Domestic Politics

[Moraiwe]

The SA electoral divisions don't seem that bad. Liberals have big majorities in rural areas, thus can win popular vote without winning majority seats. Something else I'm missing?

Nothing like what goes on in the US - look at the shape of this district:

http://media.philly.com/images/7_overview-475x494.png.pagespeed.ce.QLvPU4xbvz.png

[cadete]

The SA electoral divisions don't seem that bad. Liberals have big majorities in rural areas, thus can win popular vote without winning majority seats. Something else I'm missing?

Nothing like what goes on in the US - look at the shape of this district:

http://media.philly.com/images/7_overview-475x494.png.pagespeed.ce.QLvPU4xbvz.png

You have got to be kidding me,

 

The state was Gerrymandered one way for years and then when the ALP finally got in Gerrymandered even worse it the other way... even the most biased Lefty journalists have to admit that by Australian standards its fucken ridiculous and its no wonder the place is stuck in a time warp.

 

The fact a Government from either side can be re-elected with those kinds of unemployment figures is beyond a joke.

[Moraiwe]

Which electorates are the more problematic? I know little about SA, but a quick glance at a map didn't ring any alarm bells.

[cadete]

Which electorates are the more problematic? I know little about SA, but a quick glance at a map didn't ring any alarm bells.

Its how the Inner City Seats are drawn up that has caused the Libs problems... 

 

Obviously the ALP has its own arguments but I am sure I am not the only person here that did not hear ALP supporters moan about about its overall majorities in Howard's time that look like nothing compared to what happens over and over again in SA each election.

[Moraiwe]

Did some further reading in it, and sounds like there may have to a big overhaul to get the popular vote percentage to match the seats won. Suggested solution was to have several electorates radiating like spokes from the city outward which seemed messy in my imagination. There was also the suggestion that the Libs may not want this as it would turn their safe seats into marginal ones. Designing electoral divisions fairly seems like a significant challenge in a country with few urban centres.

I am relieved to see nothing on the scale of the U.S. monstrosities.

[Tesla]

Not too impressed by this measure where parents wont get certain government benefits if they dont vaccinate their children. I'm sure it will please all the retards who are so blindly pro-vaccine they wont accept the fact that every vaccine has side effects, some worse than others, hence why it should be up to an individual to decide whether it's worthwhile, or in the case of children, their parents to decide.

But some people are just retarded and cant process such a simple idea, so the government is exploiting this fact as an easy way to save money.

FWIW, I would most likely vaccinate my children, just saying there should be a choice. And while people will argue there is still a choice, and they're right, there is no justification for cutting peoples benefits over it. By all means subsidise vaccines since there is a benefit too the greater community when an individual gets vaccinated, but this move goes too far.

The plus side is it's kind of amusing that while the retards are cheering Tony Abbott over this he is sitting there like "LOL look at all these retards making it easy for me to cut welfare and save some money in the budget"

[hedaik]

Theres also negative effects of wearing a seatbelt, do you think the public should also choose whether to wear one or not? 

 

At least with seatbelts its only you that hurts yourself, with not getting vaccinated you harm others. 

Edited April 12, 2015 by hedaik

[Tesla]

Theres also negative effects of wearing a seatbelt, do you think the public should also choose whether to wear one or not?

If they're the only person in the car, then yes.

I dont think that's a comparable example though.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Tesla

[Tesla]

Just an example of a widely used vaccination in recent times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/us-court-pays-6-million-gardasil-victims/?page=all

There are more court cases against Gardisal around the world at the moment.

The point isn't that vaccinations are bad or that I'm anti-vaccine, rather I'm anti the people who are blindly pro-vaccine and act like all vaccines are 100% safe and there is no reason to refuse them, which is clearly incorrect, just as the crazy conspiracy theory anti-vaccine people are wrong in thinking every vaccine is there solely for the government to inject them with some mind controlling substance are incorrect.

Though I take solace in the fact that these people will hopefully one day be exterminated by one of these 'fast tracked' vaccines that haven't been properly tested. Personally, I prefer to take my chances with all the BS 'epademics' that never live up to the hype, eg bird flu, swine flu, etc then take a vaccine that's just been invented and barely tested.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Tesla

[hedaik]

 

Theres also negative effects of wearing a seatbelt, do you think the public should also choose whether to wear one or not?

