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.
I work with a public school, I needed to show it. Luckily New York public schools mandated them so I was good outside of a TB test.
As for shingles from the chickenpox vaccine, that is unknown as I had chickenpox several years before the vaccine was mandated and that was 1992. I doubt most of the oldest people to get the vaccine actually have shingles at a higher rate than those that had chickenpox traditionally.
I agree. I also don't think that people who had the varicella vaccine will get shingles at a higher rate then those who had wild varicella when they are older. I think that their risk will be pretty much the same (vaccinated, unvaccinated but had chicken pox). It will be a very long time though before we know for sure how the varicella vaccine impacts shingles rates in older adults.
There is no US requirement to show proof of vaccinations either for citizens coming back or for tourists coming into the US. There is nothing in legislation right now to require that. I will thank you for at least admitting that overseas travel causes these outbreaks.
You have your work cut out for you. As of now it is an "honor system", and a lot of US citizens and foreign tourists are paying no attention to that honor system.
I think you will find that I have repeatedly pointed out that measles is imported into the US in this and other threads. There is nothing for me to "admit". Once it arrives in the US, how many secondary cases will happen depends on the vaccination status of the people with whom the initial case comes in contact. Most secondary cases will be unvaccinated.
If the initial case is someone who was vaccinated, he is likely to be less ill and there will be fewer secondary cases.
I know there is no vaccination requirement for entering the US. There needs to be one, and it needs to apply to citizens as well as foreign visitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64
Your bolded point is a good one....there are indeed lots of public health and social concerns out there where someone does something and it can potentially negatively affect others, which is the vaccine argument, right? Heck, I can think of dozens of bills I could pass with this kind of thinking. How about this one.....passing a bill that requires people with HIV or full blown aids to register at some gov level, by law, and somehow strictly monitor their sex habits with people or risky behavior(as defined by experts/drafters of the bill of course) so as they don't infect others. Or how about just plain old STD's? All people with STD's, by law, must register in a central state database and they will be monitored, etc. so as to not cause health concerns to others. For example, pregnancy and std's can be serious risk to the health of the unborn baby. Who wouldn't be for such legislation? Public Health! Privacy doesn't exist/is long gone so that's a non-issue since public health risk is the pinnacle issue at hand. We could have legislation where people could look up who they are dating and see who has STD's, AIDS, or HIV on a central database or not, all via gov legislation.....for the good of public health! Heck, outside of health, given all the horrible parents out there, not caring for their kids, abuse, neglect, why don't we have licensing for people to become parents before they have a kid? Yes, we have child abuse agencies but that's after the fact when the abuse happens. Same argument as vaccines, right? Stop it before someone gets measles with a vaccine so let's stop(or at least greatly reduce) unfit parents who fit the abuser profile by certifying them via gov guidelines before they produce messed up kids that will cost society in many ways. Perhaps some guidelines can be one must have stable employment for X amount of time, be in a stable relationship, etc. Guidelines for this legislation will be setup by "experts", gov, and science of course.
For those willing to answer beyond "vaccines rule!, "off topic", "the color gray doesn't", "legislation like this operates in a vacuum" and understand the nature of my discussion, I'd also like to hear your view on what this vaccine decision can potentially lead too as I've given in my examples above.
I take it you are unaware that STDs are reportable. The health department will do contact tracing and treat people who are exposed to an infected person.
The "vaccine decision" applies only to vaccines, so it will have no effect at all in any of the other scenarios you propose.
I take it you are unaware that STDs are reportable. The health department will do contact tracing and treat people who are exposed to an infected person.
The "vaccine decision" applies only to vaccines, so it will have no effect at all in any of the other scenarios you propose.
But I took it much further.....DB access for individuals which you didn't comment on. Nor did you comment on the parent licensing.
And your last sentence is exactly what I expected of you.....a politician type non-answer. At least I'm not disappointed as you are very, very consistent.
And you didn't follow my request, understand, or simply choose to ignore my last sentence of my post:
"For those willing to answer beyond "vaccines rule!, "off topic", "the color gray doesn't", "legislation like this operates in a vacuum" and understand the nature of my discussion, I'd also like to hear your view on what this vaccine decision can potentially lead too as I've given in my examples above."
Vaccines prevent the most vulnerable from preventable diseases with profound (and exponential) effects.
The argument that you make seems to be why do one thing when there are other things we could do? Sure. Start a new thread for those. This is about the excellent California legislation to promote public health and protect vulnerable children in school.
Ironically had it not been for the made up fears by the anti-science movement this wouldn't have been necessary!
Edit: and Steve, the legislation on requiring vaccines for kids to attend school ends there. Start a new thread for your other conspiracies.
But I took it much further.....DB access for individuals which you didn't comment on. Nor did you comment on the parent licensing.
And your last sentence is exactly what I expected of you.....a politician type non-answer. At least I'm not disappointed as you are very, very consistent.
And you didn't follow my request, understand, or simply choose to ignore my last sentence of my post:
"For those willing to answer beyond "vaccines rule!, "off topic", "the color gray doesn't", "legislation like this operates in a vacuum" and understand the nature of my discussion, I'd also like to hear your view on what this vaccine decision can potentially lead too as I've given in my examples above."
