Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California 616
mpicpp sends the latest news on California legislation that would eliminate exemptions for vaccinating school children. A bill that would require nearly all children in California to be vaccinated by eliminating "personal belief" exemptions advanced through the State Legislature on Wednesday, though it still has several hurdles to clear. If approved, California would become one of only three states that require all parents to vaccinate their children as a condition of going to school, unless there is a medical reason not to do so. Under the bill, introduced after a measles outbreak that began at Disneyland, parents who refuse vaccines for philosophical or religious reasons would have to educate their children at home. The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools. Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling. This Wednesday, however, the bill passed that committee after its authors tweaked it, adding amendments that would expand the definition of home schooling to allow multiple families to join together to teach their children or participate in independent study programs run by public school systems.
It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:5, Funny)
How dare you tell me that I have to actually take care of my kid! It's my kid, and my choice not to feed it!
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are joking. But the real problem is that you would probably kill other kids as well, not just your own.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's also my choice to give loaded handguns to my 3 year old, because freedom and all that stuff.
Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo, California! This state led the way in recognizing the second hand harm of cigarette smoke. Hope they do the same with antivaxer idiots.
...last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools.
Cry me a river, you morons. Your stupidity in unfairly infringing on the rights of others to not die of completely preventable diseases.
Bad Example, Maybe (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
FYI, Penn spells his last name with a J, as in Penn Jillette.
Re:Bad Example, Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:3)
Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:4, Informative)
Don't be obtuse. Overwhelming majority of vaccines are well out of patent protection date and as such exceptionally cheap. As a result, instead of "big pharma", they're typically produced by copy drug makers around the world, both large and small.
...and adults too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Many vaccines have egg protein in them, and so do flu shots. Over the years I have managed to get most vaccines, but it's hard. On paper there are egg-free vaccines and it's easy to google up an article announcing the exciting new development of an egg-free vaccine for xxx. But in real life they are expensive, have short shelf lives, a very limited market, and nobody keeps records about where I might find some. Which means they're pretty much not available outside of a major metropolis, and even then it takes luck and a lot of phone calls.
Re:...and adults too. (Score:5, Insightful)
The law eliminates religious and philosophical exemptions, not medical exemptions. Unless your allergy to eggs is a philosophical stance, you'll be fine.
Re:...and adults too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Its not about someones snowflake not tolerating a needle, its about living in a society where such things as "what medical procedures we perform" are family decisions rather than societal ones.
Re:...and adults too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Your freedom only extends as far as yourself - when you begin to endanger other people, then society intervenes. Nobody is forcing people to vaccinate their kids - they are just saying you have to meet a minimum level of safety in order to bring them into close and continuing contact with large numbers of other children. Kids aren't allowed to bring weapons to school for the same reason. If you want to keep your kid armed all the time (via infectious disease or any other means) you are welcome to, it just m
Re:...and adults too. (Score:5, Insightful)
You live in this society, you fucking bet it's your job. Either do it or get the fuck out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it is - that's the whole point of herd immunity and was always the intention of vaccination programs sorry you might not like it, just like you don't like paying taxes.
Re:...and adults too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes it is. There isn't much where I'll agree with claims of "people should sacrifice for the common good", but contagious diseases are damn clear. Plus, the sacrifice is minimal and the benefit huge.
Military service (Score:3)
If I, and other males, can be made to go fight and die at high risk, against my wishes, why can't EVERYONE be made to take a low risk shot?
The benefit of the shots to society is arguably FAR higher and the risk FAR lower than military service.
And by the way, I'm in favor of compulsory military service, for myself and everyone else. Just as I'm in favor of compulsory vaccination, for myself and everyone else (medical exceptions allowed for both.)
--PM
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine, but the rest of society has no responsibility to provide you with education if you refuse to provide the rest of society with anything ;)
Re:...and adults too. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it really isn't. You have a warped sense of right and wrong if you feel it is justified to force vaccinations on others for your own health benefit.
It's part of the social contract. If someone feels that it isn't their civic duty to take the proper vaccinations required and demanded of them for their part in protecting society, Then it's not the community's job to allow these people to live in our cities, hold claims to land, conduct trade, or access or public roads or other venues.
