Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is this the case? They have to be in school, by law. If it's not public school it'll be private or home-schooling. You act as if their only option is public school, otherwise they roam free all day. They have to be in a school, it just doesn't have to be public school.
There's no law that says a child has to be "schooled" all day. I homeschooled for several years and we spent more time out-in-public teaching then sitting around-the-house teaching. Kids who are taught one-on-one don't need 6 hours of school. Plus, there is no law about when a student must be taught. You can teach at home at 2am if you want.
I see that Kara, there are a couple of posts crossing each other - the CDC site has all of the stats on the recurrence of these illnesses due to lower vaccination rates (see below).
Many of these diseases were largely eradicated when people got vaccines as recommended. We didn't see these diseases in areas of high vaccinations.
Those not vaccinating and modifying their schedules created an environment where the diseases are returning. Vaccines work at preventing disease when people get them.
You mention that you adopted a different schedule.
...
Mandates (and vaccines) are imperfect. But the herd immunity by large scale immunization is certainly better than the thousands that died annually due to the illnesses they prevent.
No, not me, I didn't adopt a different schedule. I was simply asking about improvements in treating those, vaccinated or not, who did get one of the diseases.
There's no law that says a child has to be "schooled" all day. I homeschooled for several years and we spent more time out-in-public teaching then sitting around-the-house teaching. Kids who are taught one-on-one don't need 6 hours of school. Plus, there is no law about when a student must be taught. You can teach at home at 2am if you want.
No, but there's a law saying they must receive an education, which is what I meant.
There is no way to prove how many parents would choose home-schooling. Nowadays in many households, both parents work and homeschooling would not be feasible. It's possible many children would be sent to private schools where vaccines are not mandated rather than be home-schooled.
How is this the case? They have to be in school, by law. If it's not public school it'll be private or home-schooling. You act as if their only option is public school, otherwise they roam free all day. They have to be in a school, it just doesn't have to be public school.
Also, the bill includes "...any person as a pupil of any public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center..." Bill Text - SB-277 Public health: vaccinations.
No, but there's a law saying they must receive an education, which is what I meant.
There is no way to prove how many parents would choose home-schooling. Nowadays in many households, both parents work and homeschooling would not be feasible. It's possible many children would be sent to private schools where vaccines are not mandated rather than be home-schooled.
Also, the bill includes "...any person as a pupil of any public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center..." Bill Text - SB-277 Public health: vaccinations.
Private schools are included in the bill.
You seem to think that this is not forced vaccination but the ONLY option is to homeschool. And even then, the bill isn't clear if they are truly exempt from vaccination.
Should Flu shots be mandatory too? For everyone? Right I get it. Mandating flu shots in public schools will solve the problem. Can catching the flu kill somebody who is immune compromised? Or is it only diseases like measles, etc.? How do you propose to legislate flu shots on everyone every year in the USA?
Good luck on that one.
Wow, did you miss an entire paragraph? Personally, I think if a state wanted to mandate flu shots, it would be great.
But conflating the POTENTIAL mandate of flu shots with the ACTUAL mandate of vaccines for children in public schools in CA is ridiculous. I said that arguing flu shots SHOULD be mandated in order to prove the vaccine mandates are meaningless is, well, stupid. Baby with the bathwater.
In point of fact, most do just that until their immune systems are back up to a level where it's safe to go back in public. They return to school under the premise that school is safe for them. With the number of unvaxed up, and therefore potential disease up, that presumption is being eroded.
Requiring flu vaccine would be a great idea public health wise. However, it would likely create a firestorm. I don't know what you think it "interesting". Maybe you could elaborate.
I find it "interesting" because if protecting public health is the goal here, to protect the minority of kids who aren't vaccinated and/or have compromised immune system, and given the threat of the flu and all its serious health complications, well, that's a big gaping hole in the law/policy if I step in the pro-vaccine/pro-gov side of things. Actually I should change the word "interesting" to reckless. To me it's like saying one is pro birth control but one doesn't allow condoms as part of that policy. As for the "firestorm", I think we already have that with the current CA vaccine bill given that I read lawsuits will be filed against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Libertarians seem not to care about the vulnerable in society.
