Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

Mississippi - the Nation's Leader In Vaccination Rates 297

HughPickens.com writes The NYT reports that Mississippi — which ranks as one of the worst states for smoking, obesity and physical inactivity — seldom is viewed as a leader on health issues. But it is one of two states that permit neither religious nor philosophical exemptions to its vaccination program. Only children with medical conditions that would be exacerbated by vaccines may enroll in Mississippi schools without completing the immunization schedule, which calls for five vaccines. With a vaccination rate of greater than 99.7%, Mississippi leads the national median by five percentage points and has the country's highest immunization rate among kindergarten students.

However, in recent weeks, the nearly unbending nature of Mississippi's law requiring students to be vaccinated has been in jeopardy, with two dozen lawmakers publicly supporting an exemption for "conscientious beliefs" turning Mississippi into one more battleground between medical experts who champion vaccinations and parents who fear the government's role in medical decision-making. "We have been a victim of our success, and people don't realize how bad these diseases are," said Mississippi state epidemiologist, Dr. Thomas E. Dobbs III, before lawmakers met to consider a bill that would have expanded exceptions to the vaccine requirement. Members of the education committee for the House of Representatives, in effect, endorsed the state's current approach. By a voice vote, they advanced a heavily amended version of the bill that now calls for only technical changes to Mississippi's law, which has been largely untouched since the late 1970s. The amended version of House Bill 130 puts into law the state's existing practice of granting medical waivers to children whose physicians request them, and in doing so, removes the Mississippi Department of Health's ability to deny such requests. "If a medical professional thinks it's wise not to vaccinate, then that will be the gospel," said House Education Committee Chairman John Moore, R-Brandon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mississippi - the Nation's Leader In Vaccination Rates

Comments Filter:
  • by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @09:06AM (#48987837)
    well, someone had to post it.
    • Coming in at #2 on the list is West Virginia... Appalachia and the deep South. On another list, that of U.S. income by State, they are number 49 and 50 per Wikipedia.

      Coincidence or Medicaid?

      • by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @09:32AM (#48987919)
        Its because they don't have internet, so don't know they should be scared of vaccinations.
        • Its because they don't have internet, so don't know they should be scared of vaccinations.

          Seems like a 99.7% vaccination rate would be the perfect data pool in which to prove or disprove your paranoia.

          What say you, Mississippi statistics? (taking into account the McFood Pyramid that is quite popular in the south of course)

        • Essentially, they have a prophylactic to protect them from the virus that is vaccination denialism?

      • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @09:44AM (#48987975)
        I think medicaid could be a factor. I'm from Canada, so I really like my tax funded healthcare. I think that specifically funding certain things like vaccinations to assure that everybody can receive them without cost is a huge advantage to the entire country. I can see why some people wouldn't want to pay for somebody else's knee surgery, or heart transplant if they brought it on themselves by their own lifestyle, but things like vaccinations help the entire population, are just about every person is born susceptible to these diseases. So it makes sense to make sure that as many people as possible are immunized. If somebody isn't immunized, then even the rich people who are insured are at risk in the event that their infants are too young to be vaccinated, or couldn't be vaccinated because of medical complications.
        • by blueg3 ( 192743 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @10:36AM (#48988377)

          Everywhere I've lived in the US, vaccinations are provided gratis by the local health department.

          People with insurance usually go to a doctor and get their vaccinations through them, but the health department will also do it for free. (That's the same health department that will run free STD tests.) Often, the real battle is communicating to people that these resources are available, fighting the stigma associated with getting free services from the government, and the practical issues of getting a working person over to a busy government office.

          As many childhood vaccinations are practically mandatory in the US, as they're required for attending elementary school (which is also mandatory), it makes sense that they're freely available.

          As a result, I think, of Obamacare, all childhood vaccines and most adult vaccines (including flu) are free to anyone with insurance.