Such rights only exist under the civilized society, AND if you choose to live in the civilized society, then you MUST take every obligation that comes with that choice --- that choice is only available if you also are to pay your taxes, and respect the well-being of other people, for example: by not killing them, or robbing from them, BUT, also, taking the required steps to see that you are not making them sick or putting their lives at risk through your own negligence.
Failure to receive the minimal recommended and required vaccinations is negligence.
It's no different than creating a humongous unreasonable fire hazard in your backyard, and claiming you have no duty to prevent it from catching your neighbor's house on fire; that just aint so..
Such people who would refuse vaccination for no provable and rationally justifiable medical reason --- can and should then be put into quarantine or deported / removed from civilized areas, with steps taken to ensure they stay out until they agree to vaccination.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't the community's job because it is no job at all. Property rights, living rights, trading rights, and travel rights are all pretty fundamental and it requires no effort to not interfere in them.
Wrong. It does require efforts to support these legal rights. Property rights require assignment of rights to a scarce public resource (land). Property rights require ownership records, police and courts to protect, and support infrastructure. Travel requires maintenance of roads.
They are not human
Re:...and adults too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, there are plenty of things you must do as well, from the history of conscription, to jury duty, to paying taxes. Once it was common that you were required to bring your gun to church on Sunday just in case something needed killing. Your required to get the shots for your pets in most places. None of this stuff is crazy (well, bringing back the draft today would be, but only because technology has made it pointless, even harmful).
We also, of course have crazy stuff like being required to buy health insurance and in some places upgrade existing structures to meet new codes. Not everything is a good tradeoff for liberty, but many things are.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not telling me that I'm NOT ALLOWED to vaccinate, you're telling me that I HAVE TO DO IT.
You also HAVE to pay taxes, HAVE to wear a seatbelt, and HAVE to wear clothes in public, among other things.
Re: (Score:3)
Not being vaccinated is more like not digging a fire break around my house.
Your living spaces are right by each other, but you don't want to install the fire barrier required by the building code to stop rapid spread of fire, because you heard it through the grape vine that fire barriers fail catastrophically and cause cancer.
It doesn't matter what your opinion is; the authority having jurisdiction can deny you the right to occupy that structure, and issue an order that it be remediated into complia
Re: ...and adults too. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:...and adults too. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but the part you're missing is that it is not my job to provide you with herd immunity.
And that's why, under the law, you and your spawn are free to continue your miserable existences in your own parallel world, ostracized and isolated from the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Please, please, please stay in that messed up state of California, where you can't balance a budget, manage water resources, or do anything else right...
> Don't come to Texas, you're not welcome here with your commie views...
Texans insulting Californians for water management is quite ironic, at least to anyone who ever reviewed the history of the Dust Bowl. Texan mishandling of water and agriculture were key contributors to the Dust Bowl drought and economic and agricultural ruin of the 1930's. I'm
Re:...and adults too. (Score:4, Informative)
Know how I know you don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Besides the obviously ignorant use of the word "commie" that is.
California, that liberal hellhole, only had a budget mess because after a shortfall became apparent (caued by the recession), the minority GOP in the state legislature filibustered any tax increases. The only things they allowed through were spending cuts. But as we've seen repeatedly in places like Kansas and Europe, spending cuts to safety net programs in the middle of a recession only make matters WORSE not better.
By the way, their budget is balanced now, thanks largely to finally tax increases through after kicking out a bunch of republicans from the legislature (which itself only occurred because redistricting was finally taken away from the legislature and put in the hands of an independent citizen commission who undid a lot of gerrymandering.).
As for water:
1) they can't control the weather. So when they only get 5% of the usual snowpack this year, even lower than last years 20% (1inch of water, vs 4inches in 2014), there's not much they can do.
2) the water rights are controlled by farm interests which rural conservative folks and big businesses, who hold a lot of sway in the legislature....not exactly your "commie".
Oh wait, you did know California is actually a purple state right? And its rural populace, as well as a fair number of its tech moguls, would make the folks in Texas blush with how conservative they are? No, you probably didn't know that.
After all, you think they cant do anything right, even though they have the largest economy in the country as the same time as having one of the best safety nets for low income and minority citizens in the nation, and buoyed their populace through the recession better than most states. Heck, you probably don't even know that one reason for Texas's success is it -also- has decent (as far as Red controlled Purple states go) safety nets for folks.
Bugger off loon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The law eliminates religious and philosophical exemptions, not medical exemptions. Unless your allergy to eggs is a philosophical stance, you'll be fine.
