44 US States Still Allow 'Religious Exemptions' For Vaccines (pewresearch.org) 426
An anonymous reader quotes the Pew Research Center:
New York recently became the fifth state -- after California, Maine, Mississippi and West Virginia -- to enact a law requiring children in public school to be vaccinated unless they have a valid medical reason. Legislatures in several other states are considering similar legislation. Most states (44), however, allow children to be exempt from vaccinations due to religious concerns, according to a Pew Research Center analysis. And one state, Minnesota, allows for a broader exemption based on personal beliefs but does not explicitly mention religion... Among the states that specifically allow religious exemptions to vaccinations, 15 also allow exemptions for any type of nonreligious personal belief, according to the Center's analysis...
The action in New York came after the state became the center of a nationwide measles outbreak that has sickened more than 1,000 Americans in 28 states so far this year.
The action in New York came after the state became the center of a nationwide measles outbreak that has sickened more than 1,000 Americans in 28 states so far this year.
The fundamental problem (Score:5, Insightful)
If vaccines are mandated, then it is established that the government can compel a citizen to be injected with a substance against their will.
If vaccines are not mandated, we end up with measles outbreaks that affect the populace.
The best solution I can come up with is to limit access to government services if one isn't vaccinated, but even then, we end up with 'papers, please', with extra steps.
Go ahead, Slashdot. I'd sincerely like to hear how everyone else manages to reconcile individual freedom with social contract at this level.
Re:The fundamental problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Dosing everyone on Oxytocin would resolve racial hatred, conflicts, road rage, juvenile delinquency and street crime.
Forcing everyone to take a daily dose of Oxytocin would definitely save thousands of lives per year by reducing homicides, fights, accidents.
Everyone who was not taking their Oxytocin today carry a tenfold risk of violence towards innocent others.
You must take your Oxytocin today. Please go to the local Oxytocin center to obtain your replacement dose. A Tetragrammaton cleric will guide you th
Re: (Score:2)
The state should protect children's rights too. They have a right to basic healthcare that is provided free by the state, such as vaccines. And fluoride.
Re:The fundamental problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Something that is true for most slippery slopes that don't at least have some historic precedent. But I know that people love their "where does it stop?!" knee-jerks and are quick to draw comparisons between the most benign things and Hitler.
Most of the civilized world already does not allow some religious practices that are harmful to the public. We don't allow human sacrifices any more, we're not quite fond of female genital mutilation as well for example. All of those may be perfectly valid religious and cultural practices of tradition as far as religion makes 'sense', which it often does not.
So we already started to restrict some practices. Why? Here I think it is important to understand that religion and culture ought not to be except from criticism. Some religious and cultural traditions can be objectively terrible and may have no place in our society unless maybe it's between consenting adults.
Personally I'd be in favour of the 2nd solution. Don't force them, but if they do not comply deny them access where their non-vaccinated children can endanger others. The "papers, please" isn't always a bad concept. A lot of it depends on the implementation. Especially in areas where the well being of others can be endangered it can make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about vaccines (and fluoride) is that they are well understood to be safe.
It's like arguing that the state shouldn't mandate clean water standards because some idiots think that drinking liquefied faeces is a good idea. It's far worse to endanger everyone just to indulge their stupidity, than to force everyone to get vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
Seat belts have long been mandatory, but the quality control seems to be just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because not using them has exclusively detrimental effects on the morons not using them. It's natural selection at work.
Doesn't quite work the same way with anti-vaxers. They're more like drunk drivers, being quite capable of endangering others alongside themselves.
Re:The fundamental problem (Score:5, Insightful)
then it is established that the government can compel a citizen to be injected with a substance against their will.
That is established, it's constitutional, and it's been confirmed by the supreme court. From an ethics standpoint, it's more ethical than the draft.
There are some questions of personal liberty vs society that are hard. Here we have a situation that is a mild inconvenience to your personal freedom, in exchange for the extermination of a deadly disease for society. It's such a clear victory for society, that only extreme anarchists would oppose it.
