[aleatorisch]

Umm, because this so called "control group" you're so casually dismissing also includes infants and individuals with various conditions [0].

Those people rely on herd immunity to not get sick, and we shouldn't allow crazy anti-vaxxers to endanger them.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html

[fpalmans]

I wouldn't say that I am casually dismissing them, I am callously dismissing them.

But seriously? What is the alternative? Moving closer and closer to forced vaccinations for everyone who can be vaccinated? This will only feed their discourse.

Though I believe we both agree on the benefits of vaccination (my children are vaccinated and will continue to receive their vaccinations as recommended), I think we disagree on the nature of the perceived threat. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you consider the lack of vaccinations the main threat here. According to me, the antivax movement itself is the greater potential threat.

[aleatorisch]

> Moving closer and closer to forced vaccinations for everyone who can be vaccinated?

YES!

> This will only feed their discourse.

I don't care. Should we kowtow to every group with "discourse"?

> I think we disagree on the nature of the perceived threat.

I think they are both a major threat. We disagree that the anti-vax movement will "run its course". Ignoring them isn't going to make them go away. We can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend it's not harmful to have a bunch of un-vaxinated people out there.

We already give you a fine if you don't wear a seat-belt, smoke indoors, have glass containers in public places, and so on. You may disagree with all these regulations on some libertarian(ish) ground, but then we have a fundamental disagreement about when your freedom infringes on my right to be safe, and your right to be a burden on the state.

In short, not getting vaccinated is a public health risk, and the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens by enforcing as high a vaccination rate as is reasonably possible.

[fpalmans]

> We already give you a fine if you don't wear a seat-belt, smoke indoors, have glass containers in public places, and so on. You may disagree with all these regulations on some libertarian(ish) ground, but then we have a fundamental disagreement about when your freedom infringes on my right to be safe, and your right to be a burden on the state.

Whether or not one is fined for not wearing a seat-belt, smoking indoors, having glass containers in public, etc. is irrelevant. I honestly couldn't care less.

> [...] the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens by enforcing as high a vaccination rate as is reasonably possible.

I merely disagree that protecting the its citizens is best achieved by enforcing...

[fpalmans]

> > This will only feed their discourse.

> I don't care. Should we kowtow to every group with "discourse"?

Perhaps the word "discourse" means something different than I thought it meant. I meant to say that forcing vaccinations would only end up making their arguments more plausible.

I do not advocate kowtowing, I advocate carefully choosing a strategy which addresses the main threat here.

Nor do I advocate ignoring them, I merely disagree that fighting them will make them go away.

[aleatorisch]

Let's be clear, they have no arguments that rely on any sort of rational discourse. No "strategy", or clever approach to the problem will convince them they are wrong.

I'm honestly not sure you're actually arguing in good faith here. You've offered no path that would address the issue other than hand waving and saying "fighting will make it worse", and "we should let it run its course". I'm saying that there is no "run its course", they aren't gonna just give up and go home if you stop fighting, and they aren't all gonna just die if measles either (thanks to the above mentioned herd immunity we all protect them with).

You say you've vaccinated your kids. Lucky you. Maybe realize you're privileged to have been able to do that and stop telling those less fortunate they'll just have to let their loved ones die from preventable diseases lest we make a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists' "arguments more plausible".

[fpalmans]

Agreed, arguments will not convince them they are wrong. Data will not convince them they are wrong. Attempting to force them to vaccinate will not only make them fight more. In addition to fueling their arguments to grow their ranks, they will likely be able to attract others to join their fight on ideological principles.

I propose the following (briefly):

* Though admittedly callous, do not force vaccination, do not penalize refusal to vaccinate. Sadly, there will be a toll. But, eventually, this will change some hardliners' opinions. Having them advocate to vaccinate will be more effective.

* Focus on the fringe cases. For example, if the child desires to be vaccinated, or if one of the parents wants vaccination. Allow this to expand to concerned grand parents. Civil courts.

* Continue with the information campaign. As the decades roll by, more and more hard data will be available showing occurrences of autism (or whatever it is they claim is caused), life expectancy, etcetera.

In other words, focus on those who have not been indoctrinated yet. Adjust your strategy on constraining this movement to the fringe. Do not invite lengthy court battles determining whether or not they have the right not to vaccinate. Let's just prevent building case law [edit] in that area.

edit2: Let's avoid building case law on whether or not the government is allowed to force vaccination. Of course, building caselaw wrt my second point is unavoidable.