I think you missed his point. There are people who cannot be vaccinated for various reasons, like allergies, immune system disorders, etc. These people therefore are at risk of becoming ill, but only if there is a transmission vector. If everyone who can be is immunized, those who cannot be are highly unlikely to come into contact with someone who can transmit a disease to them.
Re: (Score:3)
there's always going to be people with legitimate medical reasons like yourself not to get vaccinated
which is why you should be grateful for laws making vaccines mandatory: herd immunity means you and the few others unvaccinated for valid reasons are protected
where herd immunity breaks down, such as when not enough people get their vaccinations for fucking retarded reasons, you are at greater risk of getting maiming and hobbling diseases
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:4, Insightful)
multiple families to join together to teach their [unvaccinated] children or participate in independent study programs
a.k.a. "agar dishes for childhood diseases".
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to say something similar. This may be a self-regulating problem since getting all the unvaccinated kids together is a recipe for a guaranteed mini-epidemic.
Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's total BS. There's always some small portion of the population who can't handle the vaccine (like the egg-allergic guy above), or for whom the vaccine just plain doesn't work. They do just fine in school. Being allergic to eggs is not a major problem for a schoolkid, and doesn't make them more susceptible to other diseases. None of this was a problem in years past, thanks to herd immunity: with ~97% of the kids immunized, the disease just never popped up in civilized society, and everything was great. We almost forgot about measles until recently because of the effectiveness of these immunizations, even though not 100% of kids were immunized. But now, with all the idiotic anti-vaxxers, measles is back.
Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you not read my post? It isn't just anti-vaxxers, there's other people who are susceptible to these diseases: people who can't take the vaccine (allergic or immune-compromised), and also the unlucky 1-2% who *did* get the vaccine, and it simply didn't work for them.
Also, we're talking about kids here; the anti-vaxxers' kids don't deserve to catch diseases. If it were just anti-vax parents catching diseases themselves because of their stupid choice to not vaccinate, then yeah, who cares? Hoist by their own petard and all that. But this isn't the case; it's innocent people, mainly kids (both theirs and other peoples'), who are suffering because of these idiots.
Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's not really the way it is. There are many reasons why someone can't be vaccinated. Being immunosuppressed is only one of them. Egg allergies are rather more common, and school represents little danger to a kid who is allergic to eggs.
Plus, the number of kids who can't safely be vaccinated is small enough to not break herd immunity. The number of kids whose parents are idiots is much, much larger. As the recent measles (and whooping cough) outbreaks have shown.
Not sure about cause of whooping cough epidemics (Score:3)
Hello,
While I'm in favor of compulsory vaccination for everyone except medical exceptions, I'm not so sure we can lay whooping cough epidemics at the door of the anti-vaxxers. It seems that the vaccine is not completely effective against currently circulating strains of whooping cough.
I'm in favor of research dollars being dedicated forthwith to improve the vaccine. I have a friend whose child, too young to be vaccinated, was killed by whooping cough.
--PeterM
Re: (Score:3)
They're only "completely effective" when so thoroughly and effectively used that the bacteria or virus is completely eliminated. That's why smallpox is believed eradicated, there haven't been any new cases since 1978. Polio has repeatedly been close to eradication, but has failed in countries like Nigeria and Pakistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
The vaccine was tied in local political and religious leader's speeches to harassment of Islam, with claims that the vaccine was d
Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:4, Informative)
The point is to have enough people inoculated such that herd immunity [wikipedia.org] takes effect. There will always be a few people that can't take the vaccine. As long as they are few, the rest are safe.
Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a reminder about constitution and the rights that provide for citizens, the catch here, ALL CITIZENS, including the wee ones. Children are not pets and most certainly are not the possessions of parents. Children are citizens with the full right of protection of all other citizens (just not all of the responsibilities), including protection from those people recognised as the guardians of those children. So yeah, just like all other citizens expect to be protected from the bad decisions of others so children are entitled to that same right.
If you personally want to decide whether some one else gets an inoculation or not based upon beliefs, get a pet and not a child. As it stands the whole community decides for the benefit of not only the community but the individuals within that community who gets inoculated, when those individuals have the right of protection but not the mature responsibility to decide for themselves.
Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:5, Interesting)
#4 is why the anti-vaccine movement was able to grow. The anti-vaxxers said "You don't really need the vaccines. Just wash your hands real well or take HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY and you'll never get whooping cough," Sure enough, they didn't get whooping cough, but the reason wasn't washing hands (though that is important) or homeopathic remedies (which isn't good for anything). It was because the anti-vaxxers were few enough that they were protected by herd immunity. Even though they weren't getting the vaccines, they were still enjoying vaccines' protection.
But then the anti-vaxxer ranks grew and herd immunity began to break down. Now we're starting to see outbreaks of diseases that, by all rights, should be lining up behind smallpox for inclusion in the "wiped out" club.
Re:It's my choice to kill my kid! (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue isn't whether or not you risk your kid's life, it's whether or not you risk the lives of other people's kids, and others who can't be vaccinated, and whether or not the taxpayer is going to foot the bill when you kid's sick.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is also whether you allow society to dicatate what medical procedures are performed on your body.
Lets not forget the fine history of unethical human medical experimentation [wikipedia.org] in the United States. And people think we should just give the government carte blanche to dicate medical procedures?
Unbelievable. Something about history, and being doomed to repeat it...
Re: (Score:3)
And what about kids who are exposed to vaccine preventable diseases before they are old enough to get the vaccine?
And what about the kids who have medical conditions (allergies, immune system issues) that mean they can't be vaccinated?
And what about kids who are vaccinated but whose vaccines don't "take"? (The vast majority do work, but some don't.)
If all other kids are vaccinated? These kids will be fine because herd immunity will protect them. There will be so many vaccinated kids that diseases won't b
Dummies (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems to be OK all around then (Score:5, Insightful)
The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools
For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value. This action is unfair for the purpose of argument.
That said... I fail to see what exactly their problem or complaint actually is.
This small group of people are arguing for the legal right to unfairly engage in germ warfare while attempting to murder other school children and even some adults. The argument is this is perfectly acceptable and should be a protected right.
So with that, these people clearly have NO problems with unfair choices being forced on everyone else, as that is the legal right they are demanding.
So why complain when they get their wish, and we "unfairly" shut their children out of school?
If they have no moral or even legal issues with (their) unfair choices being forced on people (us), why do they complain why the court states there is no moral or legal issues with (our) unfair choices being forced on people (them)?
It has already been established that unfairly infecting other children at school is not only acceptable but should be a legal right, so clearly it is also both acceptable and should be a legal right to unfairly kick their children out of school, exactly as these parents are marching at the capitol to demand.
Obviously the correct answer is that the hypocrisy is strong in these people - it just still somehow amazes me to this day such people don't realize that hypocrites are exactly what they are being.
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:4, Interesting)
What about the rights of the children? Is it okay for patents to force their views on their children and stop them being vaccinated? Parents can't deny their children an education, so why should they be able to deny them this protection?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:5, Insightful)
Answering as a parent: Because young kids are really bad at making long term choices. If I let my 2nd grader decide all the foods he ate, he would live on a diet of pizza, cookies, McDonald's chicken nuggets*, and macaroni and cheese. Perhaps he would occasionally eat a piece of fruit. Instead, I prompt him to eat veggies that he declares gross before even trying them - but which he'll often love after eating them. If it were solely up to him, my 2nd grader would grow up with horrible eating habits. It's my job as a parent to force good eating habits on him in the near-term, teach him why good eating habits are important, so in the long term - when he's old enough to make these decisions himself - he'll eat healthy.
* We have McDonald's on an extremely rare basis. One meal from there a month is a lot for us. I have no problem with the occasional fast food meal, but it definitely shouldn't be a regular part of your diet.
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you pay any attention to the news this week? The study that took years and years, involving almost 100,000 kids, conclusively showing that there is no link? Even if there is a link, its statistically so tiny as to be irrelevant.
And yes, the state can and does take away children from parents if the state doesn't like how they are being raised. It happens daily. Parenthood isn't some right that supercedes other individuals safety.
The fact is, FORCING vaccines doesn't protect ANYONE from ANYTHING.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this point, since I didn't catch polio, or measles, or a wide variety of other diseases, and that is almost entirely due to the state forcing vaccinations on other people.
In fact, the Measles outbreak at Disneyland had almost nothing to do with the no-vaccine advocates
So you are saying there is no connection between a low vaccination rate, and outbreaks of disease? You can make that claim, but the CDC, the AMA, and most reputable doctors, strongly disagree with that notion. Not just in general, but in this specific outbreak where a study found that the low vaccination rate was responsible.