If they're the only person in the car, then yes.

I dont think that's a comparable example though.

 

 

So you're in favour of forcing innocent parties in a car who may die from the drivers mistake to be protected, but that doesnt apply to the general public with infections? Why should my baby die because somebody didnt get a whooping cough or other type of vaccination because they saw a youtube video?

 

Yes there might be some side effects, but that doesnt even begin to compare to the deaths of an infection outbreak. (minor injuries caused by seatbealts vs lives saved)

Edited April 12, 2015 by hedaik

[Tesla]

Theres also negative effects of wearing a seatbelt, do you think the public should also choose whether to wear one or not?

If they're the only person in the car, then yes.

I dont think that's a comparable example though.

 

So you're in favour of forcing innocent parties in a car who may die from the drivers mistake to be protected, but that doesnt apply to the general public with infections? Why should my baby die because somebody didnt get a whooping cough or other type of vaccination because they saw a youtube video?

 

Yes there might be some side effects, but that doesnt even begin to compare to the deaths of an infection outbreak. (minor injuries caused by seatbealts vs lives saved)

But if your child is vaccinated then your child is safe.

And an infection outbreak isn't really possible when the vast majority of the population is vaccinated anyway. Letting a minority decide they dont want to vaccinate their children isn't changing that.

[hedaik]

 

 

 

Theres also negative effects of wearing a seatbelt, do you think the public should also choose whether to wear one or not?

If they're the only person in the car, then yes.

I dont think that's a comparable example though.

 

 

So you're in favour of forcing innocent parties in a car who may die from the drivers mistake to be protected, but that doesnt apply to the general public with infections? Why should my baby die because somebody didnt get a whooping cough or other type of vaccination because they saw a youtube video?

 

Yes there might be some side effects, but that doesnt even begin to compare to the deaths of an infection outbreak. (minor injuries caused by seatbealts vs lives saved)

 

But if your child is vaccinated then your child is safe.

And an infection outbreak isn't really possible when the vast majority of the population is vaccinated anyway. Letting a minority decide they dont want to vaccinate their children isn't changing that.

 

 

Children can't have all their vaccinations at once, its staggered through the first couple of years. 8 weeks is supposed to be when they get measles and others, but because there was an outbreak at an Essendon daycare centre (where the only kids that caught it weren't vaccinated) ours had to have measles vacc at 6 weeks. 

 

There are stories of adults with whooping cough passing it onto newborns in a hospital and killing them. 

 

And aren't vaccination levels in some parts of the US dropping below the required levels to control an outbreak? Obviously this decision is to avoid going down that path.

 

The fact that Tony has endorsed it shows how obvious the science must be behind it. 

Edited April 12, 2015 by hedaik

[jw1739]

You've made some valid points Tesla, but the fact remains that many of those who elect not to vaccinate will expect the public purse to look after their children if they subsequently become ill from a preventable disease. People are free to make lifestyle choices but they should be prepared to face any adverse consequences that may arise.

[Tesla]

there was an outbreak at an Essendon daycare centre (where the only kids that caught it weren't vaccinated) ours had to have measles vacc at 6 weeks.

I don't have a problem with daycare centres banning children that aren't vaccinated, in fact surely it's already common?

The fact that Tony has endorsed it shows how obvious the science must be behind it.

I'm pretty sure he just saw it as an easy way to cut welfare TBH.

[Tesla]

You've made some valid points Tesla, but the fact remains that many of those who elect not to vaccinate will expect the public purse to look after their children if they subsequently become ill from a preventable disease. People are free to make lifestyle choices but they should be prepared to face any adverse consequences that may arise.

I agree, but I think subsidising vaccines (which already happens) is the correct action rather than cutting benefits to children who aren't vaccinated. There would be other costs anyway, like what I said above about daycare centres being able to ban children that arent vaccinated.