Though that is telling in and of itself.
The things you want to discuss have nothing to do with vaccines and will not come to pass. It is useless to say anything else. They are irrelevant to the thread. Feel free to start your own if you would like.
I'd like to say that I can find some things I agree with on both sides. As a (retired) medical laboratory scientist, I do believe in the efficacy of vaccinations. But as someone who values personal liberties, I can "understand" those who feel the California law is excessively encroaching on a parent's rights. Note, I put understand in quotes, because while I do kind of understand that viewpoint, I don't completely agree with it. I'm definitely leaning toward public health concerns trumping individual liberties in this context.
Perhaps this has already been discussed (long thread!) but I'd like to know what other strategies people opposing the new law might suggest. To clarify, how could we as a society best avoid a resurgence in the diseases we're discussing here, without something like the new law?
For right now, I want to discuss only this. I haven't read any farther. Yes, this law has been discussed AD NAUSEUM, kayanne. In fact, the law was part of the original thread title. For some reason it was changed, obviously not at the request of the OP because he came on and questioned why it was changed.
There has been much research that the easier it is to get an exemption, the more people will exempt. Somehow making it more difficult to get an exemption changes people's attitudes about the dangers of immunization. So really, there is no way to avoid resurgence of disease without a law like this.
Sure, it would be great if people would "do the right thing" without the law behind them. That's what I'd like to see. But it seems human nature gets in the way of these libertarian ideals.
The things you want to discuss have nothing to do with vaccines and will not come to pass. It is useless to say anything else. They are irrelevant to the thread. Feel free to start your own if you would like.
It's relevant. The bill reads:
"(b) The governing authority shall not unconditionally admit any person as a pupil of any private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless, prior to his or her first admission to that institution, he or she has been fully immunized. The following are the diseases for which immunizations shall be documented:
(1) Diphtheria.
(2) Haemophilus influenzae type b.
(3) Measles.
(4) Mumps.
(5) Pertussis (whooping cough).
(6) Poliomyelitis.
(7) Rubella.
(8) Tetanus.
(9) Hepatitis B.
(10) Varicella (chickenpox).
(11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians."
This opens the door for many interesting mandates with SB277 as precedence and public health as fuel. Not only that but if a person had any one of these diseases already, they would be forced to prove titer levels not just take the parent's word for it which would cost several hundred dollars.
Anyway, they are free to add as many vaccines as they wish and dictate how they are delivered.
Last edited by katjonjj; 07-13-2015 at 07:15 PM..
Reason: Took out error.
"(b) The governing authority shall not unconditionally admit any person as a pupil of any private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless, prior to his or her first admission to that institution, he or she has been fully immunized. The following are the diseases for which immunizations shall be documented:
(1) Diphtheria.
(2) Haemophilus influenzae type b.
(3) Measles.
(4) Mumps.
(5) Pertussis (whooping cough).
(6) Poliomyelitis.
(7) Rubella.
(8) Tetanus.
(9) Hepatitis B.
(10) Varicella (chickenpox).
(11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians."
This opens the door for many interesting mandates with SB277 as precedence and public health as fuel. Not only that but if a person had any one of these diseases already, they would be forced to prove titer levels not just take the parent's word for it which would cost several hundred dollars.
And why is Polio on the list?
Anyway, they are free to add as many vaccines as they wish and dictate how they are delivered.
There you go.
Though I'm sure your post will also be deemed non-appropriate/a non-issue by some. Gov knows best, decisions exist in a vacuum, no gray to see here, etc. You know the rest.
The things you want to discuss have nothing to do with vaccines and will not come to pass. It is useless to say anything else. They are irrelevant to the thread. Feel free to start your own if you would like.
It could indeed have everything to do with this vaccine legislation being enacted. It's in the same reasoning/logic why vaccine's are now mandated in CA to be able to attend public schools....to protect public health. If you can't understand that there's not a solid wall preventing other legislation in the name of "protecting the public health" to be passed and maybe, just maybe, now have greater odds of passing now that this vaccine legislation has passed, I can't help you. I think that's very naive thinking.
As for stating my examples in my previous post "will not come to pass", I have a feeling more than a few people said the same thing about this CA vaccine bill being passed some years ago.
Though I'm sure your post will also be deemed non-appropriate/a non-issue by some. Gov knows best, decisions exist in a vacuum, no gray to see here, etc. You know the rest.
Also... As an example, say I was never vaccinated as a child. As an adult, the CDC recommends Flu shot annually, 1 Tdap dose, 2 Chicken pox doses, 3 HPV if you are female and under 27 (3 HPV if you are male, under 27, and at risk), 1 Shingles if you are over 60, 1 or 2 doses of MMR unless you are over 60, and the rest are only if you are at risk in your job/lifestyle (including Hep B). Now compare that to the 30 some doses our kids are required to get... WTF? At my age, I would only need 5-6 doses of 3 diseases (less 2 because I have had chicken pox and titer tests to prove it).
Last edited by katjonjj; 07-13-2015 at 07:15 PM..
Reason: Took out error.
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.