        • If somebody isn't immunized, then even the rich people who are insured are at risk in the event that their infants are too young to be vaccinated, or couldn't be vaccinated because of medical complications.

          The self-indulgent rich are actually a huge part of the vaccination problem. Check out where some of the latest outbreaks have been- Hollywood, Disney world, etc- not places for people with no money.

          A journalist named Seth Mnookin wrote a book, "The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science and Fear", and was Interviewed recently: [sciencemag.org]

          anecdotally and from the overall data that's been collected it seems to be people who are very actively involved in every possible decision regarding their children's lives. I think it relates to a desire to take uncertainty out of the equation. And autism represents such an unknown. We still don't know what causes it and we still don't have good answers for how to treat it. So I think that fear really resonates.

          Also I think there's a fair amount of entitlement. Not vaccinating your child is basically saying I deserve to rely on the herd immunity that exists in a population. At the most basic level it's saying I believe vaccines are potentially harmful, and I want other people to vaccinate so I don't have to. And for people to hide under this and say, "Oh, it's just a personal decision," it's being dishonest. It's a personal decision in the way drunk driving is a personal decision. It has the potential to affect everyone around you.

          Further:

          I talked to a public health official and asked him what's the best way to anticipate where there might be higher than normal rates of vaccine noncompliance, and he said take a map and put a pin wherever there's a Whole Foods. I sort of laughed, and he said, "No, really, I'm not joking." It's those communities with the Prius driving, composting, organic food-eating people.

          There's also a great comment attached, by a poster named 'Tom Billings (qualifications unknown)', that gets into the causes of autism: Genetic

          Actually, it's simpler than that. It's just very unpopular, because it says things about humans we don't like to hear. You don't need government subsidizing something for it to increase. That is only one cause of some increases in some things.

          The genes associated with autism are mostly SNPs and single folds. Single nucleotide polymorphisms and single folds are single mutation events. You would expect those to be just as common throughout history as a result. So, why don't we see in the past the same rates of autism we see today? It's brutally simple. The children born with such genetic differences mostly didn't survive to reproductive age. They were murdered.

          His comment goes on and it's worth a read.

          • Actually, I thought I read a headline recently that said some new research pointed to the possibility that mothers taking anti-depressants might be at higher risk of their child developing autism. Of course, correlation doesn't prove causation, but given that autism rates have increased a lot in recent years, and anti-depressant use has skyrocketed, there might be something to it.

        • School aged vaccinations for this type of stuff are generally available for free (there's usually a local government-run "Health Department" that will administer them).

          Basically all the mandatory vaccinations are that way. The yearly flu-shot isn't completely free, though almost all insurances cover it if you elect to take it. At work they'll bring a nurse in for a day or two and you can just stop in and get one if you'd like.

        • Those with insurance no longer have to pay for childhood vaccinations. It's covered 100% by insurance as required by law, as are the well baby(child) check ups for I think the first 5 years.
        • . I can see why some people wouldn't want to pay for somebody else's knee surgery, or heart transplant if they brought it on themselves by their own lifestyle

          Are there really people who say "your particular combination of luck, genetics, circumstance and choices are so much more influenced by choice than anything that unlike other people with health conditions, fuck you" ?

          Are those people worried that the lack of financial incentives will be the tipping point?

    • by andyring ( 100627 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @10:57AM (#48988569) Homepage

      OK, let me get this straight. The dumb, uneducated, poor, largely minority backwoods state of Mississippi has the highest vaccination rate in the country. Sounds good so far.

      And, vaccines are medically proven to be effective and not harmful. Got it.

      The lowest vaccination rates are among the "educated" yuppie crowd (Prius driving, Whole Foods loving, vegetarian or vegan, politically left, etc.). OK, interesting.

      So, tell me again who "believes in science?"

      It has nothing to do with Medicaid. If cost was a factor, then the educated yuppie crowd would have the highest vaccination rates, not the lowest, as they are the most able to afford it.