Regardless, if we were to follow the logic of your post, I'd be completely fine with what's happening. But, then we'd have to charge/tax people for everything that makes them more likely of needing publicly funded medical treatment. What people eat, which then opens the debate about what is and isn't healthy, what jobs people work, what activities they do in their free time, etc. there are many many things, but I'd be all for it. Unfortunately it's not realistic, and if a complete system like that isn't possible, then it isnt fair to pass on increased costs to people for certain riskier activities/decisions and not others. And honestly if we were going to implement a comprehensive pricing system like that we'd reach the point where it's just easier to not have universal health care at all.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Tesla

[hedaik]

 

there was an outbreak at an Essendon daycare centre (where the only kids that caught it weren't vaccinated) ours had to have measles vacc at 6 weeks.

I don't have a problem with daycare centres banning children that aren't vaccinated, in fact surely it's already common?

The fact that Tony has endorsed it shows how obvious the science must be behind it.

I'm pretty sure he just saw it as an easy way to cut welfare TBH.

 

 

Was actually a school sorry

 

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/media/measles-200814.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Dr Rosemary Lester has confirmed three cases of measles at a school in Essendon

“All five pupils have not been imminised, further strengthening the importance of parents and guardians ensuring their children are vaccinated against highly infectious diseases such as measles,” Dr Lester said.

 

Bordering on child abuse by not vaccinating your kids imo. 

Edited April 12, 2015 by hedaik

[Tesla]

there was an outbreak at an Essendon daycare centre (where the only kids that caught it weren't vaccinated) ours had to have measles vacc at 6 weeks.

I don't have a problem with daycare centres banning children that aren't vaccinated, in fact surely it's already common?

The fact that Tony has endorsed it shows how obvious the science must be behind it.

I'm pretty sure he just saw it as an easy way to cut welfare TBH.

 

Was actually a school sorry

 

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/media/measles-200814.htm

 

 

 

 

Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Dr Rosemary Lester has confirmed three cases of measles at a school in Essendon

“All five pupils have not been imminised, further strengthening the importance of parents and guardians ensuring their children are vaccinated against highly infectious diseases such as measles,” Dr Lester said.

 

Bordering on child abuse by not vaccinating your kids imo. 

So only children that had not been immunised got infected? Which is exactly what I said above, you immunise your kids and you dont have to worry about the kids that arent vaccinated infecting your child.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Tesla

[hedaik]

 

 

 

there was an outbreak at an Essendon daycare centre (where the only kids that caught it weren't vaccinated) ours had to have measles vacc at 6 weeks.

I don't have a problem with daycare centres banning children that aren't vaccinated, in fact surely it's already common?

The fact that Tony has endorsed it shows how obvious the science must be behind it.

I'm pretty sure he just saw it as an easy way to cut welfare TBH.

 

 

Was actually a school sorry

 

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/media/measles-200814.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Dr Rosemary Lester has confirmed three cases of measles at a school in Essendon

“All five pupils have not been imminised, further strengthening the importance of parents and guardians ensuring their children are vaccinated against highly infectious diseases such as measles,” Dr Lester said.

 

 

Bordering on child abuse by not vaccinating your kids imo. 

 

So only children that had not been immunised got infected? Which is exactly what I said above, you immunise your kids and they're safe.

 

 

1) As I said before, it takes a couple of years until children can be fully vaccinated, they are still capable of dying from outbreaks in that time.

 

2) The parent is forcing their wacko ideas on somebody who is not capable of making a decision themselves. Would be like not putting a seatbelt on your kid in the car as you think they are unsafe. 

[KSK_47]

[malloy]

 

 

 

there was an outbreak at an Essendon daycare centre (where the only kids that caught it weren't vaccinated) ours had to have measles vacc at 6 weeks.

I don't have a problem with daycare centres banning children that aren't vaccinated, in fact surely it's already common?

The fact that Tony has endorsed it shows how obvious the science must be behind it.

I'm pretty sure he just saw it as an easy way to cut welfare TBH.

 

 

Was actually a school sorry

 

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/media/measles-200814.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Dr Rosemary Lester has confirmed three cases of measles at a school in Essendon

“All five pupils have not been imminised, further strengthening the importance of parents and guardians ensuring their children are vaccinated against highly infectious diseases such as measles,” Dr Lester said.

 

 

Bordering on child abuse by not vaccinating your kids imo. 

 

So only children that had not been immunised got infected? Which is exactly what I said above, you immunise your kids and you dont have to worry about the kids that arent vaccinated infecting your child.

