Current Events > Germany makes the measles vaccine compulsory

(+) Yeah! (+)

As of March 2020, parents will have to prove their child is vaccinated against measles before sending them to day care or school. While the Health Ministry says the bill is "child protection," critics think otherwise.

The "Measles Protection Act" stipulates that as of March 2020 children and staff in kindergartens and schools, medical facilities, and community facilities must be vaccinated. These include residences for asylum seekers, refugee shelters and holiday camps. Parents who do not vaccinate their children of school age will face hefty fines of up to 2,500 ($2,749), while younger children could face a ban from day care facilities.

"My idea of freedom does not stop at my level as an individual," the health minister said. "Rather, when I sit here in a room like this with 500 or 600 colleagues, in a cinema or on a train, when it comes to community facilities, it is also a question of whether I am unnecessarily putting others at risk. And a measles infection is an unnecessary danger in 2019."

"Freedom also means that I will not be unnecessarily put at risk, and that is precisely why, from the point of view of preserving freedom, this law is a good law, because it protects freedom and health."

https://m.dw.com/en/germany-makes-measles-vaccination-compulsory/a-51243094

Now we just need other countries to follow suit!
---

Good
---

apolloooo posted...

Good

---

Good. Fuck anti-vax people. They're almost as stupid as flat earthers but far more dangerous.
---

Up
---

teepan95 posted...

Up

---

they have to have 10 men pin me down if they want to give me another vaccine shot
---

Awesome posted...

they have to have 10 men pin me down if they want to give me another vaccine shot

Fuckin' bold of you to assume it'll take ten men.

I actually just wrote a paper on this. New Mexico needs to close the "religious reasons" loophole.

---

Awesome posted...

they have to have 10 men pin me down if they want to give me another vaccine shot

A single 6'0" guy could do it effortlessly

---

good every country should make shot mandatory these looney anti vaxxers gonna bring back dead diseases
---

Everyone who can get the shot, should. If making it compulsory is what it takes to achieve that, well then that's what has to be done. It's a shame people are so stupid.
---

brestugo posted...

Everyone who can get the shot, should.

---

MuayThai85 posted...

Good. Fuck anti-vax people. They're almost as stupid as flat earthers but far more dangerous.

agreed. it's becoming a living weapon infecting others who can't get vaccinated and young babies.
---

I get the anti-vaxer side in theory.

I'm a big (Huge) fan of body autonomy and I am sympathetic to people who are cynical of big Pharma or the government and want to have control over their own lives.

For example a lot of people practicebody modifcation. Multilating their gentials, insane piercings, tattooing their eyes etc. And while I don't condone it I 100% think it's their right to do that. It's their life and their body.

But what anti-vaxxers don't seem to understand is that it's not just themselves who are affected. their poor choices hurt other people, people who can't take the vaccine. Herd immunity is a very real thing, we're seeing dieases of the past make returns due to anti-vaxxers.

Little Timmy doesn't deserve to die before his bone marrow transplant because you refused to get a vaccination. If that bothers you then you should leave the country.
---

Terrible

---

Irony posted...

Awesome posted...

they have to have 10 men pin me down if they want to give me another vaccine shot

A single 6'0" guy could do it effortlessly

Just one look and he'd shit his pants instantly

hockeybub89 posted...

---

what else are they putting in those shots tho

I hope any of you supportive of this never use bodily autonomy as an argument. And I already know how you've spun it in your mind, but you can't hinge your positions on bodily autonomy as though it's all-important, and then be like well it doesn't matter in this scenario.

And to be clear, I have no problem with this.

---

shnangyboos posted...

I hope any of you supportive of this never use bodily autonomy as an argument. And I already know how you've spun it in your mind, but you can't hinge your positions on bodily autonomy as though it's all-important, and then be like well it doesn't matter in this scenario.

And to be clear, I have no problem with this.

You don't have a right for your bodily autonomy when it puts other people's bodies at legitimate health risk. Freedom is not absolute when the freedom of others intersects.

inb4abortion

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I get the anti-vaxer side in theory.

I'm a big (Huge) fan of body autonomy and I am sympathetic to people who are cynical of big Pharma or the government and want to have control over their own lives.

that is not why anti-vaxxers are anti-vax
---

hockeybub89 posted...

You don't have a right for your bodily autonomy when it puts other people's bodies at legitimate health risk. Freedom is not absolute when the freedom of others intersects.

inb4abortion

So then don't don't use bodily autonomy as the end-all argument.

---

shnangyboos posted...

So then don't don't use bodily autonomy as the end-all argument.

I don't understand exactly what you mean by that. Personal freedom is extremely important. It just kind of goes out the window when your freedom affects the freedom of others.

Bodily autonomy or your general freedoms trump all. Until they don't.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

shnangyboos posted...

So then don't don't use bodily autonomy as the end-all argument.

I don't understand exactly what you mean by that. Personal freedom is extremely important. It just kind of goes out the window when your freedom affects the freedom of others.