Here's another argument for it in the current situation. You claim that we compel citizens to be injected against their will, but that is wrong. Adults are not being injected against their will. We compel children to be injected against the will of their parents, for the safety of the children. There are lot's of situations where we violate the will of the parents on behalf of the children. Society chooses to protect children from extremely bad parenting if we can.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re: The fundamental problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find the disconnect a little disconcerting, as I have the feeling based on a subsequent post of yours we're probably "on the same side" here.
In any case, let's simplify it to the core issue, summed up in the saying "law and ethics are not the same".
If you justify something "because the Supreme Court says so", it has zero validity in terms of ethics. If you give me something not grounded in mere opinion (given while wearing a black robe or not), which is the -underlying ethical source- of the Supreme Cour
Re: The fundamental problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ethics are by definition made up. Usually made up by the society you live in.
Where else would a consensus of correct behaviour come from? And please don't say god, because that's essentially just antropomorphizing the ethical system a society agreed upon, a personification so people with problems when it comes to abstract thinking have a focal point. That's one of the reasons why we came up with the concept of gods.
Re: The fundamental problem (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exempting religions from vaccinations is a slippery slope. Today vaccinations, tomorrow they let me kill my grandmother because my religion says it's mandated to kill the elderly.
Blunt enough to see why your slippery slope argument is bullshit or do I have to make it more blatant?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, logically speaking, protecting the populations is of higher concern. The idea of "compel a citizen" is just an emotional and political idea, not a logical one. At some point you just cannot forbid the government from doing anything, that's not political but stupid. We place restrictions on what people cannot do all the time, and we have mandates for people all the time. There's no reason this is any different. Politics are fine, as long as people are using their brains instead of emotions.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a false choice, individual freedom in this case means insufficient herd immunity. And this hit the most susceptible people in our society, the elderly and the young. One can believe or disbelieve well-tested science. However, as soon you act on those beliefs to endanger your kids, your grandparents, people you don't know, it is no longer religious freedom. It is arrogance.
Re:The fundamental problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing so permanent. Perhaps a scarlet letter? "U" is for unvaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
> Go ahead, Slashdot. I'd sincerely like to hear how everyone else manages to reconcile individual freedom with social contract at this level.
Proper education.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My personal take is that if an adult of sound mind does not wish to be vaccinated then it is should be their right to decline any such procedure. Contrary to the rhetoric, if you are vaccinated then this provides protection for yourself and if not then not. So if you do not vaccinate yourself then you just endanger yourself and others like you while anyone seeking to be protected can get vaccinated. There is no danger to society in this case at all.
But... if an adult does not vaccinate their child (or someo
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see vaccines created that actually work and don't rely on herd immunity. That way, anyone wanting to take their chances would only be endangering themselves. That would be the perfect balance between the individual and the populace.
Now if you want to argue about forcing children to have vaccines ??? IDK.
Re: (Score:2)
The Governmental right of quarantine is well established.
Re: (Score:2)
If vaccines are mandated, then it is established that the government can compel a citizen to be injected with a substance against their will.
Good. Welcome to society. Play by the rules, or go live elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>If vaccines are not mandated, we end up with measles outbreaks that affect the populace.
That's not a big deal. We really need to stop overacting over every single mishap overpublicized by click-hungry media and be cool about statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. You want social services for your kid? You dance to my tune. You don't wanna do what I ask from you? No money for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If schools, businesses, etc. don't want to allow on their premises any unvaccinated individuals with the exception of those who cannot due to medical reasons then that's a sufficient solution. The benefit of living in a free society is that everyone else is als
Re: (Score:3)
If schools, businesses, etc. don't want to allow on their premises any unvaccinated individuals with the exception of those who cannot due to medical reasons then that's a sufficient solution.
How do you propose to identify people who have not been vaccinated? And please don't tell me the solution is for the unvaccinated to self-identify.