 

 

Kids who are vaccinated can still get infected from diseases they are vaccinated against. The vaccine reduces the chance of infection to a minuscule percentage, however when you have other kids who are not vaccinated who become infected you are also increasing the chance of infection in kids who have been vaccinated by increased exposure to the infection.  

[Dylan]

I'm surprised all those kids can still walk and their bones dont shatter, given all the fluoride the government puts in the water.

[cadete]

 

 

 

there was an outbreak at an Essendon daycare centre (where the only kids that caught it weren't vaccinated) ours had to have measles vacc at 6 weeks.

I don't have a problem with daycare centres banning children that aren't vaccinated, in fact surely it's already common?

The fact that Tony has endorsed it shows how obvious the science must be behind it.

I'm pretty sure he just saw it as an easy way to cut welfare TBH.

 

 

Was actually a school sorry

 

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/media/measles-200814.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Dr Rosemary Lester has confirmed three cases of measles at a school in Essendon

“All five pupils have not been imminised, further strengthening the importance of parents and guardians ensuring their children are vaccinated against highly infectious diseases such as measles,” Dr Lester said.

 

 

Bordering on child abuse by not vaccinating your kids imo. 

 

So only children that had not been immunised got infected? Which is exactly what I said above, you immunise your kids and you dont have to worry about the kids that arent vaccinated infecting your child.

 

Not meaning to personally offend you mate but Telsa this is as a good example as you can get of the rigid thinking in the Libertarian Movement that means that it will never make any serious traction in this country or any other Socially Minded Liberal Democracy.

 

On another note, I know its old news is why were the Leftist Media and its no name Twitter Army so offended by Abbott referencing Goebbels when not only have ALP Members done the same in the past but Pinkos (I dont mean the ALP) themselves have no problems labelling anyone who is to the right of Gough Whitlam every day of the week as a Fascist or a Nazi.

[Shahanga]

 

 

 

there was an outbreak at an Essendon daycare centre (where the only kids that caught it weren't vaccinated) ours had to have measles vacc at 6 weeks.

I don't have a problem with daycare centres banning children that aren't vaccinated, in fact surely it's already common?

The fact that Tony has endorsed it shows how obvious the science must be behind it.

I'm pretty sure he just saw it as an easy way to cut welfare TBH.

 

 

Was actually a school sorry

 

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/media/measles-200814.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Dr Rosemary Lester has confirmed three cases of measles at a school in Essendon

“All five pupils have not been imminised, further strengthening the importance of parents and guardians ensuring their children are vaccinated against highly infectious diseases such as measles,” Dr Lester said.

 

 

Bordering on child abuse by not vaccinating your kids imo. 

 

So only children that had not been immunised got infected? Which is exactly what I said above, you immunise your kids and you dont have to worry about the kids that arent vaccinated infecting your child.

 

If you have a child with a significant illness, vaccination may not be recommended until they are robust enough to handle it.  This means for them not to get these horrible diseases that float around you are relying on others to get their kids vaccinated, until your child is in a position to be vaccinated themselves.  if they don't because their parents read something on an internet forum then they have substantially increased the risk of mortality to your child.

 

The nutters should remember that if "natural immunity" worked vaccinations would never have been invented in the first place.

[Tesla]

I don't deny the you and hedaik have a point, and yes some of the anti vaccine people are correctly classified as 'nutters', but when you also currently have court cases being won against the manufacturer of a vaccine given to school girls because it has caused very serious illness, surely you can see that it's more than just 'nutters' and that there are legitimate concerns here.

Frankly if your happy to take a vaccine, or have your children take a vaccine, that hasn't been adequately tested yet your probably just as big a nutter as the people that think the government is trying to control their minds with every vaccine.

Yes, most the vaccines given to children have been around a while and are extremely low risk, but others aren't, which is why I'm all for people doing their own research and due diligence and then making a choice.

It's just a symptom of a bigger problem in that most people in our society have lost all sense of individual responsibility, they assume because a vaccine is available then someone else has done the due diligence for them and it's completely safe.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Tesla

[HeartFc]

At the end of the day modern medicine has got our life expectancy from mid 40's to mid 80's within 100 years. Vaccine is no different to heart surgery, yes there are risks but they're greatly outweighed by the benefits.