My view is a very small minority of people shouldn't dictate wide ranging policy at the expense of telling the majority of people what to do. That's not how democracy is suppose to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Parents of children who have weakened immune systems do avoid potentially hazardous situations as much as possible. The difference between the unvaccinated by choice child and the immunocompromised child is that the parents of the immunocompromised child do not have a choice concerning some vaccinations - those with live attenuated viruses. The immunocompromised child gets a free ride on herd immunity, having earned it by virtue of his illness. The healthy child not vaccinated by parents who refuse based on an inability to properly evaluate the risks of vaccinating compared to the risks of disease does not get the free ride. In addition, many of those who refuse vaccines do so fully knowing the benefits of vaccines exceed the risks. They just choose to consciously "hide in the herd", protecting their children by letting other parents accept on behalf of the refusers the minuscule risk from vaccinating..
If the majority of people vaccinate, even before this CA law, and immunocompromised child gets a "free ride on herd immunity", than this law is unnecessary.
And yes, those who refuse vaccines can benefit from the majority who vaccinated, with or without this CA law, so again, why not allow the people who are paranoid about vaccines make this choice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Mandates exist because public health experts have decided to stop enabling the small minority of people with misplaced fears.
Some people have a greater fear of gov telling them what to do. If someone wants to have "misplaced fears" that we are going to be invaded from alien's from Mars, do we have to have laws to "correct" these people way of thinking, no matter how irrational it is to most people? Plus given many on this thread have said the vast majority of kids in CA already vaccinate before this law, and the herd immunity concept, this law to me sounds even more unnecessary
Yes, there are things that people can do to reduce the risk of complications. Many of them fall into the alternative health realm and are related to nutrition, vitamin, herbs, etc. The people pushing the vaccines though don't care about that and will call it quackery even when some of it has been proven effective with studies. I'm sure I'll be attacked for this post (not by you, Kara) but it is true that those who contract a VPD such as measles or chicken pox are not helpless victims with no way to reduce their risk of complications.
Really?...this is fantastic news!
I inexplicitly contracted the mumps at 25 yrs of age. I became seriously ill with very bad symptoms, and was bedridden for 3 weeks.
Nothing could be done...doctors advised that the virus just had to run it's course.
There were no vaccines available when I was a kid (back in the stone age, lol).
I am curious what these natural remedies are that you speak of.
The anti-science/anti-vax folks don't like mandates on one hand, then argue that they don't go far enough since kids will still be in public. Huh?
Kids who are vaccinated will be in school all day with their classmates with compromised immune systems who are accordingly far less likely to get infected. This also protects the small number of kids who get vaccinated but for whom it is not fully effective. The odds of transmission drop significantly in this model.
The scheduling of homeschooling is irrelevant as for at least 8 hours a day they're less likely to cross paths. Will an unvaccinated kid be in public, sure, but this is an excellent first step at minimizing contact. The risk to the "choice" kid may, in fact, be higher as they may cross paths with more "choice" kids and therefore are at a higher risk of infection.
This is the irony and (IMO) part of why the "choice" people don't like this. It forces them to clearly decide:
a) how strong are my "choice" convictions - I'm expecting not nearly as strong as the chest pounding advocates would have us believe when their choice not to vaccinate inconveniences them by requiring them to home school ("choices" and their consequences are prickly things)
b) now that I'm literally pulling my kid out of the "herd" for interactions, how appealing will it be to hang out with a group that also doesn't vaccinate... the "hiding in the herd" isn't quite as possible - maybe I won't bring junior to the anti-vax picnic....
The next round of distractions will be to point out that not everyone at school gets caught by this.
Again, [cue Alanis Morrisette] isn't it ironic that the objections to mandates are focused on either they don't work (even though the evidence shows they do) because they don't catch everyone or mandate vaccines for every disease OR... that they go too far and are the thin end of a wedge. It's tiring really.