The benefit of living in a free society is that everyone else is also free to have nothing to do with you. Don't force anyone to do anything against their will. Coercion is a poor substitute for reasoning and diplomacy.
There are many things I need to do against my will in order to live in society. Yet I do them because I recognize the cost-benefit is positive for myself and others. Sometimes the difference between coercion and co-operation is a re-adjustment of one's attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you propose to identify people who have not been vaccinated? And please don't tell me the solution is for the unvaccinated to self-identify.
I like the Austrian way. They have something called a "Mutter-Kind-Pass" that's basically a small brochure with a few examinations and vaccinations the state considers good for a child from the age of 0-5. A woman gets it (from her gyn) the moment it's officially noticed that she's pregnant and there's a pretty long list of pre- and postnatal examinations that she should go through before and after birth if she wants to receive any government child aid.
So finding out what vaccinations you have, at least if
Re: (Score:2)
"You want government money, you do what the government wants from you!"
OK. The government now wants people to not cross borders illegally. People that cross the border illegally will get not a single cent. Would that be acceptable?
What if the government required people to participate in political rallies to get child benefits?
Re:The fundamental problem (Score:5, Interesting)
"Sometimes the difference between coercion and co-operation is a re-adjustment of one's attitude."
Spoken like a true fascist, congrats. You'd make a great kapo.
I said "sometimes" -- and it's true. A fascist wouldn't qualify it.
There was a time when some business-owners thought they were being "coerced" into serving african-american customers. I think many of them re-adjusted their attitudes and realized that civil rights are a good thing to defend. Those who didn't? Let them continue to think they're being coerced. Civil rights are more important than their discomfort.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming for a second that compelling a bar owner to serve a customer they dislike was not "forced labor", despite this compliance is achieved by a government-issued firearm in the hand of a government-employed officer forcing the bar owner to work. If the bar owner had not complied, he would have been issued a fine, and if he did not paid that fine, he would have beein imprisoned. And if he resisted, he would have been subdued and when he continued to resist, they would have killed him.
Assuming that litera
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, no. You also endanger those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, which is about the only valid reason to exempt one from being vaccinated. And those are the individuals who depend on and benefit from "herd immunity".
Re: (Score:2)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Tie government money to (free) vaccination and you'll see the numbers jump up.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was just that, I'd say go for it and let nature sort it out. Sadly, it's a bit like drunk driving: You don't just endanger yourself and others as stupid as yourself.
There are people who cannot be vaccinated due to medical conditions or because they are allergic against some of the substances used in the vaccine. And then, vaccines are not 100% perfect. The average vaccine usually runs at about 90-98% effectiveness. Basically it means that 9 out of 10 people who get vaccinated are actually also really
Re:No, your argument is nutter shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that people too often intermix religion with culture. That is, many of these people claiming religious exemptions are really stretching the tenets of their religion. There are a few few religions that do have restrictions here but they have restrictions on ALL medicine. Even then those beliefs are based on some serious misreadings of their religious texts and instead are cultural. You can believe that Jesus healed the sick and that prayer has power to heal, but none of that requires believers to shun medicine.
Similarly, it's cultural to say that the morning after pill is wrong and equivalent to abortion, despite there being nothing whatsoever in Christian scriptures used by evangelicals that supports this idea (though opposition contraception is a Roman Catholic idea based on tradition, the protestant denominations proudly proclaiming "sola scriptura" aredeluding themselves if they think opposition to abortion or contraception is scriptural).
I think too often that religion is used as an excuse, and often in a political way (such as attracting voters). So opposition to vaccination is not so much about religion but instead appealing to emotions of a certain group of people for political purposes (implying that anyone for vaccination is part of the wrong political football team that is wants to remove all your freedoms).
Re: (Score:3)
-
https://www.bib [biblegateway.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't find one speaking out against it, but there's one that pretty much demands it if you as much as think that your wife got fucked by someone else.