Bodily autonomy or your general freedoms trump all. Until they don't.

That's because you strawmanned a nebulous "Trumps all" into there

You're allowed to stick nails into your body all day. you're not allowed to stick nukes into your body that will blow up Manhattan

because that effects others
---

You're allowed to stick nails into your body all day. you're not allowed to stick nukes into your body that will blow up Manhattan

Except anti-vaxxers aren't sticking anything into their body. And you guys have no clue (or are pretending not to know) why anti-vaxxers are really anti-vax.
---

HolierThanMao posted...

what else are they putting in those shots tho

Side effects include eyes turning blue and hair turning blonde.
---

Good. In this case, public safety outweighs "freedom", in much the same way as mandatory seatbelts. You don't have the "right" to be a walking biohazard to the rest of society, especially the immunosuppressed.

---

The23rdMagus posted...

Good. In this case, public safety outweighs "freedom", in much the same way as mandatory seatbelts. You don't have the "right" to be a walking biohazard to the rest of society, especially the immunosuppressed.

Yeah but what if they don't even have the measles? BTW, approximately 20-30% of people that caught the measles in the current outbreak were already vaxxed. Want to ban them too since they can theoretically still spread the disease?
---

FLOUR posted...

Yeah but what if they don't even have the measles? BTW, approximately 20-30% of people that caught the measles in the current outbreak were already vaxxed. Want to ban them too since they can theoretically still spread the disease?

The mistake here is binary thinking - vaccines are not 100% effective (but it doesn't mean they're useless). They greatly reduce the risk of contracting these illnesses. The more people vaccinated, the more the risk goes down.

It's like saying people still die in cars while wearing seatbelts.

---

Yeah, I get it. Only vaxxed people have the right to be a walking biohazzard. So nobody would have a problem with them infecting the immunosuppressed since there's a less likely chance of it happening. Instead of banning unvaccinated kids, wouldn't it make more sense to ban the kids that actually have the freaking measles? Then when it subsides they can return to school. And I don't get the seatbelt analogy. The argument is how measles affects others, not yourself. How do your wearing a seatbelt benefit someone that doesn't?
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

apolloooo posted...

Good

---

FLOUR posted...

Yeah, I get it. Only vaxxed people have the right to be a walking biohazzard. So nobody would have a problem with them infecting the immunosuppressed since there's a less likely chance of it happening. Instead of banning unvaccinated kids, wouldn't it make more sense to ban the kids that actually have the freaking measles? Then when it subsides they can return to school. And I don't get the seatbelt analogy. The argument is how measles affects others, not yourself. How do your wearing a seatbelt benefit someone that doesn't?

I suppose that's a tiny pinhole in the analogy. Human projectile, I suppose.

Guess I need a better analogy, but my argument stands. Making people less likely to have measles in the first place reduces the chance of it spreading.

---

FLOUR posted...

Yeah, I get it. Only vaxxed people have the right to be a walking biohazzard. So nobody would have a problem with them infecting the immunosuppressed since there's a less likely chance of it happening. Instead of banning unvaccinated kids, wouldn't it make more sense to ban the kids that actually have the freaking measles? Then when it subsides they can return to school. And I don't get the seatbelt analogy. The argument is how measles affects others, not yourself. How do your wearing a seatbelt benefit someone that doesn't?

Uh the point of requiring vaccines is to minimize the amount of people that are even carrying a disease. They aren't 100% effective, but some diseases were basically eradicated before anti-vax movements caused their reoccurrence.

I don't think anyone is encouraging sick people to walk around in public and infect everyone as long as they have some vaccines in them, so "ban sick people" seems like a stupid and irrelevant argument. Spreading diseases is bad. Willfully making you or your children vectors for those diseases is even worse.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

FLOUR posted...

Yeah, I get it. Only vaxxed people have the right to be a walking biohazzard. So nobody would have a problem with them infecting the immunosuppressed since there's a less likely chance of it happening. Instead of banning unvaccinated kids, wouldn't it make more sense to ban the kids that actually have the freaking measles? Then when it subsides they can return to school. And I don't get the seatbelt analogy. The argument is how measles affects others, not yourself. How do your wearing a seatbelt benefit someone that doesn't?

Uh the point of requiring vaccines is to minimize the amount of people that are even carrying a disease. They aren't 100% effective, but some diseases were basically eradicated before anti-vax movements caused their reoccurrence.

I don't think anyone is encouraging sick people to walk around in public and infect everyone as long as they have some vaccines in them, so "ban sick people" seems like a stupid and irrelevant argument. Spreading diseases is bad. Willfully making you or your children vectors for those diseases is even worse.

yes
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

apolloooo posted...

Good

---

FLOUR posted...

And you guys have no clue (or are pretending not to know) why anti-vaxxers are really anti-vax.

It's a lack of education. We know.
---

apolloooo posted...

Good

---

Umbreon posted...

It's a lack of education. We know.

More like a willing refusal to be educated.

---