Politics Thread 6

[Knoyleo]

Anti-vaxxers.

[Garth]

They'll end up killing us all.

[Meep]

Ban public schools then watch as MPs magically become unanimous in their support for fully funding education. We would not be in this position if they were all sending their own brats to state schools.


Honestly, it amazes me that it is even considered a political issue. There should be no left/right divide on making sure schools are given as much money as they need. Socially there are no downsides and massive positives for prosperity and lowering crimes rates. Economically it pays for itself as every £ invested in education will be recouped several times over through the taxable income of the children through their improved prospects. Not fully funding education is like deciding to sabotage social order, boost crime and burn money at the same time. Any argument against makes no rational sense.

To clarify, the position of the Conservatives of using the budget as an excuse not to spend more on education is nuts. It's like saying you can't afford to invest in a sure thing and would rather throw away free money in the future. It's productive spending and productive spending should never be cut if it can be helped as you are only doing yourself out of future returns.

[Trelliz]

Yeah, I didn't address the vaccine thing as I felt like it would be going round in circles, but the material effect of herd immunity---and even in absence of that, just making sure as few kids as possible get preventable diseases---is far more important than some abstract concept of parental autonomy imo. Not vaccinating your kids is practically child abuse.

Newsthump: Anti-vaxxers delighted that the thousands of dead unvaccinated kids were probably autism-free

[Jenuall]

Yeah the anti vax situation isn't really analogous to choice in education here. Refusing to vaccinate would be more like refusing to allow your child to be educated at all which I think we would all agree is also wrong.

[Winckle]

twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1162046321483747329

Change UK rule out voting to change the UK.

[Garth]

What's their plan then?

[Knoyleo]

twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1162046321483747329

Change UK rule out voting to change the UK.

Classic Tory rebels

[Ecno]

:fp:

What's their plan then?

To keep getting paid...

[Cuttooth]

:fp:

What's their plan then?

To keep shouting "People's Vote" until specifically the right caves in and delivers it on a plate.

[BID0]

Change UK haven't wanted to change a single thing since their inception

[Garth]

Change UK haven't wanted to change a single thing since their inception

To be fair, they've changed their name a lot.

[OrangeRKN]

The problem with the vaccine thing is that the parents aren't just putting their kids at risk. They're putting other children who have been vaccinated at risk. Vaccines are only effective if 90+ of the population has them. When it drops below that level everybody, even those who have been vaccinated, are at an increased risk of contracting the disease.

I'm well aware of the great importance of herd immunity and think ensuring it through effective information campaigns and free, easy-access to vaccination is vitally important. Anti-vaccination rhetoric needs to be challenged and shut down at all opportunities.

Yeah, I didn't address the vaccine thing as I felt like it would be going round in circles, but the material effect of herd immunity---and even in absence of that, just making sure as few kids as possible get preventable diseases---is far more important than some abstract concept of parental autonomy imo. Not vaccinating your kids is practically child abuse.

It's not practically child abuse, because in many instances the practical (i.e. actual) affect of refusing vaccination is nothing. If a child does become ill because of a lack of vaccination, then there is more of an argument to make, but I think that logic of "failure to prevent" harm is no different to saying parents choosing to provide their children with an inadequate diet is a form of abuse.

To take a consent angle, all medical intervention should require consent. For children, who are not deemed old enough to give consent, it is instead the responsibility of their legal guardian(s) and not the state. I don't think they should be able to refuse say emergency treatment on behalf of a child, as that would cross the line into abuse and be a clear failure in parental responsibility, but preventative medicine is different as it does not necessarily cause harm - and there are always risk factors to consider, no matter how small.

Yeah the anti vax situation isn't really analogous to choice in education here. Refusing to vaccinate would be more like refusing to allow your child to be educated at all which I think we would all agree is also wrong.

I did not mean to present them as analogous, rather my point in bringing it up was to deliberately reference a subject I knew would be more controversial, so as to better demonstrate the consistency of my reasoning.

[Jenuall]

Change UK haven't wanted to change a single thing since their inception

To be fair, they've changed their name a lot.

[Moggy]

The problem with the vaccine thing is that the parents aren't just putting their kids at risk. They're putting other children who have been vaccinated at risk. Vaccines are only effective if 90+ of the population has them. When it drops below that level everybody, even those who have been vaccinated, are at an increased risk of contracting the disease.

I'm well aware of the great importance of herd immunity and think ensuring it through effective information campaigns and free, easy-access to vaccination is vitally important. Anti-vaccination rhetoric needs to be challenged and shut down at all opportunities.

Yeah, I didn't address the vaccine thing as I felt like it would be going round in circles, but the material effect of herd immunity---and even in absence of that, just making sure as few kids as possible get preventable diseases---is far more important than some abstract concept of parental autonomy imo. Not vaccinating your kids is practically child abuse.

It's not practically child abuse, because in many instances the practical (i.e. actual) affect of refusing vaccination is nothing. If a child does become ill because of a lack of vaccination, then there is more of an argument to make, but I think that logic of "failure to prevent" harm is no different to saying parents choosing to provide their children with an inadequate diet is a form of abuse.

To take a consent angle, all medical intervention should require consent. For children, who are not deemed old enough to give consent, it is instead the responsibility of their legal guardian(s) and not the state. I don't think they should be able to refuse say emergency treatment on behalf of a child, as that would cross the line into abuse and be a clear failure in parental responsibility, but preventative medicine is different as it does not necessarily cause harm - and there are always risk factors to consider, no matter how small.