Abortion in the OT [biblegateway.com].
Quite nifty. If you don't wanna pay alimony (not that you did back then...), simply accuse her of being unfaithful and presto, baby-b-gone. With the blessing of the LORD and by the hands of the clergy. Amen.
Re: (Score:2)
So the OT is no longer valid?
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the beliefs around Jesus is that he overturned the old order and law and replaced it with a new one. So yes, to many Christians the old testament is no longer valid as far as religious decree goes. They consider it useful for other reasons but its been deprecated.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, it's legal now to stuff religious nuts into bags? Why didn't I get the memo?
Re: (Score:2)
No problem. In case you get sick, you hopefully also are able to finance it, along with any lasting effects because I don't see why I should pay for you being to stupid to avoid getting sick.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and by the way: Anyone you infect with a disease that you could have prevented easily is now assault to manslaughter, depending on the outcome.
If you agree, great. Let's do it!
And my body in turn is mine (Score:2)
My body my fucking choice.
And the body of all the people you would be sneezing upon belongs to these people.
(Most of them will want to no catch whatever virus you would be sneezing on them, but for complex reason a small part of them will not be able to be successfully vaccinated against the virus and will catch it because of you).
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite possible to differentiate between a belief held because of doctrine and a belief based on facts. The English language is unfortunately quite ambiguous in this, but yes, there's a huge difference between believing something because you examined it and came up with a conclusion and believing something because someone said so.
Re: (Score:2)
You can use the exact same argument for forced vaccination to justify forced sterilization of people with these inherited diseases. (Yes this is all very Nazi-sounding.)
There's a huge difference between a slightly painful pin-prick in the arm, and forced sterilization. By ignoring it, you've thrown away the core difference, after which you claim there is hardly a difference.
It is always the case that if you ignore how two things are different, there will seem to be no difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberty is not a binary value. We accept a lot of limitations on our liberty to be able to function as a society.
I think we can agree that there is a difference in the loss of liberty between, say, not being allowed to walk into the oval office and scoot with the naked ass across the president's office table and not being allowed to leave your own house so you can't go to the oval office to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
For example hereditary disease usually does not threaten people whore are born already, because it's not infectious.
So your (hypothetical) kid with down syndrome or type 2 diabetes (is also hereditary) does not affect my kid in any meaningful way. There's no rational health related reason to shut such a child out from a school. But your (hypothetical kid) non-vaccinated with measles may pose a huge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second who said that the "state should have the right to put anything they want into your body"? I mean except for the han
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But there can be a case made for it. Infectious disease can spread quickly. To use an extreme example the 'black death' killed up to 200 million people in Europe in only 4 years. The possible spread of hereditary diseases is nowhere near those figures. The only thing that could have the same potential are strategic thermonuclear weapons or maybe a huge
Re: (Score:3)
Since when has the US allowed just anyone in? Real facts please, not populist political talking points.
H1-B immigrants already need to be vaccinated! https://www.murthy.com/2010/01... [murthy.com] Maybe you're not a racist, but you're strongly pushing the anti-immigrant view by spreading untruths. I know the truth is not political tenable these days, but it helps to at least know what it is.
Re:The fundamental problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you're a racist, that's why. That and the fact that all of the places trigging your xenophobia are places that the US has fucked over. Far from turning them away, you should be giving them automatic citizenship at the border and a pension worth a million dollars, as reparations for a hundred years (or more) of American Imperialism.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're a racist, that's why. That and the fact that all of the places trigging your xenophobia are places that the US has fucked over. Far from turning them away, you should be giving them automatic citizenship at the border and a pension worth a million dollars, as reparations for a hundred years (or more) of American Imperialism.
Yes.... and at least three girls/boys per 'oppressed' person...