      • by werepants ( 1912634 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @12:14PM (#48989447)

        Most of the antivaxxers I know are more inclined towards the right. Some poster above commented with a link to a study confirming this statistically, but my anecdotal experience tells me that evangelical, organic, don't trust science OR government types are the primary culprits of this kind of thinking.

        It really comes from a mix of ignorance and arrogance - people don't even know enough about science, medicine, or history to have a clue how wrong they are about every aspect of this decision. It's basically a textbook example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]

        • I'd say it has a bit more to do with the distrust of big pharma than science per se. It isn't too far to go from "there is more money in treatment than in prevention" to "vaccines are bunk".

    • If Mississippi and Arkansas didn't suck so hard...Louisiana would fall off into the Gulf.... probably pushed by Texas.

    • Well you could knock me over with a plate of biscuits and gravy...
      seriously...
      somebody...
      damn, now I gotta drive down town for biscuits and gravy...

      I'm stunned to see a southern state that has no "religious exemption" or "retarded parent waiver"(I may have paraphrased that one) allowing a bunch of little germ factories to scamper from place to place spreading misery.
  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @09:27AM (#48987895) Homepage

    Parents are granted a tremendous amount of leeway over what to do with their children. But at the end of the day, children are not "things" for parents to do with as they wish. They're people. A parent may have a sincere and deeply held belief that children don't actually need to eat, that if they meditate enough they can gather the energy they need from the sun. But that doesn't mean that Child Protective Services aren't going to get involved if the parents refuse to feed their child. No, there's no easy definition for where the line between parental rights / belief dominate and where child abuse begins should be. But there must be a line.

    And ignoring the fact that the person we're talking about here is too young to make informed decisions, even if that wasn't the case, it still wouldn't be a reasonable argument. Even if we were talking about adults, while you're free to endanger yourself to your heart's content, you don't have the right to endanger others. You may feel that drunk driving is perfectly safe and it's just your personal choice and drunk driving laws are an infliction on your freedom of movement, but the law sees it differently for damned good reason, and you will be punished if caught. Want to endanger yourself? Fine, go do it. Want to endanger me? Nope, and thank $DEITY that there are laws and law enforcement to stop you. You don't have an inalienable right to put your neighbors at risk of mowing them over with your car, and you don't have an inalienable right to walk around them as a disease vector.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
      I guess the only question is, how far do you take it when determining that somebody is harming their children. I definitely think that everybody except the tiny percentage of individuals who have a medical condition should be vaccinated against things like measles. But I'm not so sure about things like chicken pox or the flu vaccine. While these vaccines are good and safe, I wouldn't think that somebody choosing not to give those to their children should be charged with endangering their life or well being.
      • by rossdee ( 243626 )

        I don't think that anywhere the annual flu vaccine is required by law. Even for people who work in healthcare.
        And this seasons shot wasn't worth a tin of shit.

        Still the insurance paid for it, and I got a free klondike bar at work.

      • by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:51PM (#48990521) Journal

        I guess the only question is, how far do you take it when determining that somebody is harming their children. I definitely think that everybody except the tiny percentage of individuals who have a medical condition should be vaccinated against things like measles. But I'm not so sure about things like chicken pox or the flu vaccine.

        If your child is stricken with a disease that has high potential of death, significant injury, loss of function or disfigurement or the same to others, and that disease is preventable through vacination, and you failed to provide that vacination that would meet the standard of harming their children or endangering the public in my mind.

        As far as flu, people die from that, my Mother was hospitalized just last month for the flu, while my Dad was in the ICU after arresting while being treat for pneumonia that was as likely as not to have been triggered by having the flu. My Dad never came out of the hospital and was on a respirator for 6 weeks; Mom back in the Hospital because she never regained enough strength and is now refusing treatment so she'll pass away soon too.

        My attitude right now is to tell the antivaxers to STFU and get the Kids their shots, if your kid goes deaf because of a fever due to having measles, I'd throw your ass in prison.

    • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @10:04AM (#48988111)

      Parents are granted a tremendous amount of leeway over what to do with their children. But at the end of the day, children are not "things" for parents to do with as they wish. They're people. A parent may have a sincere and deeply held belief that children don't actually need to eat, that if they meditate enough they can gather the energy they need from the sun. But that doesn't mean that Child Protective Services aren't going to get involved if the parents refuse to feed their child. No, there's no easy definition for where the line between parental rights / belief dominate and where child abuse begins should be. But there must be a line.

      At one point our country felt there must be a line between Church and State.

      Ironically, the dissolving of that line led to the issues we now face today.

      The problem is not that we don't feel there should be a line. The problem is enforcing the damn thing with some science and common sense.

      You're right, parents are granted a lot of leeway. The problem these days is they come armed with a lawyer to defend that leeway, and we allow it rather than override for the common good.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      But at the end of the day, children are not "things" for parents to do with as they wish. They're people.

      unless they are still in the womb you mean.

      • To make a successful political party, you need to start with a platform and a normal definition of innocent life. Then you need to modify your definition of innocent life just slightly so that you are "immune" from the attacks from the opposition about your platform's cruelty while making strong emotional claims about how heartless the other party is for not protecting category X's innocent life or category Y's freedom.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by operagost ( 62405 )

      So parents can't treat their kids like "property", but the government can?

      Not vaccinating your kids is stupid. But forcing people to do it to send their kids to public school, then forcing them to attend said public school unless they're rich enough to pay for a private school, is class warfare. I hope these states have charter schools and/or a voucher program.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @10:48AM (#48988499)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • I'll sort of give you drugs, though most of that is actually motivated in terms of what drug addicts do to their surrounding (crime, family etc. etc.), but I'll give you that.

        Euthanasia though, I won't give you as easily. There's no-one trying to outlaw killing yourself as far as I know, only forbidding the medical profession from helping you (something I agree with BTW). There aren't typically any legal repercussions for attempted suicide, or even helping someone else, as long as you don't "help" crosses o

    • No, there's no easy definition for where the line between parental rights / belief dominate and where child abuse begins should be.

      There's no reason to even step into that minefield. Communicable diseases are a public health issue, not a parental rights issue.

    • No, there's no easy definition for where the line between parental rights / belief dominate and where child abuse begins should be. But there must be a line.

      No, there must not be a line. Because everyone makes some bad choices and some good ones. While some choices are severe enough to outweigh any amount of good ones, the vast majority of the time the question has to be "on balance, are they a good enough parent."

      So, we have to have more discretion built into the system. Which leads to more abuse. But

    • Property is not a good word I agree, but absolute responsibility I think is. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Empower the parents to make all choices but make it clear that there are consequences to those choices.

      In the case of vaccination, aside from the risk of disease, the consequences should be no access to public schools without a certified (reasonable) minimum vaccination record or medical exemption. I would stop at that.

      I think that's enough but I would have thought that most insurance co

  • by ndavis ( 1499237 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @09:31AM (#48987917)

    Does Mississippi have more Autistic children than other states with lower vaccination rates? I think that should be looked at so maybe we can show that this is not the cause of Autism.

    • by alen ( 225700 )

      i think I read that NJ has the highest autisim rate. and i don't know if it is true, but some of the older studies have linked autism to upper middle class families and zip codes

    • Although I understand why you would want to do this, I doubt it will work. For this purpose the difference between 90-ish and 99.7 percent vaccination rate is probably too small to produce a statistically significant difference. Besides, the objectors are unlikely to be swayed by statistics.
      • Huh? If there's a 95% vaccination rate, one in every twenty people is unvaccinated, so even if you're the quiet type you likely run into at least one a day. If there's a 99.7% vaccination rate, that's three people in a thousand, and most people would be unlikely to encounter one in a day.

