By living in a country with hospitals. Exactly my point.

Are you sure about that?

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html

"In 1978, CDC set a goal to eliminate measles from the United States by 1982. Although this goal was not met, widespread use of measles vaccine drastically reduced the disease rates. By 1981, the number of reported measles cases was 80% less compared with the previous year. However, a 1989 measles outbreaks among vaccinated school-aged children prompted the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) to recommend a second dose of MMR vaccine for all children. Following widespread implementation of this recommendation and improvements in first-dose MMR vaccine coverage, reported measles cases declined even more.

Measles was declared eliminated (absence of continuous disease transmission for greater than 12 months) from the United States in 2000. This was thanks to a highly effective vaccination program in the United States, as well as better measles control in the Americas region"

I believe the vaccine lowered the measle rates in the us, who cares. It is a TREATABLE disease. If i get it, i will go to the dr. No problem.

Yes. I prefer originals over refakes any day.

Oh, and I love how those that don't get vaccines don't really give a shit if others do, but those that do seem so overly concerned about that those that don't.

Thank you so much for caring.

This is where they talk about heard immunity and how their child cant get them so its your fault .

If they have defective kids that's not my fault.

Your being selfish

I gave at the office.

Right on. If you are just putting yourself and your kids own at risk, who gives a shit?

i've had enough mountains to climb in my life to drag along others.

Yes. Depending on the risk to you (tiny) and the benefit to others (significant) being vaccinated may be a moral imperative.

As a hypothetical, unrelated to MMR or any other specific scenario. Let’s say the risk of you dying from getting a vaccine is 1/1 million and because this theoretical disease is so bad every person vaccinated saves 1000 lives. Then, would you be morally obligated to get vaccinated?

No, but I played pinball in a Holiday Express.

No...

Wow, then you either don’t understand the question, or you don’t understand basic morality, or both.

Ok, if a vaccine had NO risk to you, and saved a trillion people, are you morally obligated to take the vaccine?

As long as we are posing hypothetical situations...

What if science progresses to where they can precisely identify the specific individual (much like with DNA) who passed a disease on to another person.
Congress then passes a law (which is tested and upheld by the Supreme Court) making it a crime if a person chooses not to be vaccinated and thereafter passes an illness on to another person, with a mandatory charge of manslaughter if the infected person dies and lesser charges if that person survives.
Civil damage claims become so lucrative that Glen Lerner redirects his entire law practice to suing the non-vaccinated disease spreaders.

Then would you consider getting vaccinated?

Where I grew up, everyone had to be vaccinated to attend school.

Yes

No, the earth is overpopulated.

Maybe you didn’t really understand all of those Ayn Rand books you read.

But I’m glad you agree, it’s just a matter of risk vs. benefit.

1. What is the best method of determining risk vs. benefit?

2. How much are you willing to do to benefit other people? Pretend that you’re at your very bravest...

When vaccines are 100% safe AND effective... i will take them but they are not, nor will they ever be....so in this specific case, i am willing to risk nothing to help others...ironic considering i work in the healthcare field and put my life at risk to help others.

Work for Drs without borders. Travel to where these diseases are endemic...you won’t...for any various reasons, but you won’t. There is no rebuttal...you just won’t.

I wouldnt but that has nothing to do with this coversation.

It’s not ironic, it’s inconsistent.

If vaccines were 100% safe and effective, you would be sacrificing literally nothing. The fact that they are merely very safe and effective means you are being asked to sacrifice a tiny bit for the greater good. As I pointed out, this becomes an issue of morality.

I am not putting MY health at risk for anyone, especially for something i am not worried about actually contracting. Too many people just get them without understanding the downsides.

Not the heroic type, eh? That’s OK. You agreed that you might have a moral imperative, depending on the risks and benefits. What is the best way of determining those risks and benefits? Would it be A or B?

A. Follow the guidance of an organization of brilliant, dedicated scientists that study these sort of diseases full time, working tirelessly to prevent them, publishing their work freely and even making the vaccines virtually free for everyone.

B. Go by an anecdote you heard one time on Google

i dont feel the "need" to risk my health simply because others believe i should. I dont believe most vaccines are usefull and i dont believe they are safe.