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:5, Interesting)
That said... I fail to see what exactly their problem or complaint actually is.
In this last week an anti-vaxxer group in Australia put out a post on their FB page likening forced vaccination to rape (penetration without consent). They even illustrated it with a photo of a guy standing over a women in a menacing pose and holding his hand over her mouth.
So at this point I have no clue what some of them are thinking, and wouldn't even know how to communicate with them. (Although this particular message was so off that even a lot of the anti-vaxxers who were members of that group were decrying how bad it was.)
But what is even scarier is that I saw on CNN yesterday that even ISIS is keeping up vaccinations in the territory that it controls.
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:4, Funny)
My right to refuse supersedes your right to live. Welcome to living in a Republic.
The Republic has decided otherwise. Welcome to the real world.
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:5, Insightful)
My right to refuse supersedes your right to live. Welcome to living in a Republic.
Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice, how life comes first.
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you don't have the right to spread germs around willy-nilly because you don't feel like taking basic precautions. Look up the tale of Typhoid Mary. [wikipedia.org] Despite being a carrier of Typhoid, she refused to take basic steps to stop spreading the disease (since she didn't agree with those steps). After people died, she was locked up so she couldn't infect anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
After getting a bunch of people sick, she was given an option: Be free but don't work in food service or at least take some basic precautions to prevent infecting others. She refused and was kept in custody. Finally, she agreed and was released at which point, she quickly moved, changed her name, went back into food service, and got more people sick. At least one person died. So she was taken back into custody again and this time held for the rest of her life.
You can claim that her rights were violated,
Education cannot cure stupidity (Score:3)
It ends at the point that you force someone else to have a medical procedure for your benefit.
They aren't forced to have a medical procedure. They just are forced to stay the hell away from the people they put at risk by electing not to have the procedure. They retain their choice but that choice absolutely should have consequences because it can literally have life and death stakes. If they want to elect to live life as a hermit then they should retain that choice.
Anti-vaxxers are ignorant idiots but you do not cure ignorance or stupidity by making it illegal (tempting though that is)...you cure it through education.
You cure ignorance by education if and only if the other party is willing to learn. You cannot cure stupidity through any amount of
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:5, Informative)
Vaccination without consent is an assault. There is NO OTHER way to describe it.
Except that it is not happening. If you don't want your kids vaccinated, then that is your choice. Have at it. You just can't send them to school where other kids are endangered by your choice.
No special priviledge for dangerous behavior (Score:3)
That is fine, then give me the money that would otherwise be given to the school so I can pay for another option.
No. Your choice, your problem. You don't get special treatment on taxes because you want to engage in demonstrably dangerous behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
They do get a say. They just don't have attending students. I don't either. Can I get my money back?
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:5, Insightful)
I like vaccinations, but i love Liberty more.
Do you agree with the philosophy that my freedom to swing my fists ends at your nose?
How about my freedom to spread dangerous germs?
Ridiculous arguments (Score:3)
So should it be illegal to go out in public if you have a cold?
It's not illegal to go out in public with measles. It's just a really dumb idea. Every physician I know will instruct someone with the measles to stay home in most cases because it is ludicrously infectious. Furthermore "a cold" describes a huge number of pathogens whereas measles is one specific germ. If there were a safe and effective vaccine for more serious strains of "colds" then I would support requiring a vaccine if our medical community determined it to be a good idea.
A better law to fix this problem would be to allow kids to consent to having vaccinations without parental knowledge.
Children are not considered
Re: (Score:3)
go to an old graveyard
look at the old tombstones
look at the ages
you're a pridefully ignorant asshole and your stupidity is dangerous to the rest of us
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:4, Insightful)
Fine. Pay for a private school which accepts unvaccinated children or home school them.
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:5, Insightful)
The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools
For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value...
Okay, setting aside that claim...the law isn't actually saying that you have to vaccinate your children (personally I think it should, but it doesn't). It merely says you have to vaccinate your kids in order to allow them to expose other children in public school. If you want to homeschool your children, you don't have to vaccinate. You're kids also aren't allowed to bring a gun to public school, but if you want your kids to have access to a gun while they are learning, then again, you can homeschool them. Same fucking thing.
Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score:4, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I am pro-vax.