        If a sick person runs into several unvaccinated people while contagious, there's a good chance the disease will spread. If a sick person runs into no unvaccinated people while contagious, it's likely to stop with him

    • by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @09:50AM (#48988021)
      Apparently the CDC only has data from 11 States, and Mississippi isn't one of them. Other groups have more data available, but so far the best compilation I've found is at some anti-vax site - http://vaxtruth.org/2012/04/wh... [vaxtruth.org] Their chart has Mississippi ranked 44th for autism rates, West Virginia is 39th.

      And yeah, that does make the autism argument look real dumb. Especially when you look at the top 3 States for autism - Minnesota, Maine and Oregon; which interestingly enough also have some of the highest rates of non-vaccination.

      • by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @10:45AM (#48988479) Homepage

        Apparently the CDC only has data from 11 States, and Mississippi isn't one of them. Other groups have more data available, but so far the best compilation I've found is at some anti-vax site - http://vaxtruth.org/2012/04/wh... [vaxtruth.org] Their chart has Mississippi ranked 44th for autism rates, West Virginia is 39th.

        And yeah, that does make the autism argument look real dumb. Especially when you look at the top 3 States for autism - Minnesota, Maine and Oregon; which interestingly enough also have some of the highest rates of non-vaccination.

        Those are all states where houses commonly have basements, and they are in the hottest zones for radon [epa.gov] exposure. Those are all states where a large number of people get their water from wells, and arsenic in the groundwater [usgs.gov] is a problem. The Radium in groundwater map [usgs.gov] is tilted towards those 3 states too. When I was a kid in Maine, we drank untreated well water and played in the basement nearly every day.

        I think it makes a lot more sense to look at connections between long-term exposure to known toxins and autism.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      These reports seem to be a bit old (from 2011 or so), but here are a couple:

      http://graphics.latimes.com/usmap-autism-rates-state/ [latimes.com]

      http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_aut_num_of_chi_wit_aut_percap-autism-number-children-per-capita [statemaster.com]

      In both, Mississippi's autism rates seem much lower than other states. However, this could be because of lack of testing or resources for parents of autistic kids. So autism incidences don't get reported and autism seems rate in the state. Better detection and resources are the m

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Well, most anti-vaxxers seem to have backed off the autism thing, and they're more onto rare, catastrophic side effects like encephalopathy.

      What I try to point out is that the diseases in question *also* have catastrophic side effects, including encephalopathy. In fact your chance of experiencing those catastrophic situations is *higher* if you don't vaccinate than if you do . In Bayesian terms, P(C | V) P(C | -V); where C is experiencing a catastrophic neurological injury and V is being vaccinated.

      But thi

  • by jbssm ( 961115 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @09:37AM (#48987935)

    In ancient Rome the children where legally the property of the father until they where old enough.

    Some states in USA do the same, they allow the parents to make choices for their children that are scientifically proven to be deadly in certain circumstances. Thereby the USA are legally stating that in the eyes of the state, children are the legal property of their parents in certain cases.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • In ancient Rome the children where legally the property of the father until they where old enough.

      Actually, according strict traditional Roman law, sons were the legally the property of the father until he died. Daughters were his property until they married, at which point they became the property of their husbands' fathers. It became usual for a father to emancipate his sons when they came of age, but if he didn't, they remained his property.

  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @09:44AM (#48987973)

    Your "conscientious" rights don't include the right to put other kids who *can't* get immunized at risk (or adults who weren't immunized as kids). If you want to conscientiously object to getting your kid immunized, then a school should have the right to conscientiously refuse to admit your kid. Create a special conscientious school or something and keep the fuck away from the rest of us.

    • by Himmy32 ( 650060 )
      Even more so, it's not just at school where infection can be spread. There is no reasonable way to keep someone out of all areas of public life.
      • no, but children are legally mandated to receive an education. kids who can't get vaccinated, their parents could decide that a camping trip might be safer than one to a theme park, and they're free to make that decision. they can take measures, not so much with schooling. educating a kid is a full time job... you know what teachers do.