Were you born yesterday... (Score:4, Interesting)
Then, if Britain wanted your shit, they'd invade in the name of the King/Queen. Now, if the US & Friends want to take your shit, they'll kidnap you and dissolve you in a barrel of acid [wikipedia.org] or give weapons to Al Queda terrorists so you get sodomized with a bayonet. [youtu.be] Toadies are recruited by the CIA and disposed of if necessary - just as Noriega or Saddam.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Colony? Please, that's so 1800. By now everyone knows that it's way more profitable to let the darkies pretend to rule themselves, so if the peasants finally revolt, you needn't fight them but simply send weapons to whatever side you like more (preferably both) and then continue business with whomever establishes himself as the new el presidente. That's not only cheaper than sending our own troops to pacify the natives, it's also profitable since we not only don't have to send people but we also don't have
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and the unvaccinated aliens only have arrived curiously at the same time the anti-vax bullshit spread like wildfire? Before that, they were all properly vaccinated?
Please. At least find an excuse that's halfway plausible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you like where your logic actually goes?
Here is the real edge of the slippery slope (Score:2, Interesting)
Here is a truly hard choice.
On the one hand, there is an undeniable public good by forcing all to vaccinate even if some people die. It will protect far more in the long term to truly eradicate some diseases.
On the other hand, it's a pretty significant freedom to force medical procedures on anyone not comfortable with it.
There are a lot of other forced medical procedures that would bring equal long term benefit... many more morally questionable.
It seems like maybe the best solution is to work on real means
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We have a way to get rid of those diseases: Vaccination. Smallpox is gone. Polio is very close to gone. The others... one day.
This is not a freedom question (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Some parents act like they own their children and can do what they want with them.
That is not the case, even if they are your own children you cannot do what you want with them. Not many people believe that, and I doubt you believe it, either. You just didn't think about it very deeply before typing.
Here's the problem with calling slippery slope (Score:2)
...and it's that you won't be able to come up with an analogy to vaccines. Lasik surgery (or whatever) isn't going to mandated because you not having your vision corrected wont get other people sick or killed.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of other forced medical procedures that would bring equal long term benefit... many more morally questionable.
But that's the rub isn't it. Laws in society are fundamentally about upholding morals. We're not discussing morally questionable procedures. We're discussing procedures which would be morally questionable if they weren't followed. To extend beyond that puts you right in the slippery slope fallacy along with a lot of other silly posts here.
Re: (Score:2)
Once overpopulation strikes it'll make sense to sterilize the people who speak out against the tax system first. For the common good. If they resist any forced medical procedures they're provably asocial and that proves their genes are an evolutionary dead end.
You tried to make an argument by analogy, which doesn't apply in this case (sterilization based on people's beliefs? What? Why not just sterilize Republicans?), but also ignores the core.
Sterilization is completely different than vaccination. One is harmful, the other is beneficial.
Re: Here is the real edge of the slippery slope (Score:2)
'Religious opposition' (Score:3)
Unless a person is a member of the Dutch Reform Church (how many of those are there?), they probably don't have any reason for a religious exemption.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus would be so disappointed that Christians ascribe power to hierarchical churches.
The Kingdom of God is within you.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think somebody would ask, say, "what about Buddhism?", but none of those discussing "anti-religion" would be able to respond until they found the actual issue at hand for them--Buddhism's stance on internet porn or whatever their personal sense of their own moral hazards are. Until they look that up, they wouldn't know if Buddhism also needs attacking in the name of vaccinations.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently there is only one religious sect opposed to vaccination [skepticalraptor.com], and it's not the Amish, Jehova's Witness, or Christian Scientist. All of those allow vaccines. Unless a person is a member of the Dutch Reform Church (how many of those are there?), they probably don't have any reason for a religious exemption.
Your article and information are old as that site parrots a Slate article from 2015.
