been discussed, and cannot be tossed aside as impossible. It's a known fact that our immune systems can learn from being sick, as well. Really, I expected you to know better.




top topics
 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join