Yeah the anti vax situation isn't really analogous to choice in education here. Refusing to vaccinate would be more like refusing to allow your child to be educated at all which I think we would all agree is also wrong.

I did not mean to present them as analogous, rather my point in bringing it up was to deliberately reference a subject I knew would be more controversial, so as to better demonstrate the consistency of my reasoning.

Parents aren’t forced to vaccinate their kids, so I am not sure why this argument is being made.

If parents don’t want to vaccinate their kids, then their kids should be banned from state schools. Idiot parents should not be allowed to put other children at risk.

[OrangeRKN]

Unvaccinated kids have to go to private school = both problems solved?

[That]

Yeah, I didn't address the vaccine thing as I felt like it would be going round in circles, but the material effect of herd immunity---and even in absence of that, just making sure as few kids as possible get preventable diseases---is far more important than some abstract concept of parental autonomy imo. Not vaccinating your kids is practically child abuse.

It's not practically child abuse, because in many instances the practical (i.e. actual) affect of refusing vaccination is nothing. If a child does become ill because of a lack of vaccination, then there is more of an argument to make, but I think that logic of "failure to prevent" harm is no different to saying parents choosing to provide their children with an inadequate diet is a form of abuse.

To take a consent angle, all medical intervention should require consent. For children, who are not deemed old enough to give consent, it is instead the responsibility of their legal guardian(s) and not the state. I don't think they should be able to refuse say emergency treatment on behalf of a child, as that would cross the line into abuse and be a clear failure in parental responsibility, but preventative medicine is different as it does not necessarily cause harm - and there are always risk factors to consider, no matter how small.

I can't really agree with this.

Re: "no harm done": Deliberately exposing your child to a higher likelihood of harm can absolutely be reasonably considered abuse or neglect even if no harm ultimately occurs.

Re: "failure to prevent harm": In extremis, a poor diet actually would be abuse: malnutrition is considered evidence for neglect by e.g. social services and the NSPCC, etc. This is again reasonable.

Re: "...so as to better demonstrate the consistency of my reasoning...": I disagree that your reasoning is really consistent, because your hand-wave for why parents can't refuse emergency care isn't convincing. If the state can forcibly administer diazepam as an anticonvulsant during late-stage panencephalitis secondary to measles infection, why can't it forcibly administer methisoprinol for stage 1 panencephalitis, or paracetamol for fever management & salbutamol for bronchodilation at the symptomatic peak of uncomplicated measles infection, or retinol boosters to fortify the immune system at the onset of infection? What's the difference between any of that and a vaccine prior to infection?

[Moggy]

Unvaccinated kids have to go to private school = both problems solved?

I’d imagine private schools would ban them as well. You don’t want to pay £10k a year for your kid to die of measles.

[OrangeRKN]

Re: "no harm done": Deliberately exposing your child to a higher likelihood of harm can absolutely be reasonably considered abuse or neglect even if no harm ultimately occurs.

I agree it can be, but it certainly isn't in lots of situations. There is evidently a sliding scale of risk, with a point at which we must decide that risk crosses over from acceptable to unacceptable e.g. it's acceptable to drive a child around in a car, it's unacceptable to let them not wear a seatbelt while doing so.

Provided the vaccination rate amongst the general population is very high, the risk associated with a single child being unvaccinated is (from what I'm aware) very low. Vaccination is an unusual situation in which the risk is correlated with the number of people taking that risk, so I think policy should be based off the current averaged risk (which again from what I'm aware is low because vaccination rates are high).

Re: "failure to prevent harm": In extremis, a poor diet actually would be abuse: malnutrition is considered evidence for neglect by e.g. social services and the NSPCC, etc. This is again reasonable.

I think my argument is broadly the same as above. The in extremis demonstrates the sliding-scale reality - malnutrition is neglect, but a bit too much sugar in the diet isn't. In some way that's an expression of acceptable risk.

Re: "...so as to better demonstrate the consistency of my reasoning...": I disagree that your reasoning is really consistent, because your hand-wave for why parents can't refuse emergency care isn't convincing. If the state can forcibly administer diazepam as an anticonvulsant during late-stage panencephalitis secondary to measles infection, why can't it forcibly administer methisoprinol for stage 1 panencephalitis, or paracetamol for fever management & salbutamol for bronchodilation at the symptomatic peak of uncomplicated measles infection, or retinol boosters to fortify the immune system at the onset of infection? What's the difference between any of that and a vaccine prior to infection?

I can't speak of these specific situations because I don't know what half of the medical specifics mean, but my general argument is that there is a clear distinction between treating a person who is unwell, and administering preventive medicine to a person who is in good health. The former situation is absolute, the latter is more about risk-management.

The reason I specified "emergency care" (which I don't think is a perfect categorisation but I hope the intention is clear) is because I think it's perfectly reasonable for a parent to decide whether their child needs a paracetamol for a headache, for example.

Overall the approach is "parents take responsibility for their children, and the state will only intervene when there is a substantial failure in that" and I don't think I've been inconsistent in applying that to both choice of education and choice of vaccination. I also think that's pretty much in line with how our society currently operates.

[Hexx]

Huh.