  • But underlying all this, it seems that the US American belief that you should have the complete right as a parent to decide how to raise your children, even if it is against their well being, is not new. I clearly remember 'Huckleberry Finn', and the description of his father who falls in the same category as those people that are opposed to vaccination (for whichever reason). And that was written 130 years ago.

    • But underlying all this, it seems that the US American belief that you should have the complete right as a parent to decide how to raise your children, even if it is against their well being, is not new. I clearly remember 'Huckleberry Finn', and the description of his father who falls in the same category as those people that are opposed to vaccination (for whichever reason). And that was written 130 years ago.

      Right, and I even agree with them. But in this case you're not just making a choice that puts your kid at risk. You're also making a choice that puts my kid at risk, which is where it crosses the line. If a vaccine were 100% effective, I'd agree with them on choice. But they're not, so they should be mandatory.

  • The amended version of House Bill 130 puts into law the state's existing practice of granting medical waivers to children whose physicians request them, and in doing so, removes the Mississippi Department of Health's ability to deny such requests.

    In other words, this allows the anti-vaxxers and religious nuts to go to their chiropractor, osteopath or other quack to get an exemption. Hell there are plenty of MDs that will write a prescription for anything you want for $50.
  • People are good at nagging doctor. So they will get them write off the exemption, for no medical reason whatsoever. And if that doctor refuse, there will be another one which accept. They pretty much gutted the law.
  • by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @11:59AM (#48989285)

    I've found very few MDs who have any kind of listening skills. I've known some brilliant ones. But many of them are shills for the drug companies, pushing unnecessary drugs and just all-around being ineffective. We're told to revere doctors, but the reality is that MDs are not scientists -- they're technicians, and often not terribly skilled ones. These facts are not lost on their patents. People just don't trust doctors. Vaccines are just one more dubious thing that MDs push on us.

    This distrust of the medical profession totally understandable, and you shouldn't call people morons for feeling this way. Most people are not scientists who can do their own research. Their only source of information is these doctors they don't like. If we want to fix the vaccination problem, we have to fix the doctors and get them to stop doing stupid things like prescribing antidepressants for autoimmune diseases. [*]

    The science of vaccines is solid. As with anything, it's not entirely risk-free, but the risks are worth the benefits for protection against some serious diseases. It's also irresponsible to put other people at risk. IF (huge IF) there is any correlation with autism, that correlation is miniscule compared to the effects of the other shit we put in our bodies (horrible American diet, pollution, etc.). But people are much more willing to skip a vaccination appointment than not eat that Big Mac.

    Incidentally, I heard recently something interesting about flu shots. If those who decide which viruses are being innoculated against predict them correctly, then flu shots work great. If, on the other hand, their predictions are too far off the mark, the flu shot may actually make you MORE vulnerable to viruses that they missed. Of course, you should verify this claim before deciding not to get a flu shot. This isn't a matter of effectiveness of vaccines but rather an issue of getting the right ones.

    [*] In medical school doctors are expliclty taught that if someone comes in with a constellation of symptoms, especially if they have them written down, then that person is a hypochondriac. The thing is, auto-immune diseases are not exactly a 1-in-a-million phenomenon. Hashimoto's and Lupus are quite well understood. They come with constellations of symptoms, and they also come with brain fog, which basically forces people to write down their symptoms. My wife had to perform her own differential diagnosis based on the symptoms to determine (abductively) that Hashimoto's is the clear best explanation, but nevertheless, she had to fight with one of the few endocrinologists in the area just to get tested. Of course she tested positive, but even in the face of the evidence, this doctor still doesn't want to engage in any kind of treatment plan. Why? Because endocrinologists make all their money from pushing drugs on diabetics and have no interest in anything else.

    • I've found very few MDs who have any kind of listening skills. I've known some brilliant ones.