[Shahanga]

At the end of the day modern medicine has got our life expectancy from mid 40's to mid 80's within 100 years. Vaccine is no different to heart surgery, yes there are risks but they're greatly outweighed by the benefits.

Exactly

I agree that not all vaccines are 100% safe (& it is simplistic to suggest they are) but they beat the hell out of the alternative.

[thisphantomfortress]

At the end of the day modern medicine has got our life expectancy from mid 40's to mid 80's within 100 years. Vaccine is no different to heart surgery, yes there are risks but they're greatly outweighed by the benefits.

Exactly

I agree that not all vaccines are 100% safe (& it is simplistic to suggest they are) but they beat the hell out of the alternative.

Yea I'm happy not getting polio tbh.

[sheepdog]

My kids are sick.

Sick cunts.

[Tesla]

At the end of the day modern medicine has got our life expectancy from mid 40's to mid 80's within 100 years. Vaccine is no different to heart surgery, yes there are risks but they're greatly outweighed by the benefits.

Exactly

I agree that not all vaccines are 100% safe (& it is simplistic to suggest they are) but they beat the hell out of the alternative.

Correct, but I still dont think I'm making myself clear.

Maybe this will work better, let's say that the majority of vaccines are 99.999% safe, in that they only have a 0.001% chance of a serious side effect, while another vaccine is only 99.9% safe, in that it has a 0.1% chance of a serious side effect. Why shouldn't a parent that's done their due diligence, be able to reject for their children to have this vaccine without losing their benefits? We've seen that just because a vaccine is being peddled in Australian schools, doesn't mean it's sufficiently safe. That's why having the choice is important.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Tesla

[Moraiwe]

Because you aren't supposed to be comparing a vaccine's "safe rate" against other vaccines, you should be comparing it to the safeness of having a non-vaccinated population.

[AyeCee]

Because you aren't supposed to be comparing a vaccine's "safe rate" against other vaccines, you should be comparing it to the safeness of having a non-vaccinated population.

That's exactly it though, if Tes was living in a country with a high rate of illness, he would probably opt to get the vaccination, as the risk of getting sick is higher than that of being crippled by the vaccination.

Whereas here, the risk of disease is much lower, so it could be argued that some risky injections are no longer 100% necessary. It would be paranoid to not get the shot, however he should still have the personal choice to make that call.

[Moraiwe]

Vaccines don't work on an individual basis. They work by vaccinating the population. Choosing to not vaccinate is akin to saying "I don't want to pay taxes. There are plenty of others who will pay their taxes, so I won't bother." In essence, you enjoy the benefits of society, without contributing.

[jw1739]

 

 

At the end of the day modern medicine has got our life expectancy from mid 40's to mid 80's within 100 years. Vaccine is no different to heart surgery, yes there are risks but they're greatly outweighed by the benefits.

Exactly

I agree that not all vaccines are 100% safe (& it is simplistic to suggest they are) but they beat the hell out of the alternative.

 

Correct, but I still dont think I'm making myself clear.

Maybe this will work better, let's say that the majority of vaccines are 99.999% safe, in that they only have a 0.001% chance of a serious side effect, while another vaccine is only 99.9% safe, in that it has a 0.1% chance of a serious side effect. Why shouldn't a parent that's done their due diligence, be able to reject for their children to have this vaccine without losing their benefits? We've seen that just because a vaccine is being peddled in Australian schools, doesn't mean it's sufficiently safe. That's why having the choice is important.

How many people do "due diligence" and/or "risk assessment"? How many know what it means let alone have the tools to carry it out?

[malloy]

Because you aren't supposed to be comparing a vaccine's "safe rate" against other vaccines, you should be comparing it to the safeness of having a non-vaccinated population.

That's exactly it though, if Tes was living in a country with a high rate of illness, he would probably opt to get the vaccination, as the risk of getting sick is higher than that of being crippled by the vaccination.

Whereas here, the risk of disease is much lower, so it could be argued that some risky injections are no longer 100% necessary. It would be paranoid to not get the shot, however he should still have the personal choice to make that call.

