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.
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.
Umm, that's not how democracy does work.
The California politicians are elected by the majority of voters to represent the majority of voters. It's not a small minority dictating - the data shows the majority of people support childhoold vacccines and mandates (if necessary).
You just don't like it because you're one of the very few anti-science folks out there - unfortunately there are just enough of you to create a risk. California put the interests of the majority ahead of the few. (And just a reminder, in a country as polarized as the US, this issue absolutely spans party lines)
Last edited by tlvancouver; 07-14-2015 at 11:47 AM..
Reason: Edit - clumsy wording!
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.
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.
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.
The outbreak happened at Disneyland. School mandates would not have helped in that case. Maybe immunizations should be required of all people travelling abroad since that seems to be a common factor in many outbreaks.
The California politicians are elected by the majority of voters to represent the majority of voters. It's not a small minority dictating - the data shows the majority of people support childhoold vacccines and mandates (if necessary).
You just don't like it because you're one of the very few anti-science folks out there - unfortunately there are just enough of you to create a risk. California put the interests of the majority ahead of the few. (And just a reminder, in a country as polarized as the US, this issue absolutely spans party lines)
Calling people anti-science is "clumsy wording" and just plain inaccurate.
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.
What an interesting post. Are you saying you would support the law if we added the flu vaccine to the list of covered vaccines? Here is where politics intrudes on public health. The efficacy of the flu vaccine is not as high as other vaccines because so many different viruses cause the flu and its difficult to build a vaccine that is effective against all of them. The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has not seen fit to add the flu vaccine to the recommended list of childhood vaccines. That is why it is not included.
There undoubtedly will be lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of SB 277. All those lawsuits will fail because all of these constitutional issues have been litigated before and the courts have unanimously ruled that states can have a compulsory vaccination law.
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.
But its not a small minority. Public opinion polls show approximately 80% support for the California law. Our system is working exactly the way it was intended too. The bill was proposed in the legally constituted legislature for California. It was given three committee hearings and than passed by the Senate and the Assembly. Governor Brown promptly signed it into law. You can try to argue for a vote by the citizens, but that's not how 99% of laws become laws in California or elsewhere.
I know by "minority" you are talking about immune-comprised people. However, that's not my point. Eighty percent of ALL people support this law and so its not a case of the minority prevailing over the majority.
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?
Explained above--even if you have difficulty comprehending it.
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
I don't challenge a person's right to a belief. I challenge their right--when they are both wrong (and a minority)--to have that belief written into law. That's the difference. I don't attempt to correct their belief, but I won't let them impose it on the rest of us. As far as fear of "being told by government what to do" goes, all citizens participate in a social contract by living in this country. Those who don't like it have established recourses. If they still don't like the outcome, they better move somewhere else. America is not about everyone getting to do what everyone wants. Our Constitution strikes a balance between private rights and government action taken under police powers to protect the public good. If you don't believe in that, than you reject the most elementary principles of government.
Finally, herd immunity is waning because the percent of those vaccinating is down and those who don't vaccinate often live in clusters making a specific group or neighborhood prone to a contagious disease. That's why this sort of law is necessary.
I agree with the first point. Regarding the second, the prick from the needle is the least of my concerns, in fact it's not a concern at all.
You are among the few, then. The anti-vax literature is rife with pictures of horrible, horrible needles, most way longer than anything used to vaccinate. Most of my patients, including the pro-vax ones, don't like the process. I tell them it's not my favorite part of the job, either, but I do like to keep kids healthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I'm not going to waste too much time here sharing info on ways to deal with chicken pox, shingles, measles or pertussis just to get attacked. Was it you or someone else who admitted that they asked questions to "trap" people? Was it me who got harassed for simply saying, "I don't know". You might understand why I'm reluctant to answer questions here that aren't genuine. If people are truly interested the info is not difficult to find. Vitamin A and measles is well studied, Vitamin C and pertussis. L-Lysine and chicken pox and shingles. Antivirals herbs, etc. Do your research tlvancouver.
It's also true that by not allowing under/un vaccinated children in school they will be out in public more often. If the logic is that keeping them out of school will protect those unable to be vaccinated then pushing them out of school will be exposing more of the public all year round.
I chose to modify the schedule for my kids. I wanted to wait until they were ready for school. Then over the years adding to it. If my kids were still young and we lived in Cali, they would be unable to attend school due to under vaccination until they were fully caught up.
As I said in a previous post, vaccination as adults seems (to me) to be a better solution.
I don't understand why a newborn gets a Hep B shot but the CDC recommends an adult get the shot IF they are at risk by job or lifestyle.
I don't know if the bod is true or not.
Regarding Hep B vaccine, the US started a universal vaccination program in the 1990s. As a result, our Hep B disease rates have dropped. Adults are sort of "grandfathered" in, and don't have to get the vax unless they have an occupational reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
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?
Now, just as speculated, Pandora's box has been opened. The new bill SB792, ADULT MANDATES VACCINATE OR CRIMINAL ACTION CAN BE USED. The Government can now rule my healthcare choices, not mine, no way. I don't need a mother.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6mi...e7qd-B&index=2
I wonder what's next? Anyone who works with the public maybe? Work at Ralph's Market and you have to by law get yearly flu vax, Measles boosters, Tdap, and any one or all of the new vaccines in the pipe line, I hear there are around 300. Here we go.
I've decided to move out of California, even though my children are older and this doesn't effect them, it will effect their children if they chose to have any and it effects others. Yes, I made the chose to vaccinate my children, but, I can't ethically go along with what this state is proposing, and the limited number of medical exemptions the CDC has granted parents.
