U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-14-2015, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,649,143 times
Reputation: 1694

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne View Post
Your first paragraph raises an interesting point. Only time will tell if the new law ends up changing only WHERE the disease is spread (stores, libraries, museums, etc instead of school buildings). I assume those who introduced the bill determined (or at least thought) that public school classrooms, where 20-30 kids are in close quarters, 5 days a week, was a place more likely for the disease to spread, compared to other public places.
It would seem to be easier to spread in school given what you state but I can't find any evidence that outbreaks are more prevalent in schools.

Also, infants (who can't be vaccinated) wouldn't be in school either so they would be at more risk - wouldn't they?

 
Old 07-14-2015, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,649,143 times
Reputation: 1694
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
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.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 11:02 AM
 
3,867 posts, read 2,719,426 times
Reputation: 7111
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlvancouver View Post
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.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 11:16 AM
 
12,566 posts, read 10,431,924 times
Reputation: 17330
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
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.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,649,143 times
Reputation: 1694
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
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.

Also, it is unclear if all homeschool students are exempt.
Current Bills & Alerts | California Homeschool Network
 
Old 07-14-2015, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,649,143 times
Reputation: 1694
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
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.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Marquette, Mich
1,196 posts, read 459,805 times
Reputation: 2515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
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.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,899,759 times
Reputation: 7699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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
 
Old 07-14-2015, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Vancouver
4,506 posts, read 229,424 times
Reputation: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
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.
 
Old 07-14-2015, 11:38 AM
 
Location: BC, Arizona
1,170 posts, read 791,575 times
Reputation: 2377
Sigh, here we go again.

Are mandates perfect? No.

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.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top