>“They should be allowed to have the measles if they want the measles,”
Just inject them with measles then, and keep them away from the rest of the population.
edit: this is also an argument against charitable donations being tax write-offs.
Just inject them with measles then, and keep them away from the rest of the population.
edit: this is also an argument against charitable donations being tax write-offs.
Incorrect.
The “nonprofit” part means not returning a profit to investors or other stakeholders. It has nothing to do with generating profits or not.
I think people advocating for violence and assassination are a tad more dangerous than anti-vaxers.
Or everytime they risked someone in such a state charge them with attempted murder, or at least assault wtih a deadly weapon.
Measles is one of the gentler kinds of fatal disease out there. Polio might make a come-back. Smallpox could rise again.
Deaths from people refusing to vaccinate are an entirely avoidable issue. They choose not to vaccinate and in turn threaten the lives of those around them with gross negligence, especially those that are medically unable to be vaccinated. Which is exactly what being anti-vaxx means: it means being in favor of negligence that can and does result in many avoidable deaths of people without other choice.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
Please use a different metaphor in the future.
It's a great opportunity to apply this ban, but exempt all taxation from the individuals, as they are cut off from all government services.
First problem is that the anti-vaxxers are both ignorant of history and unable to reason about risk. They ignore the centuries of disease, the then-common human experience of bearing a dozen kids and having only a few live to adulthood, and they vastly distort the risks and ignore the rewards of vaccines.
Worse yet, they are entitled freeloaders, freeloading on the herd immunity that is created and maintained by the smart people.
This specifically endangers those who need to rely upon the herd immunity, the not insignificant part of the population who cannot be vaccinated due to other medical conditions. The anti-vaxxers are literally threatening the lives of these people.
So, if we wanted to do that, the anti-vaxxers need to be shunned, hard. This means zero access to any public space. Remember, many of these diseases are so highly contagious that an infection can occur merely by walking through the same space hours after an infected person has been through.
So, the anti-vaxxers exclusion list would start with: schools, govt buildings, malls, grocery stores, and all forms of public transport including buses, trains, planes, and even taxi/Uber/Lyft. Even that list is likely inadequate if we lose herd immunity, as is now happening.
The implications to public health & the costs to society are staggering if we lose herd immunity. This must be a simple requirement to participate in an advanced society. If you don't want to do it, go live on some island somewhere.
This kind of screening is largely impractical, short of tattooing anti-vaxxers' foreheads with a large red strikethru "V".
So, it needs to be simply a requirement. If you don't have either the vaccinations or a bona-fide medical excuse, you are denied all govt services & benefits until you do. No school, driver's license, passport, benefits, etc.
The fact that this is still in a debate at all is an enormous normalcy bias error. Some of the origins are due to stupidity, but much of the growth of the "controversy" is the result of a deliberate and sustained attack on the west by Russia. Here's just two articles, scientific & news sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/09/in-the-united-states-ru...
Damn cheap way to undermine your enemy -- directly attack your target's public health for the cost of a few bots & trolls.
And no taxes? Where do I sign up.
If anything, it should be double taxes, since the anti-vaxxers definitely create much higher costs for society in general and for the health system & govt in particular.
So, yes, a big surcharge would be a good idea... maybe they could use part of it to pay for the red tattoos ;-)