Even if one of your children die after a vaccine, and it's proven to be attributed to the vaccine, the remainder of your children will still be required to vaccinate regardless of the same genetic issues that might have predisposed your dead child when they were vaccinated. I can't imagine how they would feel, and I would gladly offer my herd immunity to them to spare them that agonizing decision.
Doctors are afraid to go against the CDC, because they are worried about losing their licenses, even if they feel it could harm the child who is their patient, this goes against a doctors proposed ethics and is blackmail by the CDC.
Under the laws, doctors and those who make the vaccines are exempt liability so they cannot be held liable if the child suffers an injury or dies. I think there will be legal issues and conflicts raised for the state, I think this is primarily a funded venture with proof of financial persuasion. As I mentioned before the drug companies paid those responsible for bill SB277, I have posted this previously. Conflicts are everywhere.
And now they are moving on with adult mandates. Who wants to live in a police state? Not me. Thankfully I own a home in Arizona, which I am appreciating more and more. I was born in CA, and always appreciated the freedom to think outside the corporate box but that no longer holds true. I'm not alone, and those of us who are leaving will watch the freedoms being striped from another state while ours stay intact.
The bold is garbage. Do you think there's a government agent in every doctor's office, checking to see if they're following the CDC recommendations, which are just that, recommendations?
My computer has a security problem with your vids. Funny!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlvancouver
More "opinion" links with no science.
Speed limits? OMG!!!! The government is going to stop us from driving next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This "slippery slope" is perhaps the lamest of all anti-science views.
The new law in California will increase vaccinations and protect children as they go to school. If the public doesn't want that they can vote differently next time and the law can be changed. If the public health rationale supports other mandates, those would be considered on their merits and supported (or not) by the public based on the evidence weighing the risk/reward.
As I understand it the California law does NOTHING to change the availability of medical exemptions. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What it does is get rid of "spidey sense" exemptions not based on the actual patient, and the actual medical situation. I for one trust that my family doctor (with their years of medical training) will know what's best medically for my child. My child is ENTITLED to that. Although vaccines ARE beneficial so every child who can get them medically should, if I don't want my child to get it (and they are deemed medically able) then I can choose to home school.
Every single reputable immunologist, actual medical doctor (not naturopath) and researcher advocates vaccines. Name one that doesn't who isn't selling a book and who still has their license. Where do you get evidence of all these scared doctors? Medicine and vaccines work.
Stop the fear mongering. If adult vaccinations are proposed to be mandated deal with that issue if and when it occurs - that's no longer an issue with vaccines "per se". Please also refrain from giving legal advice, frankly you know nothing about what you're saying.
You are correct that California law does nothing to change medical exemptions. The law gives physicians wide leeway in that regard. Docs can use whatever rationale they want; it does not have to be explained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
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?
Infants are brought into schools a lot. Plus, school kids go home to infant sibs.
Quote:
One way or another, immunocompromised, vulnerable kids need to stay away from the risk of infection. Personally, if it were MY child who had cancer, I'd keep him home and homeschool him. But California has decided (and I agree) that parents who choose to not vac their kids are the ones who have to deal with an alternate form of education. Presumably, because one of the two groups (either the anti-vax unvax'd or those medically unable to be vax'd) needs to stay out of the public school buildings, Cali decided to place the burden of inconvenience on the group who chose to be un-vax'd.
Well, yes, that is what the parents of immunocompromised children are taught to do. But there comes a point when the child can resume some normal activities, including schooling, IF herd immunity is high enough to make it improbable that s/he will be exposed to disease. The unvaxed are a general public health problem, and I've stated it nicer than many.
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.
Obviously not what the situation was in California. Most of the people infected in the Disneyland outbreak were Californians who were secondarily infected. Herd immunity didn't protect them.
The outbreak happened at Disneyland. School mandates would not have helped in that case. Maybe immunizations should be required of all people travelling abroad since that seems to be a common factor in many outbreaks.
School mandates most certainly would have helped. Most of the cases in California were secondary infections from people who'd been at Disney.
The California politicians are elected by the majority of voters to represent the majority of voters. It's not a small minority dictating - the data shows the majority of people support childhoold vacccines and mandates (if necessary).
You just don't like it because you're one of the very few anti-science folks out there - unfortunately there are just enough of you to create a risk. California put the interests of the majority ahead of the few. (And just a reminder, in a country as polarized as the US, this issue absolutely spans party lines)
Living in Canada, you might not understand how our political system works in the good old US. Here's a good site for you if you are interested:
About me/my views beyond your generalizations about me:
- I don't like laws like this because I don't think gov should be involved at this level choice making. There are still some American's who value that concept, even if we, in the eyes of others, are acting all non-science/irrational.
- Based on some of the responses I received on this thread by people in your camp(pro CA law), we already have big vaccine participation in CA schools and we are indeed protecting the minority(unvaccinated kids). I understand now even the unenlightened who don't get vaccines and have no impaired immunity receive herd immunity. Those who have serious health concerns beyond this, a very small minority, need to have parents deal with their unique situation, not be the reason to drive public policy for the vast majority.
- As for party lines, I trust no politician of any party stripe. I feel our political system is broken. Badly.
Obviously not what the situation was in California. Most of the people infected in the Disneyland outbreak were Californians who were secondarily infected. Herd immunity didn't protect them.
Regardless, those who choose not to vaccinate have to accept the risk they take with their decisions. The vast majority who vaccinated made their choice and will be protected.
Katrina, Hep. B vaccination is not required in those occupations, and you know it. I am sure you have heard of OSHA. Recommended, not REQUIRED. You will not be denied employment, or fired, if you refuse a Hep. B vaccination. Pesky, little thing called adult informed consent.
Want me to post OSHA's form for refusal? I signed that myself in 2 different states for Hep. B.
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.