It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that current MMR, DTaP, etc, vaccines are harmless except to those with specific medical conditions, and are effective against the diseases they target.
Current vaccines.
I think, however, that giving the government power to mandate vaccincations in this manner could lead to serious problems in future.
While today's vaccines are fine, there is the possibility that one day a vaccination will be produced that will not be desirable by the people. The NSA for example has proven itself to be insidious and virtually untouchable. At some point in the future they could introduce tracking nano-devices or a behaviour modifying cocktail to some otherwise innocuous vaccine, and the populace would have no legal standing to object. Another possibility is a product being introduced that may not have gone through sufficient testing due to some failure in due process. While the government launches inquiries and debates matters, people who refuse it are subsequently refused healthcare and die.
Vaccines for other conditions exist that have raised legitimate safety concerns: look up the current HPV vaccine for example.
Darwin by proxy (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to say it, but maybe this is for the best. Unfortunately, what may be needed to kill the anti-vaxxer mindset once and for all is for a whole classroom of unvaccinated children to come down with measles or polio or smallpox or whooping cough, and for several of them to die.
Horrible? Yes, but the parents who have bought into this insanity are endangering everyone, not just their own children. Some of these people are quite literally proclaiming that vaccines have never worked, and that it is only improvements in hygiene that have resulted in the elimination of most deadly childhood diseases. A good cold dash of reality is the only cure. It is just a damned shame that some innocent kids will have to pay the price.
Re:Darwin by proxy (Score:5, Insightful)
If an unvaccinated child dies, can the parent who has denied their child a vaccination be prosecuted for child endangerment?
Maybe that's what it'll take to end this virus of ignorance.
Re:Darwin by proxy (Score:4, Insightful)
Jesus christ. How can supposedly technical people be (a) so anti science, (b) so gorssly and intentionally uninformed and (c) so fucking stupid.
The information is out there in spades. If you're uninformed at this point you're being willfully ignorant.
Re: (Score:3)
Michael is a Randian, so (d) all of the above. By choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Vaccines aren't 100% effective, and most people can't know if their vaccine wasn't effective until they come down with the disease.
Actual effectiveness varies significantly between different vaccines. I believe Measles is in the 90%+ range. So yes, some people depend upon herd immunity without even knowing it.
This is not even considering the people for whom the vaccine is useless (due to immune system issues), or who can't take the vaccine (e.g. due to an allergy).
Re: (Score:3)
According to the CDC, they are 93% effective http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp... [cdc.gov]
That's pretty fucking close to 100%.
Legislate instead of educate (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate that we have to legislate instead of educate people about vaccinations. Pretty sad that people listen more to Jenny McCarthy than they do medical doctors. I suppose given that, this legislation is a necessary evil.
I'm a bit conflicted (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm firmly in the "what the hell is wrong with you anti-vaxxers?!" camp, and almost any of us here could rattle off a laundry list of the ways that these parents are just plain wrong, but this bill would more or less enforce a quarantine for at-risk children, depriving them of access to a state-provided resource (education) that they are entitled to, for reasons that are unrelated to the resource being offered (i.e. the parents don't have a problem with public schooling). I'm tempted to suggest that the "fair" thing to do would be to give the family a refund on the school district's share of their taxes if they've been cut off from that resource, but I also don't like the idea of giving tax breaks for engaging in idiocy.
As I said, I'm conflicted. I agree that steps need to be taken to disincentivize anti-vaxxing. I like that some doctors are refusing to accept patients who aren't vaccinated, but I'd like to see the deterrents get into the public space somewhere. I'm just not convinced that this is the way to do it.
Re: I'm a bit conflicted (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I don't think it goes far enough. Not vaccinating your child is child abuse and attempted murder. I think if a child gets a preventable disease like this for any reason other than the doctor not allowing the vaccination due to health concerns, the print should be charged with child abuse for their own children as well as any child who contracts the disease from this child.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm, remember the measles outbreak earlier this year?
Remember how many children died during the outbreak?
Remember how many people got measles in spite of their vaccinations?
Wait, never mind, the 147 people out of 330 MILLION who got measles included noone who had gotten the vaccine, and NOONE died.
