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.
Herd immunity does not apply to some of the required vaccines because they are either non-communicable diseases or the vaccine only confers personal immunity. If your child is too sick or too fragile to be vaccinated and you are too paranoid to put them in public then it's you who should keep your child home, not force something on everyone else.
As far as I can tell, the only non-communicable disease in the childhood vaccine schedule for which there is no herd immunity is tetanus. All vaccines "only confer personal immunity" but is the cumulative effect of large numbers of vaccinated persons that produce herd immunity. It seems some people have strange ideas about what herd immunity means. All it does mean is that if one person gets infected, the fewer susceptible people he comes into contact with, the lower the risk that an epidemic will occur.
"Everyone else"? Sorry, the vast majority understand the value of vaccines and use them. Those who choose not to do so will not be forced to use them, but the majority can say that we wish to reduce the risk to those who have a legitimate medical reason not to vaccinate by excluding unvaccinated children without a medical contraindication from schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
If the child has no diseases then it's completely unconstitutional to restrain his rights simply because he does not want to give up his constitutional rights.
Not unconstitutional at all. Where does it say in the Constitution that you have a right not to vaccinate? In fact, in the past children have been vaccinated against their parents' wishes during outbreaks of disease.
During that outbreak, the disease spread from the religious community to others outside of it. Your rights end where they affect the rights of others. Your right to risk catching a disease that you can pass to another person does not trump the right of the other person to not get sick. Vaccinating yourself mitigates that risk.
how do you KNOW he isn't ill?? Measles and several others incubate for several days to a week before symptoms appear..... and in that time frame, he is happily and busily spreading his germs around on everything he touches everywhere he goes.....
had someone like my mother come in contact with him before he was symptomatic, it would have been VERY serious, if not life threatening, for her.... due to no fault of her own.... due solely to your paranoia......
you stated in another thread that your home is your island or castle or whatever..... fine, then... keep your unvaccinated progeny there where they can not infect others....
I never said anything about a castle, you are confused. But the castle thing doesn't really matter because your theory is nonsense. How do we know any kid isn't sick? How do we know they don't have TB or strep throat or some other illness? What's next, requiring everyone to go on antibiotics before attending public school just in case they are carrying something? And people call me paraniod...
I never said anything about a castle, you are confused. But the castle thing doesn't really matter because your theory is nonsense. How do we know any kid isn't sick? How do we know they don't have TB or strep throat or some other illness? What's next, requiring everyone to go on antibiotics before attending public school just in case they are carrying something? And people call me paraniod...
You can never know that an individual is not sick. But with vaccine preventable diseases you can know that someone vaccinated against those diseases is highly unlikely to have one of them.
I never said anything about a castle, you are confused. But the castle thing doesn't really matter because your theory is nonsense. How do we know any kid isn't sick? How do we know they don't have TB or strep throat or some other illness? What's next, requiring everyone to go on antibiotics before attending public school just in case they are carrying something? And people call me paraniod...
Your whole argument has just completely gone off the rails at this point.
We can't prevent every single disease out there, your kids will be exposed to any number of pathogens but its important to stop the ones that are entirely preventable through proper vaccination.
The possibility of a child being infected with something that there is no vaccine for is absolutely no justification to not protect them against diseases such as measles, whooping cough...etc. I'd rather my kid be at risk for step throat, the common cold and an ear infection instead of strep throat, the common cold, an ear infection, measles, whooping cough and more.
Not long ago it would have been unheard of to NOT vaccinate your kids so those complaining about "government telling people what to do" sound pretty ignorant. I guess it's true, the average person was smarter "back in the day".
If they aren't vaccinated they can enroll them in private school or home school. If they choose to just keep them out of school they will most likely be summoned to court to explain that- or referred to CPS.
Oklahoma has a state sponsered online homeschool. It uses the same circulam as the schools do. You can enroll your kids there at least for grammar school without any penalty. They take the same tests and cover the same material, just don't do it in a classroom at school. They even send the kids along on field trips with their host school.
Maybe if there was something like this, if you don't want to then you are automatically enrolled in the on line school. If kids don't participate someone knocks on your door.
I absolutely agree that if you fail to vaccinate, you are making your child a risk to all of the other children and adults they encounter, and doing harm to them and others. I wouldn't condem any parent to ask if a potential playmate had been vaccinated.
I had both kind of measles and mumps when I was three. Mom said it was not much of a good year. I'm sure I'd have said do it mom if I'd been able to and the vaccinations had existed then.
Not long ago it would have been unheard of to NOT vaccinate your kids so those complaining about "government telling people what to do" sound pretty ignorant. I guess it's true, the average person was smarter "back in the day".
i'm not even that old but I remember as a kid, it was something that we never even thought twice about. You go and get your vaccines and you move on with your life. Most of this hysteria started around the same time as Wakefield's discredited BS "studies."
Its a common sense approach that in a rational society, would not require the government getting involved.
It's legal to homeschool in every state. No state says that you have to use their online program.
On topic: What about the kids who cannot have vaccines for whatever reason? Some kids cannot safely have certain vaccines. Are those kids still allowed to go to school? And if so, why is it assumed that they're not walking around carrying diseases?
I don't know what the answer is. I don't have a problem with it at public schools, I guess. It should be up to each private school to decide for themselves, though. What if it were a Christian Scientist or Amish private school? Don't they have a religious objection to vaccines? It seems like those types of school should be able to accept unvaxed children, particularly since it's a tenet of their religions.
i'm not even that old but I remember as a kid, it was something that we never even thought twice about. You go and get your vaccines and you move on with your life. Most of this hysteria started around the same time as Wakefield's discredited BS "studies."
This isn't really true. There was the old DPT that was killing children that parents refused to get. At some point (late 1990s?) they discontinued it and switched to the safer DTaP. Before that, though, plenty of parents just said no to that vaccine; there just wasn't Internet coverage of it.
I'm pretty sure I read about parents refusing the smallpox vaccine for their children, too; this was way before the time of Andrew Wakefield and his "study."
There have always been parents refusing vaccines. The difference now is that there are more of them.
i'm not even that old but I remember as a kid, it was something that we never even thought twice about. You go and get your vaccines and you move on with your life. Most of this hysteria started around the same time as Wakefield's discredited BS "studies."
Its a common sense approach that in a rational society, would not require the government getting involved.
And I am from the generation that didn't have these vaccines. You caught it, you stayed home for a week and went on with your life.
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.
