I'm only going to address 1 issue for the sake of time.
I didn't argue with any of your manufacturer data, only the endless stream of logical fallacies you added to string them together into an anti-vaccination argument.
-Vurbal
You entirely missed the point of the argument. Let me post it from above again with a clarification of the point that you missed at the end:
ARGUMENT 1
Premises:
a) Children that are at a higher risk of transmitting a disease should be excluded from schools.
b) Unvaccinated childred are "higher risk".
Conclusion:
c) Unvaccinated children should be excluded from schools.
ARGUMENT 2
Premises:
a) Children that are at a higher risk of transmitting a disease should be excluded from schools.
d) Children that receive the Varivax chickenpox vaccine are "higher risk" for a period of time. (Information given by the manufacturer.)
Conclusion:
e) Children that receive the Varivax chickenpox vaccine should be excluded from schools for a period of time.
CLARIFICATION
The argument is not against vaccination. The argument is that the 2 above arguments are of identical forms and accepting one entails accepting the other if one is to be logically consistent.
I'll put this in symbolic logic so that there is zero confusion.
Note: I have reformulated it in one minor way, i.e. it is a given that unvaccinated children present a higher risk of infecting others. This merely cleans up the language a bit and avoids a step that (almost) everyone already accepts as true, so it shouldn't be controversial.
SYMBOLIC LOGIC FOR ARGUMENT 1
If a child presents a higher risk of infecting others, that child should be excluded from school.
1) a --> b
Where:
a = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others
b = a child should be excluded from school
If a child has not received a vaccination against a disease, that child presents a higher risk of infecting others.
2) c --> d
Where:
c = a child has not received a vaccination against a disease
d = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others
3) a = d
4) c --> a (by substitution from 3)
At this point, we accept 'a' as a given.
5) a (accepted as given)
6) b (affirming the antecedent from 1 (modus ponens))
The conclusion then is "a child should be excluded from school".
SYMBOLIC LOGIC FOR ARGUMENT 2
If a child presents a higher risk of infecting others, that child should be excluded from school.
1) a --> b
Where:
a = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others
b = that child should be excluded from school
If a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious, that child presents a higher risk of infecting others.
2) c --> d
Where:
c = a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious
d = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others
3) a = d
4) c --> a (by substitution from 3)
At this point, we accept 'a' as a given.
5) a (accepted as given)
6) b (affirming the antecedent from 1 (modus ponens))
The conclusion then is "a child should be excluded from school".
If anything, I'm arguing to keep children out of school.
I'm sure that would gain me a LOT more fans than your argument.
That you've chosen to see this as an argument against vaccination indicates to me that you're either simply being beligerent, or you're not reading what I wrote, or you don't understand basic logic (which I highly doubt - I know you're a smart person and not an idiot).
1. Live virus immunizations put immunized children at risk.
People do not spread diseases. They spread bacteria and viruses, which may, or may not, result in a disease.-Vurbal
You're merely being pedantic here with no real substance.
Your hypothesis is directly contradicted by time tested theory, and you provide no evidence to either support it or disprove the theory. It is, therefore, a false premise.-Vurbal
From what I've reposted above, you're claiming that premise 'c' is false. i.e.
c = a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious
Let's clarify a bit.
I took a shortcut there. I combined a bit. Separating it out:
m = a child has received a vaccination against a disease
n = that vaccination could make the child contagious
So, c is just "m & n". m is uncontroversial. So, you are denying n.
I cited this:
That supports n.
I also cited a specific instance, to which you said:
Finding a single person who died after exposure to varicella virus introduced by vaccination proves exactly nothing. -Vurbal
So, when presented with evidence, you simply deny it. Very convenient.
(That he died is irrelevant. The point is that he was infected.)
You continue from there:
The question isn't whether varicella still kills people in that segment of the population. It's how the number killed because of the vaccine compares to those killed without it. According to the CDC, that number has plummeted. Once again, you're arguing against not just the accepted theory, but also the statistical data which proves it. Another false premise busted. -Vurbal
I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
I presented clear evidence from the manufacturer with a VAERS case to back it up, i.e. counter examples. I only need to give 1 counter example to prove my case. I don't need 2. I don't need 3 or more. I need 1 and only 1. Check the syllogism that I set up for easier reading again.
Here's that premise that you seem to really hate once again, just to be clear:
c = a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious
Or:
n = that vaccination could make the child contagious
We have unambiguous evidence to illustrate that n is true.
Now, I do get what you're trying to illustrate, but you've been clumbsy in trying show that I've commited some kind of fallacy, which I haven't.
Rather, you've misdirected your objection. You should be attacking this:
a = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others
That is where statistics come into play, and THEN you get to actually have some fun in attacking the argument I made.
The key there is to go after "higher" and qualify that.
So, just to invent some BS, simple numbers for the sake of argument,
(NOTE: I mean SIMPLE as that is all that is needed. We could create complex non-linear models that account for population sizes, etc., but it doesn't serve any significant purpose for this discussion. So PLEASE... Have the courtesy of giving a charitable read instead of accusing me of "false premises" for a change.)
let's say that a vaccinated child is our base number and equivalent to a 0% increase. We'll take an unvaccinated child to increase the chance of 1 or more other children becoming infected by 5% (which is unrealistically high, but let's just use SIMPLE whole numbers to start).
The question now becomes about what the chance of a newly vaccinated child infecting other children is.
UC = Unvaccinated Child
NVC = Newly Vaccinated Child
If an NVC increases the chance of other infections by 5% or more, and we accept this:
If a child presents a higher risk of infecting others, that child should be excluded from school.
And you accept that UCs should be excluded, then we obviously exclude the NVC child as they present a higher risk than UCs.
If an NVC increases the chance of other infections by less than 5%, then it is possible to deny that they should be excluded from school.
HOWEVER... In that example of 5% and >= or < 5%, we should recognise that the numbers are simple, and that reality is bound to have very different numbers, and most importantly, that threshold will not be that simple to define.
It is more likely that we would end up dealing with orders of magnitude, and that we would also then end up fueling the anti-vax arguments as the numbers would simply be so low (for at least one of UCs and NVCs) as to not create much statistical concern.
The only way to "pre-empt" anti-vax arguments is to set a statistical threshold prior to discovery. This eliminates the possibility of maliciously singling out UCs to be excluded from school. And given the foaming at the mouth, rabid, vicious nature of this debate, it's a legitimate concern.