Since far more people died on the highways during that measles outbreak than even got measles, much less died of it, I suspect strongly that we could find better things to do than waste time fighting over this
Re:I'm a bit conflicted (Score:4, Insightful)
The evidence for measles vaccines, the only one I actually looked into, sucks. Where is the blinded RCT used to initially establish it's long-term effectiveness (or any)? Where is the paper where they account for the >90% disagreement between clinician diagnosis and lab test? What was the adoption rate of these lab tests over time? Why is it so easily accepted that the different lab tests only agree in the case of null results (which can be due to sample degradation)? Where is the paper where they account for the reduction in popularity of measles parties (if people stop spreading a disease on purpose the incidence rate should drop by some large magnitude...)?
I don't claim the measles vaccines do not work, only that anyone claiming to know is lying to themselves. The evidence is extremely tenuous. So can I have a "scientific exemption"? Someone with academic training needs to write a proper review of all this measles vaccine stuff, here are some places to start:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609829
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134550/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609829
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1843609/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803
Re:I'm a bit conflicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't questioning the efficacy of the vaccine a bit moot at this point? It's well-established that the rate of measles occurrences has declined by more than 99% in the US since the prevaccine era [nih.gov]. No doubt, there are several contributing factors (e.g. decrease in measles parties, as you said), but there's no way to account for that change absent the consideration of the vaccine (e.g. measles was endemic before measles parties were a thing, so it likely isn't that measles parties are gone). Suggesting the link is "tenuous" seems rather disingenuous. It's possible the vaccine may not be effective to the degree people claim it's effective, but suggesting there's even a possibility that it's not effective at all is rather absurd.
Re:I'm a bit conflicted (Score:5, Informative)
Australia has just instituted a policy that if you child is unvaxinated you lose any and all child support and wellfare. Dependent on your income this can be as much as $15k per child per year. This has happened as a response to whooping cough and measles outbreaks because of stupid anti-vax people.
Re: (Score:3)
The fair thing to do would be to put all the voluntarily unvaccinated children in the same class, with no contact with the ones who can't be vaccinated, to protect the latter. Most schools could probably find unvaccinated teachers to teach them, too.
Re: (Score:3)
but this bill would more or less enforce a quarantine for at-risk children
Is a quarantine NOT the sensible response?
Re:I'm a bit conflicted (Score:4, Insightful)
Medical exemptions are standard practice, and I believe most of us assumed that they weren't even on the table for discussion since they would continue being standard practice. That's why it's so important to get anti-vaxxing out of the picture, since without a well-established herd immunity, people in your shoes are exactly the ones who end up getting hurt unfairly. No one is suggesting we force people who are allergic to the vaccines to take them. We're talking about forcing those who can take the vaccine so that we can all be safe.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with allowing people the right to refuse vaccinations is that it impacts the wider community. Anti-vaccination has become an issue in Australia and the herd immunisation rates are falling. As a result of this there have been outbreaks of measles and whooping cough, the latest whooping cough outbreak being responsible for the death of an infant.
As for profit incentives and things like that. There is almost no profit in vaccines. It is the reason why governments around the world had to pool mo
Mandation of vaccines is not okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Vaccines are great. I won't dispute that. My children are vaccinated, but I have followed a different schedule than the one recommended and I reserve the right to refuse specific vaccines (Because who really needs Varicella vaccination if you were already infected as a child? It's also hardly ever fatal for that matter).
It is up to parents to decide what is right for their own child with regard to medical decisions. Medical decisions are difficult and not always cut and dry. I refuse to give up the right of anyone deciding what is appropriate for their child in this regard, because medical decisions live with you forever.
So if a parent doesn't want to have their child vaccinated, that's a-okay with me. My children are vaccinated, so I've done everything that I personally can do to protect them. I can't protect them from everything and I don't expect other parents to protect my children either. I can only do what I can, and the rest is up to chance in the end.
Giving up freedom because of fear is not the answer. Mandating the "correct" decision is often wrong. Better instead to push education and appropriate information rather than to force others to make the decision you want them to.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a metric ton worth of court rulings that demonstrate that the courts do not recognize that parents have unlimited power over their children's medical needs. Ask any Jehovah's Witness whose minor child needs a blood transfusion. No liberty is absolute, and certainly not the somewhat nebulous semi-liberty of parents to make medical decisions for their children.
Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay (Score:4, Insightful)
You may find your black and white ideological extremism comforting, but in the real world, where real people live, collisions of liberties means there are no absolutes. In general terms, your freedom of action ends at the tip of my nose, so your liberties are not absolute.