Hard to dispute the vast drop in disease cases such as measles, rubella, chicken pox and of coarse polio. I get it that they are not 100% safe.....nothing is in life but, it's worth the risk to keep these diseases from running amuck through the population at large given the number of deaths they are responsible for. Seems to me the risk is very, very minimal, perhaps safer than crossing the street on any given day. Just my humble opinion, everyone has to form their own and then act accordingly.

You are again avoiding my question. I wonder if you’re afraid to put your stance under even mild scrutiny. Maybe it doesn’t hold up...?

I dont see a question but it doesnt change my stance. I am not getting a vaccine that can injure me because others think i should. I am not afraid of mump, measles, rubella, polio, ebola, the flu or chicken pox...why would i feel the need to get a vaccine? Even if they made it illegal i would not get them. Fact: most vaccines were invented after a natural decline in the disease yet people claim they saved us...not true.

Here are the 2 times I asked it...

You clearly aren't willing (or able?) to consider your stance critically.

The anti-intellectual tendencies of the far left and the far right are very dangerous for our society. Whether you get your information from Alex Jones or from your local homeopathic astrologer, you are going to arrive at bad conclusions. I think it is worth considering how we come to our conclusions. And we should always be willing to reconsider when flaws are pointed out.

How can you not get vaccinated if you work in health care? I thought it was mandatory.

No not mandatory

Your question is flawed. Benefit vs risk to whom? To me, i only care about risk to me, not benefit to others..

I just asked what the best method was to determine risks and benefits. To you, others, everyone. I’m asking about the best METHOD.

And you acknowledged that you would be morally obligated to do something for others if the risk/benefits were acceptable. So it is important to consider how those risks and benefits are determined.

This is very close to the definition of amoral.

I disagree with this statement. I try not to disagree with ideas strictly due to the messenger. A truth (laughable in today's world) should remain a truth, regardless of its origin. I fully admit I, myself, am in desperate need of more practice in this concept.

I agree with your underlying point. A true statement can theoretically come from any source. But, I'm trying to discuss whether there are more and less reliable methods for determining truth.

This is precisely why amorality is antithetical to civilization. For a society to survive, it requires a pledge of civilization ethics. Its citizens are morally obliged to comply with norms targeted to the society's survival.

Some folks refuse to comply. In doing so, they threaten the hive like a bee which declines to create honey.

Food for thought.

From ProPublica:

In some cases, ProPublica was able to use public records to estimate values reported as incalculable. One example involves David Weiner, a leading vaccine researcher at the nonprofit Wistar Institute in Philadelphia who reports an ownership interest in Inovio Pharmaceuticals. On its website, the publicly traded Inovio indicates it has the exclusive right to license intellectual property arising from a collaboration with Weiner and his lab at Wistar. Inovio is also listed as a subrecipient of an NIH grant to Wistar for Weiner’s vaccine-related research.

Inovio, in 2018 and 2019 filings with the SEC, disclosed that Weiner held just over 1 million shares of company stock. On the day his financial conflict of interest with Inovio was reported to the NIH in 2018, his shares were worth just under $6 million. Yet Wistar told the NIH that the value of Weiner’s ownership stake could not readily be determined.

A spokeswoman for Wistar Institute and Weiner, Darien Sutton, told ProPublica in an email that “to the best of our knowledge” Weiner owns approximately 1 million shares of Inovio.

“The value of Dr. Weiner’s equity interest in Inovio fluctuates due to variable share price, yet the approximate magnitude of that interest has been contemplated and accommodated in an appropriate management plan for the conflicting interest,” Sutton wrote.

Full article here:

https://www.propublica.org/article/federally-funded-health-researchers-disclose-at-least-188-million-in-conflicts-of-interest-can-you-trust-their-findings

Not even a urologist?

So, you are willing to put your life at risk, but not your health? Interesting angle.

You’re more a Dr. Rosenpenis kind of guy?

I met a guy named Julius Weiner once. Retired FBI. He totally owned it.

The risk to me is too high and the benefit to others is too low to get vaccinated. The risk/benefit is absolutely not acceptable.