The religious we're talking about here are the "bible churches" and other "nondenominational" congregations. They won't show up in the surveys as they are unaffiliated with no broader organization
There was an outbreak in the Dallas - Fort Worth area last year that primarily hit said churches. Beforehand the leadership was gung ho about not being vaccinated. After a little girl died, they quietly changed their tune. Y
Them backwoods yokels (Score:5, Funny)
Russian Trolls Fueled Anti-Vaccination Debate (Score:3)
Propaganda about Russian Propaganda (Score:2)
Russian's aren't actually big fans of measles or polio, for some reason.
https://pics.me.me/were-glad-y... [pics.me.me]
This is very simple. (Score:3)
The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled over this insane discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This was a 7-2 decision in favor of upholding vaccination rules made by the States.
The Social Contract overrides personal liberties and freedoms granted by the US Constitution. The government MUST uphold the common welfare of the people, overriding your freedoms.
End of discussion.
You do not have the liberty to walk in public and infect other people with your nasty disease that you think, "Oh, it's nothing. I'm strong."
Every time as case about vaccinations gets to federal court, these cases get thrown out. Go ahead and sue, New Yorkers and Californians. Your "freedom" to not vaccinate ends when you enter into public spaces. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: isn't it about controlling your own body? (Score:3)
Measles and other diseases are contagious. Pregnancy isnt.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, which is why you don't require people to vaccinate their home- or religiously-schooled kids.
Re: (Score:2)
The body has to be sacrosanct. It's a fundamental freedom.
Yes. What you do with your own body should not be a government concern. This would include drug laws, prostitution, and suicide among many other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a vaccine for TDS?
Yes. It's called bourbon.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're anti-circumcision, I take it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This was your neighbors friends cousins house keepers niece right ? I agree you should not be 'forced' to get vaccinations, but by the same reasoning you should not be 'allowed' to compromise everyone else's health nor is it your 'right' to participate in the benefits of modern society.
"...but it's truth..." No it is opinion, which is your right to have, but that doesn't make it truth or fact.
Your right to freedom ends where it intersects with my right to freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can let your teeth rot out, if you enjoy those gala dental visits. But because not vaccinating affects those around you, there is good reason to make it mandatory.
Re: (Score:3)
We got by pretty well for the first 100000 years or so
No, we didn't. Or is living to 30 in a violent and brutal world with sky-high infant, maternal, injury, and illness mortality rates your idea of getting by "pretty well"?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody will be rounded up. They'll just be forced to home school.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My body, my choice. (Score:4, Informative)
He's FIGHTING for Freedom. It's suddenly become unpopular to hold to traditional American values like...Christianity
America was founded by deists, as a state where all religions were welcome. And remember, the very first thing the Constitution mentions, before even free speech, is free religion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fundamental liberty and freedom to be able to reject any vaccination for whatever reason. My ancestors and I fought for this piece of shit county and for them to try and push anything like a vaccination on me is pure bullshit. Fuck those stupid mother fuckers. They can take that chemical cocktail and shove that shit right up their asses. I will continue rejecting their vaccines and harmful chemicals.
This whole comment screams "When PTSD Attacks!"
Re: (Score:2)
almost all (except for 50 who refused to register) Mennonites who were drafted for the Viet Nam war did "alternative service", which exists for anyone who doesn't want to have position that kills on religious basis.
It's actually very rare that any major religion or denomination bans vaccination. Even Orthodox Jew Rabbis were appalled and saying it was ridiculous to think there was any prohibition in Judaism against vaccination. It comes down to cult whackjobs and "faith healer" nuts
.
Since you used Mennoni
Re: (Score:2)
http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/measles [ox.ac.uk]
here you go. Over 120 deaths from measles in 2017-2018 (and that may just be in Europe, I didn't look hard).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Figured somebody would dig.
Sorry, that isn't even a rounding error. Not worth a second of time to make somebody get a shot!
That might sound horrible but before you get blinded by righteousness, contemplate how many things you do and will not give up or lift a finger over that creates indirect deaths. Are you investing your energy wisely? or are you simply playing an emotional game on yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. (Score:2)
People keep crying "slippery slope, slippery slope" but you haven't come up with any equivalents to vaccines, which prevent crippling outbreaks.