The risk is only lower when looked at on an individual basis and this is because everyone else is vaccinated and the exposure is limited. However of you have people suddenly deciding that because everyone else is vaccinated that it makes it a low enough risk for you to not vaccinate your kid you are increasing every childs risk to the disease. It seems highly selfish to use everyone elses sacrifice to benefit yourself and at the same time potentially fuck them over further.

[bt50]

 

 

At the end of the day modern medicine has got our life expectancy from mid 40's to mid 80's within 100 years. Vaccine is no different to heart surgery, yes there are risks but they're greatly outweighed by the benefits.

Exactly

I agree that not all vaccines are 100% safe (& it is simplistic to suggest they are) but they beat the hell out of the alternative.

 

Correct, but I still dont think I'm making myself clear.

Maybe this will work better, let's say that the majority of vaccines are 99.999% safe, in that they only have a 0.001% chance of a serious side effect, while another vaccine is only 99.9% safe, in that it has a 0.1% chance of a serious side effect. Why shouldn't a parent that's done their due diligence, be able to reject for their children to have this vaccine without losing their benefits? We've seen that just because a vaccine is being peddled in Australian schools, doesn't mean it's sufficiently safe. That's why having the choice is important.

 

But the government aren't saying you don't have the choice, you definatly still have a choice. 

It's just that there are now other consequences to consider if you decide not to vaccinate.

[AyeCee]

Vaccines don't work on an individual basis. They work by vaccinating the population. Choosing to not vaccinate is akin to saying "I don't want to pay taxes. There are plenty of others who will pay their taxes, so I won't bother." In essence, you enjoy the benefits of society, without contributing.

The vast majority are now vaccinated though, so they won't be affected should someone contract the disease. Like I said, if these diseases flared up again in our society, I'd anticipate that those who haven't been vaccinated will go and get the shots, due to the risk of disease increasing when compared to their fears about vaccine related illness.

And in terms of your tax comparison, I would actually agree, in the sense that if you aren't using it, you shouldn't be paying for it. However it would be foolish to believe you wouldn't use any services that require tax funding. Just like how it would be foolish to expect to be completely safe from a disease, and therefore shouldn't get vaccinated.

[hedaik]

 

Vaccines don't work on an individual basis. They work by vaccinating the population. Choosing to not vaccinate is akin to saying "I don't want to pay taxes. There are plenty of others who will pay their taxes, so I won't bother." In essence, you enjoy the benefits of society, without contributing.

Like I said, if these diseases flared up again in our society

 

 

The whole point is preventing it from flaring up again in society. Why should 20 innocent kids die until we decide to do something about it for something thats so easily preventable in the first place?

Edited April 14, 2015 by hedaik

[AyeCee]

Vaccines don't work on an individual basis. They work by vaccinating the population. Choosing to not vaccinate is akin to saying "I don't want to pay taxes. There are plenty of others who will pay their taxes, so I won't bother." In essence, you enjoy the benefits of society, without contributing.

Like I said, if these diseases flared up again in our society

The whole point is preventing it from flaring up again in society. Why should 20 innocent kids die until we decide to do something about it for something thats so easily preventable in the first place?

I do believe that those who worry about vaccine related illness are a bit far-fetched, and agree that there are huge benefits behind vaccination programs.

My issue is that until there is certain proof that there is no risk associated with vaccination, it is wrong to punish parents for not wanting to subject their child to the potential risk, when compared to the risk of infection. Whether that is negligent parenting or not would depend on the actual outcomes of extensive medical research.

Until such research is available, it's all a foggy area of moral value, which of course varies from person to person. I think it is unwise to have policy created based on this.

[GreenSeater]

Another issue that nobody on here has touched on is the ability for diseases to mutate within a host. If an unvaccinated child contracts a disease, there is a chance of it mutating within the child and potentially being able to beat vaccines and infect the vaccinated community. So not vaccinating increases the risks towards everybody.

[Tesla]

Vaccinating has benefits to society, rather than not vaccinating having costs to society. It's an important distinction. In other words, someone choosing to not get vaccinated doesn't create a cost for society or have any negative consequences, rather it's a loss of the benefit or positive consequences to society that would come from being vaccinated.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Tesla