Children have the same fundamental liberties as their parents, but are not deemed to have the emotional or cognitive maturity to exercise those liberties responsibly. The child's guardians is thus given considerable legal and moral authority over the child, but that authority is not absolute, because to make it absolute would essentially render the child's liberties null and void. And thus the courts can force a child to have life-saving procedure like a blood transfusion despite the protestation's of the child's guardian.
Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop signs are great. I won't dispute that. I stop at stop signs, but I have followed a different schedule than the one recommended and I reserve the right to refuse specific stop signs (Because who really needs that stop sign in a construction area where there aren't any other cars? Crashes at stop signs are also hardly ever fatal for that matter)
It is up to drivers to decide what is right for their own car with regard to stop signs. Driving decisions are difficult and not always cut and dry. I refuse to give up the right of anyone deciding what is appropriate for their car in this regard, because bad driving decisions live with you forever.
So if a driver doesn't want to have to stop at stop signs, that's a-okay with me. I stop at stop signs, so I've done everything that I personally can do to protect myself. I can't protect everyone from everything and I don't expect other drivers to protect me either. I can only do what I can, and the rest is up to chance in the end.
Re:Mandation of vaccines is not okay (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is that Stop Signs have a legal basis and if you fail to stop at them, you can be fined.
Yes, the notion of a stop sign is enshrined into law. This proposed law would do the same for vaccines. That's not what I call a difference.
You want the license to drive, then you agree to play by the rules that keeps everyone safer.
Yep. And if you want your children to go to school, you agree to play by the rules that keep everyone safer.
"forced" (Score:5, Insightful)
> Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.
Or even worse, that they found that they liked it. The problem with making something a condition of participating in a government institution is the risk that significant numbers will discover they do fine without it.
Re: (Score:3)
I intended that as tongue in cheek. As I said in a different thread, my (vaccinated) daughter was homeschooled through most of grade school, (due to a difference of opinion between her doctors, who diagnosed her as severely dyslexic, and her teachers, who diagnosed her as ADD and prescribed Ritalin) and she later interviewed and got accepted into a somewhat exclusive high school.
Other members of my family (who happen to live in California -- I live in a different state) were very vocal in their disapproval
Before going on a tirade about mercury ... (Score:3)
You might want to read about what the FDA says about the mercury concentration in vaccines [fda.gov]. I suspect kids may get more mercury in their fish sticks (fish fingers) [wikipedia.org] than in their vaccines.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the SWAT team will find you an amusing training exercise.
Re:concerned about **too many** homeschooling?? (Score:5, Funny)
> they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.
With the piss poor job schools have been doing lately, that might not be a bad thing for parents to bond and spend more time with their chilldren's investment success for their future.
Nah, it's easier to pass the job off to someone else who doesn't give a crap about your child's future and is only doing it for the money.
For the money?!?
WUT?
Re: (Score:3)
Because everyone living in California can afford to quit their job and spend all day teaching their children. Oh, and they all understand fractions and have training in how to educate children in such concepts.
Yes, you should be involved in your child's education. No, you don't have to quit your job or be a full time educator to do so.
Having homeschooled one college honor student from birth though high school I'd like to weigh in...
Homeschooling does NOT require any special training or education in education. If you can read and do simple math, all you need is a determination. The hard part is teaching kids to read and despite how daunting that may sound to a new parent, it's really simple. Learn your letters, learn their sounds, then start making words. It just takes repetition and if you keep at it with the kids, reading comes easy
Re:Which vaccines? (Score:4, Insightful)
The same thing that has always gone on. Kids have sex, and the HPV vaccine means that they are protected from a pretty nasty cancer.
Re:Easy fix (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, because no-one every dies from measels. The person who dies every 4 minutes from measels doesn't count.
Source:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre... [who.int]
145,700 deaths from measels in 2013, one every 3 minutes and 45 seconds.
in 1980, before mass vaccinations it was killing 2.6 million per year
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, you're saying that everyone should be distrusted, except for those who already agree with you. Interesting how the new legislation being considered might satisfy this point of view: by having anti vaccination people all in the same schools their views will be perpetuated no matter what the rest of the people say.
Recently a mother of 7 in Australia was interviewed after all of her children caught whooping cough. She said that after filtering out all mainstream media and medical advice it mad