First, let me make an assessment that yesterday was probably one of the craziest days on this thread, ever. It may have even been THE craziest day. It was fun to watch!
Moving along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlvancouver
Kayanne, I can see how earnest you are, and would ask that you take a look at the last 15 or so posts.
How would you handle these two most recent statements by the anti-vax crowd:
There's too many vaccines for kids/why bother vaccinating since we don't vaccinate for every single thing...
Why should my unvaccinated kid not be able to choose to come to school - keep your child with cancer (even as she/he is recovering) home
As you've acknowledged, missterri Steve and Jo would vaccinate if measles came back. If they'd rather die than vaccinate (which is what 2/3 said) then what would "convince them to change their mind". They just hide in the herd and ironically until the whacky anti-vax logic gained some traction that worked.
As with the measles outbreak, the only thing more effective than legislation is a good old pandemic.
OK, this statement has been corrected by several posters. Why, yesterday, some were saying they wouldn't vaccinate their kids for smallpox in the face of an epidemic. It was proof positive that some people have no idea about the diseases these vaccines prevent. One posted that smallpox is bascially a rash disease, and no biggie. She said there were two types, and seemed to think that she/her kids were guaranteed get the mild form. Even the mild form can leave you scarred for life! Smallpox is EXTREMELY serious. If I had to rank the diseases vaccines prevent in seriousness, smallpox would probably be at or near the top of the list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
If this is true universally then all of those vaccinated kids have nothing to worry about. It's not universally true though as there is nothing 100% about vaccines and some will get the illness, full strength and some will still spread the disease despite how strong or mild their symptoms may be.
The size of outbreaks is already very tiny. The legislation was an over-reaction on the state's part.
Yes they are hard to get. It's not easy to prove an injury from a vaccination.
The mandates are overkill. If lack of access was the problem, the solution would be to make access much easier.
I think it does though. I believe that the right to have control over what is put into my body and the bodies of my children trumps any perceived "right" of others to have a tiny decrease in risk for a small subset of illness. There is no choice for those who can't afford to homeschool. Something that you don't seem to understand.
I think the Disney outbreak, while smaller than some, got a lot of publicity because it happened at, well, Disneyland, "the happiest place on earth". You don't go to Disney expecting to come back with a serious disease. The thing is, anti-vaxers can always find a reason to dismiss an outbreak. The much larger outbreak last summer in Ohio, 383 cases was dismissed because it was "just the Amish". Measles | Cases and Outbreaks | CDC
Well, no, they couldn't rely on herd immunity b/c their herd didn't have much immunity. If you think these outbreaks are piddling, the cumulative effects can be huge. International Measles Outbreaks "European Union - In the previous 12 months(written in 2014), there have been at least 4,735 cases in 30 EU/EEA countries, with many of the cases being found in Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Only 4.9% of the cases were completely vaccinated. The cases were complicated by one death and 5 cases of measles encephalitis. Berlin, Germany is seeing a big outbreak of measles in 2015 - over 500 cases already that have been linked to unvaccinated refugees and travelers from the United States and the death of an 18-month-old unvaccinated toddler. . . . High numbers of measles cases in Europe which began in 2010 continued in 2011, with more than 30,000 cases in each of those years. Overall, with more than 30,000 cases of measles in Europe in 2011, there were 8 deaths, 27 cases of measles encephalitis, and 1,482 cases of pneumonia. Most cases were in unvaccinated (82%) or incompletely vaccinated (13%) people.
France was the hardest hit, with over 15,000 cases of measles and at least 6 deaths last year, 651 cases of severe pneumonia and 16 cases of encephalitis."
I can assure you lack of access in not a huge problem. There are many programs to provide immunizations to low-income kids. I have posted many links to them in the past.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is this the case? They have to be in school, by law. If it's not public school it'll be private or home-schooling. You act as if their only option is public school, otherwise they roam free all day. They have to be in a school, it just doesn't have to be public school.