If they are willing to wear all encompassing bio hazard suits, and bubble their house, fine by me if they care not to vaccinate...
It is our problem when people don't believe in herd immunity and other problems that can affect the community.
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2016/08/22/states-with-t...
Sorry, to me it is about rights and it should be to you as well. It is also very much about public safety to me, both are important. But to me forced procedures would be an unacceptable violation of rights not worth it for the public safety gains. I can understand the point of view that eroding those rights is worth the public safety gains. I cannot understand the point of view that this is not, on some level, about rights.
So long as people have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" then they must acknowledge that certain things must be done to protect that right. Mass vaccinations is one of those things.
As a member of that society I have the right to benefit from our collective efforts because those efforts were done for me, for you, for everyone, without exclusion. These things were given to us by our ancestors, by our governments, by our own individual contributions.
Right now there are people working tirelessly and facing extreme risk to elininate the tiniest pockets of polio in the world. They are killed on a worryingly regular basis because of a form of anti-vaxx sentiment: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36090891
If you're a staunch libertarian your position should be that I can do whatever I want so long as I don't infringe upon your rights, and one of the most fundamental rights is a right to live and do what I please.
Unvaccinated people can strip you of your right to live.
If it were up to me guns and hard liquor would be banned and cars would have limited speed. These are all things that affect me even if I don't use them.
Environmentally speaking there is more of a clear connection, though it is more of a sliding scale. Is someone smoking next door an imminent threat to my life? Not typically. Is someone experimenting with highly radioactive materials next door an imminent threat to my life? It could very well be.
There's often a lot of grey, but there are times when the threat is obvious. A deliberately unvaccinated child is a serious health risk to everyone they interact with. If there's enough of these children around the risk grows.
Vaccinated children are already rife with disease, they're more vulnerable than adults. Unvaccinated ones may as well be radioactive.
I don't know that hard liquor bans are something you could argue for. America tried that already and it didn't work out at all.
At least banning alchohol as a constitutional ammendment was rather ineffective and led to some wild crime and an eventual repeal. On the face of it, though, it's an interesting social experiement whose outcome probably wasn't very obvious at the time. At least to the proponents.
The guns though? I'm not at all sure how America could even try banning that. Perhaps we just need to look to another country to see how that affected society. It also has that awkward bootstrapping problem: how do you take the guns from the people? They're by definition armed, after all...
And the answer to that seems to be fairly strongly in the affirmative. I imagine we will be approaching a more nuanced legal view of such things in the near future as we battle to understand where rights really stand. (Much like many of our rights, there are exceptional situations - like the oft quoted yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater - and perhaps vaccinations should be treated similarly.)
EDIT - I was pointed to some interesting CDC info below, and there is an interesting scenario possible: make measels a quarantinable disease. This would become a choice with teeth. Choose to vaccinate, or risk isolation. Thankfully, the CDC seems like a fairly serious outfit, and I'm not worried about abuse of power in this way, but it does rephrase the topic a bit.
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...
From that site, it seems that isolation and quarantine is largely done at borders between states and country. It's also very serious, and it's not something the CDC takes lightly: the last major enforcement of the rule was in 1918 for the Spanish Flu (though it cites there were other minor applications - the ebola scare last year may be one small instance of that).
In context of this, I would imagine that measles would need to be added to the list of diseases quarantine is enforced (I haven't spotted this list yet).
EDIT: found the important list, and it mentions specifically measels are NOT on the list:
The list of quarantinable diseases is contained in an
Executive Order of the President and includes cholera,
diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox,
yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fevers (such as Marburg,
Ebola, and Congo-Crimean), and severe acute respiratory
syndromes.
Many other illnesses of public health signficance, such as
measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox, are not
contained in the list of quarantinable illnesses, but
continue to pose a health risk to the public. Quarantine
Station personnel respond to reports of ill travelers
aboard airplanes, ships, and at land border crossings to
make an assessment of the public health risk and initiate
an appropriate response.
With individual decision about vaccination, the minority gets to overrule the decision of the majority. The majority of people are vaccinated. The majority of people have, in effect, voted for herd immunity. A minority of people have voted against herd immunity. Because it requires 90-95% vaccination rates for herd immunity to occur, the minority wins that "vote". This is unreasonable.
When epidemics break out and people start to die, all the reasonable parts of this debate will go down the drain, and more forceful approaches may be adopted.
Keep that in mind when you're thinking about what's "reasonable" and what isn't.