      Yeah, I know what you mean. In talking to several doctors, I get the distinct feeling that I'm on the flip side of what happens when my mother-in-law has a computing problem: she hands me the computer and starts offering endless way-off-the-mark suggestions which I have to forcibly ignore while trying to concentrate on troubleshooting the real problem.

      Being listened to makes us feel better (in pretty much any human situation, but especially when our health is on the line). However, we as patients are gen

  • Onion... :D (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maritz ( 1829006 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @12:09PM (#48989399)

    The Onion as usual got right to the core of it :)

    "Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I fully stand behind my choices as a mom, including my choice not to vaccinate my son, because it is my fundamental right as a parent to decide which eradicated diseases come roaring back."

    Vaccine refusers are some of the most odious, self-entitled pricks on this planet.

  • Anti-Vaxxers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @12:31PM (#48989643) Homepage Journal

    The anti-vaccine people are the most selfishly stupid people on this planet. Citing a discredited report linking vaccines to autism, taking medical advice from a media whore that appeared on Oprah over that of scientists and doctors, quoting conspiracy theory websites, and claiming "special knowledge" that is being "kept hidden", they put the very young who have not been immunized at risk of completely preventable diseases.

    They also put those who are on anti-rejection drugs after a transplant at risk. And those who are chemotherapy. And those who are on retroviral drugs.

    All they think about is their own paranoid delusions of a grand conspiracy "out to get them."

    John Cleese describes them better than I can:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU [youtube.com]

  • by smellsofbikes ( 890263 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:03PM (#48989943) Journal

    I have a friend who, in her thirties, just got measles from one of her son's friends, and now she's lost her hearing -- a fairly common, and often permanent, complication of measles. She's trying to sue the parents, on the basis of one of them posting about how they didn't vaccinate their child because they didn't believe in it. She figures that if a person who has AIDS and has unprotected sex with people can be charged with murder -- a criminal act -- she should be able to win a civil judgment for at least negligence.
    If it works, it could be an interesting new chapter in the vaccination story, and does raise the question of why AIDS is handled differently than measles.

  • This report in the main post above was absolutely guaranteed to inflame the condescension so inherent in the liberal coastal mentality that afflicts so many /. posters. No human society can be found that is not riddled with irrational pieties and unfounded self-congratulation. This is not to say that any human being not otherwise non-compis mentis would prefer to live in San Francisco over Peshawar. But, condescending to the rubes who live in Dixie is not only rude, it is foolish. Sometimes they really are

    • But, condescending to the rubes who live in Dixie is not only rude, it is foolish. Sometimes they really are smarter than /.ers.

      Sometimes they are slashdotters.

  • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:23PM (#48990163)

    The amended version of House Bill 130 puts into law the state's existing practice of granting medical waivers to children whose physicians request them, and in doing so, removes the Mississippi Department of Health's ability to deny such requests.

    Normally, I would agree that this would be fine.

    However, the irrational anti-vaccine hysteria has become too widespread.

    What is going to happen, is there are going to be improper waivers given in the name of a "health issue" constructed for the purposes of avoiding vaccination.

    Inevitably, there are going to be some medical professionals who are persuaded. They should be students of science, but there are plenty in the industry who are not scientists and could be persuaded by some specious arguments.

    Therefore, I would say that their waiver should be subject to review. If there is any doubt; it should not be adequate just to find one professional to sign off on something. There should have to be a documented basis that would be accepted by the industry or by the average professional.

  • I have a young relative who's an anti-vaxxer. A lot of my relatives are science fans and natural history geeks, so its putting a lot of stress on the family.

    Here's the thing about anti-vaxxers. It's a stupid position but the people who take it aren't necessarily stupid or uneducated. What they are is rabidly anti-authority. "Question Authority" was even a popular left-wing slogan in the 60s and 70s. And it's a good idea, along with believing in your ability to decide for yourself, which is another value

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...